George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Ravi]

Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

 

[Liability]

Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

Citizen's arrest does NOT necessarily forbid the use of deadly physical force.

It does forbid the use of unreasonable force. So the actual issue will be how much force is reasonable under all of the circumstances.

It is simply the case that sometimes it may be reasonable to resort to the use of deadly physical force. It depends on the fact-specific circumstances.

 

[KissMy]

Zimmerman was not making a citizens arrest. He did not witness Martin commit a crime & his statements do not say that was his intent. Martin was likewise not making a citizens arrest by breaking Zimmerman's nose or bashing head on the ground. Someone got physical first & we will never know for certain who that was. This was self defense from the continued beating of a subdued person.

I was on Martins side until I heard the screams for help on the 911 tapes & witness saying it was Zimmerman screaming. No matter what lead up to the first blows, no-one is justified in beating a subdued person screaming for his life.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, you provided two alternative explanations to the beginning of the conflict between Martin and Zimmerman, and a fantasy that involves Zimmerman committing a felony and Martin trying to detain him until police arrive.

Nope, never made such an argument, please don’t attribute to me things I didn’t argue.

I’ve suggest Martin as the initiator and Zimmerman as the initiator as two scenarios and then expanded that to three to differentiate the difference between simple assault and aggravated assault. I’ve never proposed a scenario where Martin was trying to conduct a citizen’s arrest on Zimmerman.

<<peronsal insult remove>> and I have specifically challenged you to tell me what felony Zimmerman is being charged with to make that a viable option. You have not yet mentioned one, because none exist, yet you insist your fantasy scenario is viable because the prosecution might amend the indictment.

The same answer as last time, I haven’t provided one because at this point Zimmerman hasn’t been charged with any other crime than Murder 2.

We are talking scenarios here, we aren’t talking what has actually been charged.

You have postulated that Zimmerman was illegally detaining Martin, and that this gave Martin the right to resist, but the fact is that, under Florida law, anyone who tries to detain a suspect for the police is acting as a ex facto law enforcement officer. Their actions are subject to strict scrutiny in the court after the fact, but it is actually legal, so that makes that argument null and void.

First of false, I’ve postulated no such thing. To postulate is to “to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary” (Merriam-Webster). I have never claimed that Zimmerman was detaining Zimmerman as a mater of truth, I’ve always, ALWAYS said that it was a possible scenario which is “a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially : an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events” (Merriam-Webster).

As to ex facto law enforcement officer, only in the case of an individual committing a felony, it would be Zimmerman’s responsibility to show that he thought Martin was committing a felony. Nothing in the dispatcher call indicates that Martin was in the process of doing anything felonious. Walking down the street is not a felony, walking down the street and “acting suspicious” is not a felony.

Wrong.

Under no scenario is Zimmerman required to do anything. Florida law on self defense is requires that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person accused of murder, or assault, was not reasonably afraid of death or serious injury. this is something I have pointed out numerous times. The applicable laws are 776.013 sections 1 and 3.

Sorry, you are incorrect. 776.041 specifically says “The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who…” One of the preceding sections that 776.041 nullifies is 776,013.

The very first sentence in the law that points out that 776.041 is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law. In order for 776.041 to apply the state has to first prove that (1) the person they are charging was committing a felony at the time of the fight, or (2) that the person they are charging actually started the fight and that his response to the use of force that he initiated was unreasonable because he was not actually in danger. In other words, even if the state can prove that Zimmerman started the fight, which even you admit they cannot, they would still have to prove that Zimmerman belief that he was in danger was unreasonable.

1. Thank you for agreeing with me that 776.041 “is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law”. That’s what I’ve simply pointing out. 776.041 is an exception to the immunity of 776.013.

2. Secondly I don’t disagree with your reasoning at all. The state would have a heavy burden to apply 776.041 and as I’ve repeatedly said, the information that is available to public does not support such a claim by the state if they were to make one. There would have to be additional evidence that we have not seen or heard of yet to validate such an approach.

3. Where I disagree, is that **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and would lose is self defense immunity under 776.041 his belief that the danger he was “unreasonable” is irrelevant. It doesn’t mater what his belief was. If (again **IF**) he was the aggressor and lost immunity under 776.041 then a state of mind that he entered into **AFTER** losing immunity is irrelevant to the results of his actions that led to the situation. Now again, can the state prove it? Probably not.

