PDA

View Full Version : Man shoots cop for pointing stun gun at his dogs




VBRonPaulFan
10-29-2013, 08:12 AM
http://www.czhliw.com/2013/10/police-officer-robert-lasso-shot-dead-after-pointing-his-stun-gun-at-mans-dogs-mail-online



A police officer killed while responding to a domestic disturbance in a small eastern Pennsylvania borough had pointed a stun gun at two dogs before being shot, court records reveal.

Freemansburg police officer Robert Lasso had pointed at the attacking dogs when the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and fired the fatal blast on Thursday evening.

In police custody, the alleged gunman, 46-year-old George Hitcho Jr, said he had told Mr Lasso to get off his property and not come on unless he had a warrant, authorities said.

‘He tried to kill my dogs and pointed a gun in my face,’ Hitcho said, according to the documents. ‘I do not care if you a cop or not …Unbelievable.’

The officer had been responding to a report of a disturbance and ended up at the back of Hitcho’s house, authorities said.

Police Chief George Bruneio, who arrived after Mr Lasso requested assistance, instructed him to ‘shoot the dogs’ and that’s when the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and fired, authorities said.

Mr Lasso, 31, a married father of two, was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead a short time later.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has ordered flags in the Capitol complex and in Northampton County to be flown at half-staff to honour Mr Lasso.

Mr Lasso’s family said they were devastated.

‘Robert, he was so good,’ said his mother, Elsie Stem. ‘He was so loved, especially by his kids. Now they have to grow up without a daddy. It’s not fair.’

Mr Lasso’s funeral will be held on Tuesday. Yesterday a procession was held in his memory as his body was transported from hospital to a funeral home.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 08:16 AM
at the alleged attacking dogs.

Icymudpuppy
10-29-2013, 08:17 AM
I noticed that Officer Lasso, "Ended up at the back of Hitch's House". Why was he trying to assault Mr. Hitch's dogs when the incident he was supposedly responding to was not at that house?

Got what he deserved, seems like.

tod evans
10-29-2013, 08:20 AM
'Bout damn time!

I'd love to be on that jury, Mr. Hitch would be awarded damages.

phill4paul
10-29-2013, 08:24 AM
Most people like to avoid jury duty. This is one jury I would LOVE to sit on.

ETA: lol. Beat to the punch.

jkr
10-29-2013, 08:26 AM
PIGS 4057
DOGS 1

at least it wont be a shut out

brandon
10-29-2013, 08:26 AM
This story is a couple years old, not sure why they published it as if it just happened.

brandon
10-29-2013, 08:28 AM
The guy has been sentenced to death

phill4paul
10-29-2013, 08:29 AM
This story is a couple years old, not sure why they published it as if it just happened.

Yep, Hitcho was sentenced to death for murder.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 08:29 AM
Got what he deserved, seems like.

An old story,, was posted and discussed here long ago.

George Hitcho Jr is sentenced to Death for defending his home against a State invasion and assault.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html

"I think the jury's verdict sends a high affirmation that police officers are off limits,"

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 08:30 AM
better article

http://articles.mcall.com/2012-05-14/news/mc-freemansburg-cop-murder-trial-opening-20120514_1_lasso-police-chief-george-bruneio-freemansburg

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 08:32 AM
Yep, Hitcho was sentenced to death for murder.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html

Damn that's harsh considering it wasn't premeditated murder.... don't fuck with the State opressors.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 08:33 AM
This story is a couple years old, not sure why they published it as if it just happened.

clicks, to fire us up.

RJB
10-29-2013, 08:34 AM
Deleted (beaten to the punch for posting the update story.)

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 08:47 AM
better article

http://articles.mcall.com/2012-05-14/news/mc-freemansburg-cop-murder-trial-opening-20120514_1_lasso-police-chief-george-bruneio-freemansburg

That does have more boot licking statist spin.

I would not call it "better"

erowe1
10-29-2013, 08:52 AM
An old story,, was posted and discussed here long ago.

George Hitcho Jr is sentenced to Death for defending his home against a State invasion and assault.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html

That is chilling.

dannno
10-29-2013, 09:25 AM
Is he dead yet?? That is fucked up.

dannno
10-29-2013, 09:30 AM
What the hell?!?! First degree murder? And they are saying that Hitcho is the one with brain damage or diminished intelligence?? Where the fuck are we living..

Red Green
10-29-2013, 09:31 AM
That's fucked up. What was it about "Get off my property" that the pig did not understand?

A video would have been nice. Word to the wise: if you don't have surveillance cameras on your property, get some. They're not very expensive and it's particularly good if you have pups because you can check up on them while you're at work.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 09:31 AM
My family is very familiar with the guy who shot the cop. He has some mental issues. Even some of his own relatives weren't willing to defend him. Public opinion here is very much against Mr. Hitcho, as one might have surmised from the comments. I wouldn't absolve Hitcho of all blame here, but there is definitely a double standard here that should worry anyone.

dannno
10-29-2013, 09:46 AM
My family is very familiar with the guy who shot the cop. He has some mental issues. Even some of his own relatives weren't willing to defend him. Public opinion here is very much against Mr. Hitcho, as one might have surmised from the comments. I wouldn't absolve Hitcho of all blame here, but there is definitely a double standard here that should worry anyone.

No, cops should know that it is NOT ok to go on somebody's property who has nothing to do with the crime they are working on and then shoot the property owner's dogs. He had a clean criminal background. It just sucks the cops didn't learn the correct lesson from all of this.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 09:47 AM
Yep, Hitcho was sentenced to death for murder.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html

As someone who has stated support for capital punishment in the past, this is definitely making me think.

Sentenced to death for defending himself? Wow.


Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has ordered flags in the Capitol complex and in Northampton County to be flown at half-staff to honour Mr Lasso.

If I were in that state at that time I'd light a flag on fire.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 09:48 AM
My family is very familiar with the guy who shot the cop. He has some mental issues. Even some of his own relatives weren't willing to defend him. Public opinion here is very much against Mr. Hitcho, as one might have surmised from the comments. I wouldn't absolve Hitcho of all blame here, but there is definitely a double standard here that should worry anyone.

You're a pathetic excuse for a "Rothbardian."

Of course his relatives weren't willing to defend him. They were probably cop-worshipping scum just like most of America.

Absolutely disgusting.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 09:49 AM
He has some mental issues. .

A common response to anyone that refuses to comply with the statis quo.

He had long hair and tattoos=mental issues.
Alternate Lifestyle=mental issues.
Wants to be left the fuck alone=mental issues.

I read the stories,,several of them,,when this story broke.

Seems there was this asshole neighbor that didn't like the hippie living in the neighborhood.. Made it his business to fuck with him at every opportunity,, and called the cops after a confrontation (that included "mooning" but no violence).

Cop show up after a call about "speeding" in the guys alley/driveway. Cop trespasses and threatens,, draws a weapon and is shot.

Asshole neighbors are the reason I sold my Half Million Dollar home in the Florida Keys.

Keith and stuff
10-29-2013, 09:53 AM
Another reason to end the death penalty.

asurfaholic
10-29-2013, 10:05 AM
Edited.. Didnt realize old story...

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 10:06 AM
Another reason to end the death penalty.

While I can sympathize with this, would it really be much better if he were sentenced to life? If anything I think "Another reason to end statist police" would make more sense.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 10:15 AM
That does have more boot licking statist spin.

I would not call it "better"

It's better. It actually sources material. OP article is shit journalism with "Libertarian" label attached.

Keith and stuff
10-29-2013, 10:27 AM
While I can sympathize with this, would it really be much better if he were sentenced to life? If anything I think "Another reason to end statist police" would make more sense.

The death penalty has been ended in state after state. The thing you are pushing for, well, the opposite is happening in every single state.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 10:31 AM
The death penalty has been ended in state after state. The thing you are pushing for, well, the opposite is happening in every single state.

True. Your point?

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 10:36 AM
As someone who has stated support for capital punishment in the past, this is definitely making me think.

derp



Sentenced to death for defending himself? Wow.

If I were in that state at that time I'd light a flag on fire.

He was not defending himself.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 10:38 AM
While I can sympathize with this, would it really be much better if he were sentenced to life? If anything I think "Another reason to end statist police" would make more sense.

Yes. Death penalty is a waste of money for taxpayers (lawyers love $ it I'm sure) and it's irresponsible to allow the government to kill citizens.

limequat
10-29-2013, 10:41 AM
How is this Murder 1???
Murder 1 requires premeditation. It's literally impossible.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 10:59 AM
derp



He was not defending himself.

Defending his home and property..(dogs)

If you think the threat was only to the dogs,, you do not understand police.

He would have been threatened next after the dogs were shot.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 11:03 AM
Defending his home and property..(dogs)

If you think the threat was only to the dogs,, you do not understand police.

He would have been threatened next after the dogs were shot.

That's a pretty big leap. The cop was holding a stun gun. From what I read his dogs were the ones in imminent danger, when the other cop yelled, "shoot the dogs".

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 11:10 AM
A common response to anyone that refuses to comply with the statis quo.

He had long hair and tattoos=mental issues.
Alternate Lifestyle=mental issues.
Wants to be left the fuck alone=mental issues.

I read the stories,,several of them,,when this story broke.

Seems there was this asshole neighbor that didn't like the hippie living in the neighborhood.. Made it his business to fuck with him at every opportunity,, and called the cops after a confrontation (that included "mooning" but no violence).

Cop show up after a call about "speeding" in the guys alley/driveway. Cop trespasses and threatens,, draws a weapon and is shot.

Asshole neighbors are the reason I sold my Half Million Dollar home in the Florida Keys.

Let me clarify. I was on mobile at the time I typed my first post, and my thoughts weren't quite clear yet. I apologize. I simply meant to respond to dannno's baseless assertion that Mr. Hitcho had no brain damage whatsoever. The guy had issues stemming from a series of motorcycle accidents, and he was violent towards his wife and kids (likely why almost none of his family members were willing to stand by him). Does that justify the death penalty? Of course not. What it suggests is that he had a diminished capacity to understand the consequences of killing Mr. Lasso, which actually suggests to me that he doesn't deserve the death penalty (which is unjust in the first place, but I'm simply playing along here for the sake of argument). So I'm not disagreeing with anyone here... just trying to flesh out things that weren't necessarily reported. It's not just a case of some loner who was misunderstood by his neighbors.

There are very few instances of police abuse here that escalate to this extent. Life is quiet and the level of "police abuse" is noticeably lower here. People generally keep to themselves, and someone like Mr. Hitcho would likely have been tolerated were it not for the violent outbursts (themselves stemming from factors outside of the poor guy's control; he needed medical attention and wasn't able to get it due to limited financial means, I'm sure). The cops around here typically have nothing better to do than harass people. This is actually the first "cop-shoots-dog" case that I've seen from this area.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 11:14 AM
That's a pretty big leap. The cop was holding a stun gun. From what I read his dogs were the ones in imminent danger, when the other cop yelled, "shoot the dogs".

