do you think it should have been an acquittal or i think there was reasonable doubt that they had probable cause to try to make a citizen's right and by the way just you lean towards an acquittal is what you're saying yes but i don't want people to misunderstand i don't by that i i don't mean like i think it's more likely than not that they had probable cause but that's not the legal standard the standard isn't whether they were probably right the standard is is there a reasonable doubt that they could have been right do they you know could they the math gets complicated but could they have had a NUMBER_TOKEN belief that he was a felony burglary suspect is that enough by a reasonable doubt there is a very tiny belief that they might have had probable cause should be sufficient for an acquittal the reason i ask is do you have like so you've mentioned the judge didn't do his job in defining and instructing properly do you have a view of how it should have been instructed yes so my reading of the statute favors the defense because there's basically it's amazing how ambiguous it is because it's only two sentences so it's not like in the in the kyle rittenhouse case they had that gun statute where you had to refer to this other statute and then you had to refer to two other statutes beyond that and it got very kind of well in some sense it's complicated this is only a two sentence statute but the first sentence talks about kind of citizen's arrest generally and it says you have to have immediate knowledge or presence and the second sentence speaks specifically to a felon in flight and there it says probable cause and some people believe you got to read those two together and others my position is you have to read them separately because it doesn't make any sense to read them together so the way i read it it says look for citizens arrest generally and that means for like misdemeanors like shoplifting for you know the smallest arrestable offense you have to have presence or immediate knowledge that's NUMBER_TOKEN certainty you saw it happen right that's not probable cause that's not you think it's likely it happened you saw it happen that happened in your presence you have immediate knowledge to believe that that's if you have you start with a hundred percent that's the requirement but then if it's a felony in pursuit you also have to have NUMBER_TOKEN percent i mean you're already at NUMBER_TOKEN. can i i want to read it for this is from your article from legal insurrection it says that the two sentences are a private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge if the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion so how i read that is generally like even for a misdemeanor if you want to arrest somebody for a misdemeanor you have to have absolute knowledge presence or immediate knowledge you saw them shoplift that item but for the special circumstance of a felon in flight in that case it's then probable cause NUMBER_TOKEN is certain because and that makes sense to me because we're treating them differently look an arrest is a profound constraint of your liberty right this makes your assessment makes total
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN