Lucky...

Because these celebs love the cash and publicity when it benefits them, when it doesn't, they cry foul. No, the media s/b in his ass as with Paris Hilton and the rest, you can't turn the media, paparazi on/off as you wish.

Correct. I think any responsible attorney for Woods right now would advise him to STFU. Yep, take the ticket, pay it AND QUIT FUCKING AROUND YOUR FINE-ASS WIFE. What a loser, has a hot wife and ALLEGEDLY is fucking something else.

Have you noticed that you are one of the most profoundly classist posters in this forum? But at least you can blame it on everyone else, "because it's such a classist nation." Blues, Dave Yea you're right, everyone has the same opportunity here as the next guy W/o researching, I would say the distribution of wealth is about the same here as in some Communist countries.

That is true. Miranda was eventually retried with his confession suppressed and was sentenced to 20 years. Don't get me wrong - I am not a nut who thinks coerced confessions are good for the country. I do, however, agree with Justice Byron White's dissenting opinion of the Miranda case: "In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity." Don't confuse lack of Miranda with coercion; different degrees. - Failure to Mirandize after detention, before questioning just excludes the statements unless D testifies. - Coercion as in threats, promises, sleep deprivation, toture (you know, Bush stuff) qualifies for permanent omission/exclusion of statements regardless of whether D testifies.

It has to so with the voluntariness of statements and subsequent admission.

The only criteria for US constitutional rights to apply is that the defendant is charged with violating US criminal law, and is tried by US authorities in a US civilian court. By the way, people often seem to think that if Miranda rights are not read, that means the criminal case "gets thrown out on a technicality." But that is simply not the case. It simply means that if the defendant makes a self-incriminating statement, that statement may not be admitted into evidence at trial. But the trial may still otherwise proceed with non-tainted evidence. In AZ, I imagine it's SCOTUS so national, if the Def testifies they can bring in the suppressed statements on rebuttal. If the statements are coerced they can never be brought in. This was taught in school years ago as well I witnessed that rule in effect with the serial killer trials I watched. He testified and they brought in GPS tacking that was unwarranted and cell phone records that were obtained w/o a warrant. Otherwise they would have been excluded. And the judge obliged by NOT allowing surrebuttal witnesses. Of course cross was allowed.

That's the million-dollar question. Of course their Geneva rights were violated too as per torture, no contact, etc., so I think we're upping their rights due to Bush's corrupt policies.

Tell me what case reaffirmed Miranda much later. He was also a scumbag; most case law is based on guilty people, the idea is to protect the rights of others. And like Miranda, the other guy I'm referring to was also convicted. Just because certain statements aren't admissible doesn't mean the whole case is trashed. We need to protect ourselves from: - Raping scumbags - Oppressive government It isn't a celebration of Ernesto Miranda everytime a person gets Mirandized, even tho hsi name will live on forever. Of course he was murdered and the suspects refused to speak under their Miranda rights..... no one was ever tried for his murder.... irony score: infinitty trillion. BTW, what happens when it's a maggotted conservative who claims his Miranda rights? Not annoying I suppose?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6HGmTEc_kIALqJfG0r_WSGGFGZgD9C9PGK00 That won't be good in 2012 for Huckabe, for a party that has yet to produce any viable candidates.

That's not cool. Just because the war was BS based upon a lie, started by our 6th worst president of all times, doesn't mean it's cool to go there. ALL war vets are golden, they're the best we have. Throw in a Purple Heart and they're walking on water. I realize this thread is meant in insense, but this thread needs to go bye-bye.

It doesn't matter, but they probably did. If he didn't understand them because they weren't in arabic that's his problem. The way i see it, he didn't need to be mirandized because he's a war criminal, and much, much worse I'm sure. Aside from your opinion, it depends upon which rules we are going to use in regard to whether he needed to be Mirandized. And if he wasn't, those statements can't be used unless he testifies, then they can be used in rebuttal, only what he opens up. However if the statements were coerced, they can NEVER be used. I imagine he'll be tried using Federal Rules of Crim Proc, so these rules should be the same as state rules, since the SCOTUS governs them all. The Exclusionary Rule is used to deter police misconduct, so if the cops play fair, they can bring it all in, lie or worst, coerce (waterboard) and the evidence may never see the light of day. The argument could be made that he was arrested as a war combatant, therefore Miranda didn't apply. But since we've used torture I think Obama/DOJ wants to raise the bar. Just shows that playing fair is the way to earn respect from other countries. We can't act as the enforcer when we use illicit means to obtain evidence; then we are the criminals. EDITED TO ADD: Yes it does matter that the def understands them. Absent that, thee is no transmission of the Miranda (brightline) Rule.

Hell in another thread he was an aviation expert. Everything from a Cessna to the B-2 and every airliner in between. He's a jack of all trades! Love your paraphrasations, I would consider myself an acft sheetmetal expert. I never considerd myself a legal expert, just someone very knowledgeable. I've never worked teh B-2 or claimed to have, perhaps you're not reading very carefully.

It wasn't a P.A. If i intended to P.A. you, you'd know it. Yes, that's what I think. Let's just say it was "Politically Correct" I went to your profile, and you admit your a Dick, fuggat about it!!!!

And you think PA's are the way to go? You think the J/K makes it not a PA?

