Replies

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-

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.