Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-20-2013, 11:51 PM
RonnieP's Avatar
RonnieP RonnieP is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,862
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otalps View Post
Not reading something to a fkng terrorist that didn't become law for almost 200 years after the Constitution was written is now the death of that same Constitution?
You do realize that the Constitution was written by Terrorist right? Oh, that's right, the Founding Fathers would have been labelled as Terrorist by King George III. You know, the guy that was the rightful ruler of the Colonists.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-20-2013, 11:52 PM
Loco45's Avatar
Loco45 Loco45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 443
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:00 AM
Safety1st Safety1st is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 591
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieP View Post
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.
Good point. There are anti's who, directly and indirectly, say the same about NRA members.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:08 AM
otalps's Avatar
otalps otalps is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieP View Post
You do realize that the Constitution was written by Terrorist right? Oh, that's right, the Founding Fathers would have been labelled as Terrorist by King George III. You know, the guy that was the rightful ruler of the Colonists.

Would you agree that all the Founding Fathers should be rounded up and treated like Terrorists?
Oh yeah I totally forgot about how the founding fathers set bombs off killing innocent women and children children at public gatherings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieP View Post
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.
And you people write some of the stupidest arguments ever committed to pixel.
__________________

Last edited by otalps; 04-21-2013 at 12:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:15 AM
artoaster's Avatar
artoaster artoaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,158
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Yes, there is a plan.
__________________


You generally run out of time before you run out of ammo.

NRA Member [/FONT***] 
[

NRA Member
CGF Member
AKA Richard Cramden

Last edited by artoaster; 04-21-2013 at 12:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:18 AM
RonnieP's Avatar
RonnieP RonnieP is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,862
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otalps View Post
Oh yeah I totally forgot about how the founding fathers set bombs off killing innocent women and children children at public gatherings.
No, but they attacked Government Officials and Soldiers. Murdering them by the thousands. Minutemens hiding behind trees and attacking like cowards instead of standing bravely on the field of battle.

Quote:
And you people write some of the stupidest arguments ever committed to pixel.
And people like you give up so many rights because you feel that that other guy doesn't deserve any rights because you label them as the enemy.

You are cheering on the same government that is trying to infringe on your rights. Does that make any sense to you?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:28 AM
Loco45's Avatar
Loco45 Loco45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 443
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:33 AM
rivraton's Avatar
rivraton rivraton is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Merced County
Posts: 1,050
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco45 View Post
@Scarville, if the officer forgets to read you your rights, the judge can't convict you. They are mandated to read you your rights,
Not true. If you are not Mirandized, your statements can not be used against you. You can still be convicted on other evidence.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bacon_lover View Post
Having to choose between Newsome and Villaraigosa is like being asked if you want a nail driven into your left or right testicle.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:38 AM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 11,341
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otalps View Post
Oh yeah I totally forgot about how the founding fathers set bombs off killing innocent women and children children at public gatherings.



And you people write some of the stupidest arguments ever committed to pixel.
Sort of like a CDFingers type of argument.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Watch come Wednesday. It's going to be a landslide. Forget the polls, look at the census data, trump screwed up. Tell you what though if trump had made peace with woman and hispancis he could have pulled this off. But he kept at em. Just couldn't shut up.
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:41 AM
Loco45's Avatar
Loco45 Loco45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 443
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivraton View Post
Not true. If you are not Mirandized, your statements can not be used against you. You can still be convicted on other evidence.
Somebody already corrected me on that, my mistake...
__________________
Airgun and firearm enthusiast.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:41 AM
jeffrice6's Avatar
jeffrice6 jeffrice6 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 4,297
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco45 View Post
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
As usual CNN is putting out lies, either ignorance or agenda based. NDAA is most certainly designed for American Citizens

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; 04-21-2013 at 12:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:51 AM
Kolo589 Kolo589 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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 11:15 AM.. Reason: ..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:51 AM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 11,341
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffrice6 View Post
As usual CNN is putting out lies, either ignorance or agenda based. NDAA is most certainly designed for American Citizens

