Quote:
Originally Posted by rem338win
Both of them. And it has more to do with your ignorance on how the system and the power of arrest work.
There is a significant difference between arrested and charged and what the grounds are.
Please feel free to use your browser to find Google and discover. Also look up the term "reasonable" and take the definitions to heart.
|
I am aware of the difference. I am not talking charged, I am simply talking arrested. A brief summary of grounds for arrest:
A police officer can arrest where:
-there is reasonable grounds a person has committed an indictable offence
-there is reasonable grounds a person is about to commit an indictable offence
-a person is committing an indictable offence
-a person has a warrant out for his/her arrest.
Since the initial person was not detained for a previous crime, nor charged with anything at the time there was no warrant for his arrest. Since the arrest was made a significant time after the shooting the person was clearly not in the act of committing the indictable offence. Perhaps they thought he was about to shoot someone else, but if that were true he has clearly proven he is a danger and would that would of allowed for a longer detention so unlikely. That leaves reasonable grounds to believe the person initially arrested was the shooter. Perhaps you should look up reasonable grounds. It is not an easy thing to achieve; cant just go "so and so said he did it" or I have a hunch. It takes serious work. That is why it took so long to make the second arrest.
I truly have nothing against the police. They have a hard job. But in this case they made mistakes in the handling if this case. With that I am out. Hope they have the right person this time and it sticks