Sounds like a case of spring gun combined with sovereign immunity.
Spring guns date back to colonial times. They were essentially large bore shotguns attached to trip wires rigged to pivot the gun at an intruder and fire. The intention was to deter property intruders. Their deadly but indiscrimate operation led to them being banned. The ban on such unattended deadly weapons (of all types) continues to this day.
Sovereign immunity protects governments at all levels from private lawsuits over its legitimate operations unless it (the government) agrees to be sued beforehand.
Here you have the federal government saying the injured party cannot sue because the potentially deadly unattended device was placed as a legitimate act by a government actor on federal land. In this case, a citizen coming onto “its” probably unfenced and unmarked land is trespassing.
Essentially, the kid and his dog got what they deserved. Swell bunch of guys, those Feds.
Maybe the manufacturer of the M44 device also should be sued over its indiscriminate nature.
And what .gov agency/department did or do you still work for ?
If that had been your Child and Dog you would be singing a different tune...
And don’t bother trying to blow smoke up My a$$. you know if it was your family you would have a 180 degree opinion of your BLAME THE KID AND DOG Post.
“Essentially the kid and the do got what they deserve.”
Only someone totally devoid of human compassion would profess that thought.
Well, In my mind I know what you deserve and I’d love to give it to you.