Replies

II Homicide
A Intentional Killing
1. Murder: the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought (express or implied).
a) Elements of Malice Aforethought
i. Intent to kill (express malice)
ii. Intent to inflict great bodily injury
iii. Reckless indifference or
iv. Intent to commit a felony
ii, iii and iv are “implied”
2. Voluntary Manslaughter: an intentional killing distinguishable from murder by the existence of adequate provocation. No malice aforethought.
a) Elements of Provocation
i. arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of the ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his self-control.
ii. must have been provoked.
iii. must not have been a sufficient time between the provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool.
iv. D in fact did not cool between provocation and killing.
b) When Provocation is adequate
i. Being subjected to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force; and
ii. Discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person.

All the elements for murder are present, none of the statutory provocation exceptions needed for a manslaughter defense fit the crimes.

No wonder the Grand Jury was able to decide on a murder charge so quickly and easily.

Not only did the officers murdered by Zito not employ deadly force against him, the surviving officer subdued the killer with pepper spray.

Perhaps you should mail Zito some of your legal arguments.

Please do.

All the elements for murder are present, none of the statutory provocation exceptions needed for a manslaughter defense fit the crimes.

As usual, you're only looking at the points which would lead to his guilt, and completely ignoring anything that would lead to his innocence. In this case, you're completely ignoring the self-defense defense, which means your argument falls under the logical fallacy of False Dilemma. You've convinced me that you don't want him to be innocent, and you'd do anything to insure his guilt. You sir, are dishonest. When presented with the evidence, as predicted, you go off on a tangent, one which still doesn't look at both sides of the issue. You haven't looked at the illegal entry that the police have done. When shown that Maryland and other states' law allows for self-defense in one's own home, you completely ignore it and toss out ad hominem attacks, such as You mean shotgunning two police officers standing on your porch asking you to turn down your stereo, because they "broke your door" to the porch? No, only a lunatic or a blind zealot could believe such a thing without even applying the illegal factor of what they did. When provided with an argument, you've repeatedly missrepresented it, even after you were corrected. And you've completely lied on one point. This doesn't do your credibility for rational discussion much good.

Perhaps Zito is guilty and miss-using self-defense. In which case, they should lock him up and toss away the key. However, perhaps he's innocent and self-defense is a valid defense in this case. However, you'll never be able to comprehend this if you continue to reject the evidence for his innocence out of hand.

I'll give you one more chance though. 1) What the police did: legal or illegal? 2) Does a person have a right to self-defense in one's own home? And 3) Could the actions of the police justify the actions for self-defense?

Answer in a rational manner. I don't mind what your answers are, as long as they're rational and not emotional (like all your other arguments have been).

BTW, I have enjoyed this conversation with you. However, trying to converse rationally with an emotionalist has it's limits.

-The Hajman-