[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Auto Is arresting someone a lengthy process or is it instantaneous? For example, it takes time to put handcuffs on someone but only a couple seconds to say "You're under arrest!"

It all depends on what happens but it is a potentially dangerous situation. Most people don't like being arrested and their entire attitude and demeanor can shift abruptly when informed of such.

By your logic, is the cop placing you under arrest once he attempts to pull you over?

It's not my logic, it's the state's logic. When a cop pulls you over, he is restricting your travel temporarily. If you run from that, the situation now transforms into a clearly arrestable offense, where as a traffic stop probably will not be, and in the act of avoiding this cop you are evading arrest by placing yourself in a situation where you would be arrested and then running. I'm debating the legality of the move, not whether or not it should be this way.

If they don't have to tell me when they start to arrest me, then who's to say when they start to arrest me? The cops, of course.

No, the court system usually applying a "responsible person" test or the equivalent.

So by your reasoning, it would seem that if a cop were to say that everyone in his jurisdiction is suddenly under arrest, legally he would be right.

Why would it be reasonable to assume that simply by being in a jurisdiction you are under arrest? At least in this case this man committed an arrestable offense first, not signing the ticket, the cop went to arrest him and then clearly took it way too far.

It goes something like this...

-Criminal Act is committed
-Officer becomes aware of Criminal Act
-Officer attempts to place the suspect under arrest.

Clearly this is determined on whether the person ends up arrested or not. If they end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop intended to arrest them. If they do not end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop did not intend to arrest them.

You are initially right in stating that the cop decides initially whether or not and when he is placing someone under arrest, but incorrect in assuming that his interpretation is the final say in the matter. I can understand having a problem with discretion fundamentally, but this is how the system works which is what I was arguing. Not how it SHOULD work.