So,, after shooting and killing the man's dogs inside his yard and for no good reason.. (Tazing is pretty ineffective,,and there was more than one)

What do you think the cop is going to do? Just leave? Or look for the next target?

The cop had no evidence of any crime,, simply an unfounded accusation of driving too fast in his fucking driveway. (The alleyway was the mans driveway)

The Cop had absolutely no good reason to be there.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 11:19 AM
Who cares if the threat was only to the man's dogs? heck, who cares if it was just to his TV? If you threaten someone's property, you don't have any right to protection while you are threatening their property. I'm not necessarily condoning the use of violence in all cases where it is permissible, but if one person aggresses against another person's property, and that person uses lethal violence to protect what is his, its pretty obvious that the initial aggressor is the only one who is an aggressor in any sense.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 11:26 AM
So,, after shooting and killing the man's dogs inside his yard and for no good reason.. (Tazing is pretty ineffective,,and there was more than one)

What do you think the cop is going to do? Just leave? Or look for the next target?

The cop had no evidence of any crime,, simply an unfounded accusation of driving too fast in his fucking driveway. (The alleyway was the mans driveway)

The Cop had absolutely no good reason to be there.

Agree, cop should have never entered his property... let alone his backyard w/ dogs. Why not use the front door? Unless, and I am speculating here, the cops were fearful of this man and didn't trust him answering the front door.

Disagree, that the dead officer wanted to kill the dogs. He had his stun gun in hand. The other officer was the one who yelled "shoot the dogs." Would the dogs have been killed? Chances are it might have happened.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 11:27 AM
There are very few instances of police abuse here that escalate to this extent. Life is quiet and the level of "police abuse" is noticeably lower here.

Pennsylvania is one of the shitholes of abuse I have been watching since the G20.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYoyv2Gm1I

There are quite many stories out of there.

Czolgosz
10-29-2013, 11:27 AM
haha, one of you guys, for sure:

Eric October 29, 2013 at 2:21 pm
If I’m on the jury, this guy goes free. When a trespasser is on your property, and they don’t leave when you tell them to, and they go on to threaten you and your dogs with deadly weapons, what else are you supposed to do? Just sit there and let them do whatever they want to you and your property?


:D

kcchiefs6465
10-29-2013, 11:30 AM
Agree, cop should have never entered his property... let alone his backyard w/ dogs. Why not use the front door? Unless, and I am speculating here, the cops were fearful of this man and didn't trust him answering the front door.

Disagree, that the dead officer wanted to kill the dogs. He had his stun gun in hand. The other officer was the one who yelled "shoot the dogs." Would the dogs have been killed? Chances are it might have happened.
Right.

So you agree this man was defending himself and property from unwarranted aggression, and that the charges are only there because of a man's profession. Especially considering he received the death penalty.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 11:31 AM
Who cares if the threat was only to the man's dogs? heck, who cares if it was just to his TV? If you threaten someone's property, you don't have any right to protection while you are threatening their property. I'm not necessarily condoning the use of violence in all cases where it is permissible, but if one person aggresses against another person's property, and that person uses lethal violence to protect what is his, its pretty obvious that the initial aggressor is the only one who is an aggressor in any sense.

Your analysis is missing the issue of proportionality. If you tap me on the shoulder while I don't wish to be disturbed (let's just say for the sake of argument that you are aware that I don't wish to be disturbed), and I turn around and blow you away with a shotgun, is my response justified? You knew you would be committing aggression, you went ahead and did it anyway, so you're the only aggressor, according to your analysis.


I'm not necessarily condoning the use of violence in all cases where it is permissible
I hope you realize how wishy-washy this statement is. Why isn't such a reaction permissible in all cases? You pretty clearly explained in your last sentence that you do in fact think it's justified on the grounds of self-defense.


Pennsylvania is one of the shitholes of abuse I have been watching since the G20.
It's a big state; Pittsburgh is more than 4.5 hours away from where this incident occurred. I don't disagree that the larger cities have issues, but what state's larger cities don't? Still doesn't change the fact that the local culture is rather live-and-let-live.

Red Green
10-29-2013, 11:34 AM
You're a pathetic excuse for a "Rothbardian."

Of course his relatives weren't willing to defend him. They were probably cop-worshipping scum just like most of America.

Absolutely disgusting.

That's pretty harsh for someone who has a different take on the circumstances of this incident. I for one will never shed a tear over a dead pig, but sometimes the actions of those in response to the pigs can be excessive. It could be very well that this was the case. I don't think RG should be impugned over her take on the circumstances.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 11:34 AM
Your analysis is missing the issue of proportionality. If you tap me on the shoulder while I don't wish to be disturbed (let's just say for the sake of argument that you are aware that I don't wish to be disturbed), and I turn around and blow you away with a shotgun, is my response justified? You knew you would be committing aggression, you went ahead and did it anyway, so you're the only aggressor, according to your analysis.


You're seriously comparing breaking into someone's home with "Tapping someone on the shoulder?"

no, of course it wouldn't be OK to blow someone's head off with a shotgun for tapping you on the shoulder. And that would be vengeance, which is very different by its nature, not just degree, from defense.


I hope you realize how wishy-washy this statement is. Why isn't such a reaction permissible in all cases? You pretty clearly explained in your last sentence that you do in fact think it's justified on the grounds of self-defense.

If someone grabbed my TV and ran, I wouldn't shoot him in the back to recover my TV. Its not worth it to me. I don't think that it should be worth it to anybody. I wouldn't feel justified ending someone's life over a TV.

But let's say somebody chose to do so? Would he be a criminal? No, of course not.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 11:36 AM
That's pretty harsh for someone who has a different take on the circumstances of this incident. I for one will never shed a tear over a dead pig, but sometimes the actions of those in response to the pigs can be excessive. It could be very well that this was the case. I don't think RG should be impugned over her take on the circumstances.

It has nothing to do with the fact that they were cops. I don't give a crap about that. And I don't think all cops should die either.

What I do hold is that if you break into someone's home and threaten their property (That they were dogs in particular doesn't honestly particularly matter to me, although I know it does to most other people, and that's fine) a homeowner absolutely has the right to use lethal violence to protect himself. Anyone who defends the aggressors is evil and should repent.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 11:37 AM
You're a pathetic excuse for a "Rothbardian."

Of course his relatives weren't willing to defend him. They were probably cop-worshipping scum just like most of America.

Absolutely disgusting.

"RonPaulFaninGa" Neg repped this.

Showing that he's in the same boat as RG.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-29-2013, 11:38 AM
The death penalty has been ended in state after state.

Really? It's still legal in 30-something states.


"RonPaulFaninGa" Neg repped this.

Showing that he's in the same boat as RG.

Yeah, I did negative rep. your unhinged personal attack against a rather-benign comment.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 11:42 AM
You're seriously comparing breaking into someone's home with "Tapping someone on the shoulder?"

no, of course it wouldn't be OK to blow someone's head off with a shotgun for tapping you on the shoulder. And that would be vengeance, which is very different by its nature, not just degree, from defense.


If someone grabbed my TV and ran, I wouldn't shoot him in the back to recover my TV. Its not worth it to me. I don't think that it should be worth it to anybody. I wouldn't feel justified ending someone's life over a TV.

But let's say somebody chose to do so? Would he be a criminal? No, of course not.

Multiple states have laws against what can be termed as "excessive self-defense". People shooting other people in the back for stealing a TV may very well go to jail for doing so, and I think a strong case can be made for jail time, depending on mitigating factors. Again, the scenario is too oversimplified for us to arrive at any real conclusion.

As for the "vengeance" part, good luck trying to prove that was my motive as compared to self-defense. Vengeance seems like a rather subjective criterion to me.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 11:43 AM
Yeah, I did negative rep. your unhinged personal attack against a rather-benign comment.

Oh please. If the cop wasn't a police officer 90% of the country would be ticked off at her comment. The ONLY reason she could get away with a comment like that is because it was a guy with a badge.

Its painfully obvious who the real victim here is, and its not the guy that was righly left dead at the door.

Red Green
10-29-2013, 11:44 AM
It has nothing to do with the fact that they were cops. I don't give a crap about that. And I don't think all cops should die either.

What I do hold is that if you break into someone's home and threaten their property (That they were dogs in particular doesn't honestly particularly matter to me, although I know it does to most other people, and that's fine) a homeowner absolutely has the right to use lethal violence to protect himself. Anyone who defends the aggressors is evil and should repent.

While I agree with you on principle with regards to property, I believe that there is an onus on the individual protecting his property to avoid violence if possible, that is not needlessly escalate the situation. She thinks this guy was a hothead. We don't know exactly what went down but she think the guy might have overreacted, which is possible. Her take on the matter should not really be grounds for calling her "pathetic". Not everyone who is involved in the liberty movement is going to see every set of circumstances in the same light, but I think we all (mostly) stand for the same set of principles and as such it would be nice if we could have disagreements without disparaging each other.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 11:47 AM
Multiple states have laws against what can be termed as "excessive self-defense". People shooting other people in the back for stealing a TV may very well go to jail for doing so, and I think a strong case can be made for jail time, depending on mitigating factors. Again, the scenario is too oversimplified for us to arrive at any real conclusion.

Wow. Seriously, just wow. Let this stand on record. I want NOTHING to do with ANYONE who believes this crap.

I don't think any commentary is necessary on this. its self-evidently disgusting.

Your supposed mentor, Murray Rothbard, proves the absurdity of this position:



Absolute pacifists who also assert their belief in property rights—such as Mr. Robert LeFevre—are caught in an inescapable inner contradiction: for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against attack, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him. To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property.




You are falling into the trap. You are showing that you don't really believe in property rights.

Now, do I believe that the least violent means possible of protecting your property should be pursued? Of course. But that isn't the point here. Especially in cases where burglary is "legal" like when police break into people's homes kill people's dogs.
[QUOTE]As for the "vengeance" part, good luck trying to prove that was my motive as compared to self-defense. Vengeance seems like a rather subjective criterion to me.

I think its obvious in the case you mentioned.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 11:48 AM
It's a big state; Pittsburgh is more than 4.5 hours away from where this incident occurred. I don't disagree that the larger cities have issues, but what state's larger cities don't? Still doesn't change the fact that the local culture is rather live-and-let-live.

And I am a very long way from Detroit,,but I can still see the expanding Police State in my rural area..
It is not just the big Cities.(Though they are obviously worse) They just get more coverage.

