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

Originally posted by gabby2011

ha ! really? and the people who are taking the law in their own hands ..should start shooting the criminals..and then someone would shoot them..and it would never end..till everyone was dead ?

Nice use of reductio ad absurdum. I was proposing a private crime prevention program at a grassroots level and you are obviously delighted with the reactive authoritarian system in place now. Fair enough.

There are a few things wrong with the overall picture. US homes are built with an expectation of privacy and a right to protect and preserve that privacy though those rights are eroding very rapidly. With my home there is no way to wander onto the property unless I let you in or there is the use of mechanized force to obtain entry. In other words this scenario would not have happened here by chance. There would had to have been a directed effort for these events to have played out. An intruder caught on the premises might very well end up as tacos al pastor on the other end of town in the next day or so.

Originally posted by worlds_away
Reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Couldn't you answer any of my questions?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Sorry, no. You're Canadian (no offense), so you really have no legs commenting the state of affairs in MY country since you don't live here. Why don't you concentrate more on Canada's problems? By the way, what kind of gun do YOU have for protection? Oh, I forgot...

Reply to post by AwakeinNM

That's rich. You actually made me laugh.

Even though you've not answered my questions, I'll answer yours. I don't own a gun. I honestly don't see myself ever being in a position to need a gun. I guess that makes my opinions irrelevant and naïve, but I'm Canadian so what could you expect?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The officer was not killed over two dogs. He was killed over an idea. An idea that people have the right to be on their own property without threat to themselves or those who dwell there. No warrant and the officer had no right to be on the property. The man was tresspassing, and then attempted to kill two of the occupants. Id say that was a criminal act IMO, LEO or not. They still have rules to follow, and unlike the show COPS, law enforcment cannot just walk onto citizens property at will, let alone threaten the occupants of the dwelling.

I would agree bettter training may have saved this mans life. Or perhaps he just thought "oh this lowly citizen better respect my authority while I violate his rights or else" which seems to be the norm among law enforcement these days. Well those rights just smacked him in the chest and now he sleeps with those whos rights have been violeted for decades now.

In this country, there are people who take those rights seriously, who will kill and die for those rights. This officers family will now understand that to the fullest extent.

Originally posted by DYepes
The officer was not killed over two dogs. He was killed over an idea. An idea that people have the right to be on their own property without threat to themselves or those who dwell there. No warrant and the officer had no right to be on the property. The man was tresspassing, and then attempted to kill two of the occupants. Id say that was a criminal act IMO, LEO or not. They still have rules to follow, and unlike the show COPS, law enforcment cannot just walk onto citizens property at will, let alone threaten the occupants of the dwelling.

I would agree bettter training may have saved this mans life. Or perhaps he just thought "oh this lowly citizen better respect my authority while I violate his rights or else" which seems to be the norm among law enforcement these days. Well those rights just smacked him in the chest and now he sleeps with those whos rights have been violeted for decades now.

In this country, there are people who take those rights seriously, who will kill and die for those rights. This officers family will now understand that to the fullest extent.

I wish more people could understand your point of view. I agree with you that it is the right point of view.

I've asked even my close friends when I am entering their house, if it's OK that I am carrying a pistol. On one occasion my friend said No she didn't want me in her house with her toddlers, with a loaded pistol. So I put it in my car.
Doesn't matter what my rights are. I was asking to enter her home, I had to follow her rules or not be there.
Just because he was a cop does not mean he had any right entering that property without a legal warrant.

Originally posted by something wicked

. . .
Are you seriously saying that in America if the only way to access a property is via an alley (and assuming from this you need to enter an area before reaching a door)

There is a front door, and it is accessible. the PA trooper is posted in front of the door in some photos. I question why he went through the alley.

to actually knock on said door needs a warrant? Are you really saying that?

No, I am not saying that. Basic reading comprehension would do you some good.

The officer may knock on the door. It is when a person says that the officer is not welcome, that the officer must leave and come back with a warrant.

Originally posted by fooks

. . .
lemme guess, RP in 2012.

.that's great!!

My political affiliations have nothing to do with the topic.

put this on his web site, i dare ya.

the murdered cop didn't need a warrant!

From the facts given, where was the crime in progress or the imminent danger to life or property?

he didn't kill the dogs,

Attempted murder is still a crime

he was murdered with a 12guage to the face.

Inflammatory language much? I could just as easily say that he was killed while trying to infringe on Constitutional rights.

leaving behind a family.

Leave the appeal to emotion at the door next time.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

Nice use of reductio ad absurdum. I was proposing a private crime prevention program at a grassroots level and you are obviously delighted with the reactive authoritarian system in place now. Fair enough.

I'm not against a private program at grassroots level...and obviously I'm not delighted with the current system...so quit making assumptions and accusations. Unless you have read all my posts regarding law enforcement..you're just making things up.

The problem I do have with what could become of grass roots private programs to fight crime..are the ones who feel they have the right to be judge ,jury and executioner on any little thing that crosses them.

Anyone who reads this story and totally sides with the dude who shot the cop (who was just trying to do his job) ..is really not being fair.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


the news report is unclear on a couple of items.

