Slain Pa. officer had pointed stun gun at 2 dogs

Associated Press ^ | August 12, 2011

[samtheman]

This case has nothing to do with “trends in society” or fantasies flaring back and forth in your brain.

This scumbag would have shot a cop in the 2000s he would have shot a cop in the 1990s he would have shot a cop in the 1980s he would have shot a cop in the 1970s he would have shot a cop in the 1960s and he would have shot a cop in the 1950s, had he been his current age and mental state at that time.

Try not to put all the ills of socialism (which are many) on top of the (now blown off) head of this single cop.

THIS IS A CASE OF A BAD GUY KILLING A COP, NOT A STATEMENT ABOUT SOCIETY.

[Lazlo in PA]

Northhampton County DA John Morganelli just said he is personally prosecuting this guy and he is going for the Death Penalty.

In case anyone needed an update. The DA is a Rat by the way but pretty law and order.

[Scotsman will be Free]

So, you ignored my post except to refute what I didn’t state. Buhbye.

[samtheman]

Thanks for the update. And I’m signing off of this thread. I’ve had enough.

I feel very bad for the wife and 2 kids. If there is a fund, I will donate to it.

If you’re going to post to me information about the fund, thanks.

If you’re (the generic you, not you specifically, Lazlo) are going to post more tripe my way regarding how this is all the fault of society not respecting the rights of Ron Paul to smoke weed (or whatever) I’m not responding anymore.

Signing off and RIP Officer Robert Lasso.

[Bigh4u2]

I asked a question of another poster.

Not you

If you don’t like my posts THEN IGNORE THEM.

Here’s one of your very own descriptions back at ya?

DUMBASS!

[SaraJohnson]

You are acting like a hysterical Kook, saying I said things I never said. Cool your jets.

There will be a trial and then both sides of the story - the one you read in the paper from the police and the one the cop killer tells. Then it will be up to jury to decide - not you.

In our constitutional system of justice, when a cop kills a citizen or a citizen kills a cop they are supposed to be charged with a crime. Then there is a trial where evidence is presented and a jury decides if the killing was just (self defence) or not (murder). Judges issue punishment to the guilty; not cops.

What I said about police leaders needing to change rules of engagement for cops to get the whole process out from under corrupt police union officials is true. And if they don’t, they are losing the trust and support of the pulbic. Policing involves citizens as much as it does police officers. Citizens in America give police officers respect knowing police officers will respect the constitution are be honorable. The widespread violation that American civil contract is a problem and is dangerous for police officers.

[SaraJohnson]

Buh bye.

[trapped_in_LA]

Why does a cop have to enter the property if there is no visible crime being committed or no cries for help? There is none because for all we know it may have been a crank call.

And as far as women being brutalized and killed, you make it sound like it was the killing fields before these DV laws were passed. It wasn’t any worse than it is now (actually it might have been a little better because throwing certain types of guys in jail means that they will be coming after you once they get out). Feminist propaganda has convinced people that they need cops to bust down the door and arrest any guy within sight. Great, now you have jails full of guys that shouldn’t be there, now what? Will they are now “violent” offenders so we can’t let them out. So who gets pushed out to make room for them? Why the car thieves and other petty criminals that will rob you blind while you’re at work! That’s who!

There is no fine line, our rights are being violated in the name of protecting “poor innocent women” who probably had just as much to do with the fight as the guy did (statistically speaking women are just as likely to commit DV as men, only it the men who go to jail, not the women).

[Bigh4u2]

I did do research.

I looked up ‘exigent circumstances’ and ‘curtilage’ when you posted them.

And I looked up the 4th Amendment.

And then I asked a question,based on what I found.

But rather than state where I might be wrong, or wrong headed, you just want to be a prig and sit up on your horse.

I guess you’re entitled to do that, according to the Constitution.

But, based on my ‘research’, I wouldn’t bet on it for too much longer.

And BTW.

I never indicated to anyone here that I disagreed with the guys arrest.

Personally, I think he should swing just because he is depraving to small children of a father for being a jerk.