And it is not just Pennsylvania,, it is everywhere.. I had just noticed several from there,,as I was watching things.
Police are out of control nationwide.. And it is only getting worse.. mostly because they have been allowed to become such.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 11:49 AM
While I agree with you on principle with regards to property, I believe that there is an onus on the individual protecting his property to avoid violence if possible, that is not needlessly escalate the situation. She thinks this guy was a hothead. We don't know exactly what went down but she think the guy might have overreacted, which is possible. Her take on the matter should not really be grounds for calling her "pathetic". Not everyone who is involved in the liberty movement is going to see every set of circumstances in the same light, but I think we all (mostly) stand for the same set of principles and as such it would be nice if we could have disagreements without disparaging each other.

You have a costumed enforcer who breaks into someone's home and threatens to kill their dogs (Even ignoring the emotionalism behind the fact that its a dog, this is breaking and entering and theft.) The man defends his property with lethal violence. he is sentenced to death.

A confessing "libertarian" defends the police.

Calling her "Pathetic" was probably an understatement. "Wicked" would probably be more suitable.

Next thing you know we'll be saying that war is "Just another one of those things we can disagree on." It is not.

The ONLY reason she can possibly get away with this statement, as I said, is because it was a police officer. Nobody would ever think of saying what she said otherwise.

As such, she has no place in the liberty movement. None.

69360
10-29-2013, 11:50 AM
No, cops should know that it is NOT ok to go on somebody's property who has nothing to do with the crime they are working on and then shoot the property owner's dogs. He had a clean criminal background. It just sucks the cops didn't learn the correct lesson from all of this.

Hitcho was the one they were investigating. He was reported to be speeding in the alley behind the house and had a confrontation with his neighbor, the neighbor called the cops on Hitcho.

It was not murder 1, there was no premeditation, so he shouldn't have got the death penalty.

Don't call the cops is the lesson here.

phill4paul
10-29-2013, 11:53 AM
Much speculation on many posters. This is one reason why I wish I were on the jury. From what it seems this all happened in a very short time frame. The cop that was killed was shot from behind. This means that Hitcho may not have known that the cop was using a taser instead of a firearm. Especially when the other cop said "shoot him." Not "stun him." I do know that if the situation were somehow reversed. If an individual was going to stun a police dog and was shot in the back of the head that the cop would not have received a death penalty.

kcchiefs6465
10-29-2013, 11:54 AM
..... and theft.....

As such, she has no place in the liberty movement. None.
I don't like people who take that which doesn't belong to them. No matter the inane justifications thereof.

I'm not enough of a megalomaniac to cast them out of anything, though, much less a diverse, voluntary, association.

JK/SEA
10-29-2013, 12:00 PM
Don't call the cops is the lesson here.

unless your dog has a terminal condition, and you want to save money from a veterinarian fee on euthanizing your animal...

SeanTX
10-29-2013, 12:01 PM
Hitcho was the one they were investigating. He was reported to be speeding in the alley behind the house and had a confrontation with his neighbor, the neighbor called the cops on Hitcho.

It was not murder 1, there was no premeditation, so he shouldn't have got the death penalty.

Don't call the cops is the lesson here.

Yes, that idiot neighbor set this all in motion, then when the cops arrived they stupidly decided to escalate a non-situation , all because Hitcho didn't want to talk to them and said "come back with a warrant." That officer had no business snooping around the guy's back yard, and the dogs were just doing their job. It's too bad the cop was killed, but as the badge lickers like to say when a mundane is killed by the police -- "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 12:02 PM
Right.

So you agree this man was defending himself and property from unwarranted aggression, and that the charges are only there because of a man's profession. Especially considering he received the death penalty.

I think that has been made very clear.



"I think the jury's verdict sends a high affirmation that police officers are off limits,"

phill4paul
10-29-2013, 12:03 PM
Yes, that idiot neighbor set this all in motion, then when the cops arrived they stupidly decided to escalate a non-situation , all because Hitcho didn't want to talk to them and said "come back with a warrant." That officer had no business snooping around the guy's back yard, and the dogs were just doing their job. It's too bad the cop was killed, but as the badge lickers like to say when a mundane is killed by the police -- "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

"Come back with a warrant."

Seems a reasonable request to me. And one that may well have de-escalated the situation.

Red Green
10-29-2013, 12:06 PM
You have a costumed enforcer who breaks into someone's home and threatens to kill their dogs (Even ignoring the emotionalism behind the fact that its a dog, this is breaking and entering and theft.) The man defends his property with lethal violence. he is sentenced to death.

A confessing "libertarian" defends the police.

Calling her "Pathetic" was probably an understatement. "Wicked" would probably be more suitable.

Next thing you know we'll be saying that war is "Just another one of those things we can disagree on." It is not.

The ONLY reason she can possibly get away with this statement, as I said, is because it was a police officer. Nobody would ever think of saying what she said otherwise.

As such, she has no place in the liberty movement. None.

I think as a movement, especially if we hope to win over public sentiment, we need to eschew violence when possible. If we take black-and-white positions like you do here, we end up looking like a bunch of blood-thirsty, violent individuals which is no way to win over public sentiment. The pigs have already shown themselves to be that, and they are losing the public relations battle and we're winning, in part because people see us as largely peaceful and benign.

If I am to take your position (he was threatening a man's property and therefore lethal force was called for), wouldn't it be similarly the "proper" thing to do to pull up alongside a pig writing out a traffic ticket to some poor schmuck and put a bullet in his head? After all the pig was trying to steal from someone right? So using lethal force to stop that theft was reasonable, as far as I read your logic.

Some of us think we need to gauge our response based on the severity of the crime being committed by the pigs. And also, it would be best if we pick our fights. RG probably leans towards what most of the liberty movement is about and that is peace.

Now I have not read the particulars but it appears the pig was shot in the back. That means to me that the dude got the drop on the pig with a shotgun. How many people are going to argue with someone who got the drop on them with a shotgun? Not many. You give them a chance to bugger off, I daresay they will. The pig was probably killed with no warning. Again, I kinda see this as excessive, but that's me and I guess according to you I'm no friend to the movement either.

aGameOfThrones
10-29-2013, 12:13 PM
I think as a movement, especially if we hope to win over public sentiment, we need to eschew violence when possible. If we take black-and-white positions like you do here, we end up looking like a bunch of blood-thirsty, violent individuals which is no way to win over public sentiment. The pigs have already shown themselves to be that, and they are losing the public relations battle and we're winning, in part because people see us as largely peaceful and benign.

If I am to take your position (he was threatening a man's property and therefore lethal force was called for), wouldn't it be similarly the "proper" thing to do to pull up alongside a pig writing out a traffic ticket to some poor schmuck and put a bullet in his head? After all the pig was trying to steal from someone right? So using lethal force to stop that theft was reasonable, as far as I read your logic.

Some of us think we need to gauge our response based on the severity of the crime being committed by the pigs. And also, it would be best if we pick our fights. RG probably leans towards what most of the liberty movement is about and that is peace.

Now I have not read the particulars but it appears the pig was shot in the back. That means to me that the dude got the drop on the pig with a shotgun. How many people are going to argue with someone who got the drop on them with a shotgun? Not many. You give them a chance to bugger off, I daresay they will. The pig was probably killed with no warning. Again, I kinda see this as excessive, but that's me and I guess according to you I'm no friend to the movement either.

He was warned.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 12:13 PM
Just so my position is clear.. I am not an anarchist.
I am a constitutionalist.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

And Legal precedent,, on self defense

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt


Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Cap
10-29-2013, 12:19 PM
I love my dogs. My dogs are part of the family, part of my home, they are my property. Once the officer was asked to leave the premises because he had no warrant and the officer didn't, it would appear that the officer was committing a crime. Any resulting violence should be on the officer.

Is it not the case that if in the commission of a crime and someone dies as a result of that crime, is it not the standard that the person committing the crime is held responsible regardless if they actually actively were the ones who committed the act or not?

Seems like this guy has a case for an appeal with new lawyers.

Red Green
10-29-2013, 12:23 PM
He was warned.

He's dead so it's not like we know that as a fact. In fact, in light of the fact he was shot in the back with a shotgun, I have to wonder if he really wasn't warned or he was that much of an idiot. A guy comes out with a shotgun and tells you to get off his property, I daresay virtually anyone would be backing off at that point.

kcchiefs6465
10-29-2013, 12:27 PM
Just so my position is clear.. I am not an anarchist.
I am a constitutionalist.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



And Legal precedent,, on self defense

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt
Do you happen to know which of those cases was of a woman being unlawfully arrested by a police officer? A guy walked over, pulled out a gun and told them they need to prove what crime she had committed. In the ensuing moments he killed one, and shot another. It was ruled that he was well within his rights to inquire about the obvious unlawful detention he was witnessing and that he was well within his rights to use the force he did in repelling the attackers. I've read about it before but the name slips my mind.

phill4paul
10-29-2013, 12:28 PM
Once the officer was asked to leave the premises because he had no warrant and the officer didn't, it would appear that the officer was committing a crime. Any resulting violence should be on the officer.

And this to me is the heart of the matter. The cops had not witnessed a crime. They had no "probable cause" of anything really. Just a witness testimony of what? "Mooning?" Once asked to leave and obtain a warrant it was on them to do so.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 12:29 PM
Seems like this guy has a case for an appeal with new lawyers.

Unfortunately,,he had a Public Pretender.. and no competent defense.

aGameOfThrones
10-29-2013, 12:29 PM
He's dead so it's not like we know that as a fact. In fact, in light of the fact he was shot in the back with a shotgun, I have to wonder if he really wasn't warned or he was that much of an idiot. A guy comes out with a shotgun and tells you to get off his property, I daresay virtually anyone would be backing off at that point.

He was warned, fact.

Red Green
10-29-2013, 12:47 PM
He was warned, fact.

I'm playing devil's advocate here but all we have is the guy who was convicted side of the story. If the cop had lived he would have probably lied his ass off, so that would have been no help either. Like I said, put cameras up on your property. At least then you have some objective record of what happened.

fisharmor
10-29-2013, 01:23 PM
http://dcemp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/kangaroo-court.jpg
Unfortunately,,he had a Public Pretender.. and no competent defense.

69360
10-29-2013, 01:33 PM
Yes, that idiot neighbor set this all in motion, then when the cops arrived they stupidly decided to escalate a non-situation , all because Hitcho didn't want to talk to them and said "come back with a warrant." That officer had no business snooping around the guy's back yard, and the dogs were just doing their job. It's too bad the cop was killed, but as the badge lickers like to say when a mundane is killed by the police -- "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

I wouldn't call it a non-situation. Around here a guy speeding around would get a warning from the neighbors. If he kept at it, he might come out the next morning to 4 flat tires. No need to call the cops.

