Frank Zito says he shot police because they broke his door{ unreasonable search and seizure }

The Star Democrat ^ | April 04, 2002 | By: BRIAN HAAS

[freespeech1]

policestatedaily

[AAABEST]

"Seems he was trespassing, and the owner wanted him evicted."

Then why didn't the cops knock on the door and serve an eviction notice?

[Roscoe]

Swallowing camels and straining at gnats is a specialty of those who defend the murder of police officers.

[Hajman]

Swallowing camels and straining at gnats is a specialty of those who defend the murder of police officers.

'Guilty until proven innocent' appears to be your cup of tea, no?

-The Hajman-

[Roscoe]

Are you claiming that Zito didn't murder the two police officers?

[Hajman]

Are you claiming that Zito didn't murder the two police officers?

Aye. From the evidence presented here (unless I hear otherwise), it sounds like a case of self-defense.

-The Hajman-

[Roscoe]

...it sounds like a case of self-defense.

Bovine scat.

[Hajman]

Bovine scat.

Is that the best argument you have?

-The Hajman-

[Roscoe]

There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense."

Please quote the supposed "evidence."

[Hajman]

There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense."

Please quote the supposed "evidence."

From the thread, there appears resonable evidence the guy didn't know who the police officers were, and the police officers acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the behavior of proper police officers. They did the equivalent of breaking and entering.

-The Hajman-

[Roscoe]

From the thread, there appears resonable evidence the guy didn't know who the police officers were...

No quotes from the article in support of that falsehood, naturally.

"Skidmore said he arrived to back up Nickerson and Schwenz who were trying to get Zito to come out of his house. After being threatened, the officers got a key to Zito's trailer from his mother, Betty Zito, who was also Zito's landlady..."

[tpaine]

Roscoe; - Bovine scat.

Is that the best argument you have? -The Hajman-

-------------------------

It is the ONLY consistent argument in his bag of tricks. Roscoe is very ho hum predictible.

[Hajman]

No quotes from the article in support of that falsehood, naturally.

"Skidmore said he arrived to back up Nickerson and Schwenz who were trying to get Zito to come out of his house. After being threatened, the officers got a key to Zito's trailer from his mother, Betty Zito, who was also Zito's landlady..."

We assume innocence. Which means the evidence has to point to guilt. If the evidence points to guilt, then we can introduce other evidence to try to prove the guilt evidence invalid. In this case, there's nothing that claims the guy knew who was trying to get into his house the second time around. You need to provide that evidence. Also the article says that the police basically did the equivalent of breaking and entering (a thief with a key getting into the house is still considered breaking and entering). They police didn't serve the man any notice. They didn't give provide a warrant. They simply stormed in (from what the article tells us). Also, you must show that the man knew they were police officers when he shot them. Apparently, he shot when they were opening the door (which may consitute self-defense against an unknown). Where's your evidence that it was premeditated killing with malice intent?

-The Hajman-

[Roscoe]

Which means the evidence has to point to guilt.

Smoking shotgun, dead victims, living witness.

[Hajman]

Smoking shotgun, dead victims, living witness.

Self-defense has these properties, in which case the man would be innocent of murder. Try again. Provide evidence that the man killed with malice aforethought and intent.

-The Hajman-

[Roscoe]

1.From the thread, there appears resonable evidence the guy didn't know who the police officers were...

There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense." The claim is false.

2. Self-defense has these properties...

Begging the question. Zito wasn't attacked and he knew they were police officers, having refused their requests to come out.

[Cogadh na Sith]

and me not being on the jury, who am I to decide his guilt or innocence? Yeah, that's the same thing you said about Clinton and OJ, right?

I guess you are reduced to parroting mush-mouthed liberal moral relativism now....

You've seen my posts on this site, to say I'm a rock-ribbed conservative would be an understatement. Are you actually in favor of police breaking in your door and dragging you out of your house without a warrant!?

You state that his mom wanted him evicted over some problem--whatever. If they had probable cause to enter his home, then there is enough probable cause for his arrest and to search his premises. That is precisely what a seach warrant is for!

Instead of following the legal 'niceties' to protect this fellows rights, they came barging in, not as police, but as law-breaking home invaders. I'm not sure I would react any differently than Zito in this case.

[Hajman]

There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense." The claim is false.

I just gave you some. The man didn't know who the police were. The police pushed into his house in an illegal manner. His innocence is assumed. Therefore, he's assumed innocent of murder, and it's read as self-defense. The only way it can be constructed as murder is if you can prove he killed the officers knowing full well who they were.

Begging the question. Zito wasn't attacked and he knew they were police officers, having refused their requests to come out.

The article states that the police officers went back a second time, and broke through a storm door. It's not reasonable to assume it's an officer breaking through a door when they're only investigating loud noises. I wouldn't think their police either. Do you have evidence the man knew who they were the second time they went there and broke down his door? If not, his innocence (that is, it was only self-defense) is assumed. Also, breaking and entering one's house is enough to justify self-defense in this manner. He didn't have to be attacked.

-The Hajman-

[Roscoe]

The man didn't know who the police were.

Unsupported and ridiculous. Still no quotes, naturally.

[Hajman]

Unsupported and ridiculous. Still no quotes, naturally.

Unsupported? Don't you know what innocent until proven guilty means? It means the burden of proof is on you to prove him guilty. The supporting evidence that he didn't know who the police were is the lack of evidence that he knew who the police were when they came back. Also, the police acted in a manner consistent of a criminal breaking and entering. The man acted in a manner consistent of protecting his home against a criminal breaking and enterting (which is justifiable). However, for the supporting evidence that the man didn't know who they were:

• "'I thought I was protecting my home,' " Fisher quoted Zito as saying. " 'I didn't know they were police until I got outside.' "

Now, prove him wrong, or you don't have a case to stand on. BTW, 'rediculous' never proved anything. It would seem you're ignoring the small fact that the man claimed he didn't know who the police were, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

-The Hajman-