Police officer shot dead after pointing stun gun at man's dogs

[dmancornell]

Let the homeowner go, put the police chief in jail.

 

[sir-kind78]

I feel for the Officer involved. This is more of a case of many things wrong.

Property Owner/ Pet owner. things in my eyes hit a boiling point after he hears the supervisor order the officer to shoot his dog. He over reacts and pulls a gun.

Supervisor. Made this entire situation into a escalating use of force and orders to (punitively) execute someones beloved pet. Placed the officer out on a limb by dispatching him to the scene without proper back up. Ultimately this is all his direct fault. He should be tried next to the home owner.

Officer. listened and trusted his supervisor. Got stuck in a bad call made the best of it. Then the supervisor richards him in the buns. Ethically he did the right thing by pulling a taser instead of his firearm. Mistaken intentions/ fear of the property owner of injury or death of his beloved pet forces him to use the only thing he had to stand up against an armed assailant threatening harm to his "family" member.

I really feel for his family. He should have had back up and the supervisor shouldnt have made such a mistake. When does a disturbance complaint require excution of the animals?... Disturbing trend of officers shooting animals.

This is sad in all ways most of all for the family that lost a parent.

End of story, you have no right to go on someones property and then shoot thier (pets, kids, spouse) without just cause.

Sad ending for all those involved. Cops need to stop this abuse onto the people and trampling of their rights.

This is just a disturbance. No reason for force or for him to remain on the property if the owner wants him gone. The officer is now trespassing on private property.

Sad to say the property owner is going to get prison. The department loses a good officer, and the Supervisor gets the lime light and is a hero stained in scat.

 

[the puma]

pchewn,

Just because someone asks, tells, orders or otherwise instructs a police officer to leave doesn't mean that police officer has to leave. Also, the chief (why the f was the chief there, unless it's a four officer department) said to "shoot the dogs." It doesn't say the officer actually pulled a gun, just that the chief said something and BLAM.

Some questions I think are relevant before making an actual decision:
Was the officer going to actually do it?
What were the dogs doing and how were they behaving?
Mr Hitcho said "he tried to kill my dogs and pointed a gun in my face."....was this right when the shooting happened or before?
What does "he tried to kill my dogs" really mean? If the dead officer had out a "stun gun," that doesn't fit with the allegation he "tried to kill my dogs."
Did the officer point a gun at Mr Hitcho earlier during the incident, then holster his gun?

So many questions, and it seems many people just don't care to know the entire story.

 

[chariot13]

sir-kind78 wrote;
"End of story, you have no right to go on someones property and then shoot thier (pets, kids, spouse) without just cause."

I don't care what my kid has done, there will never be just cause or a right to shoot em. However, the spouse

 

[Gunner3456]

So IF this is true (officer asked to leave, officer points gun at homeowner and dog, police chief says "shoot the dog") -- then MAYBE it was justified for the homeowner to shoot the officer?

If the officers were called there due to a report, especially if by the woman, of a domestic disturbance, they don't have to and they won't leave if the man tells them too. As a matter of fact, if the man gives them any guff, he'll get cuffed. If the officers have reason to believe they need to be there, and are threatened by dogs...

Heck, I posted here maybe a year ago that I shot and killed a neighbor's rottweiler. I was running my excavator, putting in my sprinkler lines and that dog not only wouldn't let me get off my machine, he kept trying to come up on it and he meant to bite me. I pulled my handgun and killed him, dug a 6 foot hole immediately, pushed him in with the bucket and filled in the hole with the bucket and blade. But, that was on my property, we have a leash law, and I was well within my rights and I saw no other option. Every circumstance is different.

 

[the puma]

This is just a disturbance. No reason for force or for him to remain on the property if the owner wants him gone. The officer is now trespassing on private property.

"Just a disturbance." Really. I thought it was a domestic disturbance according to the article. I've been to hundreds (if not thousands) of these, and all are different. Some are nothing, some are pretty horrible. If I get called to one and I'm in the house or on the property investigating, I'm legally bound to investigate. If someone involved tells me to leave, that means nothing until I've investigated it enough to determine no laws were broken. It's what I'm required to do.