While I don't think the cops should have been on his property and don't think this was murder, I'm not completely sure Hitcho was blameless in all this. Possibly it could have been manslaughter with a mitigating factor of his decreased mental state due to head injury. He should not be on death row and I think a good lawyer could have brought an effective defense. I don't think I can form an opinion without knowing more of the truth of the incident. Did he think the cop was going to shoot his dog with a firearm or a taser. If it was a gun, I think a defense of life and property argument is viable. The cop was told to leave and come back with a warrant prior to the threat to the dog. At that point all they had on Hitcho was hearsay about speeding, probably true, but hearsay none the less from the neighbor. I don't believe that 3rd party hearsay is admissible in speeding cases in PA.

PaulConventionWV
10-29-2013, 01:42 PM
Damn that's harsh considering it wasn't premeditated murder.... don't fuck with the State opressors.

It was a god in costume, dontcha know.

AFPVet
10-29-2013, 02:10 PM
It was a god in costume, dontcha know.

"An assault on one of the King's soldiers is the same as an assault on the King himself." — Braveheart

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 02:43 PM
At that point all they had on Hitcho was hearsay about speeding, probably true, but hearsay none the less from the neighbor. I don't believe that 3rd party hearsay is admissible in speeding cases in PA.

Speeding.. ?
As I recall from earlier stories,, it was an alleyway that led to Hitcho's home.
What is the speed limit in an alley/driveway? I doubt it was posted,, and also doubt that a short distance from road to home was very fast.

Blameless? perhaps not.. he could ignore the continuous harassment from the butinski neighbor. Apparently (allegedly) he showed him the ass he could kiss.

69360
10-29-2013, 03:09 PM
Speeding.. ?
As I recall from earlier stories,, it was an alleyway that led to Hitcho's home.
What is the speed limit in an alley/driveway? I doubt it was posted,, and also doubt that a short distance from road to home was very fast.

Blameless? perhaps not.. he could ignore the continuous harassment from the butinski neighbor. Apparently (allegedly) he showed him the ass he could kiss.

Alleyways in PA are public roadways. Most of the older smaller towns will have them running up the length of middle of the block with the garages behind the houses facing the alley. So it would be 25 mph like any unposted residential zone. And they would be as long as the block maybe 1000 to 2000 feet, a car could easily get above the limit in one.

Still the neighbor could have handled it without calling the cops.

DamianTV
10-29-2013, 03:12 PM
Never Call The Cops.

Nuff said.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 03:22 PM
Still the neighbor could have handled it without calling the cops.

The neighbor could have minded his own business.

Oh.. and I have a 1/4 mile of unpaved driveway,, Only the Snowmobile in wintertime excedes 15 mph.. but you are welcome to destroy your vehicle attempting to push that.
Going stop to stop in a city block on a rough unpaved surface,, I doubt he would exceed 25mph.

And I doubt that anything he did would please an asshole neighbor.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 03:34 PM
Ultimately, this is a sad story for several reasons. The thing with cases like this is that the details are really all just hearsay, especially to people like us who don't especially trust the word of the authority figures over the others. Going by what I know of this man and his family, I have to conclude that if nothing else, he was the victim of a bad set of circumstances.

I think the core of the issue here is Mr. Hitcho's poor impulse control; certainly the childhood abuse and brain trauma he suffered may have contributed to his judgment lapses. I have mentioned that the neighborhood he lived in is pretty predisposed towards a "live-and-let-live" attitude, but people can only tolerate so much. He was doing a lot of things to piss his neighbors off; partying, drinking, starting fights, growing marijuana openly in his yard, etc. etc. Obviously they felt like they had to call the police on him several times. As sad as that is, it is the reality.

The Morning Call article is the source I would trust the most, and in the article they mention that Mr. Hitcho and this cop had had several "pleasant" interactions before; with the cop stopping to pet Hitcho's dogs, etc. etc. Their two families had history and knew each other, so this incident has a layer of intimacy that I find pretty interesting. That's why I can only assume Hitcho snapped after learning the police had been called on him yet again.


"George, please come out to talk with me," Henninger a passenger in Hitcho's pickup truck recalled Lasso asking Hitcho before he was shot.

"Control your dogs," Lasso also told Hitcho, according to Todd Schaedel, a friend of the defendant who was charged with lying to police after the shooting, but took the stand Monday for authorities.


So... I guess my point is that if we take the story at face value, as reported (what incentive would Hitcho's friend have to paint the cop's request as reasonable?), I don't see how this is a simple cop-planning-to-gun-down-guy-in-cold-blood kind of thing. The two of them had family history and they were on (somewhat) friendly and reasonable terms from time to time.

Hitcho's support network, his family, and the medical system ultimately failed him. He should have had help controlling his impulses. The system failed the victim, Mr. Lasso, who likely thought he was justified in arresting Hitcho for drugs and probably contributed to any animosity. Perhaps the argument could be made that the neighbors should have realized Hitcho had mental issues.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 03:53 PM
, according to Todd Schaedel, a friend of the defendant who was charged with lying to police after the shooting, but took the stand Monday for authorities.



I would not trust that man if he said the sky was blue.

And please define "Mental Issues".

It seems to me that political psychiatry is making a comeback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry


Political abuse of psychiatry is the purported misuse of psychiatric diagnosis, detention and treatment for the purposes of obstructing the fundamental human rights of certain groups and individuals in a society

fisharmor
10-29-2013, 03:56 PM
How can the system have failed Lasso? Lasso WAS the system. The system entered without a warrant intent on harming his animals. The victim disagreed with the system's SOP. Now the system is going to kill him for it.

(You can tell that part of this story is bullshit... I mean cops are by and large dumb as a bag of hammers, but who the hell tazes a dog? What possible purpose can that have?)

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 04:05 PM
I would not trust that man if he said the sky was blue.

And please define "Mental Issues".

It seems to me that political psychiatry is making a comeback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

The man was prone to angry, violent outbursts. He had a history of domestic abuse, he possibly suffered childhood sexual abuse, his mind was fried by a combination of alcohol, painkillers, and cocaine, his cognitive functioning was impaired from childhood (learning disabilities), he had post-concussion syndrome that had him functioning at the level of someone with dementia, etc. What more evidence do you need that the guy had trouble with his fellow humans? Seems like a pretty lethal cocktail to me.

I notice that you didn't take issue with what Hitcho's own friend said.


(You can tell that part of this story is bullshit... I mean cops are by and large dumb as a bag of hammers, but who the hell tazes a dog? What possible purpose can that have?)
Just googled; apparently, it's a common tactic, for better or for worse.

How can the system have failed Lasso? Lasso WAS the system.
Personally, I think many officers are subject to the same forces as the general population, where a dominant cultural norm asserts itself. Lasso may have joined out of altruistic motives and ended up getting sucked into the system. It's the same reason why I don't necessarily blame "stupid people" for the mess we're in today. Any group to which a person belongs has to have certain ideas that resonate, in order to gain the cooperation of the members of that group. The State has to ingratiate itself with its citizens; I see no reason why the "police system" does not have to do the same for its officers.

The system entered without a warrant intent on harming his animals
I don't think this is necessarily provable, given the officer interacted with the dogs favorably in the past. It's likely they sensed their owner was in a bad mood and rushed to attack what they saw as a threat. I also kind of find it funny that you're criticizing Lasso for using a Taser as opposed to what... a gun? You wouldn't be satisfied either way.

aGameOfThrones
10-29-2013, 04:06 PM
Ultimately, this is a sad story for several reasons. The thing with cases like this is that the details are really all just hearsay, especially to people like us who don't especially trust the word of the authority figures over the others. Going by what I know of this man and his family, I have to conclude that if nothing else, he was the victim of a bad set of circumstances.

I think the core of the issue here is Mr. Hitcho's poor impulse control; certainly the childhood abuse and brain trauma he suffered may have contributed to his judgment lapses. I have mentioned that the neighborhood he lived in is pretty predisposed towards a "live-and-let-live" attitude, but people can only tolerate so much. He was doing a lot of things to piss his neighbors off; partying, drinking, starting fights, growing marijuana openly in his yard, etc. etc. Obviously they felt like they had to call the police on him several times. As sad as that is, it is the reality.

The Morning Call article is the source I would trust the most, and in the article they mention that Mr. Hitcho and this cop had had several "pleasant" interactions before; with the cop stopping to pet Hitcho's dogs, etc. etc. Their two families had history and knew each other, so this incident has a layer of intimacy that I find pretty interesting. That's why I can only assume Hitcho snapped after learning the police had been called on him yet again.



So... I guess my point is that if we take the story at face value, as reported (what incentive would Hitcho's friend have to paint the cop's request as reasonable?), I don't see how this is a simple cop-planning-to-gun-down-guy-in-cold-blood kind of thing. The two of them had family history and they were on (somewhat) friendly and reasonable terms from time to time.

Hitcho's support network, his family, and the medical system ultimately failed him. He should have had help controlling his impulses. The system failed the victim, Mr. Lasso, who likely thought he was justified in arresting Hitcho for drugs and probably contributed to any animosity. Perhaps the argument could be made that the neighbors should have realized Hitcho had mental issues.

http://i.imgur.com/nr4rx.gif

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 04:17 PM
He has an appeal,, and hopefully will get an honest judge to hear it.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_appeals_murder_c.html

The comments by Know Nothings are ridiculous..


Aiden215
06/01/2012, 02:38:21 PM

I think he should be in state prison general population wearing a sign that identifies him as the cold blooded killer of a police officer. That way, his head would have to be on a swivel for 24 hours a day. Sleep much, George?

This fool especially,,
He obviously knows nothing and is talking out his ass.
People in prison will be lining up to shake his hand.. Killing Cops is a "respectable" crime.
He will have ready made friends.

69360
10-29-2013, 04:17 PM
The neighbor could have minded his own business.

Oh.. and I have a 1/4 mile of unpaved driveway,, Only the Snowmobile in wintertime excedes 15 mph.. but you are welcome to destroy your vehicle attempting to push that.
Going stop to stop in a city block on a rough unpaved surface,, I doubt he would exceed 25mph.

And I doubt that anything he did would please an asshole neighbor.

I also have almost a 1/4 mile dirt driveway at my house now and can easily get up to 40 even in the snow. But my driveway is private property and I can go as fast as I please on it. I think this alley was a public roadway.

My old house was in a neighborhood with a shared alleyway. If somebody was tearing up and down it, you bet I would go give them a talking to. I wouldn't call the cops on them. If they didn't stop, we had other ways of dealing with it.


And please define "Mental Issues".

One of the articles says he had some mental health issues from head injuries in motorcycle accidents.


How can the system have failed Lasso? Lasso WAS the system. The system entered without a warrant intent on harming his animals. The victim disagreed with the system's SOP. Now the system is going to kill him for it.

