Skip to comments.
Frank Zito says he shot police because they broke his door{ unreasonable search and seizure }
The Star Democrat ^
| April 04, 2002
| By: BRIAN HAAS
Posted on 04/05/2002 8:59:46 PM PST by freespeech1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 381-392 next last
To: Hajman
1.
From the thread, there appears resonable evidence the guy didn't know who the police officers were... 2. Don't you know what innocent until proven guilty means?
Pitiful. Zito murdered two police officers with a shotgun when they returned to his trailer.
I hope he tries out your absurd argument to the jury.
181
posted on
04/06/2002 6:57:09 PM PST
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
Pitiful. Zito murdered two police officers with a shotgun when they returned to his trailer.
You're the one who's pitiful. You ask for evidence, I give you it, you reject it out of hand. You haven't brought up a shred of evidence to back up your statements (and the evidence you did bring up didn't prove that the guy knew they were police officers when they came around the second time). You're assuming he's guilty. That won't go in court.
I hope he tries out your absurd argument to the jury.
From the article:
In their closing arguments, defense lawyer Brian Shefferman argued that Zito's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated by the three officers. He said Zito did not consent to the officers coming on his premises even though they entered his enclosed porch.
They already gave part of it. I'm sure the rest will come out in court. We'll see how this plays out. Personally, I think he'll get off with the self-defense charge, seeing the lack of evidence for his guilt (unless there's other evidence beyond this article, which is possible. In which case, he should be found guilty of murder).
I hope I never see you on a jury. You'll probably be yelling "He's guilty! There's no evidence to prove he's innocent! He's guilty!" That's not how our courts work (and if you were familiar in any way to the court system, you'd realize that).
-The Hajman-
182
posted on
04/06/2002 7:07:33 PM PST
by
Hajman
To: Hajman
You ask for evidence, I give you it... You did no such thing. I'm still waiting for you to quote the "reasonable evidence" you claim exists in this thread.
"He said Zito did not consent to the officers coming on his premises even though they entered his enclosed porch."
He didn't give the police consent to enter his mother's trailer and that he didn't know that they were police officers.
Priceless.
183
posted on
04/06/2002 7:17:01 PM PST
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
You did no such thing. I'm still waiting for you to quote the "reasonable evidence" you claim exists in this thread.
You obviously didn't read my post. Let me try again, for the vision impared:
"'I thought I was protecting my home,' " Fisher quoted Zito as saying. " 'I didn't know they were police until I got outside.' "
And yes, that is reasonable evidence. You want to call him wrong, you're going to have to prove it.
He didn't give the police consent to enter his mother's trailer and that he didn't know that they were police officers.
Such a predictable statement. If someone broke into my house, and I didn't know who they were, the statement "I didn't give my consent" would still be true. Not knowing who the police were, and not giving his consent, are not exclusive. You're really reaching to try to claim your argument. Our court systems really don't need people like you who claim the person's guilty until proven innocent.
-The Hajman-
184
posted on
04/06/2002 7:23:29 PM PST
by
Hajman
To: Hajman
'I thought I was protecting my home,' " Fisher quoted Zito as saying. " 'I didn't know they were police until I got outside.' " The quote at last. That self-serving statement from the killer is the sum of your "reasonable" evidence?
He's as good as convicted.
185
posted on
04/06/2002 7:28:51 PM PST
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
The quote at last. That self-serving statement from the killer is the sum of your "reasonable" evidence?
I gave the quote in post #180. Too bad you missed it, even though I had it sitting right out in front where even a blind bat couldn't miss it. And yes, it's reasonable evidence, because there's no evidence to the contrary.
He's as good as convicted.
In other words, you believe he's guilty until proven innocent. He's as good as innocent (unless some other evidence comes out), actually. You know why? Because the courts will assume he's innocent until they prove him guilty. In other words, they'll assume he's telling the truth, unless it can be proven otherwise. Too bad you don't understand how the court system works (or is supposed to). Innocent until proven guilty is one of the base components of it. Hate to burst your bubble, but they arn't going to assume he's lying and guilty.
-The Hajman-
186
posted on
04/06/2002 7:34:53 PM PST
by
Hajman
To: Hajman
In other words, you believe he's guilty until proven innocent. He committed the shotgun murder of two police who returned the trailer after he refused to come out after a disturbance call. You have the killer, the victims, the smoking gun and a living witness.
Let's see how the jury decides.
I've got a hundred dollar donation to FreeRepublic that says Zito goes to prison. Would you care to make a wager?
187
posted on
04/06/2002 7:53:28 PM PST
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
He committed the shotgun murder of two police who returned the trailer after he refused to come out after a disturbance call. You have the killer, the victims, the smoking gun and a living witness.