Even if the law protected him from someone coming on his property, it didn’t give the right to kill them.

Ok. I’m done.

[goodwithagun]

That's what I keep trying to tell other posters, but they just don't get it. If you read the article, the man told the cops to leave and not come back until they had a warrant. Good call. Then the police chief showed up when the man demanded to see a warrant and told the officer to shoot the dogs. At that point, the man shot the cop. I'm not saying that the cop deserved to die. Nobody did. Our founders included a Constitutional provision for due process and illegal searches and seizures for a reason. My brother in law was a victim of this. I posted in another point on this thread. Luckily he had video evidence that he was right. He received no apology from the LEOs because they were following the law: A DV call is made, a man gets arrested. He can't even sue them for violating his Constitutional rights.

[trapped_in_LA]

“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....”

True, a lot depends on what State/location you live in but it’s real easy for a woman to bruise herself and say he did this, then hello jail time! There are also a lot of States that have a “primary aggressor” law that basic mandates the arrest of the biggest/strongest person of the couple. Unless you’re talking about a lesbian couple this means that no what who is bleeding the guy is the one that is going to jail.

They have also married up these liberal DV arrest laws with loosing your 2nd amendment rights so this is a double whammy for a lot of guys.

[Oldpuppymax]

What exactly was the “disturbance” which necessitated cops going to the home? Why was the cop around back? What conversation had he with the homeowner? Why did the police chief tell him to “shoot the dogs?”

If a cop were on my property, uninvited and for no good reason, intending to shoot my dog, I would have fire at him too!

A whole bunch of info is missing from this story. But perhaps the police habit of shooting dogs will end with this story. Or at least be slowed a bit.

[TomServo]

Hi all. My name is George. I keep seeing the cop hating threads on freerepublic and keywords like donutwatch, and threads that call for shooting cops (like I did :-)), and I was just wondering.

Could I join here?

[Oldpuppymax]

What exactly was the “disturbance” which necessitated cops going to the home? Why was the cop around back? What conversation had he with the homeowner? Why did the police chief tell him to “shoot the dogs?”

If a cop were on my property, uninvited and for no good reason, intending to shoot my dog, I would have fired at him too!

A whole bunch of info is missing from this story. But perhaps the police habit of shooting dogs will end with this story. Or at least be slowed a bit.

[trapped_in_LA]

“That’s what I keep trying to tell other posters, but they just don’t get it. If you read the article, the man told the cops to leave and not come back until they had a warrant. Good call. Then the police chief showed up when the man demanded to see a warrant and told the officer to shoot the dogs...”

Didn’t read that in the one article that I skimmed thru but if this is correct then at the least the Police Chief needs to be charged with this cops murder as well. Unfortunately, for a DV call they don’t need a warrant to arrest him (who would have thought? no crime but they can arrest you anyway and kill the dogs to boot).

Don’t bother trying to convince the “law and order” types that the constitution should be followed in all cases or it won’t be followed in any. They have spent too long pickling in liberal/feminist propaganda and firmly support loosing our liberties in order to fight the various “wars” on drugs, terror, DV, whatever. I’m glad your bother had a video to back up his claim otherwise he would have been put through the grinder. And don’t expect any apologies, they never admit that they did anything wrong and never will. Even if a SWAT team raids the wrong house they typically will not pay for any damages.

I do hope though that your brother at least bounced that woman out of his house and life. If not then he really did not learn anything from his experience.

[trapped_in_LA]

Sorry Tom but he looks like a fairly normal guy to me, pretty typical of your standard blue collar working stiff in a small town. Try this one out for size, the face of a man murdered by 6 Fullerton PD officers. Warning, he’s not so good looking any more.

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mriggs/2011_08/ThomasKelly.jpg

[kaylar]

I think it's VAWA...Violence Against Women Act:

VAWA was drafted by then-U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden's office with support from a number of advocacy organizations including National Coalition Against Sexual Assault, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which described the bill as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades."[1] VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005.[2]

[TomServo]

Seen it.