You with the face and Monstro, think about the difference between:
A person having probable cause to believe that there had been a serious crime; and
A court being certain beyond a reasonable doubt that there had been a serious crime.
There is a huge gap between the degrees of certainty. A person making an arrest does not have to be anywhere near as certain as a court making a conviction.
Now let’s step back a bit and think about why this is. Society wants justice to be meted out by the courts. To effect this, alleged criminals must be brought before the court, and in serious matters in which the alleged criminal might scarper, the alleged criminal must be arrested so that the court (or other authority) can then determine if the person should be released on an interim basis or be kept locked up until the matter can be heard. Since there is never a cop when you need one, regular folks are permitted to make arrests when it appears that the matter is serious enough.
Remember that citizen’s arrest has existed long before there were police. Look back to the late mediaeval period in England, when there would be a sheriff in an area, and that’s about it. The sheriff would rely on regular folk to arrest alleged criminals. Most jurisdictions that evolved out of English law, including yours and mine, still permit this in one way or another. It is a fundamental part of our legal system.
The goal was to bring the alleged criminal before a court so that the court could sort it out. It was not up to the person making the arrest to sort it all out before making the arrest. If a person had probable cause to believe that a serious crime had been committed, that was sufficient to justify the arrest. It may have been that eventually there is no finding of guilt, and the alleged criminal went free, but that did not invalidate the arrest.
Now let’s fast forward to Florida today. The common law stands in Florida except when trumped by statute law. There is nothing in Florida statute law that addresses citizen’s arrest, so the common law still applies. To find the common law on citizen’s arrest as it is applied in Florida, you should look at decisions in Florida court cases, not statute laws from other states. The leading case on citizen’s arrest in Florida is COLLINS v. STATE, 143 So.2d 700 at 793, (1962), No. 2715, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, in which the court found that: “A private citizen does have the common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence, or to arrest a person where a felony has been committed, and where the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe, and does believe, the person arrested to be guilty.”
Note that the test with respect to felony citizen’s arrest is “probable cause to believe.” This test does not require that a felony had to have actually taken place.
You will recall that you quoted Bricker as stating “If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman . . . .” Now let’s apply the common law on citizen’s arrest in Florida to this statement. If a conflict begins by person A punching person B, by any reasonable interpretation, one would think that there is probable cause to believe that there has been a felony. It may be that there was not a felony, but that is up to the court to determine. If the conflict began with Zimmerman punching Martin, then there would have been reasonable grounds for Zimmerman to be arrested. If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, then there would have been reasonable grounds for Martin to be arrested.
Of course in any given matter, and certainly in this one, there may be evidentiary problems that could invalidate the assertion that there had been reasonable cause to believe that a felony had been committed, but Bricker’s statement was a hypothetical used to illustrate the law. As you yourself quoted, “If the conflict began with . . . .” Bricker, as you cited him, did not assert that the conflict had or had not begun with a punch by Marin. All that he set out was a hypothetical, no different than my using person A and person B in my hypothetical.
Rather than recognizing Bricker’s hypothetical for what it was, you with the face went on a tear based on law that simply does not apply in Florida, and even then did not make much sense in attempting to apply it, and Monstro then continued the groundless attack.
Now that you have the common law on citizen’s arrest in Florida before you, and now that it has been explained to you, I hope the two of you will apologize to past-defence lawyer Bricker for giving him such a hard time despite his being entirely correct.
If you have other ongoing concerns about Bricker, then by all means raise them in another pit thread, but as far as this particular thread and the concerns set out by you with the face in post number one, your allegation that Bricker is “100% wrong” is in fact one-hundred percent wrong, so please own up to your error and move on.