This, I believe, goes back to what I have said all along, it doesn't matter who started the fight, all that matters was is what Zimmerman believed, and whether it is reasonable.

That is the core of our disagreement. 776.041 does not re-allow self defense for an attacker just because they are losing a fight they started. There are specific physical behaviors that are required before self defense is regained (if they can be regained at all). If they started hostilities with a forcible felony, then no “belief” provides them with immunity from the results of their actions. ONLY if they change their mind and attempt escape (behavior) do they regain self defense.

Apply the nor, then you can apply the or that is built into 776.041.

Please quote in 776.041 where this “nor” function exists in 776.041.

Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.

I won’t be spending a lot of time on it as nothing in the dispatch call indicates Zimmerman was attempting a citizen’s arrest for a felony and nothing that has come out about his stories to the police or through the father and brother who gave extensive interviews did they say anything about Zimmerman attempting a citizens arrest.

What corroborative evidence is there that conforms to what has been released to the public would support Martin was in the process of committing a felony? What third party did Martin commit aggravated assault/battery against? Who did he attempt to murder? Attempted rape victim? What 3rd party was Martin attempting to unlawfully detain? Was he committing multiple DUI’s while walking? Was he omitting financial resources from a bond application while on charges for a felony 2 or above?

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Zimmerman was not making a citizens arrest. He did not witness Martin commit a crime & his statements do not say that was his intent. Martin was likewise not making a citizens arrest by breaking Zimmerman's nose or bashing head on the ground. Someone got physical first & we will never know for certain who that was. This was self defense from the continued beating of a subdued person.

I was on Martins side until I heard the screams for help on the 911 tapes & witness saying it was Zimmerman screaming. No matter what lead up to the first blows, no-one is justified in beating a subdued person screaming for his life.

I disagree for a couple of reasons:

First, it absolutley matters who initiated hostilities and Florida Law recognizes it because if you are the attacker you lose self defense immunity if your aggression was in a felonious manner.

Secondly, **IF** Zimmerman was the initiator of hostilities and attempted to pull his weapon, then you have Zimmerman armed with a deadly weapon and Martin would have been absolutley justified under that scenario to defend himself from Zimmerman using deadly force against him. Information has been leaked that Zimmerman told the police that he and Martin were struggling for his gun. If we are struggling for a gun and I'm afraid you are going to shoot me, then yes I have the right to beat your head against the ground and attempt to render you unable to shoot me. Just because Zimmerman or Martin was yelling for help does not mean either was "subdued".​

>>>>

 

[ginscpy]

2 testoserone-fuled idiots

 

[JimBowie1958]

Zimmerman was not making a citizens arrest. He did not witness Martin commit a crime & his statements do not say that was his intent. Martin was likewise not making a citizens arrest by breaking Zimmerman's nose or bashing head on the ground. Someone got physical first & we will never know for certain who that was. This was self defense from the continued beating of a subdued person.

I was on Martins side until I heard the screams for help on the 911 tapes & witness saying it was Zimmerman screaming. No matter what lead up to the first blows, no-one is justified in beating a subdued person screaming for his life.

That is the best and most concise summary of why this is a self defense issue that I have read thus far.

Kudos.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Yep, I did misquote that. thanks for the correction.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

So does the law about police arresting people, yet they kill people all the time. Do you honestly have a point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope, never made such an argument, please don’t attribute to me things I didn’t argue.

You did argue it, you just don't realize that is what you were saying.

I’ve suggest Martin as the initiator and Zimmerman as the initiator as two scenarios and then expanded that to three to differentiate the difference between simple assault and aggravated assault. I’ve never proposed a scenario where Martin was trying to conduct a citizen’s arrest on Zimmerman.

So, how does the third "scenario" reasonably end as anything other than Martin trying to detain Zimmerman until the police arrive? Why else would he have continued to attack someone who was on the ground. Do you honestly expect me to believe that a man who was carrying a gun entered into a citizen's arrest with his gun holstered, initiated the physical confrontation needed to detain Martin, who was willing to resort to force to escape, and didn't use his gun until after he had Martin pinned to the ground? I find that so absurd that I am forced to conclude that you are saying Martin was the one making the citizen's arrest.

