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.
No, I didn’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’t be charged either way.
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.
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’t expect you to believe that Zimmerman attempted to enter into a citizen’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’s arrest would actually be unlawful unless you have evidence that Martin was committing a felony.
What’s happening is that you appear to be hung up on this “citizen’s arrest” 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 “suspicious” 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’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 “OR” 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’m not arguing one is more correct than they other two at this point.
I know, but I’m trying to help.
Then why do you keep trying to shoe the law into the evidence?
I’m not “shoeing” the evidence into the law, I’ve posited three scenarios that meet the known facts available to the public and applied the law as it’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’t attempted to apply case law, and I don’t plan to. If you would like to research that – feel free. I’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’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’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’m not the one insisting I have the answers. All though these threads I’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’t know at this point and need more information. Maybe Zimmerman’s statements will clear things up. Maybe forensics my undermine Zimmerman’s statements. At this point I don’t know, you don’t know, and the public does not know.
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.
Nope never posted 776.041 as a “NOR” function. It is clearly an “OR” function as described.
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.
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.
>>>>
