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

i think someone has to prove he loved his dogs more than a human life.


i think i would not let my dogs go after an armed "trespasser" no matter how big they are.

he should have kept them in the house and if they came in, then it's a diff story.

maybe the cop heard something in the back of the house?

going past that to the front door to inquire doesn't sound smart to me.

ya, dirtbag saved his dogs from certain death and yours and my freedoms.

sorry, don't want that type of freedom.

reply to post by SheopleNation


You should at least try it, especially if you are getting into the Game Warden side. Try and avoid working as a city cop. Try for Deputy Sheriff or Deputy Constable, if warden is not your style.

Being a peace officer was the best job I ever had.

If things ever turn around, I would jump back in in a heart-beat.

If you point a weapon (never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot) at me (taser or not I dont think people make a distinction between taser and fire arm when they are scared) be ready for a fight, tasers kill people I do not think they have a pro rated dog tase setting either. If you point an un warrented weapon at me I will attempt to take it or be killed that is radical, i think it is radical that cops think that they can just calivent onto someones property and demand things even if you point a knife at me be prepared to die. Cops are part of the problem I bet if it was still against the law for a person of color to drink from an ethnically sanctioned water fountain the cops would be happy to serve a fine, show off your toys big boy you need to show your hard on crime, you criminals.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
. . . I know this, but what I am trying to figure out is whether or not a cop needs a warrant to enter a persons private property regardless of the situation, of if they only need warrants to search a persons private property.

A cop may enter property to interview. If asked to leave, the officer must comply, and if the officer wishes to continue the investigation, he must get a warrant to access the premises and/or continue the investigation.

There are exigent circumstances where police may operate without a warrant, and without the citizen's consent. These are:

*an emergency or crime in progress

*fear of destruction of evidence

*imminent danger of destruction or loss of life or property.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, the police typically have the right to search property and people without having to provide justification, or without having to secure the permission of a court."

Is that truly where you people want to live? Is this the world you want for yourselves, your neighbors, your co-workers? A world where a persons home is no longer their castle but is open to be searched and inspected at any time like it was a prison cell shakedown?

reply to post by fooks


Interesting that you do not want the 4th Amendment.

So you are fine with random searches by any government agent, for no reason whatsoever?

reply to post by HenryTwoTimes


my dog is my best friend too. i would rather me be gunned down than her.

daily shenanigans:

www.injusticeeverywhere.com...

Originally posted by fooks
i think someone has to prove he loved his dogs more than a human life.

That seems fairly self-evident.

i think i would not let my dogs go after an armed "trespasser" no matter how big they are.

Some people actually keep dogs in their backyards for protection.

maybe the cop heard something in the back of the house?

Like what? Engine revving? Tires squealing?

going past that to the front door to inquire doesn't sound smart to me.

Yeah, I agree. He should have gone directly to the front door to begin with.

ya, dirtbag saved his dogs from certain death and yours and my freedoms.

sorry, don't want that type of freedom.

Sure, evidently some people like living under an authoritarian regime. America seems headed that way. Right now, though, it is still being touted as a "free country." In my experience I would venture that it certainly is not the "free-est" country though.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps


supreme.justia.com...

its a realy realy long read full of legalese but its an OLD story of two cops one having to try to arrest the other and at the bottom it shows the legal ways civilians can make arrests and i guess its from the supreme court

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.


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.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by mademyself1984

 

Regardless of if a warrant was issued or not, if the officer was responding to a call, no warrant was needed.

The disturbance took place on the roadway, from what info we have. The officer has no right to go onto a persons property without their permission, unless:

*there is an emergency (i.e. crime in progress)

*life or property are in imminent danger

Granted, the officer can go up and try and question someone, but as soon as that someone says to get off their property, the officer must comply.

In your story, you could have easily gone inside, and told the sheriff to get a warrant, if he wanted to investigate further.

It baffles me how so many people wish to piss on the 4th Amendment.

edit on 8/16/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

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. 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, 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. I don't need a warrant for that. 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...

The life of 2 dogs that are most likely fun love3in caring and harmelss animals enjoying the life they have to the max that they possibly can or one man that helps other man. A man that is an animal too. That mates like a dog. That eats like a dog (ravenous). Let the man die...there are too many of us sick bastards *all humans* out there to worry about one man. Let the beautiful animals live.

reply to post by mademyself1984


Because a call has been placed by anyone does not at all give you the right to enter a residence or a gate. I think I am missing whatever part of the constitution gives you that right and I don't see it here, and since if you do come on my property uninvited and with the intent of violating said rights, I hope your life insurance policy is paid up. Just because someone called the cops, this does not majikally over-ride the constitution, and every one of you willingly violating it should be shot when you enter a residence illegally and armed with the intent to in some way harm family or animals.

I tell you this, if you think you can just trespass because someone with a hardon for revenge calls the #ing cops you had better read the laws a little more carefully, especially the several supreme court rulings where police officers were shot dead under just such circumstances in self defense or defense of property and the court ruled the shootings were justified

quote:ignorant cop:

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. 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.

end quote.

I don't give a rats ass who calls the police and what they report, without a warrant, probable cause or actually witnessing a crime occurring, you ARE NOT allowed to trespass onto private property to investigate without permission from the resident,

If you try to come on my property I will ask you to leave and if you don't I will call 911, report an armed trespasser, possibly impersonating a police officer and act accordingly from that pint forward.

You try that gung ho # around here in texas and you won't live long, the castle doctrine is very specific and gives the landowner the right to keep ANYONE he wants off his property and out of his home, using whatever force is necessary, and don;'t bother telling me I'm full of # because I have ordered police off my property while armed with an ak-4 7under just such circumstances where a neighbor called to complain about something I had supposedly done, and they not only complied, they never came back..It really irks me to see ignorant people like you being hired to enforce laws you done even know or respect. If you want respect. learn the law, realize that every law that applies to me applies to you as well. I can't go in your house because your neighbors said you did something wrong and you can't come in mine for the same reason either. Understand?

You have no special rights except as provided by public policy, which is NOT law. You can't take a statement or a phone call and make it into probable cause, that will get you killed friend, eventually.

Damn right!

A Domestic disturbance does not mean someone is beating their wife!! People get that through the skull.

Again, if everyone wants to defend authoritarian police storm troopers, it will only boost their ego. So continue to expect to see them go down against the armed citizens who do not just see the constitution as a peace of paper. Our armed populace, myself included will KILL AND DIE defending these rights, if nothing more to make a statement to the population that there are still those of us here ready and willing to fight against tyranny. That there are others who still believe in rights and liberty ready to stand side by side with anyone else who is willing to keep our country FREE!

Now onto the dogs. It was stated that the dogs were dangerous because they were defending the home against a criminal tresspasser. I have yet to read one of the articles that state the officer had actually been bitten at any point. but as an FYI, police dogs are trained to kill as well, does that mean they are abused? I like K-9 units, they can be very friendly, but dont be fooled they are quite dangerous themselves. This does not by any means mean they were abused.
So to say a mans dogs were abused by a derranged mental owner because his dogs could have killed the officer is quite ignorant.

Lassie could kill any one of us right now if we were caught off gaurd, does not mean everyone that owns her is derranged and mentally ill.

"Bruneio apprehended Hitcho, according to court papers, then returned to aid Lasso and found him lying with blood and glass around his body."

Wait where did the glass come from?

One less authoritarian in the world..

I don't have a problem with that.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by fooks

 

Interesting that you do not want the 4th Amendment.

So you are fine with random searches by any government agent, for no reason whatsoever?

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

but then again, i'm not a criminal growing pot and hide in my house setting my beloved children on an armed

person wanting to talk to me, then blowing his head off under the libertarian constitutional ideal of

me me me mine mine mine!

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

cops come to my door to search my house, they will need a warrant and probably will have one.

i 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.

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

let alone the quasi-children defense. ya, a real loving dad right there, eh?

"hey kids, go jump that cop, i'll stay inside with old rusty the 12 gauge"

"we showed him!"

the dogs will be shot and he will be on death row, just because of his excuses. good.

ya'll best be getting tickets to his trial soon.

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!