dave plomin wrote:I love the logic of the lawyers who said that he "accidentally" shot the dog, IGNORING the FACT that he wasn't even supposed to have a firearm at ALL, being a FELON. Kudos to the judge who sentenced him. If only Chicago had more judges like that!8/11/2010 10:44 AM CDT on suntimes.com
Now, having had dogs of mine shot, I'm keenly aware of where they go during their ramblings. And this guy was probably justified in shooting the dog - doesn't mean I like it, but probably justified. The animal shelter employee just made things worse by trespassing.
But notice in the article Mr Dooley owned at least 20 other firearms! That's unpossible! Felons can't own guns; there's a law! What the fuck happened?!
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted without a custodian ... it's that simple.
pm
But notice in the article Mr Dooley owned at least 20 other firearms! That's unpossible! Felons can't own guns; there's a law! What the fuck happened?!
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted without a custodian ... it's that simple.
pm
... saw this yesterday, about a man who shot a dog that wandered onto his property. Trouble is, he's a convicted felon, so no-guns-for-you. But I was struck by some of the comments, of which the following is an example;