Detention/detained implies "prevented movement"; it was wholly forestalled. Whereas Arrest/arrested implies "halted movement"; it was quashed. So the distinction is whether JP was not moving or already moving.
Physical contact just ups the tortious portion to assault (which must then be justified).
If JP was walking, he was arrested and THEN detained in one spot, without ever being assaulted... --Accurate
Something like that. Words mean things, and the left doesn't like that non-postmodern fact. So use it to annoy them, via precision. And any legal brains out there, feel free to dissect the terms better'n I did.
Detention/detained implies "prevented movement"; it was wholly forestalled. Whereas Arrest/arrested implies "halted movement"; it was quashed. So the distinction is whether JP was not moving or already moving.
Physical contact just ups the tortious portion to assault (which must then be justified).
Something like that. Words mean things, and the left doesn't like that non-postmodern fact. So use it to annoy them, via precision. And any legal brains out there, feel free to dissect the terms better'n I did.
JP said detained. He was detained. Detained is being stopped and then told you can't leave by police.
That's the proper term.
Politifacts used arrested because they're hacks.
No, it's not. Being detained and being placed under arrest are 2 different things and have no relation to whether you're moving or not.