"arrest" vs. "charge"

Tue Apr 3 19:59:46 UTC 2012

So when the police cuffed him and placed him in the squad car, was he not
"under arrest" in the ordinarily understood sese of that phrase?

If they didn't say, "You're under arrest," what did they say? ("Sir, you're
not under arrest, but we have to take you downtown in handcuffs for
questioning"?)

While there may be a narrow technical definition of an "arrest," what is
the point of clinging to that definition when reporting the news to
laypeople?  When the news reported that Zimmerman "had not been arrested,"
the picture that forms in the mind is one of cops arriving, deciding that a
black guy shot dead in the street is normal if a white/Hispanic guy shot
him, and going home.

Obviously the police responders were more professional than that, and
the presumption that *they themselves* were flagrantly racist suddenly
vanishes, particularly when we hear that at least one of the investigators
wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter.

Insisting on the narrowest sense of "arrest" (if that's what's been
happening) serves only to inflame the situation. IMO.

JL
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "arrest" vs. "charge"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You're right... sort of
> There are also various attempts to distinguish between detained, seized
> and arrested. Some have legal justification, some are just wind.
>
> He was most certainly detained--he was picked up, put in the vehicle,
> cuffed, then brought to the precinct. Just being stopped and unable to
> leave qualifies for seizure, I believe. But was he arrested? Well, it's
> not entirely clear. It's quite common to refer to "arrest" if someone's
> been picked up and restrained, which clearly happened here. But,
> suppose, cops pick up a kid just to scare him, handcuff him, place him
> in the car, drive around the block, then release him. Was the kid
> arrested? I doubt anyone would say that he was. So what would be the
> difference between that situation and Mr. Z? Being charged is easy--you
> need a special document from someone other than the arresting officer
> and clearance from above. From what we know from this story, several
> people in the police department wanted him charged, but they were
> overrulled--so he was NOT charged.
>
> But not the frequent difference in language that is usually glossed
> over--one is arrested "on suspicion of" murder or some other crime, but
> he is charged "with" that crime. So one clearly be arrested and even
> accused--by the police--without being charged.
>
> But it is possible to have an extended detention without actual arrest.
> Arrest is a formal procedure--all sorts of paperwork to fill out,
> fingerprints, etc. Mugshot is just the first step. Once the paperwork
> has been filled out, you've been arrested--merely having your mugshot
> taken is not quite enough, according to some definitions. The point of
> processing is important--if you've been processed as having been
> arrested for some cause, you have to report that on every form that asks
> if you've ever been arrested. If you were merely detained, you don't
> have to report it--you have not been formally arrested.
>
> So if no paperwork was filled out to process the arrest, Z has not been
> arrested. He might have been detained on suspicion of homicide, but not
> arrested. It's also possible that he indeed WAS arrested, but then
> released without having to spend a night in jail--yet another very loose
> measure which people think of when they think of an arrest. So the best
> we can do is that, by some measures, he's been arrested, but it's quite
> likely that no formal arrest was ever made. If you think of all those
> black-and-white movies that use lines like "You're under arrest!" they
> mean absolutely nothing--just saying that you're under arrest does not
> mean that you've been arrested.
>
> Does this make any sense or am I just running around in circles?
>
>     VS-)
>
> On 4/3/2012 1:30 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> > It must be me. For over a week, highly-paid newspeople and others have
> been
> > insisting that George Zimmerman was "never arrested" by police.
> >
> > Then, a police video surfaced that shows Z. beiin custody at the police
> > station with his wrists cuffed behind his back. .
> >
> > In fact, CNN has enhanced the video to help answer the question of
> whether
> > Z. had a head injury.  Immediately after two minutes of discussing said
> > video and enhancement, another journalist informs us that controversy
> still
> > swirls around the issue of why Z. "was not arrested."
> >
> > What is wrong with these people/ me?  Isn't the issue that Z. was
> released
> > without being *charged*?  He sure looked like a guy under arrest to me.
> >
> > This makes even "brokered-convention"-gate look trivial by comparison.
> >
> > JL
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org