Police officer shot dead after threatening homeowner

[NoStateofMind]

Not by virtue of his shooting the dog, but in most instances the same person would pose a deadly threat to the K9 officers handling the dog, and it would likely be warranted to use deadly force by virtue of that.

in most instances the same police officer would pose a deadly threat to the homeowner handling the dog, and it would likely be warranted to use deadly force by virtue of that.

No?

 

[Jaskalas]

I had this situation mixed up with another 'cop needlessly murders the family dog' situation. ...

I fell for that trap as well.

It's clear that upon reading the circumstances I was wrong to judge this specific case on the merits of our national plight. I want policy to avoid such confrontations - but I also recognize the danger multiple large dogs pose to a person, the initial restraint the officer showed and the over reaching act of killing instead of helping him.

I think I'd say dog owners have a responsibility to diffuse the situation when allowed, and asking for help was such an opportunity. Under different circumstances I could stand by my initial reaction, but not like this.

OP, witness testimony leads me to believe this was Murder, and not one that I can excuse.

 

[NoStateofMind]

OP, witness testimony leads me to believe this was Murder, and not one that I can excuse.

And exactly what was that testimony? Unless I'm missing something (which we all might be) the witnesses "heard" a conversation. Did they see the act take place? What right did the law enforcer have to invade another mans property? Whatever argument occurred had apparently separated as Hitcho was in his home. Badge boys can ask all they want from the comforts outside his owned land and was advised to seek a warrant. Instead of leaving it alone (at this point peaceful) the thugs push forward anyways. Demanding he shoot the mans dogs. Now I don't know about you but this is inexcusable. You would not allow your neighbor to do that to you but the moment he's wearing a badge it's okay? Seriously?

 

[sao123]

WTF??? :hmm:

Did you really just compare police officers in the US to Nazi soldiers? :biggrin:

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

its time to start loading shotgun shells.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

in most instances the same police officer would pose a deadly threat to the homeowner handling the dog, and it would likely be warranted to use deadly force by virtue of that.

No?

No. Not in any way, shape or form. Like it or not, police and lay-citizens do not enjoy the same rights when it comes to the use of deadly force against one another. Personally I think this is probably a necessity in terms of an orderly society, but it is the truth, no matter how one feels about it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Like it or not, police and lay-citizens do not enjoy the same rights

They don't in general but at least you can see it and admit you support it.

when it comes to the use of deadly force against one another.

When Rights are not equal you create a separate class.

Personally I think this is probably a necessity in terms of an orderly society, but it is the truth, no matter how one feels about it.

Slave owners thought it was a necessity to have an underclass as well but that didn't make it any more legitimate or moral.

 

[destey]

Good to see a far right whacko taken down.

You sound like a teenager.

The statute simply gives the officer the protections during his legitimate functions that you have in yours. The officer is extended rights to act on behalf of the state and this just extends the protections to cover his duties. You don't have law enforcement duties so this doesn't apply to you.

An officer can investigate.
An officer can detain.
If you do this it's "tresspassing," and, "unlawful restraint." You don't get legal protection for these activities because you're not allowed to perform them.

"protections to cover his duties" you mean higher sentences for killing a cop, right?

If elevated punishment does inhibit police murders, then why is that punishment not raised for killing citizens as well?

That law tells me the punishment isn't high enough for killing a citizen, if raising the punishment is effective.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

It's intended to be a psychological thing.. And truly does go back to the 'militarized gang' mentality.


You don't fsck with gang members. If you do, revenge is swift and brutal.

The entire concept revolves around those aspects, and modern society is getting pretty fed up with it.

I'm looking forward to the next 10-20 years, when internet uploaded cameras are mandatory and hopefully laws are put in place which requires them to not roll over video.

 

[destey]

As opposed to the civilian judicial system where justice is slow, inconsistent and lacking?

How about instead of fixing specific cases (higher punishment for killing a cop), why don't they fix the issue- which is the punishment for murdering someone isn't high enough if raising it inhibits it more?

Or are they allowing light sentences for murdering avg citizens because there needs to be a second tier, which people are actually afraid to kill? "Well that person wasn't a cop, so its not so bad." Can't raise the punishment, because that would bring it up to the level of killing a cop, which needs to be above killing a regular person. They'd have to also raise the punishment of killing a cop, which seems to be the death penalty in california, so that's hard to beat. So maybe there needs to be a second, lowered tier of murder for us average people to give that buffer room so killing a cop is worse..

 

[alkemyst]

You really have to ask this question? When cops give you orders you obey them. If they shoot your dogs well, maybe you should have had better control over them in the first place. They're fucking dogs you idiot, not people.

Enjoy your death filthy criminal fuck stick. You deserve it.

Obviously the dogs did not truly pose a life threat to that cop. Also BTW, try and shoot a police dog; you will find out they have a higher level of rights than people do.

Perhaps one day if you end up dealing with a cop 'legally' killing your pets because they can; you will change your tune.

What's sad is how the public is such sheep to fall for this crap time and time again.

They cry out about acts against the police, yet at the same time break laws themselves and speak poorly of the police regularly.

