|
|
|
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:
An Officer’s 2-year-old Son Died After He shot Himself With His Father’s Gun, Police Say
Submitted by:
jac
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Police say an Ohio officer’s 2-year-old son died after shooting himself with his father’s gun Friday morning.
Officers responded to a home in Cleveland about 10:30 a.m., the Associated Press reported. The child died at a hospital, according to the Cleveland Division of Police.
The toddler’s father, 54-year-old Jose Pedro, is a 23-year veteran of the Cleveland police department.
Preliminary investigation indicated that the toddler got hold of his father’s service weapon, according to the AP.
Submitters note: How does a 2 year old get a gun? This smacks of negligence or laziness.
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/27/2016)
|
The wheels of justice turn in mysterious ways in Cleveland.
Ricardo Sims was sentenced to prison a couple months ago for leaving a gun where a pre-schooler got a hold of it with fatal results.
Jose Pedro did the exact same thing with identical results, and is charged with...not a damn thing. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
