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 dispute

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:47 PM
i can't believe this happened

imbecile cop - GOD REST HIS SOUL - maybe he was nice and good but he was also stupid to enter a property
guarded by two dogs and a maniac with shotgun and staying there listening to his boss
- i know i wouldn't

and most clearly a maniac killer - if you are defending your dogs , please aim in hands or legs. blowing someones leg and making him a cripple is horrible enough
blowing people's heads is monstrous

bttw 2 attack dogs and maniac owner defends them with shotgun against chubby dorky cop with stun gun?

as a former owner of 50 kg. rottweiler (god bless her soul also ) hmmm... in that situation i would have to
defend him against my sweet rottie - she would bite and brake his arm and stun gun like a cookie . if the cop tried to enter my house, he would think twice

so i don't buy this story about defending dogs with shotgun blasting peoples heads(baseball bat and my new funny dog are a match for a chubby cop with a stungun)

fry the maniac killer

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by doom27

the orignal reason for the officer showing up was a complaint of speeding,in addition the only other people arrested in this case were witnesses(problay co growers) ,so at least in this one i dont think this guy was beating his wife or kid as he had previously beaten them and lost custody and visitation rights

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by mishigas

again if you go back through the thread and all the bickering the officer was responding to a domestic complaing of SPEEDING not domestic violence the man who complained said he feared for his life due to the mans speed i belive is what set this whole thing in motion

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:54 PM
Reply to post by KilrathiLG

There is front access. Here is a photo of a trooper guarding the walkway to the front door." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Link

and here is the google map:

Google Map - 440 New St Bethlehem, PA

The officer is standing across the street from the yellow car on the map.

edit on 8/16/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by ChrisF231

please stop spreading that it was domestic violence speeding is NOT domestic violence! the neighbor called the police about the man speeding and a verbal altercation that took place the only violent act that actualy occurred was the man shooting the police officer

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by KilrathiLG

The question i have is what happened between the time he called for back up and it arrived. Thats where he answer is.
On the other hand he should not have been there alone on that property.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
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?

[Paranoid anti English babble snipped]
As I understand the policeman did not need a warrant.
The guy will not get off. Why should he ? He murdered a policeman. It really is that simple.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:07 PM
Comparing my dog to my children would only be an ignorant remark. What would I protect my dog by shooting someone in the face, or remaining a responsible, loving mother to my REAL child and restraining the dog? Well I believe I would take the responsible approach and just restrain the dog. I won't even take time to acknowledge some of these horrible replies to those on the side of the shooter.

No dog is worth someone's life, I'm sorry to anyone who disagrees but whether this man was a cop, the mailman, or a representative of the company overcharging me for internet, he still didn't deserve to die. And now, guess what? The shooter doesn't get to enjoy a life with his beloved dogs, he'll be in prison, possibly trading his own behind for a few cigarettes.

Ignorance at its strongest....

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

ah thank you for clearing up my mistake on that it was pretty late when i was veiwing the maps that does muddy things up a bit again thank you for correcting me if im wrong i want to be told im wrong so i dont spread false info

did you by chance see the speed limit signs for the alley way im assuming there 15 like in most citys but i could be wrong,im kinda interested in exactly how fast he was speeding that prompted the original call

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:11 PM
I'm seeing videos like this pop up every day now. Perhaps we need to start carrying camera's everywhere we go. Eventually people aren't going to keep putting up with this fascist police state. Hopefully these power hungry cops will eventually wake up and see what they are doing to their own people.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by deadeyedick

yes! exactly! i had posted some questions earlier most of which got answered but an important question indeed is why did the officer not fall back from what he thought was a hostile situation and await back up? i mean isnt that standard protocall with an angry person call more cops and wait tell you have numerical superiority?

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by CelestialSon

Everyone seems to be focusing on the dogs and missing the point. The policeman had to right to be on the man's property. The man told him he did not give him permission and to leave. Then the guy calls his chief and gets permission to kill the guys dog? For what? If he is trespassing, he is in the wrong, police or not.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
edit on 16-8-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:41 PM
Based only on the reporting this LEO appears to hold a fair amount of responsibility to his own death. Like when a vehicle crashes, they assign fault based on percentages. In a car accident your are 10% at fault just by being there, even if you were legally parked. In a plane accident they look at all factors, weather, aircraft status, pilots actions, etc... Shootings should be the same, and that should carry some weight in sentencing.