Our people like to see their neighbors punished.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

My understanding of 1st degree is "in cold blood", premeditated. That's clearly not the case when your home is invaded with a gun in your face and the order is given to start shooting.

I am vehemently angry at the outcome of this, and the continued brutal aggression against American citizens by those who claim to "serve and protect" when the reality is stalk and murder.

If what went down in DC the other week doesn't count, how many more Americans must die to needless aggression before we stop it? Anyone who does not openly oppose this is inviting it to continue, is just waiting for it to happen to them or their loved ones.

Agreed in full. When you have a gun pointed to your head... you have a gun pointed to your head. It's not any more safe when the hands holding the gun is an officer, it's still a deadly weapon being pointed at your skull. Officer deserved it, the person the weapon was pointed at did not.

 

[destey]

Our people like to see their neighbors punished.

Talking to people on my street, I'm starting to think this is the truth. They call the police on each other all the time, about what I think is mundane stuff. I really think many americans hate their neighbors more than al-qaeda/terrorists.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Agreed in full. When you have a gun pointed to your head... you have a gun pointed to your head. It's not any more safe when the hands holding the gun is an officer, it's still a deadly weapon being pointed at your skull. Officer deserved it, the person the weapon was pointed at did not.

The only person who had a weapon pointed at him was the officer who was murdered, and whose killer is on death row. Even the dogs never had a weapon pointed at them.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The only person who had a weapon pointed at him was the officer who was murdered, and whose killer is on death row. Even the dogs never had a weapon pointed at them.

Sorry - than I am confused, if that's not the case I would reverse my opinion.

 

[alkemyst]

The only person who had a weapon pointed at him was the officer who was murdered, and whose killer is on death row. Even the dogs never had a weapon pointed at them.

The order was given to shoot the dogs dead despite them not being an immediate threat.

It's debatable at this time whether or not the officer had his gun drawn.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The order was given to shoot the dogs dead despite them not being an immediate threat.

It's debatable at this time whether or not the officer had his gun drawn.

This is incorrect. Officer Lasso was holding his Taser at the time the order to shoot the dogs was given, not his gun. While I don't know what the Chief giving the order intended (i.e., whether to shoot the dogs with the Taser or a sidearm), it is not clear he intended that the dogs be shot dead. You are also assuming, based on nothing in particular, that the dogs were not an immediate threat. Clearly the Chief believed they were. Hitcho was a shitbag who had ten dogs on a small property, and did not take clean up after them or feed them adequately. It seems entirely likely these were not the best-behaved dogs in the world.

It is not debatable whether Lasso had his gun drawn - he did not. He only had his Taser in his hand when he was killed. It's possible Hitcho thought the Taser was a gun, but even if that were the case it wouldn't have justified shooting Lasso in the back of the head.

Just so I fully understand what you're saying, are you saying it is or should be permissible to shoot a uniformed police officer dead because he poses a threat to your dogs?

I find it very strange that you seem to be adopting Hitcho's version of events as true when even his own friends testified against him at trial as to these issues.

 

[alkemyst]

Why are they so quick to kill animals that during an attack would probably retreat if you just kicked them in the face or something? Or just get bitten, a bit, and suck it up, since you are intruding on their turf, even if it's for a good reason. Unless we're talking about one or two breeds which are particularly vicious and unlikely to stop after a a swift kick in the head. Or unless you're absolutely sure you're at the right place and the dog owner is himself dangerous, then maybe it's justifiable, since worrying about your balls might be a little distracting, but i would probably consider the owner more dangerous than the animals.

No dog expert, but many of these cases involve animals that look like they'd be more irritating than actually capable of doing much harm.

Postal Workers take a lot of offense to the police doing this as they deal with dogs regularly without firearms.

The sad thing is legally a police officer can shoot your pets dead even if they are not being aggressive. The way the law is written is that as long as the animal interferes with the officers work; they can be killed.

There are stories of animals fleeing immediately and the officer actually hunts them down to 'punish' the homeowner who usually ends up being the wrong house.

 

[alkemyst]

This is incorrect. Officer Lasso was holding his Taser at the time the order to shoot the dogs was given, not his gun. While I don't know what the Chief giving the order intended (i.e., whether to shoot the dogs with the Taser or a sidearm), it is not clear he intended that the dogs be shot dead. You are also assuming, based on nothing in particular, that the dogs were not an immediate threat. Clearly the Chief believed they were. Hitcho was a shitbag who had ten dogs on a small property, and did not take clean up after them or feed them adequately. It seems entirely likely these were not the best-behaved dogs in the world.

For one, no one is going to be successful trying to use a tazer versus multiple dogs.

Police tend to make immediate threats at their convenience.

It is not debatable whether Lasso had his gun drawn - he did not. He only had his Taser in his hand when he was killed. It's possible Hitcho thought the Taser was a gun, but even if that were the case it wouldn't have justified shooting Lasso in the back of the head.

It was Hitcho and the Chiefs words versus each other after the fact. Hitcho claimed the officer had his firearm aimed at him and his taser at that dogs.

