Police officer shot dead after threatening homeowner

[AViking]

You're crazy. I love my pets too but I wouldn't kill someone over them. Especially a cop. this police officer had his tazer pulled out and was shot in the head. Defending the lunatic with the shotgun makes you look batshit crazy.

 

[DominionSeraph]

None of what you said is a reason why a copy's life should be treated as more than a civilian's.

First degree murder is first degree murder. There is no "treating his life as more," it is treating them as equal legal entities. If you take away the police's protection when conducting their legal activities, to treat the civilian the same you have to take away theirs. If you are allowed to shoot a cop while he's performing his duties, I can walk up and shoot you while you are legally walking about. That is equality.

The police's range of legal activities is simply broader, and they have this little thing called a "uniform" to tell you that this applies and thus their protections do.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

You're crazy. I love my pets too but I wouldn't kill someone over them. Especially a cop. this police officer had his tazer pulled out and was shot in the head. Defending the lunatic with the shotgun makes you look batshit crazy.

Like I said, I don't see how the killers profession changes what they have done, if anything its even worse if it is done by a cop.

 

[piasabird]

Should have let them shoot 1 dog first. Then he would have a self defense issue. Who is going to defend a dog murderer?

 

[Doppel]

First degree murder is first degree murder. There is no "treating his life as more," it is treating them as equal legal entities. If you take away the police's protection when conducting their legal activities, to treat the civilian the same you have to take away theirs. If you are allowed to shoot a cop while he's performing his duties, I can walk up and shoot you while you are legally walking about. That is equality.

The police's range of legal activities is simply broader, and they have this little thing called a "uniform" to tell you that this applies and thus their protections do.

It is only called first degree murder because he is a cop, so your first point is circular logic. I say it rises cop life above civilian, you respond no it doesn't; first degree murder is first degree murder, I point out it is only called first degree murder because he is a cop. Many laws do the same arbitrary thing with firefighters now, too.

Nobody said anything about making it legal to kill a cop. You realize there are states that do not prize a cop's life above a civilian's and that it is still illegal to shoot them, right?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Should have let them shoot 1 dog first. Then he would have a self defense issue. Who is going to defend a dog murderer?

Gang member apologists.


These people who support these militant cops disgust me.


No, the homeowner should not have shot the cop. But it is totally unacceptable to come on someone's property, point guns at their face, direct someone else to shoot the dog.... Over a 911 domestic call. There are times where you need a small hammer, and other times where you need a sledgehammer. The cop was an idiot, and from what I've read he got exactly what he deserved.

I mean really, there's only so much a man can take. Logically you shouldn't shoot the cop.

But there are a LOT of unstable people out there who don't think logically.... And you don't deal with them by threatening to shoot their dog.


I don't feel bad for any of the people in this situation. Not the power tripping dog threatening cop nor the psycho homeowner.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Some of you are mental children. Absolute mental midgets.

So if I'm beating my girlfriend over the head with a bottle and she manages to call 9-1-1 in a panic, and the cops show up, I should just be able to say "Fuck off...get a warrant, you're criminally trespassing", and if they insist on entering the property to check on my girlfriend, I grab my shotgun and blow their heads off? Because my dogs decide to attack?

Yep, that's pretty much what the idiots are saying.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Thanks, threads like this aren't complete until some dumbass like you goes full-retard. :awe:

You and the OP are a special kind of crazy.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

This happened a few years ago, and if I recall correctly the gang members jumped the fence into the backyard KNOWING that the dogs were back there barking. They then pulled out their weapons, and the older cop told the younger one to kill the dogs.


They did not knock at the front door, did not yell police, did not warn they were entering the property, did not give the guy any time to put his dogs up and tried to murder them. And THAT is what's ridiculous.

It's not like they walked up, the guy set the dogs loose, the cops had to shoot the dogs, and the guy executed the cop.

I'm also almost positive that this guy had some beef with the cops... He sued them in the past over some unrelated issue. The family tried to publicize it and got nowhere, then this happened. But that could be some other gang banger situation.


.....But, the same people supporting these gangsters are also the ones who try to justify them shooting dogs in cages because they're barking during a no knock warrant.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You can't "murder" a dog. Killing a dog, even if it's done out of cruelty, is not a justification for murdering anyone, much less a police officer. Here, the evidence appears to be that the dogs posed a direct threat to officer Lasso's safety, and it was probably perfectly justifiable to shoot them. Moreover, it was the police chief, not Lasso (the murder victim) who said to shoot the dogs, immediately before Hitcho blew Lasso's head off.

Apparently the defense here argued that Hitcho had brain damage and a resulting diminished capacity, and that his actions resulted from emotional distress about the danger to the dogs, and the jury accepted these arguments, but still found that death was the appropriate penalty. That is within their purview. Personally I don't see this as a death penalty case, but I do not generally favor the death penalty regardless. I would certainly support imprisoning Hitcho for life without parole. Murdering police is not something a society can afford to tolerate.

