IGX

You can be cuffed at a scene without being arrested. That's part of crowd control in a confused situation. Being cuffed /= arrest. Even being detained /= arrest.

Linking to threfreedictionary.com is amusing, but irrelevant to what legally constitutes an 'arrest.' George Zimmerman was 'arrested' on April 11.

Gorbachev wrote:
A system that sees an unarmed kid shot dead by another citizen and whose response is to question the shooter for 2 hours, is a broke system. Dice it, slice it, put cheese on it. That's pretty obvious to anyone capable of imagining how they'd feel if it was their kid in the morgue.

Not necessarily.
1. How people feel about their kid being in the morgue is irrelevant in any legal system.
2. He wasn't a flight risk.
3. Only poor people get arrested the way you want. People with the ability to lawyer up don't. AFAIK it works that way in every western country.
4. You don't know the situation with the local jail-- they may have been full, or anticipating being full, for a lot of reasons.

Turdacious wrote:1. How people feel about their kid being in the morgue is irrelevant in any legal system.

I'd argue the opposite and say that a legal system is precisely predicted on moral norms that are informed on "how people feel" in regard to specific situations. Having an innocent kid laying dead in a morgue because of the violent actions of another human being is a very relevant consideration for any legal system to address. In fact, I'd say the unwarranted death of a child is just about as serious a scenario as our society faces. It is certainly not "irrelevant".....

milosz wrote:You can be cuffed at a scene without being arrested. That's part of crowd control in a confused situation. Being cuffed /= arrest. Even being detained /= arrest.

Linking to threfreedictionary.com is amusing, but irrelevant to what legally constitutes an 'arrest.' George Zimmerman was 'arrested' on April 11.

do you niggers really need blacks' law to tell you what an arrest is? the whole of 4th amendment law is complex as fuck but the standard is thus:

An arrest occurs whenever a reasonable person 'would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree ... [ordinarily] associate[d] with [a] formal arrest.' U.S. v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir.'88) (quoting U.S. v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 596(5th Cir.),

Cuffed in a squad car tells me I am not terribly free to go anywhere. Fuck along with your navel gazing.

If feelings were relevant lunching and other extra legal activities would not be so frowned upon. The very notion of a fair legal system is predicated on fair, unbiased and dispassionate review of the facts.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Turdacious wrote:1. How people feel about their kid being in the morgue is irrelevant in any legal system.

I'd argue the opposite and say that a legal system is precisely predicted on moral norms that are informed on "how people feel" in regard to specific situations. Having an innocent kid laying dead in a morgue because of the violent actions of another human being is a very relevant consideration for any legal system to address. In fact, I'd say the unwarranted death of a child is just about as serious a scenario as our society faces. It is certainly not "irrelevant".....

That's only true if his name was 'Thurston.' 'Travon' not so much. And you are fortunate that you haven't dealt with many lawyers.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Turdacious wrote:1. How people feel about their kid being in the morgue is irrelevant in any legal system.

I'd argue the opposite and say that a legal system is precisely predicted on moral norms that are informed on "how people feel" in regard to specific situations. Having an innocent kid laying dead in a morgue because of the violent actions of another human being is a very relevant consideration for any legal system to address. In fact, I'd say the unwarranted death of a child is just about as serious a scenario as our society faces. It is certainly not "irrelevant".....

The American justice system moves in fits and starts and is adversarial throughout. Presumed innocence is a precept of ours but it sounds like you've convicted him already.

If a young thug was beating his head into the sidewalk, he had the right to use extreme measures to defend himself. If he murdered an innocent Skittles eating kid, he needs to pay the price. Seems like moral norms to me that should be based on facts not feelings. A trial should get us close to the truth but innocent people are convicted regularly and OJ and Robert Blake got away with murder, so who knows.

Even if guilty of the worst possible offense, he doesn't deserve more than 20 years, right?

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Turdacious wrote:1. How people feel about their kid being in the morgue is irrelevant in any legal system.