<<peronsal insult remove>>

You think me calling your argument that something is absurd is a fantassy is a personal insult, and you simultaneously want me to accept your claim that you were a Navy CPO?

\and I have specifically challenged you to tell me what felony Zimmerman is being charged with to make that a viable option. You have not yet mentioned one, because none exist, yet you insist your fantasy scenario is viable because the prosecution might amend the indictment.

The same answer as last time, I haven’t provided one because at this point Zimmerman hasn’t been charged with any other crime than Murder 2.

Which makes my point that 776.041 does not apply.

We are talking scenarios here, we aren’t talking what has actually been charged.

No, we are talking about why your "scenario" is not a reasonable interpretation of the law. That was the question you asked, and it is the question I am answering. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

First of false, I’ve postulated no such thing. To postulate is to “to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary” (Merriam-Webster). I have never claimed that Zimmerman was detaining Zimmerman as a mater of truth, I’ve always, ALWAYS said that it was a possible scenario which is “a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially : an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events” (Merriam-Webster).

Are you saying that you are not arguing that, as a necessary precondition or prerequisite, aka postulate, that, if Zimmerman was attempting to detain Martin unlawfully Martin was entitled to the tight to defend himself? Are you now saying you weren't saying that?

As to ex facto law enforcement officer, only in the case of an individual committing a felony, it would be Zimmerman’s responsibility to show that he thought Martin was committing a felony. Nothing in the dispatcher call indicates that Martin was in the process of doing anything felonious. Walking down the street is not a felony, walking down the street and “acting suspicious” is not a felony.

Which, as I have continually pointed out, makes your assertion that Zimmerman initiated an illegal detention, and then had the presence of mind to lie to the police, absurd.

Sorry, you are incorrect. 776.041 specifically says “The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who…” One of the preceding sections that 776.041 nullifies is 776,013.

Do you not know what a nor function is? Aren't you the one that brought Boolean Algebra into the discussion in the first place?

1. Thank you for agreeing with me that 776.041 “is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law”. That’s what I’ve simply pointing out. 776.041 is an exception to the immunity of 776.013.

Yet you keep arguing that it is the part of the law that applies, despite the fact that, in order for it to apply, the state has to prove things you admit they cannot prove.

I am confused.

2. Secondly I don’t disagree with your reasoning at all. The state would have a heavy burden to apply 776.041 and as I’ve repeatedly said, the information that is available to public does not support such a claim by the state if they were to make one. There would have to be additional evidence that we have not seen or heard of yet to validate such an approach.

Then why do you keep trying to shoe the law into the evidence?

3. Where I disagree, is that **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and would lose is self defense immunity under 776.041 his belief that the danger he was “unreasonable” is irrelevant. It doesn’t mater what his belief was. If (again **IF**) he was the aggressor and lost immunity under 776.041 then a state of mind that he entered into **AFTER** losing immunity is irrelevant to the results of his actions that led to the situation. Now again, can the state prove it? Probably not.

Let me get this straight, you think the law applies, except when it doesn't.

Got it.

I already asked you to provide case law that supports your interpretation, you haven't done so. So, I will ask again, how does the requirement in Section (2) subsection (a) doesn't apply.

That is the core of our disagreement. 776.041 does not re-allow self defense for an attacker just because they are losing a fight they started. There are specific physical behaviors that are required before self defense is regained (if they can be regained at all). If they started hostilities with a forcible felony, then no “belief” provides them with immunity from the results of their actions. ONLY if they change their mind and attempt escape (behavior) do they regain self defense.

That is only true if a person has a chance to retreat or break off the engagement. If Zimmerman's account is true, and Martin had him on the ground, he had no opportunity to escape. That reinstates his right to self defense.

Feel free to continue in your insisting you have the answers, even though you don't.

Please quote in 776.041 where this “nor” function exists in 776.041.

You can't read? You posted it numerous times in multiple threads. You even posted it in the post that started this renewed attempt to educate you.

I won’t be spending a lot of time on it as nothing in the dispatch call indicates Zimmerman was attempting a citizen’s arrest for a felony and nothing that has come out about his stories to the police or through the father and brother who gave extensive interviews did they say anything about Zimmerman attempting a citizens arrest.

