[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.

[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-

[connectthedots]

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

He had no legal duty to 'come out'.