|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Would you agree that all the Founding Fathers should be rounded up and treated like Terrorists? You people throw the word Terrorist around like it's some mantra chant. Won't turn in your guns? Oh, you are a terrorist, hope they send a hellfire your way. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Well thanks for correcting me on where I was wrong, but just to let everyone know, I think this guy should pay for his crimes, even give this guy the chair for all I care, but what I and many others don't want to see is our constitutional rights put in to the shredder. The NDAA bill is not some piece of conspiracy theory, it's fact, the anti-protest bill which violates the first amendment is fact, not that it's a factor in this case, but just to add that to the unconstitutional things and also let's not forget how eager our government is to infringe on the 2nd amendment as well. As a person who follows some politics, I just can't help to ask myself, is this the case that America will justify the NDAA bill out of fear of terror? Don't forget 9/11, after that happened, Bush signed the patriot act which stripped us from our privacy and Obama reinstated that too and along with these other laws that he signs and then goes on record saying he doesn't agree with them and that he would never use them under his watch, but at the same time he has a kill list and so far as we know a 16 year was killed in one of his drone strikes? Sorry if I don't trust my gov
__________________
Airgun and firearm enthusiast. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Good point. There are anti's who, directly and indirectly, say the same about NRA members.
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And you people write some of the stupidest arguments ever committed to pixel.
__________________
Last edited by otalps; 04-20-2013 at 11:11 PM.. |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
You are cheering on the same government that is trying to infringe on your rights. Does that make any sense to you? |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
CNN mentions in this article the NDAA, but they are saying it doesn't apply to US citizens, which I remember it did when the bill got passed, but Obama said he would never let it happen on his watch (you can google that). Here's the article about Boston where they mention the NDAA http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/20/us/bos...html?c=&page=4
__________________
Airgun and firearm enthusiast. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Not true. If you are not Mirandized, your statements can not be used against you. You can still be convicted on other evidence.
__________________
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Somebody already corrected me on that, my mistake...
__________________
Airgun and firearm enthusiast. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The National Defense Authorization Act [4] signed by President Obama on the 31st December 2011 authorises the indefinite detention, without trial or indictement, of any US citizens designated as enemies by the executive. The individuals concerned are not only those who have been captured on the field of battle, but also those who have never left the United States or participated in any military action. The law concerns any person designated by the administration as “a member of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and who takes part in hostile action against the United States”, but also anyone who “substantially supports these organisations”.
__________________
WTB: S&W 617 4" 10 shot Pre-Lock Last edited by jeffrice6; 04-20-2013 at 11:44 PM.. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
So there's a thread where we've been arguing about this over in OT, but there seems to be some confusion about what's actually going on.
By claiming the "Public Safety Exemption" the Feds are able to interrogate him AND use the testimony in court without going through the typical Miranda Warning situation where he's notified of his rights. The public safety exemption has no set time limit. Cases have been made where the information was gathered 64 days after the arrest was made (in that case a kidnapping/murder). Just because he wasn't read his rights doesn't mean they don't still exist (although the courts do tend to look down on not reminding people they have those rights since being in a custodial interrogation without being notified of your rights can be viewed as coercive... hence the whole Miranda situation to begin with). Last edited by Kolo589; 04-21-2013 at 10:15 AM.. Reason: .. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
I don't like the idea of a US citizen, any citizen, regardless of how repulsive they are being denied their rights. But lets face it there are probably hundreds of people arrested everyday that are never read their rights and are lied to or mislead by LEO (and end up incriminating themselves). And then later its your word against them about what really happened and who do you think the judge and jury are going to believe?
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Again, I'm not concerned with this POS's Miranda rights, I'm concerned because they are publicly acknowledging that he (an American citizen) has no rights........... Which leads me to believe that the administration might be trying to run the first open and public attempt at the NDAA order. And the scary thing, if this goes down, is that the entire country will be behind it. Thus creating a precedent that can/could be used against anyone for anything that the Puppet-masters deem insurrectional.
__________________
WTB: S&W 617 4" 10 shot Pre-Lock |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You can do this without violating any constitutional rights. And your right, there are hundreds of people arrested every day that are never read their rights. That doesn't necessarily mean that their rights have been violated even if they do end up doing something to incriminate themselves.
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
A couple of observations?
1. I do have a problem with declaring US citizens on US soil to be enemy combatants when it is not at all clear that they are acting on behalf of a foreign entity (or an entity which is sworn to destroy our nation/government). 2. I'm not sure the Public Safety Exception is being invoked. However, if it is I'm thinking a court should object to that on Constitutional grounds. I just don't see that there is a need for a Public Safety Exception in this case.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"If we make enough laws, we can all be criminals." Walnut media for bright brass http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=621214 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It all depends on the situation. |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Attorney here. What Ron-Solo and Trickster have said are correct. I do not see a violation of the suspect's rights. Understanding the full scope of Miranda warnings is more complex than what TV shows and movies portrait. If you want to know more about the public safety exception read New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=467&invol=649
__________________
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
My recent objection to labeling the creep as an enemy combatant is rapidly disappearing. Apparently there is now strong suspicion (or maybe actual knowledge) that the guy is a member of a 12 person terrorist cell.: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...Yqm6hA.twitter
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Most people only care about rights as it pertains to themselves. They can't see two feet in front of their noses. What White man would've thought the Mulford Act would eventually lead to the confiscation of his guns? |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Good synopsis on Miranda as applicable to Tsarnaev over at Volokh:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsa...iranda-rights/
__________________
Leave the cannoli, take the gun. Jest tylko ziemia. Jedna ziemia i pory roku nad nią są. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
I really liked the Volokh article, thank you.