Freemansburg police officer Robert Lasso had pointed at the attacking dogs when the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and fired the fatal blast on Thursday evening.

so there was enough time to

1) order the police officer new to the scene to stun multiple dogs
2) new officer acknowledges the order,
3) new officer draws a stun gun from its holster
4) aim his stun gun. which dog do you choose to shoot? you only have time to shoot one.
5) owner of the dogs has time to get a shotgun. story didn't mention the police reporting to a firearm standoff.
6) assuming no one stores a loaded shotgun, he loads the shot gun
7) points gun at officer with stun gun, (ignoring the first responder policeman)
8) shoot gun

it doesn't add up for me.

was the person with the shotgun armed when the police arrived? if so, why didn't the first responder draw his firearm and call a swat team for back up? instead he calls one guy, and orders "shoot the dogs"?

who called the police? it was a domestic dispute call but no mention of the victim of the other crime. no mention of the prosecuting attorney even charging the man with domestic violence.

there is probably more to the story. the news article lacks valuable information.

-subfab

reply to post by MrWendal


In 2000, twenty-two years after the enactment of the first state
statute to criminalize cruelty to police dogs,
8
Congress passed the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act (FLEAPA).
9
Advocating
the interests of dogs and horses, the statute punishes any person who
“willfully and maliciously harms any police animal, or attempts or conspires to do so.”
10
The FLEAPA allows for a ten-year prison sentence
for any offender who “permanently disables or disfigures the animal,
or causes serious bodily injury or the death of the animal.”


Whats the difference between a police animal and any other animal?

Originally posted by ChrisF231
When a law enforcement officer is responding to a 911 call he/she does not need a warrant. The officer in question had already received a complaint about domestic violence from a resident of that household and was trying to get the man's side of the story . . .

It depends where the original disturbance took place. If it was not at Hitcho's house, then yes, they do need a warrant, as exigent circumstances would not apply.

There are only certain times when warrant-less is allowed.

*a crime in progress or another emergency

*imminent harm or loss of life or property



The officers were called to Clancy's house, which presumably is about 100 yards away from Hitcho's house.

So which of those exemptions from having a warrant were occurring at his residence?

reply to post by HenryTwoTimes


Tasers kill people and dogs. Why did daddy die? Because he was going to kill the peoples doggie with his taser. His children will understand it. Some people wont but if you have a dog who is a member of your family you will understand it. Yes its sad. Very sad. In life when everything fails, when people desert you, your dog will be faithfully by your side. Yes your dog is worth killing for. Police should rethink taser use.

reply to post by Limbo


canada just got rid of its long gun ban least if the article i was reading was correct and as your country is basicly conscripting there youth for paramilitary programs (on the outside its what it looks like)Switzerland also has large quantitys of weapons and they also dont go around shooting people rember all the experts agree (mao stalin pol pot hitler etc) gun control works(sarcasm). also something like close to 180 million americans with firearms didnt shoot any one that day

weather or not you like it were armed and were going to stay armed and since the revoloution your country or its peoples have little say over what weapons we can or can not own or what taxes we pay (least where Brittan is concerned) now back to the topic at hand were problay going to have to wait for the court case to proceed to find out more information but from what ive figured out or peiced to gether the guy had to have been either driving throuhg a small alley way or a side street with a speed of 40mph what we need to find otu is exactly where the speeding charge took place,also the mans back yard was in fact not fenced so he lost a bit of defense with that one (cops usualy cant go through locked gates with out a warrent) but i am still confident the only thing at all that has a chance of this guy getting off willl either be a old obscure loophole or a VERY VERY competent attorney

ps any one find out what kinda dogs he had and if there were bite marks on the cop or not?

reply to post by deadeyedick


ah no thats confusion coming from the article i BELIEVE(if im right lol) from reading it that they obtained the warent after the officer was shot and it was in fact related to the shooting of the officer(warrent for guns and items pertaining to the shooting) as opposed to a warrent to just generaly search his house for the earlyer complaint if that makes any sense? two of the articles were realy poorly written and confusing but thats what i got from it

reply to post by XTexan


from the address i found for bolth the suspect and complantant there is an alley way connecting the houses (over a blockish area) and the reason they approached the back was because thats how you access the yard it seems as only the back portion of his house has street access from what i saw the links to teh addresses are a page or two back from page 10 i think ill go try to find them again but google earth kinda gave us a bit more info on this one

reply to post by Nobama


""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.

THREAD CLOSED""
from you other link we were talking about it there then the mod i quoted above directed us into this thread so we were following instructions

(note i am not a mod nor do i try to be nor am i claiming i am one now that was quoted from the other thread i just dont know how to quote people from diffrent pages)

reply to post by Limbo


im guessing shock and shame are problay why the officer didnt shoot the cop oh yeah that and the shooters shot gun was jammed after the first shot so the cop made the correct judgement call if the man isnt armed he is not a threat and if his gun does not function and he complied as quickly as he did there was no cause to shoot the man

i say shock because he problay assumed this wasent going to happen

i say shame because like it or not the cheif of polices orders were what set off the man with the gun shoot the dogs.....so the cheif will also have to live with this also i know its a small town but i dont think MOST cheifs of police have to use there guns on the regular or even think they will but i could be wrong on that as im not a cop nor do i know many cheifs of police

If i kill one of their dogs they say that I'm killing a police officer, but if they kill my dog they give me a sorry and i cannot do anything about it.

reply to post by fooks

um no good sir i was responding to a question i think you asked stating show me one link of a dog killed by a tazer well i gave you several. your own inferences are your own to make i was just responding to your question

don't ask questions if you don't want answers

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

oh so one of my links didnt work but the other dogs did die that was the whole point of my posts that dogs in fact have been killed with tazers you asked for links i provided some one of wich i guess was wrong for that one i apologize but the others still stand again was just answering your original question