We don’t have to look at the thread. We are responding to the excerpts ywtf selected herself and quoted in the OP. Again:
I can’t imagine that anyone wants to wade through that trainwreck of a thread. It’s up to ywtf to make her case here that Bricker is a “purveyor of misinformation”. If he really is, she should be able to pick at least one bit of misinformation that was purveyed and trash him here for it. So far, she hasn’t done that.
I am in agreement with the above.
Armed man wanders neighborhood at night looking for trouble.
Armed man follows someone until he finds trouble.
Trouble escalates to death because man was armed.
Armed man is technically not guilty of murder.
Great. Enjoy your lives in a country that finds the above acceptable.
Waitwait, totally confused. The above doesn’t establish the sufficiency of probable cause. What is your position again?
Where are you getting this part from?
If you are responding to her excerpts, then you know this is goes beyond George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
The thing that preceded this fracas was me telling another poster that you can’t just go out and physically restrain some random person.
Bricker, in a very smug way, told me I was wrong–bringing up citizen’s arrest to counter this.
So I posted what constitutes a citizen’s arrest: a person who plans to do a “citizen’s arrest” must have witnessed the suspect committing a felony. What felony has been observed?
Bricker says the felony that was committed was the punch in the face you’d receive from following the suspect. In other words, prior to following the suspect, there was no crime being committed. “But for” you following the suspect in a creepy way, there wouldn’t have been a crime. But once the punch is thrown, oops! Felony! Let’s arrest you, Mr. Puncher Dude!
And then he goes on to say that being punched in the face could be sufficient to justify self-defense by gunshot and that the Citizen has every right to then tackle the person he just shot and physically restrain him. All of this is legal.
Bricker then won’t agree with you that witnessing the felony is not sufficient. It is up to the courts to decide whether a felony was committed in the first place. The Citizen, in other words, is NOT automatically justified to just grapple any ole somebody. They do have to answer for their actions.
This seems reasonable to me. But for some reason, no one else seems to agree. I’m confused as to why. Maybe I have honestly missed something in the exchange. I can admit to making mistakes.
I wouldn’t be posting here if I thought the girl was wrong. If people want to hate on her, that’s fine. They just need to know what the hell they are hating her for first.
It would be best to quote the actual exchange. No one is going to trust your paraphrase. Nothing personal, it’s just that we need to see the actual words that were exchanged, especially when one party in the exchange is a lawyer.
Would you be satisfied with my synopsis if Bricker agrees with it?
I’m trying to take the edge off of this thread, but I don’t feel like wasting my evening copying and pasting. I love my sis, but I ain’t doing her dirty work for her!
You cannot witness a felony that didn’t occur. Hence, your point about the court’s determination does not invalid the claim that mere witnessing is sufficient.
Getting punched in the face is probable cause that a felony has been committed. Unless Zimmerman knew that Martin wasn’t, in fact, committing a felony, he would have been entitled to make a citizen’s arrest.
Are you still believing ywtf’s cite from California law applies to Florida, despite having been shown what Florida law actually says?
Edit - A felony doesn’t have to have been committed for the arrest to be legal, whether by a citizen or a policeman. If the arrest is challenged by the person arrested, the court will then decide if it’s valid.
Each legal text cited in this thread seems to say that the permissibility of a citizen’s arrest requires an actual crime to have been committed.
Yes, a felony must have been committed.
Nothing Bricker said suggests they don’t. He said:
He’s not saying everyone should take Zimmerman’s word for it; clearly, Zimmerman would be liable if the arrest was deemed wrongful after the fact. His comments presuppose that Zimmerman successfully proves that Martin punched him and caused great bodily harm.
For someone to get off the hook for arresting someone, the circumstances have to be evaluated and determined to meet the criteria spelled out in the law.
So no, just witnessing something is NOT sufficient. You can’t just grapple someone, turn them over to the cops, and then expect to be able to go on that two-week cruise to Jamaica. Maybe it frequently works out this way when there is clear evidence that a crime was committed. But I doubt the Citizen involved in the stated hypothetical should expect to go on with the rest of their life without being subjected to some type of hearing first.
Yes, maybe, no, and I’m not condescending to you. If I were, I woulda called you sweetheart or something like that (and no, that’s not a sexist thing–I recently called a male mod “sweetheart” before I thought better of condescending to him and edited it out). I’m giving you my honest opinion of what it looks like is motivating your behavior here. I’m doing so based entirely on the posts in this thread, assuming that ywtf made her best case in the OP, a case that looks entirely lacking to me.
Uh, not to be incredibly dense, but what does the bolded “you” refer to in this quote? To ywtf, or to me? Either way I’m confused.
You are not talking about what Bricker is talking about.
The arrested person will receive a probable cause hearing within 72 hours, at which time (inter alia) the reasonableness of the underlying arrest will be assessed. The citizen doing the arresting will not necessarily have to be there. In any event, you can be hauled up in court at any time for anything. The fact that you might have to show up at a hearing is indicative of nothing.
This may be true in the case of GZ and TM. But this fracas started because I told a poster–not GZ!–to go out and physically restrain a stranger on the street. A poster, I may add, who seemed to incorrectly assume that physically restraining someone is not typically against the law.
If TM hadn’t been seriously wounded that night and he decided to sue GZ for false imprisonment (or assault), GZ would not be able to play the “Citizen’s Arrest” angle with impunity. He would have to argue this in the court of law. He would not be free from legal scrutiny just because he said TM had started it. His word would be insufficient.
It could be that if TM hadn’t been mortally wounded and he had brought charges against GZ, a judge/jury may have ruled that TM was justified in punching GZ, given the circumstances of that night. Hence, rendering GZ’s claim of having witnessed a felony moot.
This is not an example of citizen’s arrest. You need specific evidence to justify CA…evidence that we simply do not have.
So Bricker even mentioning CA in that thread is crazy-making, IMHO.
Granted, Zimmerman himself did not say: “I was out looking for trouble”. Rather, he was on an unspecified “personal errand”.
However, a reasonable person can can read between the lines: from everyone’s favorite site, Wikipedia:
I contend that rather than going on an unspecified “personal errand”, Zimmerman was instead driving about the neighborhood looking for trouble. Given his past, he was predisposed to assume trouble was out there somewhere. Given his role as neighborhood watch coordinator, he would have felt responsible to look out for trouble.
He found it.
Which’d put you beyond “elucidator” in terms of intelligence (viz., the lack thereof) and firmly into Der Trihs. Or you with the face. Take your pick.