 

[desy]

Cops should have further protection under the law because we live by RULE OF LAW its what separates us from most 3rd world crapholes.
We ask the Police to go out and defend those values putting their lives at risk 'being shot in the back of the head for example' that most other people will never have to face.

I certainly have issues with abuse of authority but when an officer is acting under the duty we have authorized him to do as a society, one of the reasons they are willing to take a dangerous and ostracizing job is there are guaranties of safety and protection so they can perform their duty as expected.

 

[cyclohexane]

Yep, that's pretty much what the idiots are saying.

Sounds legit.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This POS deserves to die. He shot the police officer in the back of the head from a window.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/witnesses_testify_about_argume.html

Hitcho's friends speak
Two of Hitcho's friends, Robert Henninger and Todd Schaedel, testified they could hear Lasso and Hitcho speaking to one another from the alley behind Hitcho's home. Neither Henninger nor Schaedel saw the incident, but they said Hitcho was angry from the argument with Clancy.

"George, please come out and talk with me," Henninger recalled Lasso shouting to Hitcho inside his home.
​

"Control your dogs," Schaedel also remembered hearing.
​

Morganelli said in his opening argument that Hitcho did neither. Lasso, concerned by the growling bulldog and German shepherd in Hitcho's yard, turned his back to the house and pulled out his Taser stun gun. Lasso never fired the Taser; instead, Hitcho fired a shotgun through a window, striking Lasso in the back of the neck, the district attorney asserted.

Barbara Bollinger, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Lasso, testified about 80 shotgun pellets and a plastic wad ripped an inch-and-a-half hole in Lasso's neck and tore apart his brain stem, which controls breathing. The jury was shown a photo of the gaping wound, which was a few inches below Lasso's left ear.

 

[Tom]

This happened a few years ago, and if I recall correctly the gang members jumped the fence into the backyard KNOWING that the dogs were back there barking. They then pulled out their weapons, and the older cop told the younger one to kill the dogs.


They did not knock at the front door, did not yell police, did not warn they were entering the property, did not give the guy any time to put his dogs up and tried to murder them. And THAT is what's ridiculous.

It's not like they walked up, the guy set the dogs loose, the cops had to shoot the dogs, and the guy executed the cop.

I'm also almost positive that this guy had some beef with the cops... He sued them in the past over some unrelated issue. The family tried to publicize it and got nowhere, then this happened. But that could be some other gang banger situation.


.....But, the same people supporting these gangsters are also the ones who try to justify them shooting dogs in cages because they're barking during a no knock warrant.

I love dogs but the two scenarios you describe the police would be justified in killing the dogs.

The person who's responsible for the dogs being killed isn't the police in either case. It's people misusing dogs to not comply with the law.

 

[JEDIYoda]

dates august 13, 2011......is not a relevant article...

 

[Tom]

Um, what would give them "reasonable suspicion"? I don't think you are quite clear on the terms.

I gave you the facts. It's not my problem to convince you. Go ahead and believe whatever you want.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I love dogs but the two scenarios you describe the police would be justified in killing the dogs.

The person who's responsible for the dogs being killed isn't the police in either case. It's people misusing dogs to not comply with the law.

It's not as simple as that.


You're in your backyard grilling. Neighbors on the left are fighting. Neighbors on the right think it's you. They call 911 and say it sounds like someone's getting choked out.



The cops show up and there are a couple of big ole playful pups in the backyard. It is not acceptable for them to walk up to the fence with barking dogs, CLIMB the fence into the yard, and murder the dogs.



I know the situation didn't go down like that, but the fact is that every situation is different.... And in my opinion a gang member is absolutely should not climb a fence into a yard unless he has DAMN good reason to.

And cops should never have some defacto license to murder like many of you make out.


As far as first world countries go, our USA militarized gang police force is about the only place where something like this is considered acceptable.

 

[Tom]

It's not as simple as that.


You're in your backyard grilling. Neighbors on the left are fighting. Neighbors on the right think it's you. They call 911 and say it sounds like someone's getting choked out.



The cops show up and there are a couple of big ole playful pups in the backyard. It is not acceptable for them to walk up to the fence with barking dogs, CLIMB the fence into the yard, and murder the dogs.



I know the situation didn't go down like that, but the fact is that every situation is different.... And in my opinion a gang member is absolutely should not climb a fence into a yard unless he has DAMN good reason to.

And cops should never have some defacto license to murder like many of you make out.


As far as first world countries go, our USA militarized gang police force is about the only place where something like this is considered acceptable.

Your scenario wouldn't happen unless a. the dog owner ignore the police's request to control your dogs, or b. the police act unjustifiably.

If b. happens, the police get in trouble.

Police get in trouble all the time. But that has nothing to do with what happened in this case. And it has nothing to do with people not understanding what the police are allowed to do when they have a reasonable suspicion.

Ultimately what constitutes reasonable suspicion is up to a judge, but there is case law, and I'm asserting that a person reporting a possible crime is going to be enough to meet that threshold. It's not the same as probable cause.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Your scenario wouldn't happen unless a. the dog owner ignore the police's request to control your dogs, or b. the police act unjustifiably.

