It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 23
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SirTFiedSkeptic
 


he shot him through the door.

but then what the heck does that matter?

the coward didn't even step outside the house to talk or call his precious "children" inside to be safe from the bad guy.

that only will make his case worse than it is.

hate to be that defense lawyer.




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


Sorry I didn't read where the guy shot through the door. Seems strange I thought he had to open the door to sic the dogs on the cop. Just thinking like a cop I guess.

edit: I'd hate to be ANY lawyer!
edit on 17-8-2011 by SirTFiedSkeptic because: because I wanted to



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by digitalbluco
 



I notice many of the replies are hateful towards the guy who shot the police officer. If you read the full story, the police chief showed up for backup and instructed that officer to shoot the dogs. That's when he opened fire on the officer with a shotgun.

Now for my opinion. Not only should the shooter be charged (obvious I know), but also the police chief as if it weren't for him telling that officer to shoot that guys dog, that officer might still be alive today.

PS: let's not forget that a taser can easily kill a dog.
edit on 8/17/2011 by digitalbluco because: (no reason given)


Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the officer's life was worth less than that guy's dogs. I just have mixed feelings about this one.


I doubt very much if the Chief's first order was to kill the dogs. He would have concentrated on the guy armed with a shotgun instead.

You are ridiculous for blaming the Chief for the shooting.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Let's see if I have this straight.

"at 1718 hrs., two dogs were unleashed on him. The dogs began mauling

Ofc. Lasso who then called for back-up. Chief Of Police George Bruneio quickly arrived and saw Ofc. Lasso

trying to fight off the dogs with his Taser because he couldn’t get to his handgun." -blog post

"Lasso made his way up the alley at 5:06 p.m. and called for backup. Freemansburg police chief George Bruneio arrived at 5:15 p.m., according to court papers, and found Lasso fighting with two dogs in Hitcho's backyard." -From the town's newspaper

So, the officer was attacked by two dogs and called for backup. Or called for backup and was then attacked by dogs. The long-suffering hero then patiently fought the dogs with his tazer for NINE MINUTES (six or seven at the least, it doesn't take that long to walk 100 feet) until his chief arrived and told him to 'shoot the dogs', at which point the officer pointed his tazer at the dogs and got about a hundred pellets to the face. A very strange story indeed.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


really?

free to kill anyone? you want that?


Is that your suggestion? Not sure where that came from. Are there circumstances where deadly force is justified? I believe so. One example could be to use deadly force against an armed intruder that has invaded your property, brandished firearms, pointed said firearms at the property owner (as suggested in the news article), and is readying to discharge the firearm on command of their accomplice. The firearm may have been a taser pistol but likely had the appearance of a lethal weapon, and a verbal order was heard to "shoot".


like i said and what has been said, this was not a ghetto, there were probably 4 cops in the whole town.


Not sure what point you wish to make with that statement. Perhaps that the town's police force was able to conduct an armed invasion on a man's property while investigating a possible traffic infraction??



the ash hole was growing pot, another lovely ron paul libertarian ideal that will just turn this country around for the good but guess what,


Had a few pot plants? A hardened criminal there.


it still ain't legal yet!


All the more reason to preserve one's privacy.


"get off my LAWN!!!" bam! bam! lol, can't wait!


I bet. Very emphatic authoritarian type are you? Can't wait to deprive EVERYONE of their personal rights?


have had cops come to my door as a teen for noise complaints and they never set a foot inside.

i did not shoot them in the face.


Good lad. Those cops probably even went to your FRONT door? Didn't go around back to shoot your dogs first, no?



edit on 17-8-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Its amazing how many time that when there are pets involved man gets hurt



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


yes there are circumstances, chica, but the guy was a cop right?


never mind, it went over your head.


pot and a prior record.
blowing a cops head off will not draw any attention right? so much for privacy.


your personal right to trespass on my lawn? huh?

2nd floor, lol. but i did have a cop shine his flashlight in my eyes when i was jamming out with some friends in the basement. didn't hear the bell.


and i'm still wondering if you read the news, the cop was shot, not the dogs.

i say, i say, pay some attention son!



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


really?

free to kill anyone? you want that?


like i said and what has been said, this was not a ghetto, there were probably 4 cops in the whole town.


the ash hole was growing pot, another lovely ron paul libertarian ideal that will just turn this country around for the good but guess what,

it still ain't legal yet!

"get off my LAWN!!!" bam! bam! lol, can't wait!




I find it ironic that the proponents of the murderer go through twisted logic trying to invoke constitutional law blah blah blah when the murderer seems to have no respect/knowledge for the law or citizens.

