|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: 4-year-old boy’s leg amputated after mauling by police officer father’s K-9 partner
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"A 4-year-old boy had his lower leg amputated after being attacked by his father’s police dog, according to a neighbor who helped save the child from the attack at a Hesperia home, KTLA reported."
"The incident occurred Sunday at a home where Rialto Police Department Officer Michael Mastaler lives with his family and his K-9 partner, a lieutenant with the department confirmed."
"Mastaler had returned home from a weekend training session with the dog, a Belgian Malinois named Jango, when he put the animal in the backyard and went upstairs to change clothes, believing his son was safely inside playing video games, police said."
"Minutes later, neighbors heard the child screaming." ... |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/16/2015)
|
| Why would they need to ask for charitable contributions (go fund me page) to pay for the boy's care? I would expect that Rialto, CA has the deep pockets to pay any medical bills resulting from this incidence. Furthermore, Rialto will probably settle their civil liability for tens of thousands of dollars in excess of the actual damages. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