If b. happens, the police get in trouble.

Police get in trouble all the time. But that has nothing to do with what happened in this case. And it has nothing to do with people not understanding what the police are allowed to do when they have a reasonable suspicion.

Ultimately what constitutes reasonable suspicion is up to a judge, but there is case law, and I'm asserting that a person reporting a possible crime is going to be enough to meet that threshold. It's not the same as probable cause.

Police getting in trouble for shooting a dog?

LOL yeah right.

Police get in trouble.... 12 week leave of absence... With pay. Almost all evidence is "lost". Even if, somehow, a private citizen has video (which is what's required to prosecute someone on the other side of that thin blue line) then the cop is dismissed.

But, his records are sealed. So he moves to another state, and gets to start all over again.

And that process is BEST case scenario for justice.

You call that "getting in trouble"?


Even highly publicized cases... Like the gang member that pepper sprayed those kids.... "worst case" trouble is leave with pay, then they get a big fat check for their pain and suffering.

 

[z1ggy]

So a cop ordered his underling-cop to shoot dogs because they were barking? And then the dog owner heard this then shot and killed the cop?

Sounds like both people were idiots and got what they deserved one way or another.

 

[Tom]

Police getting in trouble for shooting a dog?

LOL yeah right.

Police get in trouble.... 12 week leave of absence... With pay. Almost all evidence is "lost". Even if, somehow, a private citizen has video (which is what's required to prosecute someone on the other side of that thin blue line) then the cop is dismissed.

But, his records are sealed. So he moves to another state, and gets to start all over again.

And that process is BEST case scenario for justice.

You call that "getting in trouble"?


Even highly publicized cases... Like the gang member that pepper sprayed those kids.... "worst case" trouble is leave with pay, then they get a big fat check for their pain and suffering.

There are police who get life sentences in prison for actions they thought were justified, but were wrong.

btw, when you refer to "gang member" I guess it's supposed to mean something but it makes you incomprehensible.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

There are police who get life sentences in prison for actions they thought were justified, but were wrong.

btw, when you refer to "gang member" I guess it's supposed to mean something but it makes you incomprehensible.

Very VERY rarely does that happen. I follow these cases fairly closely, and was involved in litigation involving gov't employees for a number of years. It's incredibly rare for a LEO to get a life sentence for anything they thought was justified while on duty. I actually don't know of any case where that's happened. Outright premeditated murder, sure. But "in the line of duty" crap is almost always excused... And that's assuming they can get any of the gang member buddy's to talk.

 

[Jaskalas]

dates august 13, 2011......is not a relevant article...

There is an ongoing systemic failure in our society which encourages unbridled police aggression. Such stories remain relevant so long as this aggression remains standard policy. Too many lives are being lost due to it.

It is clear that the order to shoot the dogs may have been the last straw, resulting in the home owner opening fire. Specific case details aside, who wouldn't shoot to save the lives of their family? To pet owners they are part of our family. You cannot attempt to harm them.

As a general principle I will side with anyone who protects them.

You're crazy. I love my pets too but I wouldn't kill someone over them. Especially a cop. this police officer had his tazer pulled out and was shot in the head. Defending the lunatic with the shotgun makes you look batshit crazy.

I'm quite curious about those who feel differently. Is it just pets you do not care for, or would you allow actual family members to be killed?

You can't "murder" a dog. Killing a dog, even if it's done out of cruelty, is not a justification for murdering anyone, much less a police officer.

I posit that, by strictly following the law, you'd tell us to allow them to do literally anything, even torture the animals if it were the case. I imagine the law does not allow us to interfere under any circumstance.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

You can't "murder" a dog. Killing a dog, even if it's done out of cruelty, is not a justification for murdering anyone, much less a police officer. Here, the evidence appears to be that the dogs posed a direct threat to officer Lasso's safety, and it was probably perfectly justifiable to shoot them. Moreover, it was the police chief, not Lasso (the murder victim) who said to shoot the dogs, immediately before Hitcho blew Lasso's head off.

Why isn't defending you dog justification for the use of deadly force? It's not hard to guess who's life the dogs family values more when it's their pet vs someone trying to harm them.

If I hear someone say they are going to shoot my dog I would absolutely feel justified in using deadly force against that person.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I posit that, by strictly following the law, you'd tell us to allow them to do literally anything, even torture the animals if it were the case. I imagine the law does not allow us to interfere under any circumstance.

"Interfere" is one thing. "Shoot a police officer in the back of the head with a shotgun" is something quite different. You are correct that I will say that even torturing dogs (which does not in any way resemble what happened here) would not justify murdering a police officer or anyone else.

The fact that you are resorting to such an absurd hypothetical (the torture of a dog) is a tell regarding the weakness of your position under the actual facts of this case. You and Spidey (er, I mean SpatiallyAware) are positing entirely alternative realities in order to reach the conclusion that Hitcho is some kind of heroic figure for sticking up to the big, bad police. What he actually is, is a cop killer who deserves to be, and has been, convicted of first-degree murder.