Submitted by StavrosKatsopolis t3_11o6x51 in Pennsylvania
Comments
LurkersWillLurk t1_jbreqgv wrote
She had every right under Pennsylvania law to shoot, and people who said otherwise were talking out of their ass
[deleted] t1_jbrfs5a wrote
this case seems like she was in the right, but citizens are (justifiably) hyper-sensitive because LEOs so often kill innocents with impunity
tyvelo t1_jbu4u7o wrote
They don’t it doesn’t happen everyday…. It’s not a common occurrence at all.
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbrz958 wrote
FBI isn't a leo
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsc54q wrote
Then what do you call someone with “law enforcement responsibilities”?
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbscbct wrote
Not the FBI. They are Investigative Agents. Different
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsdau5 wrote
So they just lie in their website?https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/is-the-fbi-a-type-of-national-police-force
[deleted] t1_jbsluuu wrote
TY. i was not to about to engage this stupidity. probably a little blue stripe sympathizer.
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsddi7 wrote
Yes
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsedb1 wrote
So even wikipedia is lying? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation
WikiSummarizerBot t1_jbsee1c wrote
Federal Bureau of Investigation
>The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States and its principal federal law enforcement agency. Operating under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Justice, the FBI is also a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community and reports to both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. A leading U.S. counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization, the FBI has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[deleted] t1_jbslyn6 wrote
good bot
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsel4e wrote
It's the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Not the Federal Bureau Of Policing
I don't understand what you're not comprehending about the definitions defined by words that should not be difficult to understand.
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbseri0 wrote
Hahahah you are mouth breather. The title of the organization is not the only way to define something. Generally speaking you dont use the same word to define itself. Please for the love of all things do not procreate.
kdeltar t1_jbt1ga3 wrote
I’m getting sovereign citizen, flat earther, big Alex jones fan vibes
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbseu9r wrote
Congress said it's Investigative.
If a possible violation of federal law under the jurisdiction of the FBI has occurred, the Bureau will conduct an investigation. The information and evidence gathered in the course of that investigation are then presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who will determine whether or not prosecution or further action is warranted.
Where is the FBI’s authority written down?
The FBI has a range of legal authorities that enable it to investigate federal crimes and threats to national security, as well as to gather intelligence and assist other law enforcement agencies
Learn to read.
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsf2my wrote
Next thing you are gonna tell me is that detectives don’t investigate crimes.
MongolianCluster t1_jbsvdwi wrote
They detect them, they don't investigate them. It's right there in the name.
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsf9cy wrote
I'm not telling you anything you're telling me stuff.
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsfj3w wrote
I asked you a question you told me your wrong answer. I then tried to correct you and showed you the correct answer on two different areas. Did you suffer a TBI or something because if so then i will be patient and try to help you learn.
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsfkyp wrote
Have you asked yourself why you keep landing with the negative upvotes on this topic?
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsfpf2 wrote
No, mostly cuz It shows positive on my end 🤷
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsfw81 wrote
You need to refresh because now im at even since you went and downvoted me
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsf0e1 wrote
I do know how to read and i also have reading comprehension skills which clearly you dont have. Enjoy failing!
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsettt wrote
You do realize folks actually are arrested by fbi agents they dont just investigate and then announce findings. Please lay off the crack.
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsfc8r wrote
After an investigation for federal law violation sure, or a felony committed in front of an agent sure.
You're the only crack I need
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsfuok wrote
Oh dear lord “The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for most law enforcement duties at the federal level.[5] It includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the United States Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and others.[6]” taken from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Types_of_police
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsfwf5 wrote
So now a district attorney is a Leo?
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsg25o wrote
No because they dont have arresting powers way to go. But someone can can be a law enforcement investigator and law enforcement officer. Similarly to every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square.
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsgaai wrote
That last sentence is the only thing you have said that makes sense.
Whole departments aren't Leos, only people with arresting powers.
I'm a civilian, I provide an information to magistrate and commence a citizen's arrest.