Just so I fully understand what you're saying, are you saying it is or should be permissible to shoot a uniformed police officer dead because he poses a threat to your dogs?

I find it very strange that you seem to be adopting Hitcho's version of events as true when even his own friends testified against him at trial as to these issues.

If an officer posed a threat to my animals or family, then yes I would.

Neighbors and 'friends' I have found unreliable in police situations. Heck in one burglary here the guys neighbors went on record that they were happy he was robbed because "who was he to have so many nicer things'. This was a guy that had those same neighbors over on weekends for food, drinks and enjoying those items.

He moved out of the neighborhood after that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It was Hitcho and the Chiefs words versus each other after the fact. Hitcho claimed the officer had his firearm aimed at him and his taser at that dogs.

If an officer posed a threat to my animals or family, then yes I would.

Neighbors and 'friends' I have found unreliable in police situations. Heck in one burglary here the guys neighbors went on record that they were happy he was robbed because "who was he to have so many nicer things'. This was a guy that had those same neighbors over on weekends for food, drinks and enjoying those items.

He moved out of the neighborhood after that.

The point is, Lasso didn't have a gun in his hand when he was shot - just a Taser. Why in hell you'd take the word of a dirtbag like Hitcho over that of his own friends and the physical evidence is a mystery to me. It's not as though the police were there just to harass - they were there because Hitcho was a known wacko who had threatened his neighbor with a weapon.

The fact that you say you'd kill a police officer for "posing a threat" to your pets just reinforces my perception that you and many other people in this thread are some strange hybrid of paranoiac and/or bullshit artist/Internet tough guy.

 

[alkemyst]

The point is, Lasso didn't have a gun in his hand when he was shot - just a Taser. Why in hell you'd take the word of a dirtbag like Hitcho over that of his own friends and the physical evidence is a mystery to me. It's not as though the police were there just to harass - they were there because Hitcho was a known wacko who had threatened his neighbor with a weapon.

The fact that you say you'd kill a police officer for "posing a threat" to your pets just reinforces my perception that you and many other people in this thread are some strange hybrid of paranoiac and/or bullshit artist/Internet tough guy.

Chill bro, my point was those dogs did not hurt anyone even after the event yet the officer was instructed to 'shoot' them.

And no, when SHOOT is used you can bet it's with a gun; not a taser.

Also let's not deny the politics in this with Northhampton not having a murder conviction in 30years+ until Morganelli landed two right off the bat.

The jury also found several reasons that would have justified Hitcho's use of deadly force but decided that was not if that offender was a law enforcement officer. He also had no previous record. The media had spun that out of control when the story first hit...people believed it based on how Hitcho looked and how innocent and almost cherub like Lasso looked that he had several run-ins with the law.

The real outcome/point of the trial was to say "our LEO's are off limits despite what they do".

A fair trial would never have been taken in the same town this happened in.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Still LOL'ing at DVC's defense of the gang member being that he "only had a tazer".


Cops often can't figure out the difference between a tazer and gun themselves, you expect a normal citizen to know?

From some distance, someone pointing anything that looks like a gun at a family member... Well.... I'm not going to feel terrible if the gang member ends up shot for it.

Again, they all made mistakes. ALL of them. But the impetus for all this, the thing that ignited it all, the very first "mistake", was made by one of our militarized gang-mentality police officers pointing a weapon at a dog and being ordered by another gangster to "shoot em".

 

[SpatiallyAware]

<snip>


The real outcome/point of the trial was to say "our LEO's are off limits despite what they do".

<snip>

Thankfully this sort of mentality is becoming less common with more cameras around. Historically, all evidence against the officer was "lost" and video "rolled over" (unless it benefits the LEO, then they can all of the sudden recover years-old footage)

But nowadays, you show the jury a video of a cop beating the shit out of some poor defenseless cowering citizen, or murdering a canine family member... Well.. The tides are turning quickly.

 

[blankslate]

Is the subject of brought up in the original post being discussed anymore?

Kind of doubt it.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Is the subject of brought up in the original post being discussed anymore?

Kind of doubt it.

Pretty sure we're all in agreement that the homeowner is a nut job.

It seems as though the topic being discussed here is whether or not it's ok for a LEO to go to a homeowner's house, who happens to be a guy who has a history with the local police department of mental instability, enter his gated backyard which contained two large dogs, then claim they are afraid of the dogs and shoot them in front of the unstable homeowner.

I mean legally we know it's ok. It's the moral aspect that most of us have issues with.

 

[Jaskalas]

Agreed in full. When you have a gun pointed to your head... you have a gun pointed to your head. It's not any more safe when the hands holding the gun is an officer, it's still a deadly weapon being pointed at your skull. Officer deserved it, the person the weapon was pointed at did not.

You've encouraged me to amend that post before anyone else reads just it.

The details of this specific case aren't the same as a typical home invasion. Ask yourself this, was the officer justified in protecting himself from the dogs, and did he show restraint by asking for help? I feel the answers are yes.

I understand this is a difficult case to measure, especially without all the details. Our crisis with militarized police is better argued elsewhere, and not for the defense of George Hitcho Jr..