People involved in domestic disturbances are, far more often than not, overly emotion and not good at decision making. Sometimes deescalation just doesn't work. I'm not saying this was the case, just pointing it out. It's irresponsible to minimize why the officers were there. They had legal cause to be there and to be interacting with Mr Hitcho, and it ended horribly.

 

[Ranb]

The article is very short on facts. Here is another one. Police Officer Robert A. Lasso, Freemansburg Borough Police Department, Pennsylvania

He was attempting to use his Taser to subdue the dogs when their owner appeared and shot him without warning

.
I have read other articles that claim the owner siced the dogs on the cop and he was acting in self defense. Until there is more known about the situation, it is a bad idea to conclude that a police officer had it coming to him.

I am a straunch supporter of the RKBA, but a dog is a dog and a man is a man.

Ranb

 

[deadeye]

Pet = property.

Cop = Human being.

Pet owner shoots cop = lots of jail time without beloved pet most likely pet dead when released from prison, no money/home left from legal fees. Cops family without a father/husband.

Cop shoots pet/property unjustly = lots of money for damages maybe cop gets fired and lives a long life and pet owner gets new pet.

 

[chariot13]

I'll agree somewhat but im sure there are instances where a neighbor makes a false disturbance complaint of a barking dog, knowing full well when the officer comes up to the fence where the dog was quietly at before, that it will start barking at the officer as it should at anyone up on the fence or in this case the home owners back yard.

Then take into account a home owner that knows they have a neighbor like this & they decide not to waste their own time to see who is knocking on the door. It is within the homeowners right to privacy as well as a common idealogy of American property owners, to treat their home as their castle & not be bothered with answering the door to every yahoo that thinks their own bondage to a job (Authority, King etc...) supercedes their right to Liberty.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

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.

This part of the story raises some questions in my opinion.

If the officer had time to confront the dogs, call for backup, wait for backup to arrive and join him, and then for them to decide to shoot the dogs, then how much of a threat did the dogs really pose? Unless they were toothless dachshunds, obviously they were not attacking.

I'd really like more information, because from what I read it seems as though there were two oblivious officers against a distressed man.
When they announced the order to arbitrarily execute the dogs, they should expect a reaction from the owner.
Were they honestly thinking that executing the mans animals would defuse the situation and help lead to a peaceful resolution?

Obviously the owner is going to be prosecuted and convicted, but with with the power to come onto a persons property without permission and shoot animals, should come the common sense to handle the situation like the extremely volatile one it is.

I'm one of those people that value my dogs life extremely high. Enough to defend it with force.
If I were in a situation where my dog was about to be executed, I can almost guarantee that the situation would escalate from there.
On the other side of the spectrum, If I believe that any dog or person poses an immediate threat to my life, then I would not hesitate to fire my weapon.

I really believe that more facts are required before any concrete judgments can be made.

 

[FourTeeFive]

Interestingly the UK article seems much less biased than the ones I found in the USA. The USA articles seemed to convict the shooter, and some of them specifically brought up his guilty plea on charges from years ago. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Scott]

That is the law of the land my friend and you can disagree until your butt turns blue, it will still be the law

Animals are not just property are they would not be protected. In Africa you get shot just being caught in a game reserve. Here Bald eagles are protected as well as deer, elk, bear, cougar, cows, and so on. Shoot a cop dog and see if it is just property and steal a dog with a value of over a $1000 dollars and watch what happens.

Plus we have a right to protect our property don't we? I think we can...............

 

[oa98pistol512]

What it comes down to... No one likes to pay someone to intimidate and harass versus protect and serve ( my wifes favorite saying)... would you allow your gardner to threaten to shoot your dogs?Fyi marion county cop cars used to say to protect and serve on the side now they say a strength in your community definetly two different meanings their.

 

[deen_ad]

Police dogs are sworn officers just like a person who is a LEO. The homeowner will probably get jail time as well as a big attorney bill.

 

[chariot13]

In Pensylvania they have a Castle Doctrine for property.

"a law called "stand your ground" that allows people to use lethal force to defend their homes from the outside."

"(4) Persons residing in or visiting this Commonwealth
have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles."

"nor should a person be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person's home or vehicle."