Actually my school ddin't offer criminal justice, justice studies, so your assumption is again errant. I was a process server for 9 years, BS Jus, taking some paralegal classes now, watched trials since 96-97 until today, watched a diff one last week, pro per'd a case against 3 lawyers, a realtor, a broker and 2 LLC's. I won that one in arbtration and collected too. You can try to minimize my experience/knowledge, but that is what I expect from you. Considering you would need to be taken from the JUS 101 level, don't waste your time.

My knowledge of the legal system dwarfs yours. I just spent 4 months watching a multi-murder trial that lasted 7+ months, where the def got 6 death sentences and flipped off my GF's brother. I watch all the procedure, the strategy, etc. Again, my knowledge of the legal sys dwarfs yours. That's your ill-interpretation, nit my words or my intent. Why would I want to do that? Which opinion? The one where cops get a waaaay easy break in the courts when they commit crimes or are suspected/charged? I'd rather not be there with you, I get enough of your empty posts here.

You have to PA all the time?

Because it's such a classist nation, it breeds this kind of emotion, at least from poor fuckers like me. Guy's got everything, now it appears he's prolly fucking around on an already fine wife, gets his ass kicked and leaves his what, 30M mansion in his 100k car and crashes. Yeah, you're speculating as usual. http://web.tigerwoods.com/news/article/200911297726222/news/ As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I'm pretty sore. This situation is my fault, and it's obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I'm human and I'm not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn't happen again. This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible. The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false. This incident has been stressful and very difficult for Elin, our family and me. I appreciate all the concern and well wishes that we have received. But, I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be. If it was a simple car crash then why would it be a private family matter? A crash is a crash, a domestic issue is just that and they want to keep it private. The crash was incident to the DR.

There are no stats available to support the theory that cops are coddled. Of course I can provide arrest and bond details on many cases that are so weak any reasonable person could see the difference between that and the way regular people are dealt with. As for knowing what I'm talkign abiut, I have a BS in justice and have followed/studied the law since 96. It appears it is you who doesn't have a clue as to what they speak. But they didn't commit murder at the capitol, it was a coffee shop. And to say 1st degree capial murder is just emotional semantics, anymore most 1st degree murders are tried as capital murder cases, but you and your vast knowledge knew that. No doubt, there is no place in society for this/these guy(s). Oh, what did I say? That the court allow and advocate the dirty cops to be so. How is that defamatory to all cops? How is it the bad cops should be able to make the good cops look bad, as I stated? You pretend that I defamed all cops when what I said was that of the bad ones, the courts pave teh way for them, which leads to hard feelings between all cops and citizens.

Let's get back to your bullshit claim about being a registered Republican. Either you're lying, or you're so incredibly lazy you can't be bothered to resubmit a change in affiliation. Meanwhile you claim to know the affiliations of everyone else here. I used to be of much lower education, so I bought all the BS. In 94 I registered as an R and voted that way until 96. I don't vote primaries, so I don;t need to change it.

Why the hell not? It's a holiday weekend and I can do whatever I want. I just wanted to make sure you're not one of those lazy free-loading types conservatives always whine about.

Because it's such a classist nation, it breeds this kind of emotion, at least from poor fuckers like me. Guy's got everything, now it appears he's prolly fucking around on an already fine wife, gets his ass kicked and leaves his what, 30M mansion in his 100k car and crashes. Yeah, you're speculating as usual. Kind of like juries do when deciding cases, take a lot of usually circumstantial evidence, listen to arguments from both sides and make a judgment based upon what smells the most likely. You, of coure, need a notarized statement from god. If I even get charged I will request you as a juror.

TMZ (gossip site) has been the primary one, focusing on the changing account by the wife. Now they're refusing to talk, which apparently they can do, though I would think the police would have more authority to investigate based on the possibility of driving under the influence. Tiger was taken to the hospital so I'm sure they did at least a cursory check. But here's my point why I think it played out as I stated: If she was trying to free him, why did she go thru the back window? Wouldn't it make more sense that she came thru the passenger side or behind Tiger? And there was reportely no blood on the steering wheel and his face was cut. It smells weird, I think it was a domestic.

It wouldn't suprise me if members of the citizenry are deciding to "fight back". How many cops have killed citizens lately in this new police state? One might want to think twice before becoming a blue line fraternity brother. Blues, Cliff Yea I know, I'm not the biggest fan of cops either. But this is a random act and it's sad to think of 4 people dead, even if they are cops that *might* have done this to others, there is a very real chance that these were good cops too. The real problem is with the court, BTW, they let the dirties get away with murder and this makes all cops look bad. The purpose/desgn of the establishment is to draw a line between cops and citizens; this may have been an ugly byproduct of that problem. While I understand what you are saying let's not forget about the "blue line". That unstated law among cops that they are brothers and will sweep alot under the rug for a fellow cop. While I don't condone the execution of anyone, even crooked cops, I can understand how the less enlightened may believe in the righteousness of such an action. Blues, Cliff I agree that some people may have been affected and therefore feel that action is justified. I have been a victim of a dirty cop that killed 2 people, lost his job and is now working as a detention officer in a diff county, probably will be a cop one day. It really is the system for advocating cops defend each other even after being dirty. And in my case, he is now in teh system again after the state licensing agency pussed out and wouldn't pull his certificate. Hate the cops, but it really is the game more than the player.

That's a funny comment to start the day with. Are you just starting the day at noon? You really shouldn't sleep-in so late.