Sorry, but that does not prove a murder.
Let's see how the jury decides.
Yes, let's.
I've got a hundred dollar donation to FreeRepublic that says Zito goes to prison. Would you care to make a wager?
Nope. For one thing, I don't have enough money to even pay my bills, much less make a wager with (which is what happens when one has job problems). And second, other evidence could come out to prove his guilt. However, I will say this: I believe the court will find him innocent of murder if no other evidence beyond what this article supplies comes out.
-The Hajman-
188
posted on
04/06/2002 8:00:21 PM PST
by
Hajman
To: William Terrell
Yeah, if Zito was screaming incoherently and making threats from his domicile, and I knew of his psychotic episodes in the past, I would effect an entry ... with his mother's spare set of keys and at her behest ... to ensure that he was not in danger of hurting himself or others during a psychotic episode because it is what is right and humane and it is part of my fekking job! Those two officers knew this guy well enough to never expect a 12 gauge assault upon their entry, but they were doing their jobs valiantly, and anyone who thinks what happened that day was evidence of a growing police state can stick blue apples up their asses until the next millenium beach blanket bunker party.
Oh, and regards.
To: Roscoe
Fisher said Zito was yelling "Nazi Gestapo" It's a fine line between a trailer-bound murderous sociopath and a mail-order lawyer/State Prosecutor.
To: Hajman; Roscoe
Gotta go with Roscoe on this one...if you read the 911 transcript it appears his mother got on the phone with him and from what he said to her it is apparent to me he knew they were officers.
The problem for the officers, if this gets appealed, is whether they lawfully could enter the residence. The Circuit Court judge already ruled they couldn't. That's a no brainer.
Sorry Roscoe, people don't have to obey a "request" by an officer to come out of their residence where the only issue is a noise complaint - that's called living in a free country. At that point the officers had no cause to enter the residence without a warrant. Had there truly been "threats" then the officers were faced with a barricade situation and, by procedure, are required to call out an emergency response team. The officers didn't...for whatever reason. The judge ruled their actions unconstitutional. (This is why I say "had there truly been 'threats' "; because this might have created an exigency that would have allowed a warrantless entry. Presumably the Judge heard all the evidence prior to ruling on the constitutionality of their entry and did not find an exigency.)
FWIW - if the State can prove this guy committed a premeditated murder of two cops they should fry him...but if I were a betting man I'd bet they won't be able to prove First Degree Murder on these facts.
The other problem for the Police, sorry Roscoe and the rest of you statists, if the police are making an illegal entry they are committing a felony due to the fact that they are armed. At that point all bets are off regarding self-defense and other issues.
Put another way, I know that I haven't committed any crimes and if I wake up tommorrow at 0230 and see men in my house with guns I'll start shooting. If they are police, am I guilty of murder? NO. Before you call me crazy, go talk to the next cop you see and ask him or her what he or she would do if they woke up in the middle of the night with armed individuals in their house, regardless of whether those individuals purport to be police via their uniforms? You'll get the same answer. We all know that home invaders are using the Galls cataloug to order uniforms so that their victims are more likely to comply.
We still live in a free country where your home is your castle - and you are allowed to defend it if you are a law-abiding citizen.
Which I am.
191
posted on
04/07/2002 5:16:23 AM PDT
by
Abundy
To: supercat
See #191...yes, they were committing a felony by breaking into an occupied residence, at night, with weapons.
Which makes the inevitable appeal of the suppression issue a very close call and one to watch.
192
posted on
04/07/2002 5:18:32 AM PDT
by
Abundy
To: ArneFufkin
It's a fine line between a trailer-bound murderous sociopath and a mail-order lawyer/State Prosecutor. 190 posted on 4/7/02 1:29 AM Eastern by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
After you spend time as a cop and graduate from an accredited law school you can get back to me and hurl all the insults you want...until then you're just another armchair lawyer with not one ounce of common sense; legal knowledge or knowledge of police procedure and why it exists.
Piss off.
193
posted on
04/07/2002 5:21:18 AM PDT
by
Abundy
To: ArneFufkin
Yeah, if Zito was screaming incoherently and making threats from his domicile, and I knew of his psychotic episodes in the past, I would effect an entry ... with his mother's spare set of keys and at her behest ... to ensure that he was not in danger of hurting himself or others during a psychotic episode because it is what is right and humane and it is part of my fekking job!
Actually a Judge disagrees with you...guess he's a mail order judge. Additionally, this report is the only report where I see mention of 'threats' - there's no mention of threats in the 911 transcript...so your assertions about "Zito was screaming incoherently and making threats from his domicile, and I knew of his psychotic episodes in the past" are facts not in evidence. You sound like every two-bit, fascist, liberal defense attorney I deal with that will lie and say anything to get a guilty client off.
