Ofcs. Colin, Ryan and Kathryn Greenwood do a ped stop on suspect Wayne Brady.

"Laws, we don't need no stinking laws. You have the right to remain injured, (sound of punches) You have the right to be tasered, you have the right to a doctor, if you can't afford a doctor, one will be made available to you (eventually). Truncheon thuds. You have the right to be unconscious. Do you understand these rights ? Boots stomping.

But officers, all I did was stop for the red light......

Shut up.

UsikFark: DreamWeaver: What do the Miranda warning have to do with that? And no, I didn't I'm actually in the Criminal Justice field, and have my undergrad in CJ.

Well, seeing as the farking Miranda warning is mentioned throughout the video (including at the very beginning) because both the video and the warning pertain to the Fifth Amendment... oh, nevermind, you're right.

The fact that you should know better than to incriminate yourself by talking to the police has nothing to do with the fact that requiring the police to tell criminals they dont have to answer questions is farking stupid.

The truth is, it does not protect the innocent from prosecution, it simply makes it harder to convict the guilty.

F4N0r: See this is why I vote Republican... you people don't deserve rights if this is what you are going to do with them.

4/10 - I woulda gave you more if you said you were a teabagger.

Arklop: Oh come on. Even customer service telephone reps have can memorize a phrase. "Thank you for calling blah blah blah where we have the best etc etc..." It's not hard.


/former cs phone rep

no, they dont want us to memorize it. They want them to read it off the card. Every time. No chance for argument and no errors.

DreamWeaver: us


eh this reads wrong. I'm not a cop. Been trying to get through the academy, but real life seems to get in the way.

Degenz: F4N0r: See this is why I vote Republican... you people don't deserve rights if this is what you are going to do with them.

4/10 - I woulda gave you more if you said you were a teabagger.

Damnit....but but but they aren't even a real party.C'mon. I was going for at least 7/10.

I go to bed disappointed in my troll-fu.

UsikFark: Well, seeing as the farking Miranda warning is mentioned throughout the video (including at the very beginning) because both the video and the warning pertain to the Fifth Amendment... oh, nevermind, you're right.

Because we can't expect the people we pay to protect us to actually be able to connect the dots. It's all about being a hero and feeling the love and adulation of the public.

/and randomly tazing the fark out of smart mouthed grannies

Miranda is worded differently by state. It describes a right you have in many countries around the world. The right to not talk yourself into prison. It is a fairly universal concept, recognized by civilization as a basic human right. That said it is demanded by courts of law that those tasked with enforcing laws should apply a reasonable standard to that application. The SCOTUS has now said in effect this standard was upheld and as long as that reasonable standard exists then enforcement has done it's duty. What's the problem. There is no Miranda Order, it's an explanation of a fundamental right you already have, even if you don't know that you do. It's not there to protect the innocent, it's there to protect the detained.

DreamWeaver: it simply makes it harder to convict the guilty.

It's really not hard at all for police officers to give Miranda warnings. If they can't do something that basic without farking it up, they can't be trusted to do police work at all as far as I'm concerned.

UsikFark: DreamWeaver: UsikFark: DreamWeaver: What do the Miranda warning have to do with that? And no, I didn't I'm actually in the Criminal Justice field, and have my undergrad in CJ.

Well, seeing as the farking Miranda warning is mentioned throughout the video (including at the very beginning) because both the video and the warning pertain to the Fifth Amendment... oh, nevermind, you're right.

The fact that you should know better than to incriminate yourself by talking to the police has nothing to do with the fact that requiring the police to tell criminals they dont have to answer questions is farking stupid.

The truth is, it does not protect the innocent from prosecution, it simply makes it harder to convict the guilty.

Perhaps, if you're in CJ, you've heard about how unreliable eye-witnesses and/or memories can be. Perhaps you also know that hearsay is not allowed in court. What can you tell the police, in the time between your arrest and getting a lawyer, that will clear you in a trial? If you're guilty, maybe you can knock off a few years for being helpful. If you're innocent, you might find yourself cleared in ten years by DNA evidence. I'm sure both cases might be rare, the innocent DNA more so, but

Put the bottle down, you're not making sense... or ignoring my point completely. The point is, there is no need whatsoever for miranda warnings. I am not saying you should talk to the cops. I'm saying theres is no need for miranda warnings.

we_hates: DreamWeaver: it simply makes it harder to convict the guilty.