 

[deen_ad]

Animals are not just property are they would not be protected. In Africa you get shot just being caught in a game reserve. Here Bald eagles are protected as well as deer, elk, bear, cougar, cows, and so on. Shoot a cop dog and see if it is just property and steal a dog with a value of over a $1000 dollars and watch what happens.

Plus we have a right to protect our property don't we? I think we can...............

Shooting to protect property is not legal, if you were in imminent danger of being killed you can protect yourself.

 

[hermannr]

pchewn,

Just because someone asks, tells, orders or otherwise instructs a police officer to leave doesn't mean that police officer has to leave. .

Puma, if a landowner tells a police officer to leave, he MUST leave unless he has a warrent, or observes a criminal offence in process...that is LAW. I know a lot of the police these days do not think they have to follow the written law, but that is the law.

If you, as a police office, are investigating a complaint, and the land owner tells you to leave, and you think you have more business there, I would strongly suggest you leave and go get a warrent, then come back and continue your investigation...that is if you want any evidence gathered to be worth presenting in court at trial.

BTW: I have total contempt for any dog owner that cannot control his animals. To me there are exactly the same as the parents of the kids in these mobs...no discipline.

My dog barks, I come to door, dog goes sits off to the side and shuts his mouth, completely. If I cannot take care of the problem, he is there to help, but he will not move until told to. That is a guard dog, not a yappy spoiled child.

 

[Gunner3456]

Puma, if a landowner tells a police officer to leave, he MUST leave unless he has a warrent, or observes a criminal offence in process...that is LAW. I know a lot of the police these days do not think they have to follow the written law, but that is the law.

If you, as a police office, are investigating a complaint, and the land owner tells you to leave, and you think you have more business there, I would strongly suggest you leave and go get a warrent, then come back and continue your investigation...that is if you want any evidence gathered to be worth presenting in court at trial.

Wow, are you wrong. If the officer was called for a domestic disturbance, he has to be sure everything is OK before he leaves and he has a right and a duty to investigate until he's satisfied.

Did you know that domestic disturbance calls are the most dangerous calls that cops get? This one kind of makes the point. They often run into people who are high on drugs or adrenaline or both, and in a very angry mood.

Get this. I don't like cops. I mean, I really don't like cops. That doesn't mean I'd have the guts to shoot one, especially when he's in the line of duty. I really don't want to go to prison or worse. This shooter is in a world of hurts and I wouldn't want to be him.

 

[Ranb]

Interestingly the UK article seems much less biased than the ones I found in the USA. The USA articles seemed to convict the shooter, and some of them specifically brought up his guilty plea on charges from years ago. What does that have to do with anything?

If the shooter is a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, then it could mean a lot.

Ranb

 

[hermannr]

Wow, are you wrong. If the officer was called for a domestic disturbance, he has to be sure everything is OK before he leaves and he has a right and a duty to investigate until he's satisfied.

Did you know that domestic disturbance calls are the most dangerous calls that cops get? This one kind of makes the point. They often run into people who are high on drugs or adrenaline or both, and in a very angry mood.

Get this. I don't like cops. I mean, I really don't like cops. That doesn't mean I'd have the guts to shoot one, especially when he's in the line of duty. I really don't want to go to prison or worse. This shooter is in a world of hurts and I wouldn't want to be him.

Is the "disturbance" between two humans, is is the disturbance the dogs? If the disturbance is the dogs there is no reason to pursue without a warrent to remove the dogs if necessary.

If the disturbance could possibly end in harm to another human, they you are right, there is a reason to stay and continue. (If you read what I wrote originally, I made provision for some criminal activity...domestic violence even between household members, is criminal activity...it is against the law.

A barking agressive dog is not on the same level, as violence between domestic human partners, do you not agree?

As to domestic violence being one of a police officer's most dangerous calls, yes, That would be logical. You are encountering people who are already out of control, and they want to be in control of the situation, their way, not necessarily your way. I can understand that, even though violence is not my prefered method of handling conflict. I am not a screamer, and I am not a fighter. I am a disiplinarian though, with my kids when they wer home, and always my dogs. Our one (of 5) daughter that could not play by the rules (we had very few rules, the most important was to show respect for their mother) was shown the door at the first legal moment. At 26 she came back and asked her mom to forgive her..she is now 40 and mom to 3 boys, and doing fine. Discipline works.