I'm not saying the man who fired the shotgun is free from blame, far from it, he sicc'd the dogs on the officer and by law that is no different from any other weapon. If they were trained attack dogs as one story reported, or if they were just pets they were still weapons but to a lesser extent. The one thing that would change this is if the officer was cornered somehow and had no way out.

As a concealed weapon permit holder we go over all this at training. If the LEO had an out that would have deescalated the situation and chose to stand his ground, escalating the situation, he became the agressor. The call he was responding to wasn't felony level or life threatening, according to the reports anyway, and being such a small town if the neighbors all knew this guy was a loose cannon you can be sure the police did.

A more prudent approach would be to give a known hothead a chance to cool off, then talk to him. Pushing it when his dander is up will not end well. So if there is no immediate threat, why create one?

I've always had a problem with how our laws read as to LEO's and deadly force.

If you shoot a cop, it's automatically 1st deg murder, no matter the circumstances and with no premeditation. But a cop will never be charged with 1st deg murder over a duty related shooting, and he's the most highly trained person on the scene, he should be held to a higher standard.

Of course the reporting might be wrong, the officer may have been backed into a corner and unwilling to turn his back on 2 dogs to try to climb a fence, and in that case he was perfectly justified in using a taser on the dogs.

Just adding my 2 cents.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Limbo

. . .
As I understand the policeman did not need a warrant.

. . .

Please search for the exigent circumstances that must exist to allow the lack of a warrant.

Then please tell me which of these circumstances fit this case.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:55 PM
I live in a small town in eastern PA myself. In PA dogs in the eyes of the law may as well be bugs on your lawn. If your neighbor shoots your dog for going on their property they have the right to shoot it dead. I suspect the law in most places doesn't treat our loved family members any better.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TheFadedLine because: spelling

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:55 PM
My sympathies to the Lasso family.

There is something that can be learned form this death, however. It is very easy to look at a situation after the fact and assess where someone should have known this and someone should have done that. Very easy and worthless.

Here's what Hitcho probably saw:

He was speeding through the area, and a neighbor got fed up with it and confronted him. That sparked an argument. A neighbor (not sure if it was the same one?) called the police on Hitcho.
    First mistake: never bring in the police unless necessary. it does not defuse the situation anymore; it usually intensifies it.
At this point, Lasso responds to the call of a domestic disturbance. He speaks with the complainant and approaches Hitcho to get his side of the story.
    As it is becoming common knowledge that police are there not to resolve, but to arrest, this would be intensifying the situation.
Hitcho is still angry and has seen Lasso talking with the neighbor. He probably assumes that the neighbor has already convinced Lasso that he is the guilty party and therefore probably assumes Lasso is coming to arrest him.
    This is what I have been preaching about in vain for so long. The reputation of the police department probably led Hitcho to this conclusion and placed him immediately in a defensive stance.
Now Hitcho is confronted by Lasso. Hitcho orders Lasso off his property in an attempt to defuse his situation. When Lasso does not leave, Hitcho feels trapped. He orders his dogs to attack Lasso in an attempt to prevent himself from being arrested.
    While this may seem like he was endangering Lasso's life at this point, I doubt Hitcho felt so. It is more likely that he expected Lasso to retreat as any other intruder would no doubt have done.
Lasso does not retreat, but instead draws his taser. Based on Hitcho's statements, I would hazard that at some point Lasso, whether inadvertantly or purposely, pointed the taser at Hitcho. This further intensified the situation and made Hitcho believe that Lasso was perfectly fine with using deadly force against him.
    Again, the situation intensifies and now Hitcho is concerned for his life as well as his freedom.
At some point the Chief arrives. From his quick assessment of the situation, he sees his officer (and I am assuming friend from the various reports) being attacked by dogs. He instinctively tries to regain control of the situation and aid his friend by ordering him to 'shoot' the dogs. Hitcho is trying to defend his property and is concerned for his safety at this point and associates the word 'shoot the dogs' with 'kill the dogs'.
    I know many people who will aggressively protect their dogs. It is common knowledge around here that if you endanger or threaten a dog, it is the equivalent of doing so to the owner.
Faced with the knowledge tht this cop is going to kill his dogs and quite possibly then use deadly force against him, Hitcho takes the only course he can think of: return deadly force. He fires his shotgun at Lasso and kills him.

Result: one dead cop and one man looking at serious charges.

Nothing was resolved.

Now I am no cop, but it seems to me to just be common sense that confronting someone in the heat of an argument at their home and indicating through body language an intent to commit bodily harm to them or to their pets is just not a smart thing to do. Actually, it is closer to 'suicide' than it is 'smart'.