What corroborative evidence is there that conforms to what has been released to the public would support Martin was in the process of committing a felony? What third party did Martin commit aggravated assault/battery against? Who did he attempt to murder? Attempted rape victim? What 3rd party was Martin attempting to unlawfully detain? Was he committing multiple DUI’s while walking? Was he omitting financial resources from a bond application while on charges for a felony 2 or above?

>>>>

Please point out where I ever said that Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest? All I did was correct your assertion that Zimmerman actually had to see Martin committing a crime in order to arrest him. I know you can admit you are wrong, try it this time.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, never made such an argument, please don&#8217;t attribute to me things I didn&#8217;t argue.

You did argue it, you just don't realize that is what you were saying.

No, I didn&#8217;t. In early discussion provided scenarios where Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was the aggressor. After further researching the law, the Zimmerman scenario was split into Zimmerman with simple assault and Zimmerman with felonious assault. I never proposed a scenario where Martin attempted to detain Zimmerman since (from a self defense standpoint) it is the same as the Martin as aggressor scenario. Since Martin is dead the difference between initial simple assault or initial felonious assault is irrelevant since he can&#8217;t be charged either way.

I&#8217;ve suggest Martin as the initiator and Zimmerman as the initiator as two scenarios and then expanded that to three to differentiate the difference between simple assault and aggravated assault. I&#8217;ve never proposed a scenario where Martin was trying to conduct a citizen&#8217;s arrest on Zimmerman.

So, how does the third "scenario" reasonably end as anything other than Martin trying to detain Zimmerman until the police arrive? Why else would he have continued to attack someone who was on the ground. Do you honestly expect me to believe that a man who was carrying a gun entered into a citizen's arrest with his gun holstered, initiated the physical confrontation needed to detain Martin, who was willing to resort to force to escape, and didn't use his gun until after he had Martin pinned to the ground? I find that so absurd that I am forced to conclude that you are saying Martin was the one making the citizen's arrest.

The third scenario hypothesized that Zimmerman was attempting to unlawfully detain Martin and Martin then was justified in using force against his attacker. There is no indication that Martin was attempting to detain Martin.

I don&#8217;t expect you to believe that Zimmerman attempted to enter into a citizen&#8217;s arrest as there is no indication from the dispatchers call that he intended to do so and any attempt by him to perform a citizen&#8217;s arrest would actually be unlawful unless you have evidence that Martin was committing a felony.

What&#8217;s happening is that you appear to be hung up on this &#8220;citizen&#8217;s arrest&#8221; thing which is irrelevant based on what it publicly known. Nothing indicates Martin committed any felony and nothing from Zimmerman indicates he even thought a felony had been committed. He called a &#8220;suspicious&#8221; person into a non-emergency number.

Which makes my point that 776.041 does not apply.

Actually under a Zimmerman as an aggressor, 776.041 would apply. However the state has a burden of proof that it appears the state would be unable to meet.

No, we are talking about why your "scenario" is not a reasonable interpretation of the law. That was the question you asked, and it is the question I am answering. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

Actually my scenario is quite reasonable as a hypothesis, the fact that it seems like the state would be unable to prove it if it did happen does not change the validity of the hypothesis until new evidence is made public which invalidates the scenario. Which of course may happen in the future.

Are you saying that you are not arguing that, as a necessary precondition or prerequisite, aka postulate, that, if Zimmerman was attempting to detain Martin unlawfully Martin was entitled to the tight to defend himself? Are you now saying you weren't saying that?

I&#8217;ve provided a possible scenario (i.e. hypothesis) which could exist under the facts known to the public. I HAVE NOT POSTULATED it as truth.

Which, as I have continually pointed out, makes your assertion that Zimmerman initiated an illegal detention, and then had the presence of mind to lie to the police, absurd.

Postulate: a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postulate

Do you not know what a nor function is? Aren't you the one that brought Boolean Algebra into the discussion in the first place?

Absolutely I know what a NOR function is.

AND = For the output to be true both (or all) inputs must be true.
OR = For the output to be true only one of any inputs must be true.
NOR (Not OR) = For the output to be true all inputs must be false.

776.041 Sections 1 and 2 operate on the logical &#8220;OR&#8221; function. If either one is satisfied then the output is true (in this case that means the opening paragraph becomes operative). This is a correct interpretation of the law as writing.

For 776.041 to be a logical NOR function then the description of the operation would be that Section 1 and Section 2 must be false for the opening paragraph to be true. Which makes no sense what-so-ever.

Yet you keep arguing that it is the part of the law that applies, despite the fact that, in order for it to apply, the state has to prove things you admit they cannot prove.

No, I provide three scenarios that currently meet the known facts. I&#8217;m not arguing one is more correct than they other two at this point.

I am confused.

I know, but I&#8217;m trying to help.

Then why do you keep trying to shoe the law into the evidence?

I&#8217;m not &#8220;shoeing&#8221; the evidence into the law, I&#8217;ve posited three scenarios that meet the known facts available to the public and applied the law as it&#8217;s written.

I already asked you to provide case law that supports your interpretation, you haven't done so. So, I will ask again, how does the requirement in Section (2) subsection (a) doesn't apply.

I haven&#8217;t attempted to apply case law, and I don&#8217;t plan to. If you would like to research that &#8211; feel free. I&#8217;ve researched the statutes themselves and provided an interpretation of what is clearly written. If you think there is applicable Florida case law out there that disagrees with my position and supports your position, then you are clearly welcome to present it. I&#8217;m not here to do the research in support of your arguments.

That is only true if a person has a chance to retreat or break off the engagement. If Zimmerman's account is true, and Martin had him on the ground, he had no opportunity to escape. That reinstates his right to self defense.

As previously pointed out there were three scenarios presented Martin Assaults, Zimmerman Simple Assault, and Zimmerman Felonious Assault. For the two Zimmerman scenarios I absolutely agreed that if Zimmerman initiated hostilities under simple assault, which under Florida Law (IIRC 784.011) he could have regained his self defense immunity if Martin didn&#8217;t let him escape or if there was no time for an escape.

However under scenario #3 Zimmerman would have committed a felony assault and would not have regained his self defense, and would be responsible for his actions.

Feel free to continue in your insisting you have the answers, even though you don't.

I&#8217;m not the one insisting I have the answers. All though these threads I&#8217;ve provided multiple scenarios that fit the facts known to the public. I have not said I have the answer. I have said we don&#8217;t know at this point and need more information. Maybe Zimmerman&#8217;s statements will clear things up. Maybe forensics my undermine Zimmerman&#8217;s statements. At this point I don&#8217;t know, you don&#8217;t know, and the public does not know.

Please quote in 776.041 where this &#8220;nor&#8221; function exists in 776.041.

You can't read? You posted it numerous times in multiple threads. You even posted it in the post that started this renewed attempt to educate you.

Nope never posted 776.041 as a &#8220;NOR&#8221; function. It is clearly an &#8220;OR&#8221; function as described.

I won&#8217;t be spending a lot of time on it as nothing in the dispatch call indicates Zimmerman was attempting a citizen&#8217;s arrest for a felony and nothing that has come out about his stories to the police or through the father and brother who gave extensive interviews did they say anything about Zimmerman attempting a citizens arrest.

What corroborative evidence is there that conforms to what has been released to the public would support Martin was in the process of committing a felony? What third party did Martin commit aggravated assault/battery against? Who did he attempt to murder? Attempted rape victim? What 3rd party was Martin attempting to unlawfully detain? Was he committing multiple DUI&#8217;s while walking? Was he omitting financial resources from a bond application while on charges for a felony 2 or above?

>>>>

Please point out where I ever said that Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest? All I did was correct your assertion that Zimmerman actually had to see Martin committing a crime in order to arrest him. I know you can admit you are wrong, try it this time.

No Zimmerman, to be able to perform a citizen arrest, did not just have to see Martin commit a crime. Zimmerman would have had to see Martin commiting a felony because as you pointed out in Florida (and I&#8217;m assuming you are correct) to perform a citizens arrest the felony must have been committed. Citizens&#8217; arrest is not authorized for misdemeanors. If Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin for a misdemeanor, then Zimmerman would be committing a felony.

As already pointed out Zimmerman called the non-emergency number and made no indication during the entire dispatcher call that Martin had done anything that was a felony. The call was based on Martin (a) acting suspicious in reality, or (b) based on Martin fitting the profile of previous burglary reports and Zimmerman trumping up the &#8220;suspicious&#8221; language simply to ensure police responded.


************************

Going to bed and I&#8217;m not re-reading for typos.

You have a good night.

