Orlando police dog mangled arm of 12-year-old burglary suspect

The Orlando Sentinel ^ | June 12, 2015 | Elyssa Cherney, Staff Writer

[dragnet2]

You have no information to contradict the reported facts of the story regarding injury and length of hospital stay.

Read back slick. I never claim to know the facts of his dog bite. But I certainly told you the information details you're basing your bleeding heart comments on regarding extensive rehab, nerve damage etc was BS being fed to you by this little criminal's attorney.

Did ya think an attorney wasn't going to totally embellish everything he could about his poor little client victim's injury?

Come on now.

Why would they censor and blur out his injury?

No need to even include his face in the pic.

Yet actual severe bites to all body parts are posted all over they place, completely uncensored.

Ya need to ask yourself, if the injury to his arm was so GD severe, why not support his case and depict it for all to see?

[dragnet2]

This is not a cop dog caused injury.

Ya see when little kids or anyone who have actual severe bites, the attorneys have no problem posting the uncensored pics.

And this is nothing, trust me. If ya want to see *real* severe injuries, let me know.

If you want to buy into what some criminal defense attorneys *says* about his clients injury, I can't help ya. All I can do is tell you they exaggerate, lie and embellish everything. This is a fact Mr. Engineer.

[pnz1]

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/family-takes-legal-action-after-son-13-attacked-op/nmbh4/

Here’s a pic I think.. says he was in hospital two days in this article and not three..

[dragnet2]

This is what the criminal defense attorney described as "mangled"?

Good grief...

[dragnet2]

I guess after they wiped off the blood, there was not much to see.

Mangled...lol

[RFEngineer]

Again, the statement about length of hospital stay and the description of the injury is NOT attributed to the attorney. If you have different information let’s have it without further adieu. So what have you got?

[dragnet2]

BTW, thanks for posting that pic of his “severely mangled arm”.

I hope the little criminal pulls out of it...yukyuk.

[RFEngineer]

So what are you saying? This is a canine under positive control of the handler?

So we have an out of control lawyer, anD now an out of control doctor sending kids to the hospital for three days.

Who knew this was the big story here?

[dragnet2]

The boy was hospitalized for two days and required stitches for his injuries.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/family-takes-legal-action-after-son-13-attacked-op/nmbh4/

My sister was in the hospital over night for tonsils. Some people are kept in hospitals several days simply for observation. Empty beds make no money.

What are suggesting here?

[dragnet2]

This is a canine under positive control of the handler?

BTW, what does this mean to you in this case? If you could be specific.

[dragnet2]

So we have an out of control lawyer

BTW, I never stated or suggested the attorney was, "Out of control".

What I told you repeatedly was criminal defense attorneys routinely lie, embellish and exaggerate injuries and everything else to defend their clients. That's their job. It seems most understand this except maybe you.

A bit of advise, if you're going to make less than forthright comments, or fabricate what others say fine. Just do not do that with me.

[RFEngineer]

“fabricate what others say fine. Just do not do that with me.”

Oh you poor thing. You got your feelings hurt by my words!

Be reasonable and don’t complain about things that you do, not with me.

[RFEngineer]

If it requires a 12 year old to be hospitalized then that’s probably not “positive control”.

[dragnet2]

That made no sense at all.

[dragnet2]

So you’re suggesting police dogs only bite enough to cause superficial first aid types wounds?

Brilliant.

[dragnet2]

BTW, did it ever occur to you in the dark a 12 year old’s silhouette could easily be mistaken as an adult?

[RFEngineer]

I’m surprised you trust a report like this. Two days, three days.....doesn’t change the point materially, unless, like your hurt feelings from my previous post, you want to exaggerate and say that since both reports don’t agree to the time in the hospital they must both be “lies”.

So now not only do you attribute ill motive to the lawyer, but now the doctors, the reporters, and me for pointing out that maybe there is a problem when a dog/handler puts someone, a 12 year old criminal in training, in the hospital. That also makes me a ‘bleeding heart’. Did I miss anything?

Everyone screws up except the dog/handler (who put the kid in the hospital) and you, and it took you 20 posts to come up with something that contradicted “3 days in the hospital” and the best you could do was “2 days in the hospital”.

The point stands. If a handler/dog puts a kid in the hospital for 2 (or 3) days, somebody didn’t have control over the dog. That’s the point. You can argue over lawyers, doctors, reporters all you want.

[RFEngineer]

“BTW, did it ever occur to you in the dark a 12 year old’s silhouette could easily be mistaken as an adult?”

They had two kids in custody, apparently. There is that to consider - but leaving that aside. It is far more likely that the handler was overweight and could not pursue the “silhouette” so he sent the dog. By the time he caught up and called the dog off, the kid had been chewed on a while.

Since we are speculating now, because you can’t honestly address the point at hand, that’s my speculation.

[dragnet2]

Why are you evading the questions?

Your spin is speeding up the rotation planet, please stop before we all fly off.

[RFEngineer]

“That made no sense at all.”

OK