Had Lasso called Hitcho out to the sidewalk instead of confronting him in his yard, this would not have happened. Had Lasso retreated to the street instead of trying to hold his ground against the dogs, this would not have happened. Had the chief not used the term 'shoot', this probably would not have happened. And of course, fair is fair, had Hitcho been more accommodating this would not have happened.

My point is that the heavy-handedness of the police led to the death of one of the police. Now Hitcho may be a raving lunatic scofflaw for all I know, but I can definitely see the spirit of attempting to defend ones home in his actions. Lasso did not have a warrant, but probably could have gotten one and went in with backup and straightened the whole thing out shortly later, and quite possibly have then been confronting a much calmer opponent.

This will continue. As long as the police are seen as someone to be avoided rather than a public servant, this will happen again... and again... and again. It is placing every single policeman and policewoman in grave danger. Don't misunderstand me; I am not in favor of this at all. I have some close friends who work at the local police departments around here. I just buried one of them (health issues, not the result of a crime) a few weeks ago. I do not want to bury any more, especially not from a senseless confrontation gone bad.

Once again, I call upon those in law enforcement: stop this now. Stop forcing your authority on those who are not hardened criminals. Stop seeing yourself as authority and see yourself as servants. Stop ignoring the rights of others in favor of some sense of self-defense when the real issue with your safety lies with your own actions.

Stop killing your fellow officers.

Let this death be the last time a cop has to be buried for 'doing his job' against average citizens.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by KilrathiLG

. . .
did you by chance see the speed limit signs for the alley way im assuming there 15 like in most citys but i could be wrong,im kinda interested in exactly how fast he was speeding that prompted the original call

No. But I did find the speed laws for PA.

§ 3362. Maximum speed limits.
(a) General rule.--Except when a special hazard exists that
requires lower speed for compliance with section 3361 (relating
to driving vehicle at safe speed), the limits specified in this
section or established under this subchapter shall be maximum
lawful speeds and no person shall drive a vehicle at a speed in
excess of the following maximum limits:
(1) 35 miles per hour in any urban district.
(1.1) 65 miles per hour for all vehicles on freeways
where the department has posted a 65-miles-per-hour speed
(1.2) 25 miles per hour in a residence district if the
(i) is not a numbered traffic route; and
(ii) is functionally classified by the department as
a local highway.
(2) 55 miles per hour in other locations.
(3) Any other maximum speed limit established under this
(b) Posting of speed limit.--
(1) No maximum speed limit established under subsection
(a)(1), (1.2) or (3) shall be effective unless posted on
fixed or variable official traffic-control devices erected in
accordance with regulations adopted by the department which
regulations shall require posting at the beginning and end of
each speed zone and at intervals not greater than one-half
(2) No maximum speed limit established under subsection
(a)(1.1) shall be effective unless posted on fixed or
variable official traffic-control devices erected after each
interchange on the portion of highway on which the speed
limit is in effect and wherever else the department shall

The interesting thing is that if there is no speed limit sign, the maximum speed limit does not apply.

This goes along with the only answer I could find, which was from Yahoo (fail). The poster stated:

--Most buroughs or townships do not have standard speed laws for alleys. The "rule of thumb" is to drive with due caution . . .--

Susquehanna Township has this:

Traffic Regulations (Chapter 15--Motor Vehicles, Part 2)

201 1. A. Maximum Speed Limits on Unspecified Streets And Alleys.

Maximum speed limit on streets and alleys, where not specified by separate Ordinance, shall be 25 miles per hour.

Meanwhile, Bethlehem has nothing of the sort. It is a weird system
edit on 8/16/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:06 PM

Originally posted by mindseye21
reply to post by TheFlash

You should tell that to my friend whos parents were murdered in the other room when he was 7. Guess what the police found? Nothing. Yes I know, isolated incidence, but if you think the police actually solve most crimes, you need to turn off the tube man.

You missed the point. Do you think his friends and family would have done any better?

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:07 PM
What kind of stun gun was the dead cop pointing at the dog?
Do stun guns kill dogs? Was the dog actually in danger?
What percentage of stunned dogs die?
What percentage of stunned humans die?

I am assuming the dog's owner had a REAL gun that shot a bullet.
Isn't it weird for him to just happen to have a gun on him?
What's up with that?

edit on 16/8/11 by RainbeauBleu because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in