Where is the outrage?????

[tom88]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Plus, if he had been arrested, they wouldn't have been able to release him when they were done questioning him. He would've had to see a judge or court commissioner who would've set bail or would've released Zimmerman on his own recognizance. That never happened because there was no arrest.

No....there were no charges!

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by tom88

Exactly! He was a suspect...in custody...hence he was under arrest!

Incorrect.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I think this describes Zimmerman's detention as custody:

What Is the Difference Between Formal Arrest & Custody? | eHow.com

And how much would you like to wager that Zimmerman was read his Miranda rights?

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by tom88

No....there were no charges!

Exactly.

And, since there can be no arrest without any charges, there was no arrest.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by tom88

And how much would you like to wager that Zimmerman was read his Miranda rights?

It's possible. Miranda rights can be read before or at the time a person is placed under arrest. At the very least, the cops would've asked him if he'd like to have a lawyer present during questioning.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tom88

You don't have to say the words "you are under arrest". Your simply have to be deprived of your liberty. Do you think the police would have allowed Zimmerman to leave if he began to walk away? If your answer is no, then Zimmerman was under arrest. You can call it being detained, in custody, investigative detention, or any other term you like, but ANY definition will tell you that if he is deprived of his liberty he is under arrest.

He just was not charged.

In the link I provided it stated that 'arrest' requires that bail be posted for the arrested person or a court stipulate their release. This was not the case with Zimmerman. He was questioned by police and released by police. As far as I know there was no bail required or counrt proceding.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tom88

And how much would you like to wager that Zimmerman was read his Miranda rights?

We don't know if he was read his rights. However, it appears that this is a requirement for being 'arrested'. I don't get that it's required for being put into custody. But if they are going to question him, I imagine it would be a requirement to advise him of his rights and grant him an opportunity to get a lawyer.

Miranda Rights

After placing the suspect under arrest, the officer will say something similar to, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

We don't know if he was read his rights. However, it appears that this is a requirement for being 'arrested'. I don't get that it's required for being put into custody. But if they are going to question him, I imagine it would be a requirement to advise him of his rights and grant him an opportunity to get a lawyer.

Miranda Rights

Absolutely. Because if, as a result of their interview with Zimmerman, they'd decided to arrest and charge him and they'd never advised him of his rights then everything the police had found out during the interview would be inadmissible during the trial.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

We don't know if he was read his rights. However, it appears that this is a requirement for being 'arrested'. I don't get that it's required for being put into custody. But if they are going to question him, I imagine it would be a requirement to advise him of his rights and grant him an opportunity to get a lawyer.

Miranda Rights

Gathering a snippet of information about something in a particular context of that issue doesn't explain fully what one would have to argue in a motion to supress information or evidence.

I can guarantee you that if a police officer deprives a person of their liberty, handcuffs them, and transports them to a police station for an interview, any court in the land will consider that person under arrest.

On another note. Police officers do not have to read a person their Miranda rights simply because they are under arrest.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Absolutely. Because if, as a result of their interview with Zimmerman, they'd decided to arrest and charge him and they'd never advised him of his rights then everything the police had found out during the interview would be inadmissible during the trial.

If he is not in custody...(if he is he is under arrest) then he doesn't have to be read his rights.