Driving when under the influence = endangering citizens.
Speeding = endangering citizens.
Growing/Smoking pot (Also he had scales there - why would he need to weigh the pot? hmm.)
Blasting someone to death when he is immobile because his dogs are chewing on him. etc etc.
Unreasonable force.

The policeman obviously did not have his gun out or the dogs would have got it - why did he pull a stun gun?
The facts are the murderer blasted the police officer with lethal force and the police officer had a non lethal weapon.

The murderer did not know his rights - the policeman did not need a warrant.
Ignorance is no defense.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


really?

free to kill anyone? you want that?


like i said and what has been said, this was not a ghetto, there were probably 4 cops in the whole town.


the ash hole was growing pot, another lovely ron paul libertarian ideal that will just turn this country around for the good but guess what,

it still ain't legal yet!

"get off my LAWN!!!" bam! bam! lol, can't wait!




I find it ironic that the proponents of the murderer go through twisted logic trying to invoke constitutional law blah blah blah when the murderer seems to have no respect/knowledge for the law or citizens.

Driving when under the influence = endangering citizens.
Speeding = endangering citizens.
Growing/Smoking pot (Also he had scales there - why would he need to weigh the pot? hmm.)
Blasting someone to death when he is immobile because his dogs are chewing on him. etc etc.
Unreasonable force.

The policeman obviously did not have his gun out or the dogs would have got it - why did he pull a stun gun?
The facts are the murderer blasted the police officer with lethal force and the police officer had a non lethal weapon.

The murderer did not know his rights - the policeman did not need a warrant.
Ignorance is no defense.



Was the above quote the "twisted logic"you were pointing out?


Until the officer invaded this citizen's privacy the only suspected "crime" was a possible traffic infraction.

I guess a citizen complaint that his neighbor drove down his alley too fast was reason enough to snoop around the guy's home to look for something juicier to report, and get himself killed in the process. Yeah, that's what happens in a police state.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
They are painting the guy up as a "constitutionalist" who has been done wrong to. It's not his fault.
Right is wrong wrong is right. The police officer was trespassing on his property etc.
Constitution gives people the right to blast someone in the face.
The guy is a known felon.
is that ehough ?

(I see what you mean no it was not directed at you it was directed at the people defending his actions)


edit on 17-8-2011 by Limbo because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2011 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I don't know who is right. I just know that this world is like a rabid beast: if you're anywhere near it, be prepared for anything. Some people are better at it than others. That's all I know.
edit on 17-8-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 




link from original post


i don't think the dogs ever really attacked. here's why i think this:

the story says " 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 "

no where in the story does the reporter state the dogs and the shooter were handled. no where does the story state that animal control officers arrived to take the dogs away. no where does the story say the dogs bit anyone. not even the arresting officer. so, if the dogs never bit anyone, why shoot them?

the police chief had time to receive a call for back up, get in his car, drive to the scene, exit his car, assess the situation, briefly talk to both the officer and the home owner, then had time to say shoot the dogs? this doesn't sound like a dog attack to me. this story doesn't make sense.


the home owner wasn't even armed when they were talking.
" Police Chief George Bruneio, who arrived after Mr Lasso requested assistance, instructed him to 'shoot the dogs' and that's when the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and fired, authorities said "

so the homeowner even had time to get a shotgun.

i am not saying violence is the answer. what i am saying is the story leaves out a lot of critical information.

-subfab



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mademyself1984


. . .

I absolutely love when people who have no idea what they are talking about contribute erroneous statements as if they are fact. I AM a police officer.


Cool. I was an FTO. I guess I have no idea what I am talking about.



I AM telling you that if there is a call placed (emergency or not), and an officer is dispatched, there is no need for a warrant. Your statement, essentially says, suppose someone breaks into your home, beats you, steals your belongings, ties your family up at gunpoint, whatever...speeds off. You place a call and report it after the assailant leaves. You have a description of the individual and the license plate number to the car he is driving...we run that information. An officer is certainly going to come speak to you,


That would be an emergency. Exigent circumstances.


however, warrant or no warrant, the other officer(s) is/are going to the supposed perpetrator's home and at the very minimum taking him into custody.


Can't without an arrest warrant. The license plate and description are your probable cause. You can't just arrest someone willy-nilly if you did not see a crime take place.


I don't need a warrant for that.


Yeah, you do need a warrant, unless there is more exigent circumstances.


Regardless of who placed the call, where the call originated from, and where the crime took place. But please, continue offering your expertise, as obviously officer's in the field wouldn't have any idea of what we are saying...


