Originally posted by Martlet
Uh huh.
I get 6 days off a month, one day in the middle of the week and every other Sunday. Gotta be there by noon on the Sundays I work.
for martlet only 
I was in court for a traffic ticket very early, a mistake I made after losing my ticket. I was lucky that I remembered the date, I just kinda showed up. They were hearing DUI, CDV, public drunkeness cases, etc.
There were about 20 people that had been ticketed at a party down by the college for underage drinking. One lucky young lady had a lawyer. The officer began to present his case. He stated, again(she was about the 12th one up from the same incident), the circumstances surrounding his summons and arrival at the property. He had instructed her to stay on the porch of the house after confiscating her ID and then walked into the front yard to talk to another officer. He went back to her and began questioning her. This is where her lawyer stopped him. He asked for the opportunity to ask a few questions, the judge said OK.
He asked the Defendant if she felt that she was able to walk away from the officer that was questioning her. She said no. He asked if the officer told her that she was under arrest. She said no. He asked if the officer advised her of her rights to not answer his questions. She said no.
He proposed to the court that she was being held and questioned and that constituted an arrest of her civil liberties, and that she had not been advised of her right to not answer the officers questions.
The judge agreed.
The officers only evidence against her was what she told him in that conversation. It was not allowed as testimony. The charges against her were dropped.
The argument here is only a matter of semantics. "Arrest" as defined by procedure is not the same as "arrest" as defined by the liberties granted to all Americans. I agree with the semantics, but the stubbornness exhibited here by everyone is absurd.
Recognise this argument for what it is.