Every time you open you mouth you display your absolute ignorance for all to see.
The only difference between you getting shotgunned to death and these two officers is that the loss of the two officers is a tragedy.
194
posted on
04/07/2002 5:25:57 AM PDT
by
Abundy
To: Abundy
Put another way, I know that I haven't committed any crimes and if I wake up tommorrow at 0230 and see men in my house with guns I'll start shooting. If they are police, am I guilty of murder? NO. Assuming that your bark had a bite and that you survived the attempt, a real jury would probably return a verdict of guilty.
195
posted on
04/07/2002 7:39:48 AM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: ArneFufkin
Yeah, if Zito was screaming incoherently and making threats from his domicile, and I knew of his psychotic episodes in the past, I would effect an entry ... with his mother's spare set of keys and at her behest ... to ensure that he was not in danger of hurting himself or others during a psychotic episode because it is what is right and humane and it is part of my fekking job! Those two officers knew this guy well enough to never expect a 12 gauge assault upon their entry, but they were doing their jobs valiantly, and anyone who thinks what happened that day was evidence of a growing police state can stick blue apples up their asses until the next millenium beach blanket bunker party. How do you know he was doing these things. According to abundy, the record shows nothing like this.
Here is a guy that was doing crazy things, you say. He is armed. He has a past of psychotic episodes, you say. And you would have effected the dynamic entry anyway? Why? Evidently it got two officers killed. Why not just lay seige to his house? Talk to him. Negotiate.
How was he a danger to others, holed up in his house? How was he a danger to himself? Afraid he would commit suicide? When you want to order a potentially deadly assault on him? Oh, yes, no one knew he was armed. Every day I read about officers taking precautions because a subject may be armed.
Excuse me, but I think you would have gotten more officers killed had you been in charge. So, you're not a hypocrite, you're something worse. A hypocrite usually only hurts himself, one who would put officers' live in jepordy over a bruised ego hurts the entire public he works for.
To: ArneFufkin
The prosecution called Dr. Steven B. Goldberg, director of pretrial services and admissions at the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital. Goldberg testified that Zito is competent to stand trial as shown by his understanding of the different roles in a jury, the charges against him, the possible punishments he faces, and different defense strategies. Though Goldberg agreed with the previous two doctors' diagnosis for Zito, Goldberg said they left out two important aspects of Zito's mental illness: a history of past alcohol and drug dependency and an "anti-social personality disorder." Goldberg said much of Zito's perceived paranoia and belief in conspiracies stem from the fact that he has had trouble with authority his entire life.
The Star Democrat | March 29, 2002 | By: BRIAN HAAS
Hmmmm.
197
posted on
04/07/2002 8:12:15 AM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Texasforever
"But they are too few and far between. Some Police state."I'll bet the victims don't feel that way.
How many would be enough for you? What do you need to call this a police state? A thousand? More? How bad does it have to get before you think it's OK to exercise your 2nd amendment right.
To: antidemocommie
1. Did the cops do break the law trying to enforce it?
2. Did the cops illegally enter the home of the defendant?
3. Does the home owner have the right to defend his home against illegal entry?
Thats all there is to this argument. If the cops broke the law trying to enforce it, they were wrong. If the defendant illegally entered the home of the police, would they have the right to use force to stop him?
Reminds me of an episode of "Picket Fences" where the sherriff (played by Tom Skerritt) was on a jury where a drug dealer was being tried for opening fire on cops breaking into his apartment. Since the cops just broke in and didn't identify themselves, Skerritt made a point where the dealer was firing in self defense. I guess in that case, it is a bit of a stretch, but I'd say there could be some grounds there.
I think the best way is the police to identify who they are as they are knocking on the door, at least to make it legal because if they just barge in, the person in the house could think they are robbers or whatnot. I guess in situations like a standoff and such, barging in would be OK since the perp knows he is surrounded anyhow and know the cops are out there.
Generally, I support strong law enforcement and tough sentencing for violent criminals, but I think we need to honor the protections that are given to us in the Constitution as well. The militarization of law enforcement is kind of disturbing to me. Sure SWAT teams are needed, but when you expand it to the rank and file cops, I think that's when it can really backfire on you.
To: freespeech1
...
"pop, pop" of the shotgun blasts...Pop, pop? What was it, a .410 loaded with bird shot? No shotgun I ever heard did less than BANG!
200
posted on
04/07/2002 8:35:41 AM PDT
by
JimRed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 381-392 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson