Bricker is a purveyor of misinformation; listen to him at your own risk

And Disney-themed amusement parks.

As does France. So I’m invoking the Napoleonic Code.

Read for comprehension. The article is about the New Black Panther Party trying to arrest Zimmerman, and the issues that get in the way of it. One of those issues is the difficulty in proving Zimmerman committed a crime. Which is exactly my point. If a citizen makes an arrest, they will be in trouble is if they can’t prove a crime took place.

Please. Your whole spiel is the making of Zimmerman v. 2.0. Some other black person will be shot, and you won’t be happy to let the actual authorities look at the actual facts, you and others will be right there pointing out “inconsistencies” and other BS until everyone’s sick of it. And someone could google “Trayvon Martin” and see the BS you’ve spewed and conclude that the police and white people are always trying to kill black people for no reason, and the latest incident is just another example.

You are the reason we’ll never get over racism in this country.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Cites/shits ratio: 5 to 1

You’re wrong, you’re a lawyer, AND a conservative?

I could Pit you, but I think I’ll just give you enough rope, and see if you know how to hang yourself with it.

If you say so, I guess. But I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen people jumping up and down about how it’s not “moral” just because it’s legal and the lawyer saying “I never said it was moral just because it is legal.” Over and over and over.

Witness the thread I started about pro bono. People argued till they were blue in the face and never seemed to grasp the distinction between a legal obligation and a moral obligation. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t believe in your ability to finely parse a discussion and understand what a lawyer is saying (heck, I should look for posts by you in that thread, might be amusing).

Come at me, bro!

you with the face, it’s been said and deserves repetition; you need to avoid the Zimmerman-Martin case thing.

Your posts read as unhinged. If you can’t see it, take a few months off the topic. I’m being totally serious. You’re in the early stages of message board meltdown, and I speak from the bottom of my heart when I tell you that you need to find some other stuff to read and write about.

We ave had other posters who became obsessed with a particular case and tried to turn themselves into part-time internet lawyers. It never seems to turn out well for them personally. Back away, I beseech you.

ywtf, I think you should re-double your efforts on this Martin-Zimmerman thing. You are finallly making some headway! Don’t stop now! Stopping now would let the racists win.

What a wonderful person you are.

I am not melting down guys. This is the calmest OP in the Pit, so please save the condescension for someone else.

But the first quote in your OP doesn’t even mention the issue of whether a felony has been committed. It goes only to the question of what constitutes self-defense. If someone punches you first, you have the right to defend yourself against them.

Firstly, it doesn’t matter if, under the law, the punch itself is a felony or a misdemeanor. It is an attack, and as such is something that you have the right to defend yourself against.

The extent to which the punch was provoked may, in fact, be an issue. If someone has encroached on your personal space aggressively enough that you reasonably believed that they were about to attack you, you might be able to sustain a claim of self-defense even if you were the first one to throw a punch. For example, if you try to leave a bar, and a guy gets in your way and say, “I’m not letting you out of here before i beat your head in,” you would have a good chance of making an argument that you were justified in hitting him first.

The question, though, is whether what Zimmerman did–following someone from a distance while keeping an eye on him–would actually constitute such a provocation. You call it stalking, but you can’t simply make the assumption that it fits the legal requirement of stalking, or of harassment, or something similar that would justify Martin initiating an attack on Zimmerman.

That’s what i meant when i said that Bricker’s statement was a conditional statement. The legal analysis in the statement, regarding the validity of self-defense, depended on the accuracy of the statement “If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman…” Because if that is how the conflict began (we don’t know whether it is or not), then Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, even if he was following Martin for no good reason.

The problem with your question is that it completely fails to take into account the ongoing nature of the altercation. If, for example, Martin ran up to Zimmerman, punched him in the nose, and ran away, i don’t think Zimmerman wold be (morally) justified in shooting him as he fled. But the punch to the face was, according to Zimmerman, only the beginning of an attack that continued after the first punch. If it seems like the attack is turning deadly, then deadly force might seem like a reasonable response. Even the witnesses who arived later seem pretty sure that Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him repeatedly.

But here’s the thing: in Zimmerman’s mind, in those frantic seconds, that’s exactly how it might have seemed.

He’s not arguing, i don’t think, that it’s legal to shoot someone in retaliation. He’s arguing that it’s legal to shoot someone in self-defense during an ongoing struggled in which you have reason to fear for your life.

