Posted on 08/12/2011 12:20:01 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
FREEMANSBURG, Pa. (AP) -- Authorities say a police officer slain while responding to a domestic disturbance in a small eastern Pennsylvania borough had pointed a stun gun at two dogs before being shot.
The Morning Call of Allentown reports Freemansburg police Officer Robert Lasso had pointed at the attacking dogs when the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and fired the fatal blast Thursday evening.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
20 years ago cops didn’t shoot the dog, they either waited in the squad car until the owner put them away or dealt with them in a non-lethal manner. Now days they just shoot first and then give you the beat down. 20 years ago cops didn’t just come in your house and arrest you based on some woman’s word. If there was a domestic disturbance they would come in and try to get the two warring parties to cool down. No one was arrested unless they went at it with the cops as a witness. And they didn’t come into the house unless invited in. So what would I have the cops do? What they did 20 years ago, there is no reason for the police state that we have right now. People managed quite well before without cops crawling down their throats at the slightest hint of a problem.Wow. What a load of bullshit.
Police were better behaved in the past than they are now.
Oh yeah, I believe that one.
And for the record this (dead) cop did NOT SHOOT THE DOG, HE POINTED A STUN GUN AT IT.
This thread isn't full of just paulbots, it's full of demented mental retards.
I suggest that you research “exigent circumstances” and while you are at you may wish to look up the pages of case law dealing with “curtilage” and policeman having the authority to go where anyone in the general public has a right to go.
“Was the cop out of uniform?”
Not too many cops carry a Taser in their civies.
Every one of the morons on this thread posting in favor of the murder of this cop are playing SOME OTHER INCIDENT in their head, an incident that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDER OF THIS COP.
It’s really maddening to read the tripe being posted on this thread in the name of “property rights”, or “don’t shoot my dog”, or what? In some cases it’s a big “or what”.
30+ years ago I came crawling out of the window in my sister’s house. Looked up to see four cops with their hands on their holsters looking at me! The neighbor had seen me go in through the window. I was watching her house and dog while she was out-of-town and forgot the key to the door!
After a few questions they all realized the situation. One cop went around to the back gate to look at the barking dog and asked me “Is he dangerous?” I laughed and said “No - but he doesn’t like people in uniforms.” I’m glad that 30+ years ago they all laughed - today they’d probably shoot me and the dog!
Why don’t you go stick your head in a bucket and cool it down a little bit. Either that or go work off some of that aggression by giving your tongue a work out licking some jack-boots.
Cops were not angles in the past but they typically had a lot more restraint than they do now. Oh, and by the way tasers can be lethal, just google it dumb-$#% people die all the time from being tased.
OK, but suppose the owner is nowhere to be seen or simply refuses to secure the dog?
What should the cop do? Simply wait and hope that conditions improve? People could be dying inside that house while the cop is waiting around.
You do make a point about someone being arrested solely on one woman’s word. But I can see why it’s like that. Twenty years ago, too many women were brutalized and sometimes killed because there wasn’t enough “evidence” for the cops to step in and take decisive action.
As with anything else, there is danger of the pendulum swinging too much the other way, and then we end up with a police state, as you said. It’s a fine line here.
I’ve had run-ins with cops much more recently than 30 years ago and can describe behavior exactly as you describe. A good friend of mine is a good guy, a nice guy, a nice father and a trustworthy gentleman... and a cop.
It’s such BS to say cops were better then than now.
There are good cops and bad cops, then and now.
And yes there is an increased militarization of the police, especially in big cities, a trend that is yes, very bad, BUT THIS CASE IS NOT PART OF THAT TREND.
Don’t take everything you don’t like about the encroaching socialism of America and dump it on the head of some poor slob cop who was just doing his job.
All you got is dumbass. Poor thing.
American-Americans would wait for the trial to decide if the police story (which you read in the paper) is true or not, especially given the thug MO we have seen over the past year. But that is constitutional nonsense to complicated for “smart” people like you. :)
You are right and you are wrong. The several state legislatures made arrest in DVs mandatory based on various factors. Where I worked it was based on visible evidence of a recent assault. Prior to that we did just what you stated. Refereed DVs, many times giving a ride to one spouse or the other to another home to spend the night and cool off and, usually, sober up. Arrests were only made if there was no other choice. The N.O.W. gang and others hyped the violence in DVs and stampeded legislatures into passing the mandatory arrest laws. Now the jails are full of DV arrests, and many real crooks can’t be booked because there is no room at the inn.
So ‘exigent circumstances’ nullifies Amendment 4.
So, basically what you are saying is that the application of the 4th is really up to a judge?
So I guess the Constitution is really ‘open to interpretation’ depending on the circumstances then.
And here I thought what the Forefathers wrote is what they meant.
I guess I was a fool for believing that.
You’ve already convicted the cop and sentenced him to death... and your thuggish like-minded comrade has already carried out that sentence.
I’m not accusing you of being a dumbass... I’m only making an observation.
“So you think the cop merely got what he deserved?”
Not at all. In this case, the officer seems to have done nothing sufficient to justify the homeowner using lethal force.
I do hold that the ‘out of control officer syndrome’ would sooner or later bring forth a disaster. This case is possibly such a disaster.
Shooting an officer in the head with a shottie is indefensible unless the officer was about to shoot the homeowner without probable cause.
In this case, were i on the jury, I would find the defendant guilty.
Does the 4th amendment mean I can rob a bank and then run home and lock my door and they can’t come in and get me?
It doesn’t?
WHY NOT?
What, are you saying there are EXCEPTIONS!!!!
I’m calling Ron Paul on you!
He looks like Hollywood central casting crazed serial murderer from ‘CriminalMinds’. I have rarely seen evil and dysfunction so floridly diplayed.
That will all be decided at a trial.
In America, we decide guilt and innocence in a trial. Judges decide punishment at a trial. Cops are permitted the power of arresting people they preceive to be law breakers.
Cops who kill citizens and citizens who kill cops in the name of self defence, get a trial by judge or jury - their choice...unless they don’t as in the case with Union/corrupt cops, and then the killing is assumed to be an unjust cover up.
Quit being an hysterical ninny and go do some research. I don’t have the time or the inclination to deal with someone who refuses to learn anything and goes on silly rants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.