(You can tell that part of this story is bullshit... I mean cops are by and large dumb as a bag of hammers, but who the hell tazes a dog? What possible purpose can that have?)

It was reasonable for the cop to walk onto his property to investigate the neighbors complaint. It was reasonable for Hitcho to ask the cop to leave if he didn't have a warrant. I don't believe the intent when walking on the property was to hurt the dogs.

I would guess that the tazer in this case would be used in the same way as that spray the mailmen carry. Less than lethal deterrent.

It was a bad series of events from the neighbor calling the cops, to the cop threatening to shoot/taze the dog. The cop should have left when told.

It isn't clear to me if Hitcho thought the cop was going to shoot his dog with a gun or tazer. Apparently the chief told the cop to "shoot him" in reference to the dog and the cops back was to Hitcho. So it's hard for me to pass judgement on what he did to the cop.

jmdrake
10-29-2013, 04:22 PM
The man was prone to angry, violent outbursts. He had a history of domestic abuse, he possibly suffered childhood sexual abuse, his mind was fried by a combination of alcohol, painkillers, and cocaine, his cognitive functioning was impaired from childhood (learning disabilities), he had post-concussion syndrome that had him functioning at the level of someone with dementia, etc. What more evidence do you need that the guy had trouble with his fellow humans? Seems like a pretty lethal cocktail to me.

So....how was he competent to stand trial? Oh I forgot. The government "expert" will always say you are mentally competent enough to get you the death penalty.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 04:26 PM
So....how was he competent to stand trial? Oh I forgot. The government "expert" will always say you are mentally competent enough to get you the death penalty.
Right. Just in case I wasn't totally clear - I think the death penalty is immoral. It's heartbreaking that Hitcho is on death row. He clearly wasn't competent enough to fully understand the consequences of his actions, but the story is more complex than people here are making it out to be.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 04:28 PM
I notice that you didn't take issue with what Hitcho's own friend said.



Yes I did.. I said I would not trust what he said..

It is a coerced statement.. He is being threatened,, and forced into turning on him.

He is the same man that threatened the asshole that started this..
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/06/friend_of_george_hitcho_jr_ple.html


Todd Douglass Schaedel, 42, was standing in back of Hitcho's home at 440 New St. in the borough when Hitcho got into a screaming match with William Clancy, a neighbor who lived down the alley from Hitcho's home.

Testify for the state or suffer the consequences..
I would ignore his statements like I would a lying Cop.


Schaedel, who testified at Hitcho's trial and spent three months in Northampton County Prison before posting bail, pleaded guilty to summary harassment and summary disorderly conduct. In return, authorities dropped charges of terroristic threats, giving false information to a law enforcement officer and obstructing the administration of law. Zito fined him $300.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 04:34 PM
Yes I did.. I said I would not trust what he said..

It is a coerced statement.. He is being threatened,, and forced into turning on him.

He is the same man that threatened the asshole that started this..
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/06/friend_of_george_hitcho_jr_ple.html


Testify for the state or suffer the consequences..
I would ignore his statements like I would a lying Cop.

Mr. Henninger, the man sitting in Hitcho's pickup truck, testified that Lasso politely asked to speak with Mr. Hitcho. I personally found that quote more compelling, because it provides a clue as to the tone of the encounter. I provided the entire quote so that I wouldn't be accused of taking things out of context. You can quibble over whether the statement by Mr. Schaedel was coerced or not (perhaps it was, fine, invalidate it if you wish), but the fact still remains that Mr. Lasso and Mr. Hitcho were on nominally friendly terms, or at least understood one another, prior to this incident.

jmdrake
10-29-2013, 04:36 PM
Right. Just in case I wasn't totally clear - I think the death penalty is immoral. It's heartbreaking that Hitcho is on death row. He clearly wasn't competent enough to fully understand the consequences of his actions, but the story is more complex than people here are making it out to be.

I just saw your earlier post (#36) were you basically said the same thing. And I agree that this is a tragic incident. I don't put what was described in the OP in the same category as the "puppycide" we hear about from AF. Lasso points a stun gun, not a hand gun, at the dogs which suggests he didn't intend to kill. And he was under orders from his "superior." I know that won't be good enough for some, but I can seen friends of mine who are cops, and who are not evil, getting an order to shoot a dog and thinking "Well, I shouldn't shoot the dog, but maybe if I pull out my stun gun my boss will be satisfied." Anyhow, I'm glad I pledged to the "puppycide" Kickstarter AF posted. One line hit home. "The police used to just call animal control."

jtap
10-29-2013, 04:36 PM
I'm late to the just desserts party.

Edit: So late in fact that I was responding to the cop getting his (after reading the first post) and was not yet aware of the man getting sentenced. Booo!

69360
10-29-2013, 04:40 PM
Right. Just in case I wasn't totally clear - I think the death penalty is immoral. It's heartbreaking that Hitcho is on death row. He clearly wasn't competent enough to fully understand the consequences of his actions, but the story is more complex than people here are making it out to be.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty. But I very much agree that this guy should not be on death row. This is not murder. In no way was this premeditated and there are huge mitigating factors in this case.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 04:43 PM
Right.

So you agree this man was defending himself and property from unwarranted aggression, and that the charges are only there because of a man's profession. Especially considering he received the death penalty.

He was not defending himself, his property yes.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 04:45 PM
I'm not opposed to the death penalty. But I very much agree that this guy should not be on death row. This is not murder. In no way was this premeditated and there are huge mitigating factors in this case.

The "trial" was an obscenity,, and his public pretender a fool. He made no attempt at all to defend this man..

And it was most certainly not 1st Degree Premeditated murder. Manslaughter at best. (I would say, justifiable homicide/Self defense)

Hopefully his appeal will help him.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-29-2013, 04:46 PM
"RonPaulFaninGa" Neg repped this.

Showing that he's in the same boat as RG.

I negged you for it too. ;) add me to the list.

chudrockz
10-29-2013, 04:47 PM
Your analysis is missing the issue of proportionality. If you tap me on the shoulder while I don't wish to be disturbed (let's just say for the sake of argument that you are aware that I don't wish to be disturbed), and I turn around and blow you away with a shotgun, is my response justified? You knew you would be committing aggression, you went ahead and did it anyway, so you're the only aggressor, according to your analysis.


I hope you realize how wishy-washy this statement is. Why isn't such a reaction permissible in all cases? You pretty clearly explained in your last sentence that you do in fact think it's justified on the grounds of self-defense.


It's a big state; Pittsburgh is more than 4.5 hours away from where this incident occurred. I don't disagree that the larger cities have issues, but what state's larger cities don't? Still doesn't change the fact that the local culture is rather live-and-let-live.

Sigh.

If you tap me on the shoulder (and I disapprove), my response will be "Yeah? Whadya want?"

If you come onto my property, and I tell you to leave, and I hear you say "shoot the dog" (referring to my dog on my property) you're almost certainly going to die.

69360
10-29-2013, 04:47 PM
The "trial" was an obscenity,, and his public pretender a fool. He made no attempt at all to defend this man..

And it was most certainly not 1st Degree Premeditated murder. Manslaughter at best. (I would say, justifiable homicide/Self defense)

Hopefully his appeal will help him.

Oh I agree, I think he might have a case for a new trial on the grounds of ineffectual counsel. Thing is, I doubt he has the money for a good lawyer.

pcosmar
10-29-2013, 04:49 PM
Oh I agree, I think he might have a case for a new trial on the grounds of ineffectual counsel. Thing is, I doubt he has the money for a good lawyer.

Yeah, well.. I have seen that before.

The system is thoroughly fucked.

jmdrake
10-29-2013, 04:50 PM
Sigh.

If you tap me on the shoulder (and I disapprove), my response will be "Yeah? Whadya want?"

If you come onto my property, and I tell you to leave, and I hear you say "shoot the dog" (referring to my dog on my property) you're almost certainly going to die.

Except he didn't shoot the guy that said shoot the dog. That was the police chief. Instead he shot the guy who pulled out the stun gun. That said, in the heat of the moment it was probably difficult to realize that it was a stun gun and not a firearm.

fisharmor
10-29-2013, 04:50 PM
Mr. Henninger, the man sitting in Hitcho's pickup truck, testified that Lasso politely asked to speak with Mr. Hitcho. I personally found that quote more compelling, because it provides a clue as to the tone of the encounter. I provided the entire quote so that I wouldn't be accused of taking things out of context. You can quibble over whether the statement by Mr. Schaedel was coerced or not (perhaps it was, fine, invalidate it if you wish), but the fact still remains that Mr. Lasso and Mr. Hitcho were on nominally friendly terms, or at least understood one another, prior to this incident.

I think the sticking point here, and we're never going to know this, is how much time elapsed between when Lasso was ordered off Hitcho's property and when he got shot.
If he really was immediately beset by dogs and was trying to get them off so he could leave, then yeah, it's murder.
If he stuck around trying to talk to him after his welcome had clearly evaporated, then he's a dumbass pig who got what was coming to him.

All I know is that cops have a track record miles long with this sort of thing.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 04:53 PM
Sigh.

If you tap me on the shoulder (and I disapprove), my response will be "Yeah? Whadya want?"

If you come onto my property, and I tell you to leave, and I hear you say "shoot the dog" (referring to my dog on my property) you're almost certainly going to die.

I apologize for the off-topic post, but most of that post was really directed at FF's absurd TV scenario, not necessarily a comment on Hitcho's conduct; though jmdrake does bring up a good point.

chudrockz
10-29-2013, 04:54 PM
Except he didn't shoot the guy that said shoot the dog. That was the police chief. Instead he shot the guy who pulled out the stun gun. That said, in the heat of the moment it was probably difficult to realize that it was a stun gun and not a firearm.

Exactly right. His only error, in my opinion, was not either 1) firing only at the person who said "shoot the dogs," or 2) firing at both (all?) trespassers.

chudrockz
10-29-2013, 04:56 PM
I apologize for the off-topic post, but that was really directed at FF's absurd TV scenario, not necessarily a comment on Hitcho's conduct.

Yeah, if someone walks in and takes a sledge hammer to my tv I'm gonna insist they head over to Best Buy and grab me a new one. Should they refuse, I'll sue them for the value of the tv.

If someone shoots my dog (or threatens to do so, especially after being warned to leave) then there'll be bloodshed.

69360
10-29-2013, 05:01 PM
Exactly right. His only error, in my opinion, was not either 1) firing only at the person who said "shoot the dogs," or 2) firing at both (all?) trespassers.