Please learn the law and Constitution. This is the reason why most people hate cops. Most think that they are above silly things like the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks


. . .
no, i'm not a trigger happy mofo. we don't need that crap in society.


Damn those trigger happy mofo founding fathers, defending their rights.


. . .an armed person


Correction. Agent of the government.


wanting to talk to me


Correction. Conducting an investigation.


then blowing his head off under the libertarian constitutional ideal of me me me mine mine mine!


So the Constitution is just a selfish damn piece of paper . . .


there is no evidence lasso was trying to search the place.


He was conducting an investigation. 4th Amendment does not just mention property.

--The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,--


i have had cops come to my door as a teen for noise complaints and they never set a foot inside.


Apples and oranges. The noise complaints originated at your place of residence. This did not. The noise complaints was a disturbance in progress. This was not.


i did not shoot them in the face.


I am glad, because if you did, I would not be defending your actions, but condemning them.


trying to justify this murder on constitutional grounds is the friggin most idiotic thing i ever heard here at ATS.


So idiotic that you or anyone else can't form an argument against it. Those damn idiotic rights.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo
They are painting the guy up as a "constitutionalist" who has been done wrong to.


I seriously doubt he was a Constituionalist. But whether he was or was not, he still has rights. Same as Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, and Communists.


It's not his fault.
Right is wrong wrong is right. The police officer was trespassing on his property etc.


Again . . . what were the exigent circumstances to go warrant-less?


Constitution gives people the right to blast someone in the face.


Constitution gives people nothing except a list of a few of the rights that they already have. Nature gives us the right to defend our lives and property, even up to the point of death, against those who wish to encroach on those rights.


The guy is a known felon.
is that ehough ?


Do you have a source for that?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I just dont understand where in our education system they stopped talking about the Constitution and our rights as citizens. I remember having to quiz constantly on the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, the seperation of powers and the branches of government. All through elementry and middle school mind you.

Are the school not covering this in the curriculum anymore?

too many people here seem to have a Disney story attitude and not a realistic legal constitutional viewpoint of things anymore. Must be all those kids movies they are shoving down their childrens throats.

I recite the pledge of allegiance with my four year old son, how many of you anti-constitution posters even do that simple thing for your country? The simplest but wonderful thing you can do is pass on that pledge to your kids and teach them to take it seriously.

Officer Lasso's demise was his own doing
edit on 8/17/2011 by DYepes because: bad code



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by HenryTwoTimes
 


I don't see pointing a stun gun at my dog as a reason to pull out a shotgun and start blasting away. Even though I love my dog.
Phasers were set to stun, not kill. This man lost his life, police officer or not, over ignorance.


How is this ignorance? He was protecting his DOG. His friend. Although dogs are not as intelligent, I view them just as important as humans. In fact, even more important. Dogs are not #bags that go around pointing stun guns at people. Dogs are not destroying this planet, people are.

By the way, stun guns CAN kill you. You don't think that much electricity can't stop your heart? If that didn't kill you, the fall could break your neck or any other bone. Or you land on a sharp rock and that kills you. Look it up, the stun guns are programed to have WAY more electricity than it needs to take someone down. OH, and it WOULD OF KILLED THAT DOG if he did shoot it with the stun gun.

Yeah sure it's sad that some officer was shot and killed, but I feel no pitty for him. Get over it.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Limbo
They are painting the guy up as a "constitutionalist" who has been done wrong to.


I seriously doubt he was a Constituionalist. But whether he was or was not, he still has rights. Same as Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, and Communists.


It's not his fault.
Right is wrong wrong is right. The police officer was trespassing on his property etc.


Again . . . what were the exigent circumstances to go warrant-less?


Constitution gives people the right to blast someone in the face.


Constitution gives people nothing except a list of a few of the rights that they already have. Nature gives us the right to defend our lives and property, even up to the point of death, against those who wish to encroach on those rights.


The guy is a known felon.
is that ehough ?


Do you have a source for that?



If you go read the thread again and see what others+ I have posted you will see you comments are already answered.

edit on 17-8-2011 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Limbo
 


Nope. It has, in fact never been answered, and I have been here the whole thread.

--In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.--

So which of those exigent circumstances apply to this case?


edit on 8/17/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Limbo
 


Nope. It has, in fact never been answered, and I have been here the whole thread.

--In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.--

So which of those exigent circumstances apply to this case?


edit on 8/17/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)


Blah
If you were here the whole thread then why were you asking me to produce about his history of felony?




top topics



 
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join