Police officer shot dead after pointing stun gun at man's dogs as he attended domestic dispute

Go buy one of those Stun Gun pistols that shoot the darts out and start making YouTube videos of you shooting dogs and tasering them.


You will go to jail for animal cruelty.


So how does a cop have legal authority to enter someone's property and shoot their innocent dogs with taser darts?


A dog is pretty small. You better believe some of the time those darts will hit the dogs eyes...and the voltage to the eye socket will cook their brains/painful torturous death.

A taser looks a lot like a handgun, the shooting was justified. Police do not have any right to shoot or disable an animal that acting in the manner in which it is naturally inclined to. Chances are, if you're set on by a dog, you're invading it's territory.

New guidelines need to be established severely restricting when a cop can use force, and intermediately dismissing them from any future police service if they step over the line.

If this is not done these incidents will undoubtedly increase in frequency until the people are actually fighting back. Police are not there to protect the public or to decrease crime, they are there to preserve the status quo and keep the poor from going up the hill and eating the rich. They are the ency who have sold out, a large percentage of them mentally defective and almost all are remarkably unintelligent and ignorant of the law.

Originally posted by annecares1
reply to post by CelestialSon

 

Then the guy calls his chief and gets permission to kill the guys dog?

Why would a cop who has permission to KILL a dog use a STUN GUN?

Let me see if I have this straight....

1: Man beats the hell out of his wife.
2: Wife calls police, because man is armed, dangerous and scum.
3: Police arrive.
4: Man's dogs pose threat to officer.
5: Officer pulls stun gun to protect himself against a potentially dangerous animal.
6: Man kill cop.
7: OP thinks cop is to blame.

Wow, #7 shows just how truly #ing stupid people can be. Fact.

I'd laugh if cops just stopped responding, and let the women die. Oh wait, they'd be at fault there too, right? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I guess some people are just idiots and love to hate. Ya just can't fix stupid, as evidence of this thread's original post comments.

Originally posted by CelestialSon
reply to post by HenryTwoTimes

 

Can't believe you're actually on the side of the shooter! The dog was most likely a threat and killing a human over giving a dog a shock don't even compare!

But on the converse, look what happens if you ATTACK a police dog!
Now try to tell me if there's justice in that!

He was not going to kill the dog. This Police officer did not deserve to have his life taken from him. Plain and simple as that. ~SheopleNation

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Let me see if I have this straight....

1: Man beats the hell out of his wife.
2: Wife calls police, because man is armed, dangerous and scum.
3: Police arrive.
4: Man's dogs pose threat to officer.
5: Officer pulls stun gun to protect himself against a potentially dangerous animal.
6: Man kill cop.
7: OP thinks cop is to blame.

Wow, #7 shows just how truly #ing stupid people can be. Fact.

I'd laugh if cops just stopped responding, and let the women die. Oh wait, they'd be at fault there too, right? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I guess some people are just idiots and love to hate. Ya just can't fix stupid, as evidence of this thread's original post comments.

You are getting like 3 different timeline crossed.

The incident with the wife was in the early years of the decade.

The timeline we know goes something like this:

1.) Shooter (Hitcho) is "speeding" down the alley.
2.) Resident on his street (Clancy) confronts him in an unknown location (unknown at this time). No one knows what is said or done.
3.) Clancy calls 911.
4.) Police show up to Clany's residence. Clancy directs the officer to Hitcho's residence, 100 yards up the alley (and road for that matter).
5.) Officer approaches Hitcho's residence from the alley (unnkown why he did not approach the front door).
6.) Hitcho demands a warrant, and tells the officer to get off of his property.
7.) Officer calls for backup
8.) Unknown what exactly happens next. Dogs attack, taser is brandished.
9.) Backup arrives (the chief of police. Some are saying that this is unusual, and he was not armed. Those claims are unsubstantiated at this time). Chief yells at officer to shoot the dogs.
10.) Officer is shot in the head with a shotgun, by Hitcho. His gun then jams.
11.) Chief tells Hitch to drop his weapon, Hitcho does not. The chief bum-rushes him and arrests him.
12.) Unknown when a second man in the house was arrested, but he is not saying anything.
12.) Officer is taken to the hospital, and a search warrant is gained for the house, where several firearms, illegal substances and paraphernalia, a spiked club, and a knotted tree branch is found.

reply to post by SheopleNation


And on the converse, the shooter did not deserve to have his rights violated.

There are two sides to everything.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Ok, So the Chief ordered the officer to shoot the dog? Still in my opinion, The officer did not deserve to have his life taken from him for the possible life of a dog. ~SheopleNation

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I understand your feelings, I have them myself concerning these Un-Constitutional domestic dispute Laws. My point is the officer's life is more important than the dog's. I am sure he had a family that loved him. ~SheopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation


I know he had a family that loved him.

It is quite heart-wrenching, and it is why I donated some money to the family.

But when dealing with constitutional rights and the law, it is best to leave the appeals to emotion out of the equation. Rights and most laws are black and white issues, and should not be clouded by how one feels about certain people.

And nothing of value was lost.

reply to post by HenryTwoTimes


Im on the cops side for this one.
This is a change for me because as of late I find myself siding with the poor guy getting his rights violated by uneducated, arrogant & aggressive cops.

BUT THIS IS WRONG - Even if he was going to shoot and kill your dog, it is no reason to kill him - he is a HUMAN BEING, he has a family, he may have kids and a wife, he has a mother and father and he was just doing his job.
If he was doing his job correctly or if the dog is like a family member to the shooter is irrelevant

- Anyone who chooses any human to die over any dog is mentally disturbed.

Hiding behind the "animal lover" blanket is no justification for this. If you can do this to a human and think you were justifed, you are not human, and you should not be able to claim human rights after you just disowned your species and showed total disrespect for those of another in favour of another species.

This is the ultimate for of Treachery as it is against your very species

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I understand your point. ~SheopleNation

I am truly at loss of words for those of you who are blaming the officer for his death! You need to be checked because your beliefs are not normal. This issue began as a domestic dispute. The cop went to the home to investigate the incident and was murdered for aiming a taser at two dogs which were likely about to attack him. Let me tell you something, whether a cop or not, I will kill the dog or dogs, no questions asked. I have three dogs and if my dogs were on the attack, I would expect the victim to defend themselves by any means necessary, even if they were killed. You guys have some very serious issues that need to be dealt with. I work for a popular package delivery company and was attacked by a rottweiler. I wish I had a gun because I would have shot it. I was doing my job and was attacked. As the dog jump for my face, I punched him in the throat and he collapsed. He survived the punch but I wish I would have ended his life because next it could be a child, your child. I wonder if people on ATS are just saying these things to get others blood boiling???? It is working!!!!!

reply to post by malachi777


Ahh yes.

The wall of text that tells us that rights mean nothing, and then brings up the "for the children" strawman.

Do you actually have anything to contribute?

reply to post by InterdimensionalWarrior


Okay, Mr. Interdimensionalweirdo, Let's say your neighbor has an aggressive pitbull and it is attacking your child because he/she walked into a neighbors yard. Are you saying you would not kill the dog? You are a fool!!!! I hope you do not have children because you are warped!

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Let me see if I have this straight....

1: Man beats the hell out of his wife.
2: Wife calls police, because man is armed, dangerous and scum.
3: Police arrive.
4: Man's dogs pose threat to officer.
5: Officer pulls stun gun to protect himself against a potentially dangerous animal.
6: Man kill cop.
7: OP thinks cop is to blame.

Wow, #7 shows just how truly #ing stupid people can be. Fact.

I'd laugh if cops just stopped responding, and let the women die. Oh wait, they'd be at fault there too, right? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I guess some people are just idiots and love to hate. Ya just can't fix stupid, as evidence of this thread's original post comments.

Your spinning this into something else.
No crime had taken place until the shooting.
In your scenario the officer has every right to control the situation.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

he was not beating his wife he had been speeding,the only time i found in one of the many articles i read on this subject that mentioned him hurting a family member was his son a few years prior as i dont think he had custody of said child and didnt live with the mother of the child the cops showing up had nothing to do with any ones wife getting beaten least not this time

Originally posted by SheopleNation
He was not going to kill the dog. This Police officer did not deserve to have his life taken from him. Plain and simple as that. ~SheopleNation

Star 4 U. and agreed