This, in a nutshell!
This, in a nutshell!
Shot in the back of the head? From inside the house? That's a bit of a different light on the subject!
Are there any sources on this incident from within the US?
Woody
Are there any sources on this incident from within the US?
Woody
I posted a link to one local article in post 7…with eyewitness testimony.
Here's a link to a bunch of stories about this 3+ year old incident:http://search.lehighvalleylive.com/hitcho/
Here's a link to a bunch of stories about this 3+ year old incident:http://search.lehighvalleylive.com/hitcho/
Thanks, SMS.
Woody
Woody
Legally, the question of whether or not it was self defense would hinge on whether the homeowner was reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury. He states that the cop pointed a gun at him. The police chief who responded said the dead cop was waving a stun gun in the air before he was shot, while the chief was shouting "shoot him!" (apparently in reference to the dogs). I'd say a person could easily mistake a stun gun for a firearm, especially if If this was indeed ever pointed at the homeowner, I'd say he could be reasonably in fear of death or SBI. At a trial, the legal issue is whether there is reasonable doubt that he was in such fear. Based on what I've heard, I'd say there is room for reasonable doubt.
Another issue is what the cop should have done when the homeowner told him to get off his property. The only justification for continuing to intrude on the property at that point without a warrant would be one of the exigency exceptions to the warrant requirement. The "immediate danger to life" exigency would be the only one that would be close, I would say. Was it reasonable to believe that life would be in immediate danger without the intrusion? I don't think so -- this was a call over a friggin argument between neighbors, and this particular guy was back inside his house and not threatening anyone when the cop showed up.
The cop should have stopped and turned his ass around as soon as he was told to leave. He could investigate the incident by interviewing the neighbor who called, and if probable cause of a crime was discovered, go apply for an arrest warrant for the homeowner. Instead, he chose to trespass on the guy's property and threaten to harm his dogs. While that doesn't legally justify deadly force in and of itself, it is definitely illegal, stupid, and needlessly risky behavior that led directly to his death. I bet if you gave the cop the chance, he would sure as hell wish he'd done things "by the book" instead of letting ego get in the way, and refusing to back down to the property owner. Ego and machismo almost certainly played a part on the property owner's part, too. I bet if you gave him the choice after that jury verdict, he would wish he had done things differently too.
Stupidity at play on both sides... but ultimately the homeowner is the one accused of a crime and entitled to the presumption of innocence, so he deserves the benefit of any reasonable doubt... plus he is the witness in the best position to see what happened. If he were being tried based on what's in the articles, I'd be voting "not guilty."
FYI, the attitude a few of you expressed about "the cops always deserve the benefit of the doubt," which is pretty common in Oklahoma, is why I don't like to take very many cases to trial, and why many people don't think they can get a fair trial. If you follow the Constitution, the defendant ALWAYS deserves the benefit of the doubt! Not a lot of people are willing to give it to them though, when there is a uniformed gov't employee sitting on the witness stand. It is quite a contradiction to the usual Oklahoma attitude of distrust for the government.
Another issue is what the cop should have done when the homeowner told him to get off his property. The only justification for continuing to intrude on the property at that point without a warrant would be one of the exigency exceptions to the warrant requirement. The "immediate danger to life" exigency would be the only one that would be close, I would say. Was it reasonable to believe that life would be in immediate danger without the intrusion? I don't think so -- this was a call over a friggin argument between neighbors, and this particular guy was back inside his house and not threatening anyone when the cop showed up.
The cop should have stopped and turned his ass around as soon as he was told to leave. He could investigate the incident by interviewing the neighbor who called, and if probable cause of a crime was discovered, go apply for an arrest warrant for the homeowner. Instead, he chose to trespass on the guy's property and threaten to harm his dogs. While that doesn't legally justify deadly force in and of itself, it is definitely illegal, stupid, and needlessly risky behavior that led directly to his death. I bet if you gave the cop the chance, he would sure as hell wish he'd done things "by the book" instead of letting ego get in the way, and refusing to back down to the property owner. Ego and machismo almost certainly played a part on the property owner's part, too. I bet if you gave him the choice after that jury verdict, he would wish he had done things differently too.
Stupidity at play on both sides... but ultimately the homeowner is the one accused of a crime and entitled to the presumption of innocence, so he deserves the benefit of any reasonable doubt... plus he is the witness in the best position to see what happened. If he were being tried based on what's in the articles, I'd be voting "not guilty."