He intended to shoot the chief, but his gun jammed. Then the chief arrested him.

heavenlyboy34
10-29-2013, 05:13 PM
I just saw your earlier post (#36) were you basically said the same thing. And I agree that this is a tragic incident. I don't put what was described in the OP in the same category as the "puppycide" we hear about from AF. Lasso points a stun gun, not a hand gun, at the dogs which suggests he didn't intend to kill. And he was under orders from his "superior." I know that won't be good enough for some, but I can seen friends of mine who are cops, and who are not evil, getting an order to shoot a dog and thinking "Well, I shouldn't shoot the dog, but maybe if I pull out my stun gun my boss will be satisfied." Anyhow, I'm glad I pledged to the "puppycide" Kickstarter AF posted. One line hit home. "The police used to just call animal control."
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't tazers/stun guns powerful enough to kill dogs?

Athan
10-29-2013, 05:14 PM
PIGS 4057
DOGS 1

at least it wont be a shut out

lol. Wow. That is sad.

dannno
10-29-2013, 06:47 PM
He has an appeal,, and hopefully will get an honest judge to hear it.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_appeals_murder_c.html

The comments by Know Nothings are ridiculous..


This fool especially,,
He obviously knows nothing and is talking out his ass.
People in prison will be lining up to shake his hand.. Killing Cops is a "respectable" crime.
He will have ready made friends.

Well, to be fair to the Know Nothing, I hear prison guards can be pretty awful, but I don't know if that's what they were thinking of or not.

Snew
10-29-2013, 07:09 PM
I think as a movement, especially if we hope to win over public sentiment, we need to eschew violence when possible. If we take black-and-white positions like you do here, we end up looking like a bunch of blood-thirsty, violent individuals which is no way to win over public sentiment. The pigs have already shown themselves to be that, and they are losing the public relations battle and we're winning, in part because people see us as largely peaceful and benign.


It seems like a simple and obvious statement, but it's extremely important for everyone to keep this in mind.

FreedomFanatic: I like where your heart is, but I personally think you're too quick to jump to violence as a solution (like in the execution comments you've made in the past).

jtap
10-29-2013, 07:24 PM
That's fucked up. What was it about "Get off my property" that the pig did not understand?

A video would have been nice. Word to the wise: if you don't have surveillance cameras on your property, get some. They're not very expensive and it's particularly good if you have pups because you can check up on them while you're at work.

Do you happen to have some that you are happy with and can recommend? I have spent a bit of time researching this and haven't been able to decide on any particular camera system.

daviddee
10-29-2013, 08:09 PM
The biggest tragedy is that he had a pump action shotgun that jammed.

Red Green
10-29-2013, 08:43 PM
Do you happen to have some that you are happy with and can recommend? I have spent a bit of time researching this and haven't been able to decide on any particular camera system.

I have one I purchased off of Amazon from USAA security back a couple years ago. The DVR unit is described as "One H.264 8 CH Network DVR 500GB built in" and it works with Eagle Eyes software (they may actually produce the units as well). I like it because the software is iOS compatible and also runs on Mac OSX. It has motion triggered recording and alerts, all the stuff you would want. For me it's great because I can check in on the house from where ever I am at.

Cutlerzzz
10-29-2013, 08:55 PM
The death penalty has been ended in state after state. The thing you are pushing for, well, the opposite is happening in every single state.

You're talking to an 18 year old blood thirsty fanatic. I don't think he'll get it.

Henry Rogue
10-29-2013, 09:21 PM
An old story,, was posted and discussed here long ago.

George Hitcho Jr is sentenced to Death for defending his home against a State invasion and assault.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html

"I think the jury's verdict sends a high affirmation that police officers are off limits,"
Special privileges and protections. There are two separate sets of laws, one set for them and another set for us. This results in nothing but violence, aggression by them and retaliation by others.

Christian Liberty
10-29-2013, 09:59 PM
I just saw your earlier post (#36) were you basically said the same thing. And I agree that this is a tragic incident. I don't put what was described in the OP in the same category as the "puppycide" we hear about from AF. Lasso points a stun gun, not a hand gun, at the dogs which suggests he didn't intend to kill. And he was under orders from his "superior." I know that won't be good enough for some, but I can seen friends of mine who are cops, and who are not evil, getting an order to shoot a dog and thinking "Well, I shouldn't shoot the dog, but maybe if I pull out my stun gun my boss will be satisfied." Anyhow, I'm glad I pledged to the "puppycide" Kickstarter AF posted. One line hit home. "The police used to just call animal control."


Who the heck cares if he was under orders? He still has a brain, and moral accountability.


I negged you for it too. ;) add me to the list.

Done.


Sigh.

If you tap me on the shoulder (and I disapprove), my response will be "Yeah? Whadya want?"

If you come onto my property, and I tell you to leave, and I hear you say "shoot the dog" (referring to my dog on my property) you're almost certainly going to die.

Yep.


Except he didn't shoot the guy that said shoot the dog. That was the police chief. Instead he shot the guy who pulled out the stun gun. That said, in the heat of the moment it was probably difficult to realize that it was a stun gun and not a firearm.

Yeah, I think you get it.

It seems like a simple and obvious statement, but it's extremely important for everyone to keep this in mind.

FreedomFanatic: I like where your heart is, but I personally think you're too quick to jump to violence as a solution (like in the execution comments you've made in the past).

I never actually condoned violence as a solution, at least not in this thread. All that I said was that the man didn't do anything unjustified and he shouldn't be punished in any way for what he did. I'm also glad someone had the guts to stand up to "them." At a personal level, I already said that I don't view dogs as any different than any other form of property (I understand that many people have a person attachment to them, but I don't care for them) and that I wouldn't kill over a TV. So, I'm not actually condoning violence, I'm just saying that there was no NAP violation on this man's part. He had a right to defend himself.


I think as a movement, especially if we hope to win over public sentiment, we need to eschew violence when possible. If we take black-and-white positions like you do here, we end up looking like a bunch of blood-thirsty, violent individuals which is no way to win over public sentiment. The pigs have already shown themselves to be that, and they are losing the public relations battle and we're winning, in part because people see us as largely peaceful and benign.

First of all, I'm not ADVOCATING violence. I'm saying that he acted defensively and didn't violate the NAP. There's a difference.

Second of all, I certainly don't see us winning the public relations battle, but maybe I just haven't talked to enough people. But most people I've seen still hero worship the police.


If I am to take your position (he was threatening a man's property and therefore lethal force was called for), wouldn't it be similarly the "proper" thing to do to pull up alongside a pig writing out a traffic ticket to some poor schmuck and put a bullet in his head? After all the pig was trying to steal from someone right? So using lethal force to stop that theft was reasonable, as far as I read your logic.


The use of the word "Reasonable" is a bit of a strawman. "Permissible under the NAP" would probably be a better corrolation.

Traffic tickets are a little tricky because, first of all, the fact that roads are "Publically owned" creates some interesting dilemmas (Ultimately "public property' should not exist) and because ultimately the officer in question is not really extorting the money personally. So I don't think I'd go for that, even with the softer word "Permissible." If the officer were trying to make an arrest that was incompatible with the NAP, or was trying to extort the money personally, then my position would probably change.

Some of us think we need to gauge our response based on the severity of the crime being committed by the pigs.

I don't really see how you can. The choices are quite literally kill them or let them get away with it, in cases like we're talking about. These cases are of a fundamentally different nature than when a "mundane" commits a crime and may well get caught and punished later (Even if the punishments themselves aren't exactly libertarian IMO. Libertarian justice would be either proportional, restorative, or ideally both. It would not be able rehabilitation OR being "tough on crime.") Although again, I'm not actually condoning any violent response. I'm just saying that he wasn't violating the NAP.


And also, it would be best if we pick our fights. RG probably leans towards what most of the liberty movement is about and that is peace.


That's great. Punishing a man for defending himself is COMPLETELY contradictory to that. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you. Its just as absurd as the idea of a pacifist socialist.

Now I have not read the particulars but it appears the pig was shot in the back. That means to me that the dude got the drop on the pig with a shotgun. How many people are going to argue with someone who got the drop on them with a shotgun? Not many. You give them a chance to bugger off, I daresay they will. The pig was probably killed with no warning.

And then he gets arrested and goes to jail.

To play devil's advocate here, if people like this man actually kill a pig, its a legitimate deterrent against aggressing against the innocent. Otherwise, there really isn't one.




Again, I kinda see this as excessive, but that's me and I guess according to you I'm no friend to the movement either.

Do you think this man should have been prosecuted? RG seems to be saying yes. That's why I refused to associate with her. Do you agree with her?

So....how was he competent to stand trial? Oh I forgot. The government "expert" will always say you are mentally competent enough to get you the death penalty.

Because it was a cop, aka. 70% of America worships the man who was killed.


Yes I did.. I said I would not trust what he said..

It is a coerced statement.. He is being threatened,, and forced into turning on him.

He is the same man that threatened the asshole that started this..
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/06/friend_of_george_hitcho_jr_ple.html


Testify for the state or suffer the consequences..
I would ignore his statements like I would a lying Cop.

Rothbardian Girl
10-29-2013, 10:45 PM
Who the heck cares if he was under orders? He still has a brain, and moral accountability.
Do you think this man should have been prosecuted? RG seems to be saying yes. That's why I refused to associate with her. Do you agree with her?


FF, I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough, but the entire point of my posts in this thread thus far has been to show that there are so many mitigating factors involved with this particular case that it is hard to make any sense out of what happened at all. It doesn't fit the typical "police brutality" narrative. I am tired of the echo-chamberism that seems to pervade this place, particularly when it comes to threads like this. I've hopefully adequately explained why this particular case is so much more than the typical "mundane-cop" dichotomy. The two had a history of at least tolerant relations, which is what makes Hitcho's snap so puzzling. We know that the officer politely requested that Mr. Hitcho come out and meet him after responding to a call by the fed-up neighbor. This is corroborated by Hitcho's own friend, who has no reason to make the cop look like the good guy in all of this.

Hitcho's history of pretty severe mental instability (remember, just one of the many issues this guy had was a mental condition akin to dementia) may have led him to overestimate the threat posed by Mr. Lasso, and thus caused a reaction that was not proportional to the actual threat he faced. Proportionality is an important component of the NAP, and pretty much everyone agrees that the level of "retaliation" should be appropriately chosen.

I feel terrible for the guy, but ultimately I had to come to the conclusion that he was the victim of circumstances out of his control, and his support networks failed him. I believe he needs rehabilitation and medical treatment, not punishment. I don't think his response to the situation was justified, going by what his own friends testified. I can't really "blame" him, though, because he clearly didn't appreciate the consequences of his actions.

Pericles
10-29-2013, 11:18 PM
I noticed that Officer Lasso, "Ended up at the back of Hitch's House". Why was he trying to assault Mr. Hitch's dogs when the incident he was supposedly responding to was not at that house?

Got what he deserved, seems like.

Looks like it is necessary to kill one pour encourager les autres.