Am I always a LEO?
Is arresting power vested in the information provided to the judge after the investigation. Or is the arresting power arrested until a judge signs off or investigation is complete?
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsguob wrote
You answered it yourself a citizen’s arrest. You are acting as a citizen and not law enforcement officer. A police officer off duty cab make a citizen’s arrest but they will typically make an arrest under their law enforcement title because they can and it currently provides legal protections a citizens arrest cant.
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbsgyx4 wrote
So then someone who "can" arrest isn't exactly a LEO. Like a FBI agent. Thanks
Amazing_Rutabaga4049 t1_jbsh4es wrote
No you are doing mental gymnastics. Can you even try to provide any shred of outside documentation stating they are not law enforcement officers in any capacity?
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsi87u wrote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
"prosecutors (who are law enforcement officers but not peace officers)" Isn't a prosecutor a DA?
gslavik t1_jbsyqeb wrote
How is that different from other police agencies?
gslavik t1_jbsylox wrote
Is Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka: North Korea) democratic?
BurghPuppies t1_jbsvli8 wrote
Don’t they apprehend people?
IntoTheMirror t1_jbr6trk wrote
This one was wildly cut and dry.
Bolmac t1_jbrnyx0 wrote
Pennsylvania law is very clear:
"any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding or killing any domestic animal, including household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings, whether or not such a dog bears a required license tag. There is no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing."
[deleted] t1_jbrzgtv wrote
[deleted]
somberblurb t1_jbs2d4w wrote
The agent owned the dog being attacked and is allowed to carry a firearm under federal law
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs2jeg wrote
Which is incorrect. Only on duty.
somberblurb t1_jbs2zm1 wrote
Nope. Look up LEOSA.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs48kw wrote
(36 C.F.R. §§ 2.4(e) & (h), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) allow for individuals carrying concealed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the federal park or GFSZ is located to carry concealed in them*; however, an individual carrying under LEOSA is carrying under FEDERAL LAW and not in accordance with the laws of the state they are in. What this means is that you are NOT exempted from carrying a concealed firearm in these areas UNLESS you are on official duty or possess a valid and qualifying state issued concealed carry permit.
chumpyis t1_jbs862c wrote
https://philadelphiapa.permitium.com/ccw/application?permittype=new
You can concealed carry in Philadelphia.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs8bxz wrote
Not the issue we are discussing. Thanks though
chumpyis t1_jbs8e3t wrote
Not a gun free zone. Enjoy the downvotes.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs8kay wrote
I'll enjoy every single one.
1000+ feet from every school is a school zone. Sounds like all of Philly 😉
Illegal unless on duty even driving past a school "JUST" claiming Leosa
chumpyis t1_jbs9kx4 wrote
There’s a school every 1000 feet? Damn. No wonder the district is underfunded. Do you even live here. Gtfo
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbs9rcf wrote
You're obviously unable to comprehend what a school is, or ever been in Philadelphia. Glad to hear your input though! Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation buddy!
chumpyis t1_jbsa4if wrote
Yes, as a lifetime resident I don’t know anything about Philadelphia. Goodnight troll.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsadi1 wrote
Good night my fair citizen of Grandiose delusions
JesusOfBeer t1_jbsycs6 wrote
Oh you mean the “Gun-Free School Zone Act” which was deemed unconstitutional in the 90’s?
Stop making shit up.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbt0spn wrote
Uh.. well, I don't exactly know what parts were found unconstitutional, but it's still on the books
JesusOfBeer t1_jbtwujv wrote
Maybe a quick google search would’ve saved you and helped prevent an ignorant take which ignores the details of the law.
CltAltAcctDel t1_jbsex23 wrote
r/confidentlywrong
PA has the Uniform Firearm Act which establishes firearm laws for the entire state to include Philadelpia. Philadelphia is not gun free zone neither in law or in practice.
6106 (2)(b)5 allows federal agents to carry concealed anywhere in the state.
Also, LEOSA doesn’t require officers to be on duty. Among other things, it allows retired law enforcement officers who by definition can’t be on duty to carry concealed anywhere in the US.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsf3td wrote
You're arguing with the NRA not me
CltAltAcctDel t1_jbsmn6n wrote
The federal agent wasn’t carrying pursuant to LEOSA. She was carrying under 6106. The federal gun free school zone allows states to license individual to carry in those areas. PA law allows people to carry in those areas pursuant the Uniform Firearms Act. Firearm possession on school property is covered under section 912 of the PA crimes code. There is no distance buffer in 912.
Your claim that Philly is a gun free zone is dead wrong. As is your claim that she is covered only on duty. Section 6106 has her covered.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbstwce wrote
Even if she doesn't have a permit?
CltAltAcctDel t1_jbsuyqa wrote
6106 exempts her from permit requirements. I pointed you to the section.
Duly authorized federal employees are exempt from permits. Duly authorized doesn’t require her to be on duty. Merely being authorized to carry by her agency is sufficient. Have badge; can carry
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsxirk wrote
Okay, no, I follow you. If federal employees are exempted from permits then why is there distinction in LEOSA - which you said didn't apply -
-
(36 C.F.R. §§ 2.4(e) & (h), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) allow for individuals carrying concealed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the federal park or GFSZ is located to carry concealed in them*; however, an individual carrying under LEOSA is carrying under FEDERAL LAW and not in accordance with the laws of the state they are in.
-
What this means is that you are NOT exempted from carrying a concealed firearm in these areas UNLESS you are on official duty or possess a valid and qualifying state issued concealed carry permit.
Because if they DON'T have a license, LEOSA which is the authorization to carry by the Federal Government, for federal employees, then they would need a permit to carry in those zones in the states that require Concealed Carry being off duty is not in the employees authorized capacity?
EDIT: PA CSA 18. 912(c) - I'm assuming you're referring to " * or other lawful duty"
if they don't have a pa permit and are not in the scope of their duties, do they have to observe federal law or state. Meaning do they need to carry under federal law with LEOSA because they don't have a permit in the state and are subject to the laws of the state they are in, and are NOT exempted from GFZ with LEOSA?
CltAltAcctDel t1_jbt6p3v wrote
LEOSA exists mainly for state and local police to carry off-duty or retired in all states but that has limitations. It’s fairly new and federal agents were carrying all over the place prior to it being enacted.
She was carrying under 6106. LEOSA doesn’t enter into because she’s legally carrying under PA law. She’s carrying legally by being a duly authorized federal agent. She is a duly authorized federal agent 24/7/365 until she separates employment
PA does not have a buffer on school zones. That was the purpose of referencing 912. Federal gun free zone law says the buffer is 1000ft but people can carry within that border if states allow it. PA only excludes the actual property of the school from carrying. It does that through 6106 and 912 because 6206 authorizes people to carry and 912 has no buffer.
ficknerich t1_jbsq4t5 wrote
Just because I think the article might be confusing, when it says that she shot "the other dog", they're not referring to the one of two dogs passing by that didn't attack. She shot the attacking dog, which was a pitbull.
> Roh said surveillance video indicated that Maguire had been sitting on a bench when the pit bull rushed forward and pulled the dog off her lap, causing Maguire to intervene and try to separate the animals before drawing her weapon and shooting the pit bull in its hindquarters at close range.
From The Inquirer.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsqf6n wrote
That would have been nice to have in the original article. Dogs lunge all the time when walking past other dogs.
Thanks
defusted t1_jbst6kc wrote
Everything you just said is wrong.
First, if it was a service dog it never would have left the owners side. But that doesn't matter because the agent isn't going to say "pardon me, is your dog that's currently mauling my dog a service animal?"
Second, having a gun in Philadelphia is perfectly legal for anyone, all you need is a conceal and carry permit. I'm not sure what other dogs on leash has anything to do with that.
Third, I don't know if you know this, but when a pitbull attacks it's almost impossible to make it stop.