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”.
Yep, my understanding is that the Obama administration is basically claiming that once you join a foreign group that is attacking the United States, you have, for all intents and purposes, renounced your citizenship and are fare game.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Watch come Wednesday. It's going to be a landslide. Forget the polls, look at the census data, trump screwed up. Tell you what though if trump had made peace with woman and hispancis he could have pulled this off. But he kept at em. Just couldn't shut up.
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:52 AM
lightcav lightcav is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,581
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:54 AM
Bill Carson's Avatar
Bill Carson Bill Carson is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

His lawyer would have a field day if they read him his miranda rights while he is on the ground shot and/or injured or in the hospital under sedation.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-21-2013, 1:20 AM
jeffrice6's Avatar
jeffrice6 jeffrice6 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 4,297
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Carson View Post
His lawyer would have a field day if they read him his miranda rights while he is on the ground shot and/or injured or in the hospital under sedation.
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
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-21-2013, 1:43 AM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 11,341
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightcav View Post
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?
You are aware that it is perfectly legal to lie to or mislead suspects aren't you.
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.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Watch come Wednesday. It's going to be a landslide. Forget the polls, look at the census data, trump screwed up. Tell you what though if trump had made peace with woman and hispancis he could have pulled this off. But he kept at em. Just couldn't shut up.
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-21-2013, 6:10 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-21-2013, 6:16 AM
OldShooter32's Avatar
OldShooter32 OldShooter32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On a hill with good fields of fire near Lockeford
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
Um.

I think some of y'all might not be understanding the whole deal about the so-called "National Security Exception." This does not mean that the guy didn't get read his rights ever. It just means that, given the probable presence of more explosive devices on the guys person, they just postponed it until they could get other business out of the way first and make sure that, y'know, there weren't any immediate explosion hazards.

The black helicopters aren't going to be landing and taking y'all away. Just settle down.
This is an old exception to Miranda, most often used when a kidnap victim is locked up somewhere and whose life is in jeopardy, but certainly applies to cases where live explosives may be an issue. Miranda is a very misunderstood ruling. I don't doubt BarryHO is up to no good, but he didn't just now invent this exception.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-21-2013, 6:36 AM
Sailormilan2 Sailormilan2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
Wrong, Miranda is not required upon arrest. You've been watching too much TV. Miranda is only required during questioning in a custodial situation. NDAA has nothing to do with this.



The younger one is a naturalized citizen.



Um, you don't get a lawyer immediately upon arrest. You are entitled to have one present during questioning IF you request one. He has to be the one to make the request. A relative or your lawyer can not invoke your right for you.

Also, if he is medically unable to attend court, the 48 hour arraignment clock gets put on hold until he is medically able. When working the courts, I dealt with this almost every day with inmates who were classified as a "No-Go Medical" for court purposes. All it requires is a doctor's certification that transporting him to court would be a detriment to his health because of medical reasons. By most accounts, this guy was in pretty bad shape when they got to him, so it would not surprise me if he doesn't got to court for a few days to a week or two. Gives the prosecution more time to prepare their case anyway.



Yep. I made thousands of arrests where I never read Miranda to the suspect, because I had no need to question him.



Yep. I always wince when I see someone on TV read the crook his Miranda rights while their still struggling to get him handcuffed.
Ron is correct on each of these. However, when I worked the courts, there were times when a suspect was arrainged while still in the hospital. Judge, reporter, clerk, DA would either car pool or meet at the hospital and do an arraignement there.
It all depends on the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-21-2013, 7:23 AM
RandyD's Avatar
RandyD RandyD is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La Jolla, California
Posts: 4,844
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-21-2013, 7:24 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-21-2013, 7:26 AM
hakenlag's Avatar
hakenlag hakenlag is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelZ3R0 View Post
I don't think every one under stands what having you Miranda rights really means....