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No Zimmerman, to be able to perform a citizen arrest, did not just have to see Martin commit a crime. Zimmerman would have had to see Martin commiting a felony because as you pointed out in Florida (and I&#8217;m assuming you are correct) to perform a citizens arrest the felony must have been committed. Citizens&#8217; arrest is not authorized for misdemeanors. If Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin for a misdemeanor, then Zimmerman would be committing a felony.

As already pointed out Zimmerman called the non-emergency number and made no indication during the entire dispatcher call that Martin had done anything that was a felony. The call was based on Martin (a) acting suspicious in reality, or (b) based on Martin fitting the profile of previous burglary reports and Zimmerman trumping up the &#8220;suspicious&#8221; language simply to ensure police responded.


************************

Going to bed and I&#8217;m not re-reading for typos.

You have a good night.

>>>>

This is the crux of your problem.

Tell me something, how do you jump from a reasonable belief that a felony was committed, which is the standard for a citizen's arrest in Florida, to there actually having to be a felony before there is an arrest? If I see someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it, I would be entirely justified in reasonably concluding that the person doing that was committing a felony, and I could execute a citizen's arrest under Florida law. If it later turned out that the person I arrested was the legal owner of the car, or an authorized representative of the person who legally owned the car, that would not negate the fact that, under the circumstances I witnessed, my belief that a felony occurred. even though later investigation would clear the person I arrested.

The same thing applies to Zimmerman, all that matters is that, under the circumstances, his belief was reasonable. None of the scenarios, theories, wild guesses, or prosecutorial accusations matter. All that matters is, was what Zimmerman did reasonable.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

Citizen's arrest does NOT necessarily forbid the use of deadly physical force.

It does forbid the use of unreasonable force. So the actual issue will be how much force is reasonable under all of the circumstances.

It is simply the case that sometimes it may be reasonable to resort to the use of deadly physical force. It depends on the fact-specific circumstances.

In Florida, excessive force cannot be used when making a citizen's arrest. Killing someone because you can't detain them is certainly excessive force.

 

[syrenn]

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

Citizen's arrest does NOT necessarily forbid the use of deadly physical force.

It does forbid the use of unreasonable force. So the actual issue will be how much force is reasonable under all of the circumstances.

It is simply the case that sometimes it may be reasonable to resort to the use of deadly physical force. It depends on the fact-specific circumstances.

In Florida, excessive force cannot be used when making a citizen's arrest. Killing someone because you can't detain them is certainly excessive force.

How do you know he was trying to detain him?

 

[Ravi]

Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Yep, I did misquote that. thanks for the correction.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

So does the law about police arresting people, yet they kill people all the time. Do you honestly have a point?

AND they get investigated when they kill someone, as they should. And cases that appear to be murder or manslaughter should be brought before the court. That IS the point.

 

[Ravi]

Citizen's arrest does NOT necessarily forbid the use of deadly physical force.

It does forbid the use of unreasonable force. So the actual issue will be how much force is reasonable under all of the circumstances.

It is simply the case that sometimes it may be reasonable to resort to the use of deadly physical force. It depends on the fact-specific circumstances.

In Florida, excessive force cannot be used when making a citizen's arrest. Killing someone because you can't detain them is certainly excessive force.

How do you know he was trying to detain him?

I don't. In fact I don't think that is what he was trying to do....just correcting the mistaken thinking of other posters.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No Zimmerman, to be able to perform a citizen arrest, did not just have to see Martin commit a crime. Zimmerman would have had to see Martin commiting a felony because as you pointed out in Florida (and I’m assuming you are correct) to perform a citizens arrest the felony must have been committed. Citizens’ arrest is not authorized for misdemeanors. If Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin for a misdemeanor, then Zimmerman would be committing a felony.

As already pointed out Zimmerman called the non-emergency number and made no indication during the entire dispatcher call that Martin had done anything that was a felony. The call was based on Martin (a) acting suspicious in reality, or (b) based on Martin fitting the profile of previous burglary reports and Zimmerman trumping up the “suspicious” language simply to ensure police responded.


************************

Going to bed and I’m not re-reading for typos.

You have a good night.

>>>>

This is the crux of your problem.