I'd argue the opposite and say that a legal system is precisely predicted on moral norms that are informed on "how people feel" in regard to specific situations. Having an innocent kid laying dead in a morgue because of the violent actions of another human being is a very relevant consideration for any legal system to address. In fact, I'd say the unwarranted death of a child is just about as serious a scenario as our society faces. It is certainly not "irrelevant".....

YID, Turd is right here. Ideally, it should make no difference to the investigation or prosecution how the parents feel. Somebody whose parents are dead or whose parents hated him should get just as good an investigation as a kid whose parents are all torn up. In a criminal investigation, justice is sought for the victim's sake. Not the victim's friends, relatives and the public. It may not always work like that, but that's the theoretical goal.

Schlegel wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Turdacious wrote:1. How people feel about their kid being in the morgue is irrelevant in any legal system.

I'd argue the opposite and say that a legal system is precisely predicted on moral norms that are informed on "how people feel" in regard to specific situations. Having an innocent kid laying dead in a morgue because of the violent actions of another human being is a very relevant consideration for any legal system to address. In fact, I'd say the unwarranted death of a child is just about as serious a scenario as our society faces. It is certainly not "irrelevant".....

YID, Turd is right here. Ideally, it should make no difference to the investigation or prosecution how the parents feel. Somebody whose parents are dead or whose parents hated him should get just as good an investigation as a kid whose parents are all torn up. In a criminal investigation, justice is sought for the victim's sake. Not the victim's friends, relatives and the public. It may not always work like that, but that's the theoretical goal.

And the further well meaning handwringers, drug warriors and moralist fucktards edge it the other way , the worse it will get.

You've missed the point I was making. No one wants the US judicial system to abrogate habeas corpus again like it did for those held at Guantanomo Bay, but the fact is that the law is informed by moral norms, such as that of not wanting innocent folk to be slain without the slayer facing their day before a judge and jury. Florida's finest should have realised this straight away - as they have eventually - and all the messing about with Al Sharpton and those other uppity niggers could have been avoided.

Beer Jew tells me that the hooker in his basement has not yet been arrested. I keep telling him that the duct tape and ball gag probably make it so but he won't see it any other way.

Gorbachev wrote:Of course, the REAL lesson on lax gun control which America SHOULD learn from this whole sorry mess is not even being raised. Instead, it's become a racial thing, a stand-your-ground thing, a police thing and so on. For the rest of us weird Europeans, it's just another whacky US gun thing. Plain and simple. Next.

The rest of the world sees it this way.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:You've missed the point I was making. No one wants the US judicial system to abrogate habeas corpus again like it did for those held at Guantanomo Bay, but the fact is that the law is informed by moral norms, such as that of not wanting innocent folk to be slain without the slayer facing their day before a judge and jury. Florida's finest should have realised this straight away - as they have eventually - and all the messing about with Al Sharpton and those other uppity niggers could have been avoided.

Some sense on the thread.

I wouldn't even go that far. If there's good evidence that Zimmerman didn't break the law, there's no need to have a trial. But it would usually take time to establish that. Many are misinterpreting the relevance of the feelings of the victim's family. I'm not suggesting that they get to see an innocent man convicted. Or get to see a man convicted of nothing locked up indefinitely. It's a balancing act of rights. Zimmerman needs State protection - literal protection in this case. But the family of Martin deserve to know that the State takes what happened seriously. Seeing the shooter released in 2 hours doesn't give them the message that the State sees this as a big deal. The State should have deprived the shooter of his liberty - temporarily - to carry out an initial investigation and question him. They should also have taken his passport and released him on a bond. That tells the family: "We think this is serious. We're securing the participants and the scene. No need for you to get vigilante here".

After that, the police need to keep the victim's family updated to a degree but they also need to dispassionately figure out whether the evidence supports a prosecution.

This isnt "either / or". The whole focus - as with so much US discourse - is on freedom without a corresponding sense of overall purpose and responsibility.

Not to belabor the point on whether he arrested or not arrested , but some IGXers may need to know this for future reference. Zimmerman was arrested. You don't need magic words or Miranda to establish that a defendant was arrested. Defense lawyers fight about this all the time in cases involving confessions. Police and the state always take the stance that a defendant was merely detained or questioned based on a reasonable suspicion. They want to question the shit out of a suspect before (the suspect thinks) Miranda attaches. Cuffed, stuffed, and questioned in the station is arrested, whether Zim got a jumpsuit or not.

In the US, the criminal justice system prosecutes acts that offend the state, that is, everybody. Victims' impact panels may come later during a sentencing phase (to discuss how harm to a group of people represents a harm to society), but they do not factor into investigation or prosecution.* The victims/family get their day in civil court. There will be at least one civil lawyer on the defense team trying to take notes and shape the record for the upcoming wrongful death suit.

*Sometimes restitution paid to the victim is part of a plea deal. This happens more in property crimes and misdemeanor crimes against people (e.g. the medical bills after a battery).

Gorbachev wrote:My suggested course is for arrest, limited detention to allow for securing the shooter and some investigation, followed by a decision to charge or not, followed by a bail hearing if he's being charged.

This is basically what happened. The only difference is that the situation is too complicated to justify a simple charge/don't charge decision following initial investigation. They needed more time to investigate, and they aren't allowed to detain a suspect while they complete their investigation.

Gorbachev wrote:The State should have deprived the shooter of his liberty - temporarily - to carry out an initial investigation and question him.

That's exactly what they did. Again, basing the decision on how long to detain him initially on the signal it sends to the family is wrong. The justice system ought to be dispassionate in these matters. We can't detain someone to make someone else feel like we're taking their suffering seriously.

They should also have taken his passport and released him on a bond.

They can't legally do that without charging him.

Gorbachev wrote:I wouldn't even go that far. If theThis isnt "either / or". The whole focus - as with so much US discourse - is on freedom without a corresponding sense of overall purpose and responsibility.

Interesting point. I'm guessing that you judge safely behind the security umbrella provided you by our unenlightened nation. And we provide it free of charge.

Martin is dead because keeping it real went wrong.

He saw a dumpy looking white guy asking him who he was and what he was doing there, instead of answering respectfully like a minor should to an adult he decided to get Ghetto with Zimmerman and attacked him.

People have been killed by punches, people have been killed by havng their head slammed into the ground, therefore pumping rounds into the dumb shit was justified.

Now I don't know this as a fact but since everyone wants to run the case on TV and the net I might as well put my idea out there.

Florida needed a Stand your Ground law as the animals down there were out of hand.

Zimmerman will walk, there might be riots, I hope it happens before election day. Seeing as the Commie and Cheif had a hand in the Feds getting involved where they had no fucking place. It's FDLE's place to step in when a local police departments handling of a matter is in question not the Feds.

An arrest occurs whenever a reasonable person 'would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree ... [ordinarily] associate[d] with [a] formal arrest.' U.S. v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir.'88) (quoting U.S. v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 596(5th Cir.),

Cuffed in a squad car tells me I am not terribly free to go anywhere.

If you're detained - say, a traffic stop - you're also facing a "restraint on freedom of movement" without "being arrested." Likewise, in clearing a scene, you may be detained in the squad car without being arrested. You may even be questioned without being arrested.
The caselaw is half-assed and confusing - but the fact is cuffs and/or detention /= arrest, which was the argument being presented.

As mentioned, it's a favorite bone to pick for defense atty's - but it's a bone to pick because you are not necessarily 'under arrest' solely from detainment. If that was a hard standard, then you wouldn't have to argue about it in court.

milosz wrote:

An arrest occurs whenever a reasonable person 'would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree ... [ordinarily] associate[d] with [a] formal arrest.' U.S. v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir.'88) (quoting U.S. v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 596(5th Cir.),

Cuffed in a squad car tells me I am not terribly free to go anywhere.