It's really not hard at all for police officers to give Miranda warnings. If they can't do something that basic without farking it up, they can't be trusted to do police work at all as far as I'm concerned.

Again, no ones saying the cops are incapable. I'm saying it's a stupid policy to require them.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: If the cop says before questioning "The government advises you to remain silent during all questioning and to obtain a lawyer, we'll even pay for the lawyer. THere is no reason, legal or otherwise, to cooperate", that should suffice. Same substance, different wording.

I agree that as long as your rights are clearly stated, how they are stated should not be an issue.

However, from a law enforcement point of view, changing the wording is a problem just waiting to happen.

If officers are allowed to inform you of your rights using whatever wording comes to mind, how long before some rookie forgets one of your rights?

What If a "perp" claims they were not informed of one of their rights, even though they were informed? If the arresting officer is asked in court what he told the suspect, will he be able to remember exactly what was said?

I would think the head of any police department would want all officers to read people their rights exactly the same way every time. That way there is much less question about covering everything correctly.

Trials, "Rights" and all that crap is just standing in the way. Refusing to cooperate is just trying to obfuscate on your guilt. You're clearly trying to cover something up if you're unwilling to cooperate. "Trials" are just 'judicial corroboration' of what we already know so let's not waste our time with all this petty PC bullshiat. We wouldn't even have to mess with it as often if people were reminded that there are laws, and they are enforced. Public floggings should do nicely for most minor offenses.

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped by him.

/I'll waive my rights.

DreamWeaver, the cops fark a lot of things up. But the one thing they did right is not let you join their little club.

I say I refused a breathalyzer and you twist it into me "getting away with driving drunk". I'm guessing you can't make it through the academy because you can't pass the psych exam.

Enjoy your career as a security guard, douchenozzle.

Am I really the first?



and for good measure...

DreamWeaver: Again, no ones saying the cops are incapable. I'm saying it's a stupid policy to require them.

I'm not even arguing whether it's good policy, just that it doesn't really make it harder to convict the guilty.

DreamWeaver:

The fact that you should know better than to incriminate yourself by talking to the police has nothing to do with the fact that requiring the police to tell criminals they dont have to answer questions is farking stupid.

The truth is, it does not protect the innocent from prosecution, it simply makes it harder to convict the guilty.

I don't believe that is the truth. I am sure it does make it harder to convict the guilty. But I am also sure that it protects the innocent.

Degenz: I say I refused a breathalyzer and you twist it into me "getting away with driving drunk"

Under article 58 of the Soviet criminal code of 1926, that would be more than enough to get you put away for 10 years. If you had just submitted and were in fact DUI, you'd be nothing more than a common criminal and get a slap on the wrist. This encourages people to be honest about what they're doing, which should lead to a more ideal society, no?

we_hates: DreamWeaver: Again, no ones saying the cops are incapable. I'm saying it's a stupid policy to require them.

I'm not even arguing whether it's good policy, just that it doesn't really make it harder to convict the guilty.

I don't know man. Every case study book I've got has at least a handful of cases where a guy who was clearly guilty, even admitted his guilt, was released due to not being mirandized.

She comes in colors everywhere: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped by him.

/I'll waive my rights.

She also comes in a little late.

we_hates: DreamWeaver: Again, no ones saying the cops are incapable. I'm saying it's a stupid policy to require them.

I'm not even arguing whether it's good policy, just that it doesn't really make it harder to convict the guilty.

Hell, i've even read about areas where they require the perp to physically sign a form that they've been mirandized and they do wish to talk. Don't you think thats a barrier to effective police work?

006andahalf: Under article 58 of the Soviet criminal code of 1926, that would be more than enough to get you put away for 10 years. If you had just submitted and were in fact DUI, you'd be nothing more than a common criminal and get a slap on the wrist. This encourages people to be honest about what they're doing, which should lead to a more ideal society, no?

