awpitt
Main Streeter
I was under the same impression until three days ago when I read that he'd been taken to the station.
Zimmerman arrested...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
I was under the same impression until three days ago when I read that he'd been taken to the station.
mitzi
Well-Known Member
I had read and heard a few times he was taken in for questioning. But the majority of this mess made it seem like nothing at all was done. I thought the picture plastered everywhere was from a previous arrest or driver's license.
I do question though, in this video, why the officer is looking inside Zimmerman's jacket and touching it without gloves on. Could there be some type of evidence on the jacket that is contamindated now? Afterwards he even wiped his hand on his pants.
I do question though, in this video, why the officer is looking inside Zimmerman's jacket and touching it without gloves on. Could there be some type of evidence on the jacket that is contamindated now? Afterwards he even wiped his hand on his pants.
Mitzi, stop! Seriously. You're furiously polishing the turd but it's still a big fat stinky sloppy turd.
I've never seen a woman go to the mat quite so strenuously when the match has already been called. Usually it's guys that do that.
gemma_rae
Well-Known Member
Must of been from when he attacked the cop or his girlfriend....
No it was from when he was a guard at the Dachau Concentration Camp. They made him take his SS uniform off.
MrZ06
I love Texas Road House
That is being arrested. Once they cuff you. You are under arrest.
He was arrested but never charged. This is very common in self defense shootings.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
awpitt
Main Streeter
Incorrect.
Heck, even the police said they didn't arrest him. Can't get any simpler than that.
Hank
my war
nope... he was detained for questioning, not arrested... big difference
MrZ06
I love Texas Road House
aint no detainin me *****. I go hard
If you are cuffed and taken to the station.......you are arrested. You may not be charged....but you are definately arrested!!
awpitt
Main Streeter
BOP
Well-Known Member
:raises hand:
awpitt
Main Streeter
I couldn't answer the survey because the option, "Zimmerman was not arrested" was not included.
Link: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
Link: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
Last edited:
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
Not quite true. It depends on the violation and event and time frame. An officer could cuff you and place you in the police car until he had things worked out - such as an accident. Different than a shooting. There is a good chance for minor offense
Here is a good example:
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR Y'ALL: Investigative Detention v. Arrest
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
No you can be arrested - yes they are under a legal status protected by the 4th Amendment. It does not mean only a judge or court commissioner can release. Pretense for detainment based on a possible crime is enough to consider you arrested and the 4th Amendment kicks in.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Last edited:
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
To add to the discussion from findlaw - what really matters is the 4th Amend, not what some newspaper or Press Release wants to call it. It is an arrest.
A Fourth Amendment ''seizure'' of the person, the Court determined, is the same as a common law arrest; there must be either application of physical force (or the laying on of hands), or submission to the assertion of authority.
sourced from these cases
The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 -19 (1968). "[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has `seized' that person," id., at 16, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be "reasonable." As with other categories of police action subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, the reasonableness of such seizures depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Id., at 20-21; Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536 -537 (1967).
A Fourth Amendment ''seizure'' of the person, the Court determined, is the same as a common law arrest; there must be either application of physical force (or the laying on of hands), or submission to the assertion of authority.
sourced from these cases
The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 -19 (1968). "[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has `seized' that person," id., at 16, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be "reasonable." As with other categories of police action subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, the reasonableness of such seizures depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Id., at 20-21; Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536 -537 (1967).
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
The red herring presented is the word "arrest" used to imply that the police conspired not to apply the law when they should have. It would have been in the best interest of the states attorney to press charges without the arrest and let the courts sort out the true nature of things and would likely have the case dismissed.