What you should be asking is why was the owner of the pitbull ignoring it's violent behavior. Neighbors of the dog said this wasn't the first attack.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbstmjp wrote
Anyone can, if they have a permit. Nothing said they did. Never even mentioned it. And what you're referring to was a direct quote from the article...
defusted t1_jbstzmf wrote
>not even talking about how illegal having the gun in Philadelphia that is
This you?
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbsu42n wrote
The dogs. That's quoted from the article. You asked what that had to do with it. It was from the article, and again, it never mentioned her having a permit.
Illustrious-Elk-8525 t1_jbshdd3 wrote
If the agent had a PA carry permit, which is easier to obtain than it is to obtain a residential parking permit, would your opinion be different?
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbshe5c wrote
Absolutely
Illustrious-Elk-8525 t1_jbshxdv wrote
Fair enough. I don’t really support LEOSA or law enforcement in general but I believe legally many law enforcement officers are able to self activate into being “on duty”. Not sure if it applies to an FBI agent defending her dog tbh though.
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbshzxl wrote
I agree.
V_Cobra21 t1_jbumc7z wrote
It’s easy to obtain if you’re background is clean
Shad0wSmurf t1_jbshkbk wrote
It's like I kill a dog with my Ford fiesta and because I'm a Ford employee, they don't check if I can drive. If they had a permit, no issues, but the fact you asked is a bigger discussion that it took this long for someone to ask that simple question which would squash all other dissenting opinions
RealLiveKindness t1_jbr8u9j wrote
The dog owner is responsible. I am forced to carry bear spray & a hunting knife when walking in the park because people don’t control their animals.
classy-mother-pupper t1_jbsvcdu wrote
I carry bear spray and a taser every time I take my dog for a walk. She’s been attacked twice by off leash dogs with zero recall. Last one nearly killed her and cost the owner quite a bit of money. That dog lost its life cuz of a crap owner that couldn’t control their dog.
DisciplineShot2872 t1_jbswrjh wrote
Be aware that Philadelphia has some crazy laws about knives. It's mostly illegal to carry one within city limits. I spent most of my life with a Swiss Army Knife in my pocket, but that's a crime here, and I'm not relying on Krasner's discretion to avoid trouble.
From the city's Municipal Code:
§ 10-820. Cutting Weapons in Public Places. 269
(1) Definition.
Cutting Weapon. Any knife or other cutting instrument which can be used as a weapon that has a cutting edge similar to that of a knife. No tool or instrument commonly or ordinarily used in a trade, profession or calling shall be considered a cutting weapon while actually being used in the active exercise of that trade, profession or calling.
(2) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall use or possess any cutting weapon upon the public streets or upon any public property at any time.
(a) Exception: This restriction shall not apply to the use and possession of cutting tools by emergency personnel of the Philadelphia Fire Department, whether on or off duty. 270
(3) Penalty. The penalty for violation of this Section shall be a fine of not less than three hundred dollars ($300) and imprisonment of not less than ninety days.
RealLiveKindness t1_jbth7rq wrote
Good to know, I usually carry a leatherman when bike riding. My other knife is a sheathed sailing knife designed for quick deployment. Guess I’m in violation.
DisciplineShot2872 t1_jbtis2h wrote
Yeah, it's weird. Guns are fine, with a rudimentary permit, but no knives. I had to find a bladeless multi tool to cover the basics.
seantimejumpaa t1_jbs8nid wrote
What parks are you walking in? The Alaskan wilderness? Get a grip
RealLiveKindness t1_jbsr0r9 wrote
Fairmount park & Forbidden drive.
BurghPuppies t1_jbsvopx wrote
I mean… it’s right there in the name
[deleted] t1_jbsr8lb wrote
Lmaoooo right? The hunting knife cracked me up, like alright Dwight Schrute
PhyPhillosophy t1_jbr2hal wrote
Just because a Pit bull attacks another dog in the street, don't assume it's aggressive. It was probably just trying to nanny the other dog.
Revealingstorm t1_jbrmik6 wrote
had me there for a sec
Jive_Sloth t1_jbronez wrote
It's just a love maul. He does it to every baby he sees.
moderately_random t1_jbssz2b wrote
Farleymcg t1_jbstkqv wrote
Good. Fucking people need to control their animals.
Dog people are weird.
SneakyBlix t1_jbtay3l wrote
I like dogs enough but it’s the dog culture people I can’t stand anymore.
They project Disney animal emotions on their dogs and expect everyone else to do the same.
“He’s a person just like us!” The fuck outta here, it’s a goddamn dog you clown shoe.
RealLiveKindness t1_jbr8v7d wrote
The dog owner is responsible. I am forced to carry bear spray & a hunting knife when walking in the park because people don’t control their animals.
WCAIS_PA_Individual t1_jbrzaxj wrote
Doubtful
RealLiveKindness t1_jbsrk4z wrote
Forbidden drive during the summer owner swim their pups in Wissahickon creak off leash. My dog was attacked by a group of loose dogs and injured. After that I won’t go there without being prepared.
Weary_Ad7119 t1_jbsh56r wrote
Wow. That's not crazy. Forced to carry bear spray 🤣.
RealLiveKindness t1_jbsqwen wrote
That or get attacked by some off leash out of control antisocial dog.
Weary_Ad7119 t1_jbt7xpq wrote
Yeah dog attacks happening left and right 🙄
YuleBeFineIPromise t1_jbs6pks wrote
Pleasantly surprised but even if she was charged never would have been convicted.
JJStray t1_jbtfhak wrote
When I read the title I was ready to be outraged.
Of course no charges!! I’m glad she was carrying.
GSDBUZZ t1_jbtz3r7 wrote
I know. I wish newspapers would act more responsibly when writing their article titles. Many times I have discovered that a title totally misrepresents what actually happened. And I know that a lot of people (me included sometimes) only read the title.
[deleted] t1_jbsupgw wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jbu4q2q wrote
[deleted]
V_Cobra21 t1_jbum5f6 wrote
I thought it was just the atf that killed dogs
BR815 t1_jbxvzdr wrote
Charges should have never even been a consideration.
Ordinary-Mistake-902 t1_jbv9m4a wrote
Good for her
AtBat3 t1_jbvhd56 wrote
Pitbulls should be banned
GSDBUZZ t1_jbu0cup wrote
Pit-bull advocates always stress that they are complete sweethearts and I have met many pit-bulls that are sweet. I think the problem is that every dog breed has a subset of animals that bite. Even if the subset for pit-bulls is the exact same percentage as the subset for Yorkshire Terriers the damage inflicted by one pit-bull bite is likely much more than one bite from a Yorkie. Pit-bull owners do the breed no favor by ignoring the fact that some pit-bulls do bite. And before you jump on me for this observation I just want to say that I was the owner of a German Shepherd for 11 years. While my GSD showed no signs of aggression I was always mindful that others could be afraid of him.
MrszFresh1436 t1_jbubrtr wrote
Please refrain from blaming owners or advocates of the breed, that is a very unfair statement to make. Why punish the dog for the deeds done by humans? These dogs end up aggressive & unsocialized sent to shelters & euthanized more so than any other breed… and yes because of poor owners- humans…. They are subjected to Dog fighting, Baiting, Backyard breeding, Abuse, Statvation & Torture…… etc. THOSE ARE THE MONSTERS WHO NEED LEGAL CHARGES & PUNISHMENT BUT OUR LAWMAKERS HAVE NO LAWS IN PLACE TO PROSECUTE THEM…. Like we SHOULD. 💔😭
[deleted] t1_jbu4x40 wrote
[deleted]
shnoogle111 t1_jbr3ldt wrote
Nor should she. She was defending her small dog from an almost certain death. If anything, be mad at the owner of the pit bull who wasn’t responsible enough to control her dog. Shame it came to this.