turtlespeed 226 #51 June 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. Shouldn't that be ALLEGED Dirtbag????? Why? Bathing habits are an individual choice. If he's a dirtbag, then he's a dirtbag. It's pretty obvious at the time of observation and odor experience if he is or not. It isn't a crime to be a dirtbag, so why would it be "alleged".I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #52 June 2, 2010 Quote The controversy is that under the new rules our rights are denied by default. This is one of those cases where in the original situation, the decision is correct. I do not think this guy's rights were trampled. Unfortunately it resulted in a precedent that is wrong. Scary stuff can come off the bench sometimesYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #53 June 2, 2010 QuoteYes, they have rights. It's their own responsibility to exercise them.And I think this is the key to the disagreement with the decision. Should rights be assumed, or must they be requested? How far do we go to protect the rights of the stupid and improvident? Rights are supposed to be inherent, not something that is granted, but something that belongs to us without asking. I think that by answering other questions (although I've heard differing reports on how many he answered) he pretty much set himself up in this case. But it takes us down the same path where we have to have papers to prove our citizenship, to prove our right to vote, etc. So then -- should we have to prove our right to own guns? And if so, what is the required proof? It's another right. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #54 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteYes, they have rights. It's their own responsibility to exercise them.And I think this is the key to the disagreement with the decision. Should rights be assumed, or must they be requested? How far do we go to protect the rights of the stupid and improvident? Rights are supposed to be inherent, not something that is granted, but something that belongs to us without asking. I think that by answering other questions (although I've heard differing reports on how many he answered) he pretty much set himself up in this case. But it takes us down the same path where we have to have papers to prove our citizenship, to prove our right to vote, etc. So then -- should we have to prove our right to own guns? And if so, what is the required proof? It's another right. Wendy P. It's not unreasonable to require proof that someone belongs to the set that has a right, when there also exists a set of persons that don't have the right (such as felons with gun ownership or voting in some states). That is NOT the same as denying the right unless you explicitly request it, which is what this decision does. There is no set of persons that don't have the right to remain silent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #55 June 2, 2010 How were the police supposed to know that he wish to exercise his right to remain silent? He apparently was answering some questions. His claim that he wished to remain silent and was exercising that right by remaining silent is just nonsense. Nobody (except the defendant himself and I am not even sure about him) knew that he wished to exercise that right. The defendant had a couple of ways to exercise his right to remain silent: 1) Telling the police he wished to exercise that right or 2) actually remaining silent. He failed to exercise his own rights. This does not even seem controversial to me."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #56 June 2, 2010 Quote Quote The controversy is that under the new rules our rights are denied by default. This is one of those cases where in the original situation, the decision is correct. I do not think this guy's rights were trampled. Unfortunately it resulted in a precedent that is wrong. Scary stuff can come off the bench sometimes Its one of the INTENDED outcomes since the Supreme Court was bought and paid for by the "conservatards" over the last 35 years. If you dont want decisions that are founded in law and order police state fascist principles.... dont put those who believe in them on the court as Ford, Reagan, GHWB and GW did. There are SIX members of the court that were put there by those Republican and rePUBIClown presidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #57 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteYes, they have rights. It's their own responsibility to exercise them.And I think this is the key to the disagreement with the decision. Should rights be assumed, or must they be requested? How far do we go to protect the rights of the stupid and improvident? Rights are supposed to be inherent, not something that is granted, but something that belongs to us without asking. I think that by answering other questions (although I've heard differing reports on how many he answered) he pretty much set himself up in this case. But it takes us down the same path where we have to have papers to prove our citizenship, to prove our right to vote, etc. So then -- should we have to prove our right to own guns? And if so, what is the required proof? It's another right. Wendy P. The basic tenet of dealing with those who once upon a time were to protect and to serve the people is this. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT They are no longer there to protect and serve YOU!!!!!!! They will take the easy path everytime with very little "good" police work being done. They veiw EVERY CONTACT as adversarial.... the public are but dirtbags, perps, skells, etc..ad nauseum. I am sure your lawyer will tell you that you are required to give this information. 1. Your name. 2. Your address. 3.Your Social Security Number if asked. 4. I invoke my 5th Amendment right to an attorney. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #58 June 2, 2010 >I invoke my 5th Amendment right to an attorney. There is no 5th amendment right to an attorney. The only thing the fifth says that is applicable is that you have a right to not be a witness against yourself in a criminal case. Doesn't apply to arrests. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #59 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. ...the suspect doesn't have to be Mirandized, as you said they must before arrest. Where did he say that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #60 June 2, 2010 Quote Quote In the USA, dirtbags have rights too. I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights. If they are Republican dirtbags, then they have rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #61 June 2, 2010 Quote >I invoke my 5th Amendment right to an attorney. There is no 5th amendment right to an attorney. The only thing the fifth says that is applicable is that you have a right to not be a witness against yourself in a criminal case. Doesn't apply to arrests. Sorry but to me.. if it involves ANYTHING that pertains to the law, lawyers, or police.... then I am going have my attorney there.... If you are opening your mouth... you are self incriminating...... PERIOD Quote FIFTH AMENDMENT No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #62 June 2, 2010 QuoteHow were the police supposed to know that he wish to exercise his right to remain silent? I think that this is the most interesting practical question had the court decided the other way... How do you decide whether a suspect is invoking the right by simply not talking? Is it 10 minutes? 1 hour? 10 questions? Is answering basic "what's your name"-type questions exempt? If you're talking and you get to a point where you decide you no longer want to talk, is shutting up enough? And if so, how are the cops to know without you saying it? Without reading the decision, I wonder if the outcome is as much a practical consideration as a legal one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #63 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. ...the suspect doesn't have to be Mirandized, as you said they must before arrest. Where did he say that? I didn't, but Lucky's not one to let the facts get in the way of an argument.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #64 June 2, 2010 Quote>I invoke my 5th Amendment right to an attorney. There is no 5th amendment right to an attorney. The only thing the fifth says that is applicable is that you have a right to not be a witness against yourself in a criminal case. Doesn't apply to arrests. It falls under the due process clause of the fifth, and later comes in under the sixth.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #65 June 2, 2010 You're dodging questions again. If you think poloice must always assume a person is invoking their right to remain silent, when can they ever interview a suspect? How is it denying a right if a person chooses not to exercise if after being advised that it exists? If you think a right should be assumed to automatically be invoked, do you think all police interviews without a lawyer present are unconstitutional? After all, isn't it "denying" a right (in your opinion) to make them ask for a lawyer? Should all poilice interviews be forbidden unless a lawyer is there?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #66 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteHow were the police supposed to know that he wish to exercise his right to remain silent? I think that this is the most interesting practical question had the court decided the other way... How do you decide whether a suspect is invoking the right by simply not talking? Is it 10 minutes? 1 hour? 10 questions? Is answering basic "what's your name"-type questions exempt? If you're talking and you get to a point where you decide you no longer want to talk, is shutting up enough? And if so, how are the cops to know without you saying it? Without reading the decision, I wonder if the outcome is as much a practical consideration as a legal one. The police, according to the Fifth Amendment" are not allowed to make you incriminate yourself through questioning. Their job is to gather evidence that you committed a crime and that evidence should be all they need to prosecute you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #67 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteYes, they have rights. It's their own responsibility to exercise them.And I think this is the key to the disagreement with the decision. Should rights be assumed, or must they be requested? How far do we go to protect the rights of the stupid and improvident? Rights are supposed to be inherent, not something that is granted, but something that belongs to us without asking.Quote Then how would polce ever be able to interview anyone? If it's automaticaly assumed that everyone wants to exercise their right to remain silent, what is thepoint of Miranda? If police have to assume everyone wants to remain silent, then they can't talk to anyone. QuoteI think that by answering other questions (although I've heard differing reports on how many he answered) he pretty much set himself up in this case. That is my point exactly. He answered questions, then wants to go back and say he wanted to remain silent. It's one more case of a dirtbag wanting to change to facts after the case. ANd in this case, he was a dirtbag. QuoteBut it takes us down the same path where we have to have papers to prove our citizenship, to prove our right to vote, etc. So then -- should we have to prove our right to own guns? And if so, what is the required proof? It's another right. No one is asking for proof that you have the right to remain silent. If you want to own guns, you have to go out and buy them, right? Non one is going to deliver them to your doorstep because they believe your right is automatically being exercised. You ahve to make the choice to go out and get them. Same thing with remaining silent. If you want to do it, you have to do it. No one is going to exercise your rights for you. You have to do it yourself.