Pericles
10-29-2013, 11:35 PM
Except he didn't shoot the guy that said shoot the dog. That was the police chief. Instead he shot the guy who pulled out the stun gun. That said, in the heat of the moment it was probably difficult to realize that it was a stun gun and not a firearm.
happens all of the time = just ask the cop who shot the guy at the BART station with his "stun gun".

kcchiefs6465
10-29-2013, 11:50 PM
He was not defending himself, his property yes.
There is very little difference in the matter when you have an armed man on your property illegally, speaking of shooting your dog. One definitely would fear for their life under those circumstances. In a situation escalating that quickly, on your own property against an armed man directly threatening the life of your pet, preemption is something to be expected. The cop was a fool for the way this was handled. Ultimately his demise rests at his feet. Not to sound overly callous as this is a tragedy all the way around. I would much rather the world follow the live and let live motto, but as it is, there are snitches and whores and those who make it their mission to involve themselves in matters that do not pertain to them.

That is aside from the fact that one also has a Right to defend their property. I would put a family pet above the average television and do not find it too absurd that someone would kill a trespasser to protect it. Not to mention that if you threaten someone's property so flagrantly, you will be lucky not to find yourself at the end of someone's violence. One can only be pushed so far. The manner and underlying factors of this case lead me to believe that he should be freed, the police better trained, or better yet, dissolved and the neighbor told to mind his own goddamn business. It is a tragedy that a man lost his life but come on, what do people expect? that everyone will just rollover and say "Yessim?"

kcchiefs6465
10-29-2013, 11:54 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't tazers/stun guns powerful enough to kill dogs?
I doubt it would even get through the coat depending the breed and it is likely to annoy the hell out of it. Most likely if he tried to taze the dog, one or both of them would have defended themselves. He then would have pulled out his gun and killed the man's dogs and if the man charged with the homicide were to even flinch wrong, he could find himself with a similar fate.

A policy of deescalation and an adherence to the Law would serve society well. Oh yeah, and public ostracization and shaming of snitches, gossipers, and nosy neighbors as well.

mrsat_98
10-30-2013, 05:59 AM
I'd bet that somewhere there is someone in favor of digging that fucking cop up and shooting him again.

jtap
10-30-2013, 07:07 AM
I have one I purchased off of Amazon from USAA security back a couple years ago. The DVR unit is described as "One H.264 8 CH Network DVR 500GB built in" and it works with Eagle Eyes software (they may actually produce the units as well). I like it because the software is iOS compatible and also runs on Mac OSX. It has motion triggered recording and alerts, all the stuff you would want. For me it's great because I can check in on the house from where ever I am at.

Thanks for the info. That's a good starting point. The only upgrades from that which might interest me would be a bigger HD, wireless and android.

Red Green
10-30-2013, 07:14 AM
Thanks for the info. That's a good starting point. The only upgrades from that which might interest me would be a bigger HD, wireless and android.

The HDs you find in these DVRs these days are generally 1TB, but they can of course be upgraded. Mind you, depending on the compression method and recording settings you use, even my 500GB drive will record like 3 weeks worth of events. And I believe the EagleEyes software is also on Android. Just check the marketplace for EagleEyes and see what comes up. All I can say is I set up my system 2 years ago and haven't had a problem with it yet. It's basically been 24/7 since it was set up.

Red Green
10-30-2013, 07:38 AM
To FF:

I'm not going to go over your response point-by-point, but let me make my position clear: I don't see the right to defense as an on-off switch but rather a rheostat. Once someone has aggressed on me or my property in any way, that does not bring the legitimate or reasonable response all the way to lethal force. I don't know about you, but I personally would have a very hard time killing a person. And trust me on this, I'm no pacifist. I have plenty of tools at my disposal to do the job. I hope to live out my days that I never come close to being put in the position of deciding on such a thing.

Now this guy shot the pig on his property because he was going to taser his dogs. At that point, he was defending his property, not his person. A more appropriate response would have been to wing the pig with some birdshot. Would this guy have still gone to prison? I'm thinking the way the system works, yeah but at least he wouldn't have to live with himself knowing he killed a person. And don't think this isn't what the state wants; they love it when they get to associate us with violence. Again, this is a publicity war more than anything and yes we are winning it.

I fight every ticket the pigs have handed me in court and most of the time it's just a waste of my time. Do I get angry? Yeah, but despite these assholes doing that sort of thing I still would never think of killing them over it. Yes, they steal from me. The state steals from me every day. But I still have to ask myself if that merits me taking a life. I still do not think so . I would rather try and win over some of these misguided souls so that we can have a bloodless revolution and if we take the position you have, then a bloodless revolution is impossible.

fisharmor
10-30-2013, 07:57 AM
It doesn't fit the typical "police brutality" narrative. I am tired of the echo-chamberism that seems to pervade this place, particularly when it comes to threads like this.

And I'm tired of dancing around the ultimate point.
He was a cop.
He didn't quit the force.
Therefore he was in the wrong.

Rothbardian Girl
10-30-2013, 08:13 AM
And I'm tired of dancing around the ultimate point.
He was a cop.
He didn't quit the force.
Therefore he was in the wrong.
What about when mundanes are killed? It's probable that the vast majority of them didn't withdraw their consent from the state, and it's also likely most of them took it a step further and voted to take away your freedom at some point. Even if they don't recognize their wrongdoing, it seems to me that I shouldn't weep when any of them are killed.

chudrockz
10-30-2013, 08:21 AM
To FF:

I'm not going to go over your response point-by-point, but let me make my position clear: I don't see the right to defense as an on-off switch but rather a rheostat. Once someone has aggressed on me or my property in any way, that does not bring the legitimate or reasonable response all the way to lethal force. I don't know about you, but I personally would have a very hard time killing a person. And trust me on this, I'm no pacifist. I have plenty of tools at my disposal to do the job. I hope to live out my days that I never come close to being put in the position of deciding on such a thing.

Now this guy shot the pig on his property because he was going to taser his dogs. At that point, he was defending his property, not his person. A more appropriate response would have been to wing the pig with some birdshot. Would this guy have still gone to prison? I'm thinking the way the system works, yeah but at least he wouldn't have to live with himself knowing he killed a person. And don't think this isn't what the state wants; they love it when they get to associate us with violence. Again, this is a publicity war more than anything and yes we are winning it.

I fight every ticket the pigs have handed me in court and most of the time it's just a waste of my time. Do I get angry? Yeah, but despite these assholes doing that sort of thing I still would never think of killing them over it. Yes, they steal from me. The state steals from me every day. But I still have to ask myself if that merits me taking a life. I still do not think so . I would rather try and win over some of these misguided souls so that we can have a bloodless revolution and if we take the position you have, then a bloodless revolution is impossible.

Do you REALLY believe that in a situation where two cops are on your property, and you intentionally "wing one of them" with bird shot, that you'll live through the end of that scenario?

If I ever feel the need to fire any of my three pump twelve guages in self defense, they're all gonna be loaded with 00 military buckshot. Except for the slug gun that'll have sabots in it. And no intentional winging will EVER be done.

Red Green
10-30-2013, 08:43 AM
Do you REALLY believe that in a situation where two cops are on your property, and you intentionally "wing one of them" with bird shot, that you'll live through the end of that scenario?

If I ever feel the need to fire any of my three pump twelve guages in self defense, they're all gonna be loaded with 00 military buckshot. Except for the slug gun that'll have sabots in it. And no intentional winging will EVER be done.

You are using a bit of a straw man there; I am arguing that the situation as presented probably did not merit lethal force. We can argue about what might have followed AFTER all we want, but that is a lot to speculate about with little factual basis. If the man was faced with lethal force on his own property then yes by all means he would be justified in doing whatever to defend himself but think about this with regards to what you are saying: he killed a pig and lived to see trial. You're telling me that if he winged a pig he would have never lived to see trial. Something doesn't make sense with that.

Red Green
10-30-2013, 08:45 AM
And I'm tired of dancing around the ultimate point.
He was a cop.
He didn't quit the force.
Therefore he was in the wrong.

Hang on there just a minute; what about the 'good cops'? You know, they're out there. Some people have said as much here.

Just like unicorns and the Sasquatch. I mean, I've never seen one but according to some they exist.

Tod
10-30-2013, 08:58 AM
You are using a bit of a straw man there; I am arguing that the situation as presented probably did not merit lethal force. We can argue about what might have followed AFTER all we want, but that is a lot to speculate about with little factual basis. If the man was faced with lethal force on his own property then yes by all means he would be justified in doing whatever to defend himself but think about this with regards to what you are saying: he killed a pig and lived to see trial. You're telling me that if he winged a pig he would have never lived to see trial. Something doesn't make sense with that.

So I can come over to your house and steal whatever I want and you won't escalate your resistance to the point of using lethal force? *rubbing hands in glee* Where was it you live, again?

While someone might not want to use lethal force to protect their property, they are certainly justified if they do, in my book. Of course, the "law" says otherwise, but it is written to protect government agents who might want to steal your property.


edit: I wonder if the problem with the shotgun was "short shucking"?

Red Green
10-30-2013, 09:02 AM
So I can come over to your house and steal whatever I want and you won't escalate your resistance to the point of using lethal force? *rubbing hands in glee* Where was it you live, again?

While someone might not want to use lethal force to protect their property, they are certainly justified if they do, in my book. Of course, the "law" says otherwise, but it is written to protect government agents who might want to steal your property.

Again, it comes down to how all this happened. First off, if you came onto my property with intent to steal something, my response would be to draw down on you and give you plenty of time to reconsider. Eventually, if you persisted, then yeah you might end up injured or eventually dead if you gave me no choice. The question here is did this fellow go through a progression or did he just say "well, this guy doesn't want to leave my property, guess I gotta done kill him!".

Tod
10-30-2013, 09:09 AM
Again, it comes down to how all this happened. First off, if you came onto my property with intent to steal something, my response would be to draw down on you and give you plenty of time to reconsider. Eventually, if you persisted, then yeah you might end up injured or eventually dead if you gave me no choice. The question here is did this fellow go through a progression or did he just say "well, this guy doesn't want to leave my property, guess I gotta done kill him!".

As I understand it, he did tell them to get off his property without a warrant. The chief told the jackboot to shoot the dogs (supposedly with the stun gun but it isn't clear that the homeowner knew that; it doesn't really matter because the stun gun certainly has the potential for lethality) so the homeowner had to act quickly to save his dogs who were (supposedly...I would NOT take the cop's word for it) attacking trespassers (who had been told to leave but weren't) on his own property.