Bullshiat, there were no breathlyzers in 1926. This concept sounds sort of cool, but you got to look askance at anything the Soviets did that involved the words "ideal society".

Burn98: She comes in colors everywhere: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped by him.

/I'll waive my rights.

She also comes in a little late.

dammit, F3... shoulda F3d.

How about:

FREEZE! You're under arrest! You have the right to the remains of a silent attorney! If you cannot afford one... tough noogies! You can make ONE phone call! I recommend Trixie: 976-Triple 5-LOVE. Do you understand these rights as I have explained them to you?! Well do ya, PUNK?

/didn't F3 that, either

"......you have the right to sing the blues..."

/hotlinked and oblig.

She comes in colors everywhere: ou can make ONE phone call

myth

DreamWeaver: She comes in colors everywhere: ou can make ONE phone call

myth

well, yeah. so is 976-Triple 5-LOVE

DreamWeaver: Every case study book I've got has at least a handful of cases where a guy who was clearly guilty, even admitted his guilt, was released due to not being mirandized.

I wouldn't argue it never happens, because it does. It's very rare, though. Admittedly, reading someone their rights can lead to the person actually exercising them where they otherwise might not (a surprisingly rare occurrence), but I don't consider it a bad thing that a person exercises their 5th Amendment rights, even if it keeps someone from incriminating him or herself. In those cases where it's just incompetence on the part of the police, I have no problem whatsoever keeping the statement or confession out. It's such a very basic step. (Although that may not be true for all the cases that reflected changes in the law which officers may not have been able to predict, but it has been true for a very long time.)

Degenz: Bullshiat, there were no breathlyzers in 1926. This concept sounds sort of cool, but you got to look askance at anything the Soviets did that involved the words "ideal society".

What else was there to do in Russia in 1926? Of course they were drunk. The breathalyzer is completely unnecessary anyway-- your friendly local chekist writes down you are drunk and that is that. What you're missing that was the real comedy of my statement was that no one outside the upper party apparatus had cars. Though I can imagine that driving a horse drawn cart under the influence could be a problem..

we_hates: DreamWeaver: Every case study book I've got has at least a handful of cases where a guy who was clearly guilty, even admitted his guilt, was released due to not being mirandized.

I wouldn't argue it never happens, because it does. It's very rare, though. Admittedly, reading someone their rights can lead to the person actually exercising them where they otherwise might not (a surprisingly rare occurrence), but I don't consider it a bad thing that a person exercises their 5th Amendment rights, even if it keeps someone from incriminating him or herself. In those cases where it's just incompetence on the part of the police, I have no problem whatsoever keeping the statement or confession out. It's such a very basic step. (Although that may not be true for all the cases that reflected changes in the law which officers may not have been able to predict, but it has been true for a very long time.)

again we're talking past each other. In my view its akin to sitting down at a high stakes poker table, and going "shiat, I didnt know a flush beat a pair. Give me my money back, I didnt know the rules!"

Ok shiatty analogy but w/e

Degenz: DreamWeaver, the cops fark a lot of things up. But the one thing they did right is not let you join their little club.

I say I refused a breathalyzer and you twist it into me "getting away with driving drunk". I'm guessing you can't make it through the academy because you can't pass the psych exam.

Enjoy your career as a security guard, douchenozzle.

In my state, if you refuse the breathalizer, you automatically lose your drivers license for two years.

Any American that doesn't know them by hart now deserves what they get. They are only repeated in every other movie.

Constance Velocity: Degenz: DreamWeaver, the cops fark a lot of things up. But the one thing they did right is not let you join their little club.

I say I refused a breathalyzer and you twist it into me "getting away with driving drunk". I'm guessing you can't make it through the academy because you can't pass the psych exam.

Enjoy your career as a security guard, douchenozzle.

In my state, if you refuse the breathalizer, you automatically lose your drivers license for two years.

Don't know your state, but exceptions can be made. In Florida, you have 10 days to petition the court and ask for an exception

Lessee who -hasn't- heard the Miranda warning from some cop show?