A question for those who know far more than do I? If I were the creep's physician I would be questioning the hell out of the perp. I've got a guy with multiple wounds and I'd be asking how he got each and every one. I'd also be asking a whole lot about his history and associations as well as his state of mind since there is a strong suggestion that he attempted suicide. In light of the suicide those questions are medically indicated and important - not just nosiness. So let's suppose that Miranda has been invoked and the creep is refusing to answer the LEO questioning. Does he waive his rights if he is talking to his medical providers? I'm sure that his medical records could be subpoenaed, but would the record have to be redacted (I'd be guessing by the judge) to prevent statements to medical staff from incriminating the creep? Or would the creep have to refuse to answer medical staff questions in order to keep from waiving his rights?
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
An American citizen should damn well know his rights without some cop having to tell him. If I cannot leave anytime I want to, it is an arrest. If I ask, "Am I free to go?" and Officer Friendly doesn't immediately answer in the affirmative then I will assume I an under arrest and act accordingly. I know the lawyers have created a mystical distinction between an "arrest" and a "detainment" but for an ordinary person like me that is just angels dancing on the head of pin.
We hear the mantra here all the time: "Shut up and wait for your lawyer". I understand the argument that not mirandizing a suspect may make anything he says inadmissible but the miranda warning is not a magical formula that converts him from a meat puppet to someone with rights. That said, I do think that reading an arrestee his "miranda rights" is a good idea. If nothing else it might occasionally remind a cop that the guy or gal he just put in chains is innocent until proved guilty. However, the warning does not activate or create any rights, it merely reminds the arrestee of what some of those rights are.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction. |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction. |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But where you got it wrong is "he's a terrorist f him." If the .gov do end up violating his rights under some terrorist or national security claim, then it'd be f the Constitution and all of us along with it, because then we've given them the authority to decide when the Constitution applies and when it doesn't, under whatever conditions they want to apply. All they need to do is manipulate the media image to get enough of the country to go along out of hate rather than reasoned principle. |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Lawyer, but not your lawyer. Posts aren't legal advice. |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
And he can refuse to talk all day. So what? The questions is how long can you hold him before bringing him before a court or a judge.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Any and all Voluntary statements made by a suspect are absolutely admissible. In fact I've had a few cases where I Mirandized a suspect, who invoked and refused to talk with me. The suspect then started talking with his crime partner who was beside him in the booking room. I used a pocket recorder to record all their conversation, including a total confession and plan on how they would blame the crime on others..... Totally admissible in court!!! I've also ignored a invocation and proceeded to ask questions.... I didn't need a confession to get a conviction. I wanted a statement to use to impeach any statements made in court which were counter to the truth..... Statements "outside" Miranda are allowable in court to impeach the untruthful testimony of a defendant.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
Exactly. Back in the day, I arrested quite a few people and never read them the Miranda statement because I didn't need to. TV and the movies goes bananas with Mirandizing suspects. I've seen shows where they got dude standing over the body with the smoking gun, and they are Mirandizing him. wtf?
__________________
Former political prisoner who escaped on 9-24-23. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
People are still misunderstanding the issue. The issue is not about whether he's been read his Miranda, it's about purposefully not reading his Miranda and still using incriminating statements in court. That's the whole point of the Public Safety Exception, all statements he may or may not make while in a custodial interrogation are still viable for prosecution.
On a secondary note: Dickerson made it quite clear that the viability of statements made in a custodial interrogation was not based on the fact that they were voluntarily made, but rather the only way they were valid was if the suspect was informed of his rights (given a Miranda warning). Spontaneous statements, not in response to questioning, are valid for trial no matter if the suspect had been Mirandized or not. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In your scenario, if a LEO asked the doctor to ask the suspect, questions involving a crime, then a Miranda warning would be required. If the doctor, asked questions on his own initiative, then no warning is required because the doctor is not a government agent (unless the hospital is owned and operated by a government entity). If a police officer calls a suspect on the telephone and asks him questions pertaining to his involvement in criminal activity, no Miranda warnings are needed because the suspect is not in custody. If a police officer asks a person at a crime scene preliminary investigative questions about the crime, a Miranda warning is not required because the person is not a suspect and is most likely free to go.
__________________
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you!
So I take it, then, that Medical personnel can ask anything they wish, the medical record will be potentially admissible - and the perp will probably fight to prevent it from being introduced into evidence if there are any goodies in the medical record.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
06:03 - gave patient Dilaudid. 07:00 - patient confessed to killing his entire family. 09:00 -- Family came to visit with patient. Another possibility is if he was questioned while sedated. That would be considered a hypnotic state and the suspect's attorney would argue that the doctor "suggested" the whole thing and the "confessions" are a false memory.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
The meds could certainly be an issue, but if a patient is not particularly dopey their history can frequently be considered reliable. Most every admitting physician has experience getting history from patients with opiates and benzodiazepines on-board. Still could be challenged in court, of course.
And later on the patient is likely to be off the meds. There is some reason to believe that he attempted suicide and if that is the case, then questions that go to state of mind and the history which brought him to the point of homicidal and then suicidal conduct is medically significant. Well, we'll let the lawyers argue about that one later on. There could be all kinds of issues on this one. And yeah, I know that impairment can lead to a decision not to introduce testimony into evidence. There was a pretty interesting set of observations in the Lacy Peterson case which were not introduced and did not make it into the press. The folk who made the observation had been drinking beer and were likely not brought forward by the prosecution as a result. I believe their observation was correct and damning - but it didn't get used.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|