Red Green
10-30-2013, 09:14 AM
As I understand it, he did tell them to get off his property without a warrant. The chief told the jackboot to shoot the dogs (supposedly with the stun gun but it isn't clear that the homeowner knew that; it doesn't really matter because the stun gun certainly has the potential for lethality) so the homeowner had to act quickly to save his dogs who were (supposedly...I would NOT take the cop's word for it) attacking trespassers (who had been told to leave but weren't) on his own property.

Unless you are facing a threat to your person, I think it is incumbent upon someone defending their property to let a trespasser know that you are about to escalate the use of force to possible injury or death. That is the question in my mind. I have a hard time believing that the pig was aware he was about to get a load of 00 buck and still continued to try and subdue some dogs. Maybe I am wrong, but that is the question in my mind. I am allowing for the fact that the pig might have not had warning that the situation had escalated to that.

Again, I don't know exactly what happened and no one here does either, but when someone ends up dead then expect there to be a lot of questions and the answer can't be just "I told him to leave and he didn't so I done shot him".

Tod
10-30-2013, 09:21 AM
Unless you are facing a threat to your person, I think it is incumbent upon someone defending their property to let a trespasser know that you are about to escalate the use of force to possible injury or death. That is the question in my mind. I have a hard time believing that the pig was aware he was about to get a load of 00 buck and still continued to try and subdue some dogs. Maybe I am wrong, but that is the question in my mind. I am allowing for the fact that the pig might have not had warning that the situation had escalated to that.

Again, I don't know exactly what happened and no one here does either, but when someone ends up dead then expect there to be a lot of questions and the answer can't be just "I told him to leave and he didn't so I done shot him".

Do you have ANY doubt that had the homeowner told the jackboot that he would shoot him, the jackboot would have either:
1. immediately drawn his pistol and shot the homeowner.
2. momentarily withdrawn until he could advance with more jackboots to shoot the homeowner if the homeowner did not submit.

Do you think for a minute the jackboots would just go away and leave him alone?

tangent4ronpaul
10-30-2013, 09:26 AM
He was not defending himself.

No, he was defending his family on his property after giving fair notice of trespass and to vacate.

-t

Red Green
10-30-2013, 09:27 AM
Do you have ANY doubt that had the homeowner told the jackboot that he would shoot him, the jackboot would have either:
1. immediately drawn his pistol and shot the homeowner.
2. momentarily withdrawn until he could advance with more jackboots to shoot the homeowner if the homeowner did not submit.

Do you think for a minute the jackboots would just go away and leave him alone?

No, but there could have been a peaceful end to the situation. The guy could have ended up in court and claimed that due to telling the pig to leave the property without a warrant, the pig was trespassing. A jury may (just maybe) have agreed and ruled in favor of the homeowner. Then the homeowner might have been able to claim damages. It's all a possibility, however remote. I just think that one should first exhaust peaceful avenues before going to violence.

Rothbardian Girl
10-30-2013, 09:30 AM
Do you have ANY doubt that had the homeowner told the jackboot that he would shoot him, the jackboot would have either:
1. immediately drawn his pistol and shot the homeowner.
2. momentarily withdrawn until he could advance with more jackboots to shoot the homeowner if the homeowner did not submit.

Do you think for a minute the jackboots would just go away and leave him alone?
Again, there's evidence to suggest the two knew each other fairly well prior to this incident and that the situation could have been de-escalated prior to the shooting. So yes, I do think there's reason to doubt that Mr. Lasso would have resorted to shooting Mr. Hitcho if he didn't get his way.

Rothbardian Girl
10-30-2013, 09:30 AM
Oops, double post. Sorry.

Athan
10-30-2013, 10:02 AM
I'd bet that somewhere there is someone in favor of digging that fucking cop up and shooting him again.

I doubt that. Moral of the story is follow the law, or someone may enforce it.

fisharmor
10-30-2013, 10:10 AM
What about when mundanes are killed? It's probable that the vast majority of them didn't withdraw their consent from the state, and it's also likely most of them took it a step further and voted to take away your freedom at some point. Even if they don't recognize their wrongdoing, it seems to me that I shouldn't weep when any of them are killed.

Where did I say anything about not weeping because he was killed? I actually did outline a scenario that I would admit is murder.
I'm also not inclined to believe that scenario is what happened. If there really was zero time between when he was ordered to leave and when he was beset by his dogs, then there would be no reason for all the statist cheerleading in the reporting on the incident. The truth would be sufficient to condemn Hitcho.

But to address your point, yes, I do hold boobus accountable for the troubles we're in, and yes, I am picking favorites here by not cheering whenever one is murdered by a cop.
I could also choose to hold every single Roman Catholic responsible for pederasty. But there's a distinction between holding to the tenets of that faith and actively choosing to wear its cloth.

Very few Roman Catholic priests have been turned from their faith because of the abuses of their fellow priests. But large numbers of the laity have been turned.

Likewise, very few state-priests have been turned from their faith in the state-god because of the abuses of fellow state-priests. But large numbers of laity - us, the ones who were indoctrinated from birth in the religion of statism - are turned daily.

Call it pragmatism. Do I hold them responsible? Ultimately, yes. But if I attack them, I gain nothing. If I point out that their state-priests are what they are, then they may turn from their faith.

pcosmar
10-30-2013, 10:22 AM
Again, there's evidence to suggest the two knew each other fairly well prior to this incident and that the situation could have been de-escalated prior to the shooting. So yes, I do think there's reason to doubt that Mr. Lasso would have resorted to shooting Mr. Hitcho if he didn't get his way.

It does not matter if they "knew each other". it is irrelevant.

There was no crime committed.. Police had NO Business there.

What the cop should have done was to confront the man who called them,, and tell him to leave Hitcho alone and stop provoking him.
There would have been no confrontation in the first place if the asshole neighbor had not initiated it.
Perhaps even cite him for a nuisance call.

He had no business in Hitchc's yard whatsoever,, especially after being told to leave.

Rothbardian Girl
10-30-2013, 10:45 AM
It does not matter if they "knew each other". it is irrelevant.

There was no crime committed.. Police had NO Business there.

What the cop should have done was to confront the man who called them,, and tell him to leave Hitcho alone and stop provoking him.
There would have been no confrontation in the first place if the asshole neighbor had not initiated it.
Perhaps even cite him for a nuisance call.

He had no business in Hitchc's yard whatsoever,, especially after being told to leave.

How many times do we have to go over this? You have no proof that Hitcho was provoked by the neighbor. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that Hitcho was in a bad mood yet again. He was known throughout the region for being a temperamental, violent man who liked to start fights for seemingly no reason at all (points to his mental illnesses). That is yet another part of the reason why people are applauding his current stint on death row. It isn't only that they're cheerleaders for the State's warped view of justice, they KNOW the guy and know that he's a mental case. The lehighvalleylive links that people were posting earlier are all from a local news site.

The reason I keep mentioning that the two knew each other is because it goes to Hitcho's state of mind at the time of the shooting. Given Mr. Lasso's previous record with the borough (no complaints), and the eyewitness testimony from Hitcho's own friend, I have no reason to suspect that Mr. Lasso deliberately provoked Mr. Hitcho. I really think Hitcho absolutely lost it. And that's why he needed the help he could have gotten from his family, since he likely didn't have the financial means to pay for assistance himself.

Speeding is technically a crime. As someone else mentioned earlier, alleyways do have speed limits (10-15 MPH in most jurisdictions). Hitcho was endangering his neighbor, since the garages face the alley (and the alleys tend to be narrow enough that I would worry about someone in a pickup truck racing up and down them). He didn't live off in the wilderness somewhere where this wouldn't have been a concern.

aGameOfThrones
10-30-2013, 10:49 AM
Apologism on this thread disguise as something else.

AFPVet
10-30-2013, 11:06 AM
In most states, it's a capital crime to kill a cop—regardless if the cop was in the right or not. This is unacceptable—which is why my state has a law that states that if the cop is in the wrong, you are allowed to defend yourself just as if the cop was any other thug. More states need to adopt this.

Red Green
10-30-2013, 11:10 AM
In most states, it's a capital crime to kill a cop—regardless if the cop was in the right or not. This is unacceptable—which is why my state has a law that states that if the cop is in the wrong, you are allowed to defend yourself just as if the cop was any other thug. More states need to adopt this.

Better yet, we need private police so they enjoy no more legal protection than you or I.

kcchiefs6465
10-30-2013, 11:21 AM
Better yet, we need private police so they enjoy no more legal protection than you or I.
Yeah, no.

Rothbardian Girl
10-30-2013, 11:25 AM
I'm trying to find a way to extricate myself from this thread so I don't keep running around in circles and wasting my time, so I'll just leave it at this: I think this particular case contains a number of useful things for furthering libertarian points of view. There are good arguments to be made, using this case as evidence, against capital punishment and against what seems to be society's lack of options for people like Mr. Hitcho. I just don't think this particular case works well as an example of police brutality, due to the confusion of the situation. Most of the time, I don't find it useful to blame individual cops when there is no particular evidence that they were acting with acute malicious intent, because I believe they are part of a much larger problem.

Thank you all (well, most of you) for the spirited debate, but I feel like I have posted entirely too many times in this thread already, and I don't see any way of convincing others of my views on this case.

AFPVet
10-30-2013, 02:17 PM
Better yet, we need private police so they enjoy no more legal protection than you or I.

How about a sheriff/marshal/constable with volunteer officers? Originally, mundanes had the same law enforcement powers as the town watch. We need to get back to that.

pcosmar
10-30-2013, 02:26 PM
How many times do we have to go over this? You have no proof that Hitcho was provoked by the neighbor.

That has never been in dispute.. and I posted the original story long ago when it was a breaking story.

The neighbor instigated the confrontation, and accused him of Speeding. Hitchco responded,, and armed himself (rightfully so) with a piece of wood.
I would arm myself too, if some loud mouth started yelling at me.
They exchanged words,, and Hitchco demonstrated where to kiss. (Mooning)

Then the neighbor called police.

This was instigated by the loudmouth butinsky neighbor. One who has repeatedly said he didn't like Hitchco,, and had been causing touble for some time.

The death of the Police Officer is his direct responsibility.

aGameOfThrones
10-30-2013, 02:33 PM
This mundane with a mental illness asked, nay, dared demand a warrant for the cops to legally be in his property, nut job.

AFPVet
10-30-2013, 02:48 PM
This mundane with a mental illness asked, nay, dared demand a warrant for the cops to legally be in his property, nut job.

If they didn't have exigent circumstances or a warrant, they did not have legal justification to be on his property.

DamianTV
10-30-2013, 03:38 PM
If they didn't have exigent circumstances or a warrant, they did not have legal justification to be on his property.

But such is the threat to Humanity called the "Just-Us System". It isnt designed to work to protect you. It protects Them. Enough people just have to believe that it is Fair and Balanced that the Illusion of Justice is maintained, but we here know the truth.