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #68 June 2, 2010 QuoteThe police, according to the Fifth Amendment" are not allowed to make you incriminate yourself through questioning. Their job is to gather evidence that you committed a crime and that evidence should be all they need to prosecute you. Not true in this country at all. The police can ask you questions. If you incriminate yourself, it's your own fault. You have the right not to answer. You have the right to have an atorney present. If you choose not to exercise those rights, it is your own fault. Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? Have you ever done a ride-along with your local police department or spoken with an officer when they weren't investigating you or one of your associates?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #69 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuote In the USA, dirtbags have rights too. I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights. You know, I just figured out why you two are having such a hard time with this. You expect someone else to do everything for you and provide the world on a silky pillow witha satin bow (the essence of being Far Left). So you actually expect someone else to exercise your rights for you, as well. Just so there is no misunderstanding (except by you two, because that's what you do), I believe in individual rights, including being allowed to make a mistake. It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support. I can't say the same for you two. So which of us has problems with people having rights? Hint: it's not me.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #70 June 2, 2010 QuoteNot true in this country at all. The police can ask you questions. If you incriminate yourself, it's your own fault. You have the right not to answer. You have the right to have an atorney present. If you choose not to exercise those rights, it is your own fault. "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" Quote Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? No. QuoteHave you ever done a ride-along with your local police department or spoken with an officer when they weren't investigating you or one of your associates? Irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #71 June 2, 2010 Quote"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" Key word: compelled. Look it up. QuoteQuote Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? No. If that is "no I don't think they should be allowed to question anyone" then you just removed yourself from the reasonable discussion. If that is "no I think they should be allowed to question people" (and I don't think it is) then my question to you is "when?" QuoteQuoteHave you ever done a ride-along with your local police department or spoken with an officer when they weren't investigating you or one of your associates? Irrelevant. Not really.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #72 June 2, 2010 Let me clarify that for you. Quote Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? NO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #73 June 2, 2010 QuoteANd in this case, he was a dirtbag.However, the fact that he's actually a dirtbag is irrelevant. Really. While it's more satisfying (and it is), from a legal standpoint the guilty are entitled to just as much justice as the innocent. BTW -- I'm not trying to pick on you. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FreeflyChile 0 #74 June 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow were the police supposed to know that he wish to exercise his right to remain silent? I think that this is the most interesting practical question had the court decided the other way... How do you decide whether a suspect is invoking the right by simply not talking? Is it 10 minutes? 1 hour? 10 questions? Is answering basic "what's your name"-type questions exempt? If you're talking and you get to a point where you decide you no longer want to talk, is shutting up enough? And if so, how are the cops to know without you saying it? Without reading the decision, I wonder if the outcome is as much a practical consideration as a legal one. The police, according to the Fifth Amendment" are not allowed to make you incriminate yourself through questioning. Their job is to gather evidence that you committed a crime and that evidence should be all they need to prosecute you. I know what the 5th Amendment says, what I am saying is - if the SCOTUS had gone the other way, I wonder where the limit between 'the suspect's silence is not enough to establish he is exercising his right to remain silent' and 'by his silence, the suspect has exercised his right to remain silent and the police is continuing with the questioning anyway' is. I could see trials spending a lot of time in that gray area, where defense attorneys would argue against the admissibility of ANYTHING the suspect said after a given period of silence saying 'he exercised his right, and the police continued their interrogation to where he broke'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #75 June 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteANd in this case, he was a dirtbag.However, the fact that he's actually a dirtbag is irrelevant. Really. While it's more satisfying (and it is), from a legal standpoint the guilty are entitled to just as much justice as the innocent. BTW -- I'm not trying to pick on you. Wendy P. White-collar criminals, for example, tend to bathe quite regularly. It's how they, you know, keep their collars white. Andy 9. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Kennedy 0 #68 June 2, 2010 QuoteThe police, according to the Fifth Amendment" are not allowed to make you incriminate yourself through questioning. Their job is to gather evidence that you committed a crime and that evidence should be all they need to prosecute you. Not true in this country at all. The police can ask you questions. If you incriminate yourself, it's your own fault. You have the right not to answer. You have the right to have an atorney present. If you choose not to exercise those rights, it is your own fault. Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? Have you ever done a ride-along with your local police department or spoken with an officer when they weren't investigating you or one of your associates?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #69 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuote In the USA, dirtbags have rights too. I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights. You know, I just figured out why you two are having such a hard time with this. You expect someone else to do everything for you and provide the world on a silky pillow witha satin bow (the essence of being Far Left). So you actually expect someone else to exercise your rights for you, as well. Just so there is no misunderstanding (except by you two, because that's what you do), I believe in individual rights, including being allowed to make a mistake. It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support. I can't say the same for you two. So which of us has problems with people having rights? Hint: it's not me.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #70 June 2, 2010 QuoteNot true in this country at all. The police can ask you questions. If you incriminate yourself, it's your own fault. You have the right not to answer. You have the right to have an atorney present. If you choose not to exercise those rights, it is your own fault. "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" Quote Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? No. QuoteHave you ever done a ride-along with your local police department or spoken with an officer when they weren't investigating you or one of your associates? Irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #71 June 2, 2010 Quote"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" Key word: compelled. Look it up. QuoteQuote Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? No. If that is "no I don't think they should be allowed to question anyone" then you just removed yourself from the reasonable discussion. If that is "no I think they should be allowed to question people" (and I don't think it is) then my question to you is "when?" QuoteQuoteHave you ever done a ride-along with your local police department or spoken with an officer when they weren't investigating you or one of your associates? Irrelevant. Not really.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #72 June 2, 2010 Let me clarify that for you. Quote Do you think police should not be allowed to question anyone? NO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #73 June 2, 2010 QuoteANd in this case, he was a dirtbag.However, the fact that he's actually a dirtbag is irrelevant. Really. While it's more satisfying (and it is), from a legal standpoint the guilty are entitled to just as much justice as the innocent. BTW -- I'm not trying to pick on you. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #74 June 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow were the police supposed to know that he wish to exercise his right to remain silent? I think that this is the most interesting practical question had the court decided the other way... How do you decide whether a suspect is invoking the right by simply not talking? Is it 10 minutes? 1 hour? 10 questions? Is answering basic "what's your name"-type questions exempt? If you're talking and you get to a point where you decide you no longer want to talk, is shutting up enough? And if so, how are the cops to know without you saying it? Without reading the decision, I wonder if the outcome is as much a practical consideration as a legal one. The police, according to the Fifth Amendment" are not allowed to make you incriminate yourself through questioning. Their job is to gather evidence that you committed a crime and that evidence should be all they need to prosecute you. I know what the 5th Amendment says, what I am saying is - if the SCOTUS had gone the other way, I wonder where the limit between 'the suspect's silence is not enough to establish he is exercising his right to remain silent' and 'by his silence, the suspect has exercised his right to remain silent and the police is continuing with the questioning anyway' is. I could see trials spending a lot of time in that gray area, where defense attorneys would argue against the admissibility of ANYTHING the suspect said after a given period of silence saying 'he exercised his right, and the police continued their interrogation to where he broke'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #75 June 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteANd in this case, he was a dirtbag.However, the fact that he's actually a dirtbag is irrelevant. Really. While it's more satisfying (and it is), from a legal standpoint the guilty are entitled to just as much justice as the innocent. BTW -- I'm not trying to pick on you. Wendy P. White-collar criminals, for example, tend to bathe quite regularly. It's how they, you know, keep their collars white. Andy 9. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
