"arrest" vs. "charge"

Tue Apr 3 20:08:15 UTC 2012

Having had a chance to read John's post, I now wonder why (if true) they
didn't just say that Z. "was not booked."

Cop shows talk about "booking" people all the time.

JL

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "arrest" vs. "charge"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>

--
"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