- You have a right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

- You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you by the state at no cost.

Does anyone have some variation to add?

People_are_Idiots: Lessee who -hasn't- heard the Miranda warning from some cop show?

Have you EVER worked in customer service?

Some people are uneducated in a very big way. If you do customer service for any amount of time, you'll realize that those people make up a far bigger part of the population than you realize. Hell, if you've read Fark for any amount of time, you would know that people actually drive around vans, at night, with meth labs in them that have expired tags and no headlights. Some people, are just stupid and don't have idea what's going on.

Think about this for a second. The guy whose arrest this judgement is based on, was a convicted felon who owned a handgun in Florida. He clearly isn't that bright.

The reason the Miranda warning is important is because innocent people can be talked into confessing. It has happened before and it will happen again, because they think after to do so, they get to home. Some people genuinely have no idea what their rights are.

UsikFark: Renowned transvestite sexologist: The reason the Miranda warning is important is because innocent people can be talked into confessing. It has happened before and it will happen again, because they think after to do so, they get to home. Some people genuinely have no idea what their rights are.

The miranda warnings dont help this. Do you see why?

What in the world will happen to all those cookie-cutter cop shows? Will CSI start ad libbing it too?!

Time for some words from the "old fark". I was around in the sixties when this stuff was a new concept. Believe me, the plan was to find a guilty party and end the search, period. I didn't talk because my Dad was a lawyer who pounded it into our heads that "you never volunteer information to anyone at any time". Not answering made life a little difficult for a junior hippie sometimes (especially with noisy friends).
If the police are doing their job right, it will not matter whether or not the proof comes easy. And, I have known people who were so frightened by the authority figure that they gave the answer they were led to give.
I, too, have studied CJ. Those cases wren't lost because someone had "too many" rights. They were lost because the officers took a short-cut. Perhaps your instructors have misinterpreted this? The examples are not to point out a bad law, but rather what happens when you don't do the job you were hired to do.

Did you know the authorities are allowed to lie to you to get "confessions" that can be used against you? The transition between pre-arrest investigation and post-arrest interrogation is often vague and often purposely so because the authorities WANT you to waive your rights.

This ruling will be used by silver-tongued investigators to further that goal. Most people don't clam up until they hear the magic words "You have the right to remain silent" ... now they will hear something like: "you know we don't have to talk about these things right now."

On the case:

Degenz: I got arrested for DUI once and refused the breathalyzer. The cop got all hinky and started demanding to know where I had been and where I was going and blah blah blah. I invoked my right to remain silent and asked for a lawyer and he went stone cold on me. He charged me with four bogus traffic violations.

It cost me $500 but no DUI, and since I didn't have any priors (in that state) I was put on diversion so the record was expunged after a year and my insurance premiums didn't increase. Hell yea, use those rights people.

Don't try that in Austin, TX - They've started having "No Refusal" holidays and weekends. If you refuse the breathalyzer, they can get a warrant to draw blood within minutes and you don't have a choice in the matter.

/USA - we may be behind in the nanny-state race, but we're movin' up fast!

Renowned transvestite sexologist: People_are_Idiots: Lessee who -hasn't- heard the Miranda warning from some cop show?

Have you EVER worked in customer service?

Some people are uneducated in a very big way. If you do customer service for any amount of time, you'll realize that those people make up a far bigger part of the population than you realize. Hell, if you've read Fark for any amount of time, you would know that people actually drive around vans, at night, with meth labs in them that have expired tags and no headlights. Some people, are just stupid and don't have idea what's going on.

Think about this for a second. The guy whose arrest this judgement is based on, was a convicted felon who owned a handgun in Florida. He clearly isn't that bright.

The reason the Miranda warning is important is because innocent people can be talked into confessing. It has happened before and it will happen again, because they think after to do so, they get to home. Some people genuinely have no idea what their rights are.

I know this, I meant how hard is it to memorize it? This is like a military guard not knowing the 11 orders of the sentry.

I tried to become a cop once, but I failed the test.

/scored too high
//every PD in America, it turns out
///look it up