Where is the outrage?????

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tom88

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

I'm not doubting this. I'm thinking arrest requires MR to be read. Custody would not, unless the person was going to be questioned. It seems what differentiates the two is arrest requires being officially charged with a crime, either bail be posted or a court-ordered release and awaiting trial. As I understand it Zimmerman was questioned and released by the police. This would not fall under the definition of arrest. I could be wrong in my interpretation though. I'm not a criminologist. Where's Tilted when you need him?

But I really don't care about that. I was trying to make the original point about Zimmerman being formally charged with a crime. He was detained, in handcuffs, questioned, there was reportedly an investigation done, and he was not found - at that time - to have committed a crime.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I'm not doubting this. I'm thinking arrest requires MR to be read. Custody would not, unless the person was going to be questioned. I am providing the technical definition of what custody is by calling it what it truly is, which is arrest. Any time you are not free to leave, or a resonable person would not think they can leave, and are going to be questioned, you have to be read your rights. If you are not going to be questioned, you do not have to be read your rights. It seems what differentiates the two is arrest requires being officially charged with a crime, either bail be posted or a court-ordered release and awaiting trial. As I understand it Zimmerman was questioned and released by the police. This would not fall under the definition of arrest. I could be wrong in my interpretation though. I'm not a criminologist. Where's Tilted when you need him?

But I really don't care about that. I was trying to make the original point about Zimmerman being formally charged with a crime. He was detained, in handcuffs, questioned, there was reportedly an investigation done, and he was not found - at that time - to have committed a crime.

I agree! That is why I am reserving judgment on this until the investigation is complete!

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I'm not doubting this. I'm thinking arrest requires MR to be read. Custody would not, unless the person was going to be questioned. It seems what differentiates the two is arrest requires being officially charged with a crime, either bail be posted or a court-ordered release and awaiting trial. As I understand it Zimmerman was questioned and released by the police. This would not fall under the definition of arrest.

But I really don't care about that. I was trying to make the original point about Zimmerman being formally charged with a crime. He was detained, in handcuffs, questioned, there was reportedly an investigation done, and he was not found - at that time - to have committed a crime.

That is correct.

All of this outrage we've been seeing stems from the fact that Zimmerman was never arrested. If Zimmerman had actually been arrested, someone on his side would certainly be waving the arrest documents all over the place to prove Al, Jessie and Co. wrong about the arrest.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by awpitt

That is correct.

All of this outrage we've been seeing stems from the fact that Zimmerman was never arrested. If Zimmerman had actually been arrested, someone on his side would certainly be waving the arrest documents all over the place to prove Al, Jessie and Co. wrong about the arrest.

What are you like twelve?

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by tom88

What are you like twelve?

If I'm twelve, that would make you like four.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by awpitt

If I'm twelve, that would make you like four.

Um...ok. You win. I'm four. Feel better?

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

That is correct.

All of this outrage we've been seeing stems from the fact that Zimmerman was never arrested. If Zimmerman had actually been arrested, someone on his side would certainly be waving the arrest documents all over the place to prove Al, Jessie and Co. wrong about the arrest.

Looking at Al Sharpton’s track record it wouldn’t have mattered whether he was arrested, held on bond, and put before a judge to read formal charges of murder against Zimmerman. Sharpton would have still rallied up folks, got them all in a frenzy about it being a hate crime and called for more heads to roll and ram the word ‘racist’ down our throats as often as possible. Sharpton is a narcissistic opportunist who is only interested in finding things like this to put his face in front of a camera.

Just try to remember the Tawana Brawley fiasco?

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Looking at Al Sharpton’s track record it wouldn’t have mattered whether he was arrested, held on bond, and put before a judge to read formal charges of murder against Zimmerman. Sharpton would have still rallied up folks, got them all in a frenzy about it being a hate crime and called for more heads to roll and ram the word ‘racist’ down our throats as often as possible. Sharpton is a narcissistic opportunist who is only interested in finding things like this to put his face in front of a camera.

Just try to remember the Tawana Brawley fiasco?

Totally agree. You can add Jessie Jackson to that list as well.

[chernmax]

Bump over another endless nhboy Trayvon tread!!!

[Tilted (Premo)]

Ahh, the age-old 'what constitutes an arrest' debate. Lawyers have been arguing over that one forever.

I think awpitt is referring to a more formal arrest involving the booking process. Whether or not we also refer to other things as arrests (e.g. custodial transportation to a police station), the important (to him, at least) point remains - Mr. Zimmerman apparently wasn't booked, he wasn't charged.

If we're just talking about what qualifies as an arrest such that probable cause is needed and certain 4th Amendment rights attach, then it would seem that Mr. Zimmerman was arrested unless he consented to being taken to the police station (and he may have been even if he did initially consent). From the Supreme Court decision in Hayes v. Florida (citations omitted):

There is no doubt that at some point in the investigative process, police procedures can qualitatively and quantitatively be so intrusive with respect to a suspect's freedom of movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. And our view continues to be that the line is crossed when the police, without probable cause or a warrant, forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station, where he is detained, although briefly, for investigative purposes. We adhere to the view that such seizures, at least where not under judicial supervision, are sufficiently like arrests to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may constitutionally be made only on probable cause.