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

#4: "He (Trooper Skidmore) said Zito's mother told the officers to get Zito out "by any means necessary."

Having been in similar situations, it's my humble opinion that Trooper Corey Skidmore might have a problem with Betty Zito's "by any means necessary" statement.

First, again imho, this statement sounds somewhat contrived. It's far to 'legalese' for my taste. It's more reasonable to think she'd have said something like, "do what you have to do", or, "I don't care what you do, just get him out."

Second, rule # 1 (learned the first day at any police academy) when removing someone from a home, house, apt, etc. is to ask the question, "Does he (the suspect) have a gun"?If the troopers didn't ask this question, it was a fatal mistake, with the emphasis on *mistake.*

You can take the following to the bank.

There are lots of cops out there that watch too many reruns of NYPD Blue. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the national trend regarding police tactics is troubling. Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that Betty Zito's statement will change before trial.

To smear anyone who questions such police tactics as "militia types" is to shut down the free and open exchange of ideas.

I think with the attitude of 'it's OK to run from the police,' soon the police are just going to ride around for an 8 hour shift and not stop anybody.

The nanny state is reaching into police dept.'s also. I see this more and more. When I go to honest Joe Citizen's house and he has a complaint and I tell him there is nothing I can do for him then maybe he'll start to vote for legislators who will do something for him.

I guess we are getting the government we vote for.

No, not new. "Nazi" was first used in paragraph 13 of Post #1. It was used subsequently in posts 36, 37, 48, 78, 86, 127, 149, 151, 190, and 222 ... before I used it. I didn't even make the top ten ... sigh.

But did they call America Nazi Germany? By the way, you went through a lot of work for my post which wasn't the most serious one I've ever made. :^)

The point being made by many posters is that there is a fairly narrow, but well-defined boundary between proper police protocols, and police abuse. When the police (be they local, state or federal) overstep their bounds (for instance, at Waco and at Ruby Ridge) you see the spector of something not too different from the authoritarian European states of the 1930's and 1940's. Whether you call them jack-booted nazi thugs, or jack-booted fascist thugs makes little difference.

The people at Waco and Ruby Ridge were keeping to themselves. This guy was breaking the law in public infringing on his fellow citizen's peace. The police had to immediately make the man cease and desist, unlike in Waco and Ruby Ridge.

I responded to a comment that suggested in some locale the police would just "take care of the problem" (or something like that) - the suggestion being that they would not be bound by legal or Constitutional requirements ... they would be a law unto themselves.

On a disturbing the peace complaint, I believe that the police have the right to end this criminal activity. To tie up a department questioning each other whether they can stop him or not from disturbing the peace is stupid. I believe it's OK to act in a situation of a petty complaint where there are ambiguities. 999,999 out of a million, no one will get hurt. This guy was just a murderer waiting for his chance. I hope he fries. (I guess I'm just your friendly neighborhood jack-booted thug. LOL)

In my book, that's Nazi-ism. I hope I explained it a little bit better. I meant no personal offense.

[sarcasm on]Don't mention it. It doesn't offend me at all to be called a murdering Nazi over a trivial matter like a noise complaint. [sarcasm off] America is Nazi Germany because of the ambiguous suppression of people who make too much noisse in residential neighborhoods?

I'll keep my reply in the same light vein. I try not to go out of my way to offend posters, but rather carry out a dialogue.

This guy was breaking the law in public infringing on his fellow citizen's peace. The police had to immediately make the man cease and desist ... I'm not totally clear from the article what, exactly, Frank Zito was doing, but from other posts on the threads, it sounds as if he was talking to himself. It also sounds like his mother called the police, on the pretext of disturbing the peace, to get him yet another psych eval. I disagree that the police "had to immediately make the man cease and desist." After all, it's not against the law to be a nut!

"On a disturbing the peace complaint, I believe that the police have the right to end this criminal activity." A "complaint" in and of itself does not mean a law was being broken, or had been broken. In college I had a party one evening in my apartment. Some very studious neighbors called the campus police who knocked on my door. I saw them through the peep hole and talked to them through the door. They said there was a noise complaint. I asked what time it was, and assured them the music would go off before 10 p.m. - which it did. They hung around for a while, but there wasn't much they could do - I was within my rights too!

This guy was just a murderer ... IF his acts were premeditated; IF the police acted within the law, and ;IF he had the capacity to make a rationale judgment, you may be right. Thanks for the discussion.

... I'm not totally clear from the article what, exactly, Frank Zito was doing, but from other posts on the threads, it sounds as if he was talking to himself. It also sounds like his mother called the police, on the pretext of disturbing the peace, to get him yet another psych eval. I disagree that the police "had to immediately make the man cease and desist." After all, it's not against the law to be a nut!

Yes, if he wasn't being an immediate public nuisance, then the police shouldn't have broke in. But two dead cops for this error is extreme.

A "complaint" in and of itself does not mean a law was being broken, or had been broken.

It's against the law to disturb the peace.

In college I had a party one evening in my apartment. Some very studious neighbors called the campus police who knocked on my door. I saw them through the peep hole and talked to them through the door. They said there was a noise complaint. I asked what time it was, and assured them the music would go off before 10 p.m. - which it did. They hung around for a while, but there wasn't much they could do - I was within my rights too!

You have no respect for others.

This guy was just a murderer ... IF his acts were premeditated; IF the police acted within the law, and ;IF he had the capacity to make a rationale judgment, you may be right. Thanks for the discussion.

He's a murderer.

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.