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

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Why in the world are some people advocating the killing of the police officer?
I highly doubt an animal would die from a tazer shock, and besides, if I really wanted to make a big deal out of it, I would take it to court. Not shoot the man in the face like some irrational idiot. I don't care if your dog is your best friend, if an animal is seriously your best friend, you need REAL friends. Human preferably. A lawyer too I might add.

I'm sure most people hate cops, but lets be reasonable here. Killing a fellow human does not make sense to me ever.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
There is such little information in the article, but I gather the officer had no warrant and was on the mans property? If the cop was in the wrong then the blast to the face is completely justified.

If an officer has recieved a complaint and believes that a crime is being committed within the property or that there is a danger to life, then a warrant is unnecessary.

Apparently, the guy who shot him had been threatening neighbours and this was a domestic abuse call. The officer was within his rights to investigate. Or would you rather he wait around for a few hours until a Judge gace the warrant, only to find out the guy had shot/stabbed/raped/assaulted his wife/child/neighbour in the meantime?

There is no justification for this whatsoever and those that are placing a dogs life above a humans are pathetic and disgusting.

Originally posted by OsmosCosmos
Killing a fellow human does not make sense to me ever.

Do us all a favor and stay out of the military then.

Killing makes sense to some people. Like if some punk is going to torture your dog with electricity or if he sticks a gun in your face, or has wmds, etc.,

This thread is a frightening look into what sort of people I will have to protect my family from if S-ever-HTF, ones that take glee in someones death.....its like fun to you people. If it's such a joyous occasion, and its worth celebrating, go into the streets and celebrate, shout it at the top of your lungs for the world to hear. Heck why don't you go to the funeral and toast the mother, the wife and the children and say cheers to another "pig" dead, im sure they will be grateful since he was such a power hungry, elitist, nwo agent-dog killer.

Seriously, humanity has gone to !@#$.

I am quite sure the police do not go looking to shoot and kill everyone they encounter, but some they do. Likewise cop-haters, and in the heat of the moment with a bad encounter, a threat, stuff happens.

This is a tragedy and a waste, to be sure, something that never had to happen. Who made the first wrong moves? That seems to be a matter of interpretation that perhaps several levels of court will have to figure out.

The police these days seem to be justified to do whatever they wish, within rather liberal bounds. Last night's ATS Live where the host's self-described "copper" started the discussion. His response was predictable. The cop had every right being where he was and the owner should have been tending to his comfort and convenience while he wandered around the home's back yard, leashed the dogs, etc.

What did the neighbor tell the cop, "I'm in fear of my life every time Hitcho comes barreling down the alley."? With the scant detail that seems to be the story. It sounds like a little hyperbole but the officer should go talk to Hitcho at least. Do the newest Homeland Security/Patriot Act regulations give a pass to all law enforcement to invade private property on the slightest provocation these days? That seems to be what was implied last night. But that was not the only opinion stated .

Everyone on the show felt this was a senseless death that could have been avoided. But several felt if the police are going to carry these kinds of invasive powers then there are going to be a lot more. Americans are feedom-loving people and will defend their privacies and what is theirs.

You dont shoot someone over a dog. If the citizen was smart (which we obviously know he wasn't), he would have armed himself with a camera and recorded the situation. Not pulled out a shotgun. Over a frickin dog... people like him sicken me, i swear..

Originally posted by spliff4020
You dont shoot someone over a dog. If the citizen was smart (which we obviously know he wasn't), he would have armed himself with a camera and recorded the situation. Not pulled out a shotgun. Over a frickin dog... people like him sicken me, i swear..

Cops don't shoot dogs over no..., uh, well, yes they do sometimes. When they bust through your door, line your wife and kids up on the sofa, shoot Skippy your kids' cocker spaniel, cuff you and make you watch it all while they go rifling through your home before they realize it was the house across the hall that someone called and said they smelled marijuana smoke. Don't tell me this never happens. This sort of erosion of freedoms, and much of it brought to by The War on Drugs.

What price freedom? The cost of a few lives of soldiers and civilians? Many a government has thought so. Intruding forces need to subdue their objective before going in to take captives. When realizing he was to be going onto private property the cop should have known immediately to shoot both dogs before going in to discuss the possible traffic infraction with Hitcho.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Cops don't shoot dogs over no..., uh, well, yes they do sometimes. When they bust through your door, line your wife and kids up on the sofa, shoot Skippy your kids' cocker spaniel, cuff you and make you watch it all while they go rifling through your home before they realize it was the house across the hall that someone called and said they smelled marijuana smoke. Don't tell me this never happens. This sort of erosion of freedoms, and much of it brought to by The War on Drugs.

What price freedom? The cost of a few lives of soldiers and civilians? Many a government has thought so. Intruding forces need to subdue their objective before going in to take captives. When realizing he was to be going onto private property the cop should have known immediately to shoot both dogs before going in to discuss the possible traffic infraction with Hitcho.

edit on 21-8-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

Again, if the idiot civilian had armed himself with a camera he could catch all the actions on tape, sue and have officer dismissed and possibly brought up on charges. Sure cops make an occasional mistake serving warrants but this wasnt the case at all. He was there on a domestic call. And doesnt need a warrant and certainly not a hit from a shotgun.

reply to post by tezzajw


IMHO the dogs were worth more than the cop as they were protecting their owners property and since dogs cannot go on courses to ID a cop from a burglar then it is up to the cop to exerciser an intelligent solution to the problem. However a cop should be trained how to approach a suspect (whilst remembering he is presume innocent before guilty) house and property that have animals who have the right to be there. The cops have set precedents that the shoot and kill pets is acceptable ergo it is not unreasonable to accept that this cops intention was any thing less. It would be too late once the stun gun has been fired to defend these pets. We have all read in the papers seen on the news both in the US N UK that people die from stun gun attacks. I am an American living in the UK and seen many BBC reports over the years that cops fire stun guns at people who died from the shock and of course people are bigger and heavier than dogs. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a dog shot with a stun gun will survive the experience. Cops are never punished for wrongful death involving stun guns but death by stun guns is a fact of life or should I say death. If one is going to act to protect their animals then one needs to act when the intentions have been displayed. Considering the owner was not anticipating a cop to aim a stun gun at his animals then he can only use the tools that are on hand. The shotgun was their to protect the house from invaders, The cop went to this home with a possibility that there would be dogs whereas the owner had no clues to expect the cop. The last point was the cop went there with intentions the owner had no thus the cop was premeditated whereas the owner was purely spare of the moment defending. Cops do not second guess a man with a gun at a hold up for the same reasons. If the man was innocent of any crime I have no problems with him defending his family which includes pets. It is a shame but the fact is the cops have made it US against them through their actions over the last 25 years. Too many presumed innocents have suffered by cops who cannot wait for back up or animal control....... and many of these times the home owner was innocent of anything but living at the address which the cops showed up at. Just IMHO and I served 6 years for people freedom. The cop demonstrated bad judgment, lack of adequate training and the inability to solve a simple problem that I now question his true value as a peace officer and wonder what his record was like. A true tragedy. I would defend my pet as I was trained to protect my country and fellow countrymen I would use that training if I was innocent of any crimes to defend my pet. If I was not innocent then I brought this on my self and own up to that mistake as I put my animals at risk as well as my family members.

Fellow members of ATS what we must remember only one person present at the scene knew there would be confrontation. The homeowner had the shotgun not for the cop but home protection - he like all of us do not unless we are guilty of a crime expect a cop to show up to harm our pets who have a legal right to be there protecting the property of the owner.