Of course, i’ve now failed to help you take the advice i gave you earlier. I’ve engaged you on a subject that has you very steamed up and, to be honest, rather irrational. I’m not gong to do it again, because while i appreciate that you are sincere in your position here, i think you’ve reached a stage where you’re having trouble dealing with this issue in a clear-headed manner.

Sure. You return non-deadly force with non-deadly force. You don’t use a deadly weapon when someone has punched you.

It certainly matters when we’re talking about a citizen’s arrest. A citizen can only detain another person if they’ve committed a felony and the citizen has probable cause of such. Misdemeanors (other than certain kinds of theft) are not serious enough offenses for a citizens arrest in most jurisdictions that follow common law (like Florida).

As of this spelled out in that other thread. I didn’t bother bringing that in here, because my beef with Bricker concerns something much more basic than that.

Yes, and this is why Bricker is wrong when he says it would be legal for a citizen to detain someone who punched them. It might be legal, but it very well might not be legal if a judge determined that the punch was provoked.

Since I’m not the one making declarations as to whether a punch constitutes felony battery (like Bricker has), this question is irrelevant to me. That is a question best left up to a judge or jury to answer; and that is my point.

A correctly worded conditional statement would be “If Martin punched Zimmmerman and it was later found to be felony battery by the presiding judge who reviewed the evidence and found Martin guilty, and Zimmerman shot Martin in response and this level of force was found to be reasonable and not excessive, it might be legal for Zimmerman to grab and detain Martin.”

But that is not what he said. This might sound like I’m parsing, but honestly I’m not. The whole shooting thing alone makes what Bricker opinion, as expressed, irresponsible.

Why wouldn’t this problem be inherent to Bricker’s hypothetical and subsequent conclusion?

We are not talking about all the other allegations in Zimmerman’s statement. Bricker is only talking about a punch to the face.

Well thanks for that. Nobody forced you respond to me, and I’m sorry if me merely disagreeing with you causes to conclude I’m acting irrationally. You really don’t seem to have a handle on what we are really talking about, though.

If that’s true, then who’s to blame for that?

I’m not going to read through a 5000-post thread that i haven’t even participated in, just to make sure that i have all the nuances of your multi-page argument down pat. I relied on what you told me in the OP. If you weren’t interested in receiving input from people who hadn’t been part of the other discussion, then why bother to start a whole new thread.

Anyway, i’m done with this. I’ll leave you to keep fighting the good fight.

I don’t get your hostility. You made an incorrect assumption, and I corrected you on it and then told you the backstory. Please chill.

I mean, I know we’re in the Pit and all, but it’s not that serious. To answer your question, it’s my blame. I could have thrown in a legal definition of citizens arrest and done a better job emphasizing that this, not self defense, was the subject of the OP. I could have also thrown in a few more curse words, too.

They both have a Universal Studios.
I’m invoking JAG Uniform Code of Military Justice.

you with the face, you have already made an ass of yourself. If you had any brains you would leave this thread before you dig yourself deeper.


One last thing, though: might i suggest that you take your own advice here?

That entire thread is a joke. The Zimmie douchebags tell the same lies over and over, hoping that will somehow make their bullshit magically become truth. For example:

Martin repeatedly bashed Zimmerman’s head against the ground (the really dumb ones claim it was the sidewalk).

Actual evidence: Zero. The tiny cut on Zimmerman’s head is inconsistent with any form of head-bashing.

Contradictory evidence: Lack of contusions and/or lacerations on Zimmerman’s head. Lack of concussion. Lack of bruising and/or discoloration. Perhaps Trayvon Martin was thoughtful enough to bring a pillow.

Zimmerman was brutally beaten; Zimmerman was repeatedly punched in the face.

Actual evidence: Injury consistent with a single punch to the nose.

Contradictory evidence: Lack of any injuries consistent with multiple punches. No bruising, lacerations or contusions on Zimmerman’s face. No damage to Martin’s hands save for one tiny laceration.
But on and on they bleat about this purely fictional brutal assault. I’m not even going to go into the absurd dialogue attributed to Martin by Zimmerman. The Zimmies never address it because they know it’s complete and utter self-serving bullshit contrived by a murderer trying to find shelter in the SYG laws.

I don’t know if the folks who propagate these lies are gullible or racist. Maybe they are gullible racists. Whatever they are, fuck 'em.

Have I cursed you out for calling me irrational and unnecessarily hostile things? In the Pit, no less? No. That’s pretty goddamn chill if you ask me. Please take that gift and run with it before it expires.