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?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-21-2013, 7:33 AM
EastBayRidge's Avatar
EastBayRidge EastBayRidge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Bay, CA
Posts: 478
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-21-2013, 8:01 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-21-2013, 8:02 AM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-21-2013, 8:12 AM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter32 View Post
This is an old exception to Miranda, most often used when a kidnap victim is locked up somewhere and whose life is in jeopardy, but certainly applies to cases where live explosives may be an issue. Miranda is a very misunderstood ruling. I don't doubt BarryHO is up to no good, but he didn't just now invent this exception.
I have little doubt that Bobo and Co will try to use Tsarnaev to create legal precendents they can use later against other "terrorists" like evil gun owners. Rahm Emanual didn't invent the aphorism, "Never let a good crisis go to waste," he just put into a sound bite. Politicians have been taking advantage of peoples' fear and anger to expand their power for millennia.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-21-2013, 8:19 AM
Loco45's Avatar
Loco45 Loco45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 443
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Couldn't have said it better Scarville
__________________
Airgun and firearm enthusiast.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-21-2013, 9:39 AM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayoneone View Post
There is no deprivation of rights taking place. People need to stop watching Law & Order and start reading case law.

Read the history of Miranda, read when Miranda is applied, y'all will be surprised.

And again, he's a terrorist f him.
I agree, not reading him his right immediately is not a big issue. It only needs to be done before questioning, not immediately upon arrest.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-21-2013, 10:06 AM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post
I agree, not reading him his right immediately is not a big issue. It only needs to be done before questioning, not immediately upon arrest.

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.
It doesn't have to be done before questioning. If you don't intend on admitting the statements into evidence or introducing them at trial - you could interrogate the SOB all day long and never say anything about miranda.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-21-2013, 10:52 AM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
It doesn't have to be done before questioning. If you don't intend on admitting the statements into evidence or introducing them at trial - you could interrogate the SOB all day long and never say anything about miranda.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:37 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,611
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post
I agree, not reading him his right immediately is not a big issue. It only needs to be done before questioning, not immediately upon arrest.

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.
Actually Miranda only applies during a "custodial interrogation". Asking questions for "booking" and such fall outside the scope of Miranda.

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!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-21-2013, 1:19 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,815
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelZ3R0 View Post
I don't think every one under stands what having you Miranda rights really means....
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?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-21-2013, 1:24 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 11,341
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
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?
But isn't TV just like the Internet, everything on it has to be true? That seems to be the assumption that many Calguns posters here work under.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Watch come Wednesday. It's going to be a landslide. Forget the polls, look at the census data, trump screwed up. Tell you what though if trump had made peace with woman and hispancis he could have pulled this off. But he kept at em. Just couldn't shut up.
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-21-2013, 1:46 PM
Kolo589 Kolo589 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-21-2013, 3:26 PM
RandyD's Avatar
RandyD RandyD is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La Jolla, California
Posts: 4,844
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
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?
The decision to read a suspect their Miranda rights is a judgment call. Miranda warnings are required when three elements have been met, 1) the suspect is not free to go, and 2) the questions pertain to the suspects involvement in a crime, and 3) the person asking the questions is a government agent. Unless these elements are met, then the Miranda advisement is not required.

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-21-2013, 3:34 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-21-2013, 4:25 PM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
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.
A lot would be inadmissible if the suspect was on painkillers at the time of the questioning. The good one are all opiates and do cause patients to have delusions. Besides, medical records rarely contain things like.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-21-2013, 4:35 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-21-2013, 9:33 PM
ferretwithacheeseknife ferretwithacheeseknife is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffrice6 View Post
As some of you may remember, not to long ago Obama signed the NDAA order suspending Habeas Corpus.

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”.

With the recent capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston bombing "terrorist") this may be Obama's perfect opportunity to test run the NDAA order. By purposefully not reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, they are setting this up to be a Federal terrorist case. This is all fine & good, except for the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen........

The entire country wants Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be punished to the fullest extent of the law, the Feds will have the complete support and backing of the American people. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be held under Obama's NDAA order......Only problem now is there will be legal precedent affirming the NDAA order and (at present) no one will care to challenge it.

Not a lawyer ~ But I do see a real slippery slope here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremiah12 View Post
We can certainly trust the government to read him his rights as soon as they are sure there are no unexploded IEDs left by the bombers.

King Obama has for all intents and purposes labeled the NRA and its supporters as enemies. So by this reasoning, all it would take is an executive order to label all NRA members and their supporters as enemies who are taking hostile action against the US. Lets round them up and detain them indefinitely just to be safe. We will check each one out and release those that we determine are not enemies. You can trust us.
Nice to see you guys are finally waking up. You must have been asleep for the last 12+ years.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:42 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.