So the burden is to actually have the words "reluctant participation" exactly written out?
Because that is just dumb. The spirit and meaning of reluctant participation is what I'm referring to which is clearly what matters. Whether it says tomat-oh or tomat-ah is completely irrelevant if the meaning is clear.
Tarheel already posted cases that are applicable and show this.
At this point, I think you're being rather petty, HKI. We can still be friends and have a beer at fight bar but I think you're being a bit silly on this.
Are you serious? What a complete cop out. You've claimed it "IS THE LAW" countless times, so has Tar, and now both of you, secretly figuring out you are wrong, are both attempting to run away, while still claiming victory. And again, you must remember that 14 of these pages was not about "reluctant participation," and I've told you that you can subjectively describe it as however you want. My point has, all along, been to point out that you and tar and demanding
what the law is and
where it must apply, but you aren't correct in your analysis of doing so. The first 14 pages were about where the retreat and subjective fear must be applied.
You both claimed it must, BY LAW, be applied when he goes back to the car. My entire point has been to present
actual law, to demonstrate that it does not require that, and that it can be applied AFTER he returns from the car. Unlike you I don't demand that the law requires you to apply it then, just that the law allows a juror to apply it then. You both claim otherwise, and that it isn't your opinion, but THE LAW.
And now both of you have claimed that "spirit and meaning" or "what Minnesootan's say" somehow carries more legal weight than actual law and instructions to the jury, which I've provided many times. At least be gracious in your realization that you were wrong. I happily do so when I am.
Remember, this was your last post before copping out and trying to save face:
Jesus Christ. You're going to make me go all out effort for a damn HROT thread and find you Minnesota case law, aren't you?
I'll have to come back to it once I have the time to. Reluctant participation is going to be a precedent set in case law in Minnesota. I'll post it when I can find the time/resources to make that a proven fact.
And you posted that on the same page that the actual law was posted, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that you didn't agree with what I posted as the
actual law, and still wanted to prove "reluctant participation" as
the law. And no, tarheel didn't "already post cases," I did. I did many many pages ago and more than once, you didn't care then, he didn't care then. Why? Because you clearly didn't think I was posting the correct law. Now, you do, after I've convinced you and you couldn't disprove me.
Lastly: In a thread where you've repeatedly claimed that the self defense analysis MUST BE your way, because IT. IS. The. LAW., saying shit like,
"Whether it says tomat-oh or tomat-ah is completely irrelevant if the meaning is clear" is absolutely crazy. The law is one of the most specific, technical, often arcane areas of our lives that we have. We don't have a law that says, "don't speed," we have very technical laws that describe the act of driving and rates of measure to quantify such speed and limits therein. Why? Because of due process, notice, the Constitution. Because the government can't just say, "tomat-oh, tomat-ah" and pretend that is sufficient.
You said this wasn't your opinion, but law. Go ahead and run away from that. No prosecutor, Judge or defense attorney in a case like this is going to allow "tomato/tomata" claims of the law in to the case. Even though you've claimed otherwise. We have those jury instructions for a reason, and I posted the law on that, you just didn't care, because you somehow convinced yourself that "reluctant participation" was two words that better fit than "aggressor" and "provocation." That is the TL/DR of this entire thread, you specifically grasped two words to prove your point, and steadfastly refused to believe they aren't the actual two words.