There aren't laws that say who police can arrest, other than the general rule that there must be probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by the person being arrested. Police just can't go around arresting people and letting the courts sort them out. That's a police state. Thank fuck we don't (yet) live in one of those.MrJonno wrote:Have to differ on what probably cause is, as most deaths are not self defence the police should work on the basis that anyone that kills someone is lying. That in not to say they are on the courts/jury don't need far higher levels of standards to send someone jail.The next threshold is arrest. Police need probable cause to arrest. That means demonstrable objective evidence on which to conclude that a crime may have been committed by the defendant. In the case of self-defense, arrests don't have to be made. Extreme examples to make the point are like the young woman who shot and killed an intruder while she was on the phone with 911 dispatcher. The evidence was clear to the police that she acted in self defense
Having laws say who the police can arrest as opposed who the courts can convict is unusual to say the least. I assume its to stop someone being inconvienced for 24 hours by the police. However as I've said before your loss of liberty with the appropiate legal protection for 24 hours is small price to pay to ensure someone doesnt get away with a serious crime. I just don't associate being arrested with someone either losing reputation or actually being guilty of something merely that they are part of the investigation process. Most people who are arrested are never charged with anything which I really don't see a problem with
I don't get what you mean by "stop someone from being inconvenienced for 24 hours." I don't know what you're even talking about. Where hell do the allow police to arrest anyone they want anytime, without probable cause, just because the police feel like it?
Where you are, do the police just arrest people and then investigate for 24 hours, and then let them go? How often does this happen? How often are investigations of serious crimes done and over in 24 hours? What do they need to arrest them for longer than 24 hours? What is the rule they follow to know when to detain them longer than 24 hours? Is it just "it's easier for the cops, so let them hold the person until they sort things out?" I mean - again, thank fuck we don't live in a police state like that.
An arrest is not "part of the investigation process." An arrest - in the US - means that there already is probable cause that the person in question is guilty of a particular crime.
Based upon reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in criminal activity, a police officer may require you to identify yourself and explain your presence at a particular time, without arresting you. Under Florida law the officer may not remove you from the immediate vicinity without making an arrest, unless you voluntarily accompany the officer to some other location.The officer may ask you some questions in order to complete the field interrogation card. You have a constitutional right to not answer them, or give your name, unless the officer has an articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime.At the conclusion of this temporary detention the officer must either arrest you or let you go.
It is NOT permitted, and thank fuck it isn't, for a cop to just say "oh, hell, let's just make sure of things here, and we'll jail this guy in the county lock-up until we get our shit straight." Thankfully, that is not the country we live in, and I can only say that the suggestion that cops ought to be able to do that, I hope, will remain anathema to American criminal law. If you folks want that sort of police state authority in your neck of the woods -- have at it. But, to me, it sounds insane.