Tell me something, how do you jump from a reasonable belief that a felony was committed, which is the standard for a citizen's arrest in Florida, to there actually having to be a felony before there is an arrest? If I see someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it, I would be entirely justified in reasonably concluding that the person doing that was committing a felony, and I could execute a citizen's arrest under Florida law. If it later turned out that the person I arrested was the legal owner of the car, or an authorized representative of the person who legally owned the car, that would not negate the fact that, under the circumstances I witnessed, my belief that a felony occurred. even though later investigation would clear the person I arrested.

The same thing applies to Zimmerman, all that matters is that, under the circumstances, his belief was reasonable. None of the scenarios, theories, wild guesses, or prosecutorial accusations matter. All that matters is, was what Zimmerman did reasonable.

When you think about the hypothesis that you are presenting in a general application you end up with something along these lines: "One person can lawfully detain another unknown person who the detainer observes committing a felony. In addition a person can detain an unknown person who is not committing a felony simply by claiming that they believe that the person may have committed a felony at some point in the past and that they would have immunity from their actions by claiming they thought it was possible the person committed a felony."

That is my understanding of what you position appears to be, that all Zimmerman has to do is claim that he thought Martin was committing a felony without any actual justification and that the police and a "reasonable person" would then accept that. Well speaking as a reasonable person I would not accept that. If you are going to claim citizens arrest which is only authorized for felony actions, then you would have the responsibility of defining the actions the unknown person was doing that would describe a felonious situation.

At this point the only information available to the public is Zimmerman's dispatcher call. A call he made to a non-emergency number which right there indicates that Zimmerman was not observing a serious crime. If Zimmerman was observing a felony, a reasonable person would assume that Zimmerman would have called 911 - the emergency number to be called when a crime is in the process of being committed. Then we have the contents of the dispatcher where Zimmerman uses vague generality to describe Martin's actions such as: "suspicious", "looks like he's up to no good", "on drugs or something". Zimmerman goes on to say "he's walking around the area". That description alone means that Martin was not in the process of hot-wiring a car, was not attempting to rape someone, was not attempting to kidnap someone, was not in the process of burglarizing a home. That according to Zimmerman he was walking around and that in Zimmerman's mind he was "suspicious", but was not exhibiting a behavior that was felonious.

The example you provide above "someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it" is an example of felonious behavior that the police and a reasonable person would accept as felonious behavior even if it was later shown that the unknown person was the legal owner or their representative. You yourself provide an example of where the observed BEHAVIOR is felonious as justification, and a logical one at that. Zimmerman's description of Martin just ""he's walking around the area" is not a felonious act.

If Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was attempting to hot-wire a car, to use your example, then it would be an entirely different matter. What this situation is though that we have Zimmerman attempting to follow Martin for nothing more that he was "he's walking around the area" and Zimmerman thinking he was "suspicious".



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

This takes a brand new assumption. Another what IF.

What IF Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest?

He wasn't. This is more mucking up the issue.

 

[Liability]

This takes a brand new assumption. Another what IF.

What IF Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest?

He wasn't. This is more mucking up the issue.

Well, yeah. Maybe. But still. What if Kal-el had landed in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville?

It amazes me to the core that nobody is ever willing to address that one.

 

[Liability]

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

Citizen's arrest does NOT necessarily forbid the use of deadly physical force.

It does forbid the use of unreasonable force. So the actual issue will be how much force is reasonable under all of the circumstances.

It is simply the case that sometimes it may be reasonable to resort to the use of deadly physical force. It depends on the fact-specific circumstances.

In Florida, excessive force cannot be used when making a citizen's arrest. Killing someone because you can't detain them is certainly excessive force.

You correctly stated the rule in Florida in that first sentence. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion in your second sentence.

If you are making an arrest in Florida and, instead of submitting, the apprehended individual elects to try to kill you, you are nevertheless permitted to employ the use of force necessary under the circumstances. Your purpose stops being to make an arrest, though, under such circumstances. I grant you that.

But still, if you used only reasonable force (or no force at all) to initially make the citizen's arrest, the fact that it turned deadly does not necessarily mean you have broken any law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This takes a brand new assumption. Another what IF.

What IF Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest?

He wasn't. This is more mucking up the issue.

Well, yeah. Maybe. But still. What if Kal-el had landed in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville?

It amazes me to the core that nobody is ever willing to address that one.

Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.



Then of course we would all be paying tribute to the fatherland and speak german.

>>>>