FYI, the attitude a few of you expressed about "the cops always deserve the benefit of the doubt," which is pretty common in Oklahoma, is why I don't like to take very many cases to trial, and why many people don't think they can get a fair trial. If you follow the Constitution, the defendant ALWAYS deserves the benefit of the doubt! Not a lot of people are willing to give it to them though, when there is a uniformed gov't employee sitting on the witness stand. It is quite a contradiction to the usual Oklahoma attitude of distrust for the government.
This sounds like a case where the totality of the circumstances would need to be in evidence before a correct verdict could be rendered. Without being in the courtroom to see everything the jurors saw, I wouldn't be willing to make a judgement.
I know that if someone points a gun at my dogs on my property, I will consider them to a lethal threat to ME. However, a uniformed officer responding to a disturbance holding a taser doesn't qualify. I guess this guy could claim ignorance. From the facts in evidence, I believe he may be exceptionally ignorant.
I know that if someone points a gun at my dogs on my property, I will consider them to a lethal threat to ME. However, a uniformed officer responding to a disturbance holding a taser doesn't qualify. I guess this guy could claim ignorance. From the facts in evidence, I believe he may be exceptionally ignorant.
There is a disturbing trend happening lately with people violating the law, violating the rights of others, generally just being assholes, and then suddenly demanding their own rights be precisely adhered to based on a ridiculous make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules when the police response they generated by their own actions ends up badly for them.
This guy was a thug, just like Michael Brown. He threatened his neighbor with a 2x4 and had a host of other baggage beyond that one incident...then when a cop showed up, he killed him in cold blood, from inside his house. Any court in the land would back up the cops right, and duty, to stand on Hitcho's porch and knock on the door in an attempt to make contact with him after a fellow citizen called for assistance.
The anti-government, white supremacist, and infowars type websites are all abuzz about this case, making Hitcho out to be some kind of martyr for freedom. I say planting the flag on a ********* like this is as dumb as the civil rights idiots planting their flag on Michael Brown. If you don't like cops, I get it. I have my own reservations about the tribal mentality our law enforcement community is developing, but if stuff like that bothers you, how about don't do sh$t that results in your neighbors calling the cops? That would be a good start. That would be someone I'd hold up in high regard...
If this script was flipped, and a cop shot someone under these identical circumstances...how many would be flaming the cop?
This guy was a thug, just like Michael Brown. He threatened his neighbor with a 2x4 and had a host of other baggage beyond that one incident...then when a cop showed up, he killed him in cold blood, from inside his house. Any court in the land would back up the cops right, and duty, to stand on Hitcho's porch and knock on the door in an attempt to make contact with him after a fellow citizen called for assistance.
The anti-government, white supremacist, and infowars type websites are all abuzz about this case, making Hitcho out to be some kind of martyr for freedom. I say planting the flag on a ********* like this is as dumb as the civil rights idiots planting their flag on Michael Brown. If you don't like cops, I get it. I have my own reservations about the tribal mentality our law enforcement community is developing, but if stuff like that bothers you, how about don't do sh$t that results in your neighbors calling the cops? That would be a good start. That would be someone I'd hold up in high regard...
If this script was flipped, and a cop shot someone under these identical circumstances...how many would be flaming the cop?
Ditto...
And... We in the gun rights community have been natural allies with law enforcement for a long time. I can think of no better way to endanger our rights than to become seen as enemies of the people whose duty it is to enforce the law.
In this case macho was likely an element on both sides. At some point it became personal between all of the parties involved. I have no doubt that the officer, however, was not looking to get into a conflict with this guy. He was dispatched to a call. He went, which is what he's paid to do.
An acquaintance of mine is one of the founding members and current president of an organization I belong to; the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. It's a grassroots NRA affiliate and is primarily responsible for the passages of Missouri's concealed weapons law after twelve years of battles in the legislature and the courts. His name is Kevin Jamison, and he's a practicing criminal defense attorney in Kansas City, MO, specializing in weapons & self-defense law.
Kevin frequently states that the side of the road is no place to have constitutional discussions and legal debates with law enforcement. That's what the courts are for. If this officer had Tased a dog or two there likely would have been no permanent harm done. Cops know this because they have the pleasure of being tased as part of the certification for carrying Tasers. Shotguns don't have a temporary effect.
This is a case of murder.
Did the dogs end up getting shot?
Similar threads