If you're detained - say, a traffic stop - you're also facing a "restraint on freedom of movement" without "being arrested." Likewise, in clearing a scene, you may be detained in the squad car without being arrested. You may even be questioned without being arrested.
The caselaw is half-assed and confusing - but the fact is cuffs and/or detention /= arrest, which was the argument being presented.
. As mentioned, it's a favorite bone to pick for defense atty's - but it's a bone to pick because you are not necessarily 'under arrest' solely from detainment. If that was a hard standard, then you wouldn't have to argue about it in court.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Case law is never half assed, it is what it is, and it's a pretty clear standard to be applied to individual cases which may or may not confuse you.

You can be arrested and not arrested at the same time. Fact.

it's a pretty clear standard to be applied to individual cases which may or may not confuse you.

That's the thing - it's not.

Actual, real fact: George Zimmerman was not 'arrested' by the 5-0 until April. On the night of the shooting he was not "arrested and released without charges" - not even the Sanford PD has characterized it as such.

i'll come handcuff you to a telephone pole for severl hoursa and then we'll check back an see how you feel about arrest...Boom full Circle. The only Feelings Standard that applies is not that of the victim, it's where George reasonably felt he was free to go or not.

In this case victim';s family feelings? Not relevant not process

Public's Feelings? again...Not relevant to process

Victim's feelings? Unknown: he's dead as a hammer,

the more we find out, my irrelevant feelings are that he's dead with good cause.

These news agencies, and the other million, should be ashamed of themselves that not one of their editors knows the definition of 'arrested'.

ABC News, March 22 wrote:... George Zimmerman, 28, was not arrested over the shooting after telling police he acted in self defence.

CBS News, March 21 wrote:That evidence wasn't enough for local police to arrest Zimmerman, who cited self-defense

Bloomberg Businessweek, March 27 wrote:Local officials said the law, which relieves a citizen of responsibility to retreat when he feels threatened in a public place and gives him the right to “meet force with force,” prevented them from making an arrest after Zimmerman killed Martin.

Fox News, March 23 wrote:Police Chief Bill Lee said earlier in the day that he was stepping down temporarily to try to cool the building anger that his department did not arrest neighborhood watch volunteer Zimmerman

No it's apparent networks are as stupid as Milosv and Gorbz...what they should be ashamed of is not their stupidity, it's the character assassination which followed and willful misreporting of other facts....height and weight differences etc.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:No it's apparent networks are as stupid as Milosv and Gorbz...what they should be ashamed of is not their stupidity, it's the character assassination which followed and willful misreporting of other facts....height and weight differences etc.

Networks, print media and the police. In fact, everyone bar a few wise old birds here on IGx.

They did not misreport that Martin just turned 17 and was unarmed. Nor that Zimmerman was told by police not to pursue him. Nor that having shot Martin at 7.16pm or so, Zimmerman went to the police station and was home by 10.15pm a free man. Those facts, I take it, are not disputed, counsellor Bad Dog?

Gorbachev wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:No it's apparent networks are as stupid as Milosv and Gorbz...what they should be ashamed of is not their stupidity, it's the character assassination which followed and willful misreporting of other facts....height and weight differences etc.

Networks, print media and the police. In fact, everyone bar a few wise old birds here on IGx.

They did not misreport that Martin just turned 17 and was unarmed. Nor that Zimmerman was told by police not to pursue him. Nor that having shot Martin at 7.16pm or so, Zimmerman went to the police station and was home by 10.15pm a free man. Those facts, I take it, are not disputed, counsellor Bad Dog?

The first fact may be correct.

The second fact is indisputably not correct.

Sanford dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
Zimmerman: “Yes.”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”

The third fact is insightful to your point...he was not a free man between being brought into custody and being released without charge later that evening.