It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Police officer shot dead after pointing stun gun at man's dogs as he attended domestic

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by fooks

--lasso didn't need a warrant,--

Yes, he did, actually, as it was not a disturbance in progress.

--you don't shoot illegal trespassers in the face with shotguns--

Yeah you do. That is the point of the 2nd Amendment. Castle Doctrine.

--and you don't kill a cop--

Castle Doctrine still applies, cop or not.

edit on 8/15/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

You are handing out some very wrong information.

Having an opinion is one thing, misleading people into believing they can shoot the police for trespassing is irresponsible and dangerous.

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

Castle doctrine

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Shooting your animals is against the law and also not part of a police officers duty. His duty is to call an animal control unit if there are animals that need controling. You just made his point.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Yep I reckon the Chief has blood on his hands with this one. Bad call if its the case of a warrant was required.
The names involved are rather ominous... Lasso/Hitcho no warrant/no permission, Catch 22, tie the hangman's knot... sounds like a matched fate made in Freemansburg/America, Ideals/dissolving... geez... the irony, the energies of a vortex expand further, all the hints that contribute to the eroding state of freedoms... the destiny of America. Sublimated social fears confirmed within newspapers. An introverts musings.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:47 PM
i grew up in rural PA. you don't go stomping around a citizen's private property waving your tazer and/or pistol around, badge or no. eventually it will prove dangerous. oh wait, here's a perfect example. i think PA just recently broadened the scope of their Castle Doctrine home defense laws. no warrant you say? whatever the statute says SHOULD have happened here, THIS will happen again.

ETA reading a few more posts i felt compelled to speculate: this guy was likely a 'redneck' i'll agree, but the officers probably are too. could this have been the result of some kind of pissing contest between suspect and police chief? ordering the shooting of two dogs? sounds malicious and personal to me.
edit on 15-8-2011 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by Thestargateisreal

Sorry but you are dead wrong.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Reconer
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Your wrong bro...and your not in the legal system and definitely not a police officer.

I was the Sergeant and FTO of a local PD for a few years. I resigned my position because of the way power-hungry idiots run things. I left on my own accord with a perfectly clean record.

There are 2 types of warrants Search warrant and an Arrest warrant.

Actually, there are a few more than two types.

Search warrant is after you have probable cause there are fruits of a crime or criminally possessed items...etc.

Exactly. It is used for after the fact investigations, which this clearly was.

He did not need this warrant and it is definitely not applicable in the most remote way.

--Jurisdictions that respect the rule of law and a right to privacy put constraints on the powers of police investigators, and typically require search warrants, or an equivalent procedure, for searches conducted as part of a criminal investigation.--

Actually, he did, as the disturbance was not in progress, and Hitcho refused to give him access.

You can not and will not commit a crime nor refused to provide information or talk to an officer for him to make that determination...once its determined then either crime or no crime...officer leaves or arrests...and in alot of the times told to not do it again at the officer's discretion.

Unless the person refuses to talk, and orders you off his property. Then you need a warrant. Duh.

I hope your actually learning here so your not jacked up in the future making people believe your posts.

You seem to be the exact reason I resigned my position.

You don't even know the very law you are trying to enforce and protect. I said earlier...just ride along with a police officer if you have the guts and learn a thing or two on the beat.

lolololol Nope, no guts here. I guess I will have to see if I could ride along with one of my old partners.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:50 PM
if he was so concerned about the dam dogs, he should have called them back into the house.

again, you don't kill people coming onto your property, period!

anyone advocating that is a public menace and dangerous.

hey, ya'll come over to my place sometime! i'll give you a welcome ya won't believe!

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
For some people, that pet is all the family they know. 2 sides

...for some people that is true - but - this case isnt about "some people" or any of the other generalizations that have been posted...

...this case is about two specific people - a cop and the man that killed him...

...imo, the shooter was not defending his dogs and either he spontaneously decided to kill the cop because of an old grudge - or - he planned it - or - he was so messed up on whatever that he wouldve killed anyone that walked into his backyard... i wont be surprised if his defense is mental incompetancy due to prolonged alcohol/drug use but i hope that doesnt hold up in court...

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:52 PM
Since this thread OP has little content to debate, you are being directed to the other thread on this topic.


Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.

Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.

Mod Note: Starting A New Thread ?... Look Here First.


posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

besides does that state have the castle doctrine?

it doesn't matter, he had to have known the cop.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in