If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Lindsey Graham says that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans with funny names and dark hair   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 383
    More: Sick, Lindsey Graham, Mirandize, Boston, Americans, underwear bomber, Chechen, enemy combatant, ndaa  
•       •       •

8949 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2013 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 05:43:30 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: Then why are you arguing with me? Those rights only protect you at trial

No, it is not just at trial. The results may only show at a trial but it is a prohibition of police conduct because it is a right.

Nobodyn0se: It says they don't have to be read at all. They only have to be read under custodial interrogation if you want to use what he says against him in court.

That  is not true. Again, that  is the exclusionary rule applying because a right was violated. It is not the case that a right was not violated.

It may seem like a distinction without a difference but there is a very important difference between what I am saying and what you are saying.


Ok man, you keep going with that. Good luck trying to use this reasoning in a court of law.
 
2013-04-20 05:44:49 PM

DamnYankees: KittyGlitterSparkles: About TFA. If a person is a U.S. citizen and their crimes are committed on U.S. soil against the U.S. then you should be treated like every other citizen. It's called the farking Bill of RIGHTS.

Don't fall into this trap. Our constitutional protections are for EVERYONE, not just citizens. Once you agree that those rights are limited to citizens, you've already gone over to the dark side.


I can't say I disagree.
 
2013-04-20 05:44:55 PM

Nobodyn0se: Police can arrest or detain people as much as they like without Mirandizing them. The only caveat is that they cannot admit anything the person says post detention but pre Miranda rights against them in a trial.


Because they have violated a right. That is the sanction.
 
2013-04-20 05:45:54 PM

Skeptos: There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?


Not if he's designated "enemy combatant," which is what this sniveling little pussy Sen. Graham wants
 
2013-04-20 05:45:58 PM

stoli n coke: If the police search your home without a warrant and find an acre of weed and an arsenal of automatic weapons, you will walk scot free because none of what they found can be used at trial. That's the only reason police get a warrant first. Plus, you don't have to let the cops in without a warrant in the first place.


But the violation of your rights doesn't occur when the police search your house without a warrant. The violation of your rights occurs when they try to use that evidence at trial.
 
2013-04-20 05:46:27 PM

Nobodyn0se: Ok man, you keep going with that. Good luck trying to use this reasoning in a court of law.


I have. I used to be prosecutor.
 
2013-04-20 05:46:44 PM

FormlessOne: Saw it coming. Not just the Bush administration's use of it, but the Obama administration's attempt to leverage it - remember, Graham isn't the first person in the Obama administration to ask that we allow American citizens to be held as enemy combatants, or arrested without due process.

Sure, Graham's a scumbag, but he's not the only one in office suggesting it, and keep in mind that these asshats are asking Obama to do so in all seriousness because he's considered similar action in the past.

You don't like it? Don't whine about just Graham - whine about the fact that our government considers what is clearly an unconstitutional act as an option.


You must be from one of those planets that would seriously elect a hairless weasel like Lindsey Graham.

\he's not a member of the frickin Obama administration, you toad
\\just suggesting that he is should get you pimp-slapped until your Daddy wets his pants
 
2013-04-20 05:46:57 PM

danvon: Because they have violated a right. That is the sanction.


Yes, but the violation of your rights wasn't the "questioning you without a warrant" part. It was the "trying to use the results of that questioning at trial" part.

Ask any lawyer worth his salt.
 
2013-04-20 05:47:24 PM

Nobodyn0se: But the violation of your rights doesn't occur when the police search your house without a warrant. The violation of your rights occurs when they try to use that evidence at trial.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. I can bring a 1983 suit against a  police officer even if my case never makes it to trial.  Violation of a constitutional right under color of law.
 
2013-04-20 05:48:56 PM

Nobodyn0se: questioning you without a warrant


You can get questioned without a warrant anytime.

Nobodyn0se: trying to use the results of that questioning at trial" part.


That's the exclusionary rule. The sanction for violating a right.
 
2013-04-20 05:50:23 PM

FlashHarry: lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.

out of society.


FTFY.
 
2013-04-20 05:50:53 PM

stoli n coke: As for Miranda rights, the cops can ask whatever they want before reading someone their rights, but that person does not have to answer. Because you always have your Miranda rights and your 5th amendment rights, even before the cops read them to you. The only thing reading your rights does is make any statements you make admissible in court.

This guy in Boston has his Miranda rights already, even though people are fuming because the cops weren't yelling "You have the right to remain silent" as they were dragging his semi-concious body onto the gurney. This isn't a goddamn episode of The Shield.


Well, until they ship him to Guantanamo, water-board him, and hold him for years without a trial, an attorney, or any means of contesting. Then you don't have to worry about what is and isn't admissible in a silly court.
 
2013-04-20 05:52:57 PM

kxs401: Graham and his ilk can do FAR more damage to America than any terrorist.


They already have (text of Public Law 107-56).
 
2013-04-20 05:53:40 PM

KittyGlitterSparkles: DamnYankees: KittyGlitterSparkles: About TFA. If a person is a U.S. citizen and their crimes are committed on U.S. soil against the U.S. then you should be treated like every other citizen. It's called the farking Bill of RIGHTS.

Don't fall into this trap. Our constitutional protections are for EVERYONE, not just citizens. Once you agree that those rights are limited to citizens, you've already gone over to the dark side.

I can't say I disagree.


I guess I went over to the dark side years ago then. Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens? Not trolling.
 
2013-04-20 05:53:41 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: questioning you without a warrant

You can get questioned without a warrant anytime.

Nobodyn0se: trying to use the results of that questioning at trial" part.

That's the exclusionary rule. The sanction for violating a right.


So if a man is arrested and never read his Miranda rights, then taken to trial (where absolutely nothing he has said while in police custody is used against him) and he is convicted and sent to prison, you're saying he can get that conviction overturned because his 5th Amendment rights have been violated?

I don't think so.
 
2013-04-20 05:59:28 PM
Nobodyn0se--I understand you perfectly.  You are generally correct.

/thought you needed that.
 
2013-04-20 05:59:35 PM

whidbey: Amos Quito: You see a difference?

Of course there's a difference between the Dems and the Republicans.

What you don't like about them is that both are too liberal for you. And that whole "social safety net" thing. Tsk tsk. Stealing your hard earned money to give to lazy bums who won't work. The NERVE of those people.



img1.photographersdirect.com

How politicians might see you
 
2013-04-20 06:00:42 PM

thamike: Nobodyn0se--I understand you perfectly.  You are generally correct.

/thought you needed that.


I did. Thank you.
 
2013-04-20 06:00:45 PM

Nobodyn0se: So if a man is arrested and never read his Miranda rights, then taken to trial (where absolutely nothing he has said while in police custody is used against him) and he is convicted and sent to prison, you're saying he can get that conviction overturned because his 5th Amendment rights have been violated?


I'm saying no such thing. The right is against self-incrimination, Just like what the United States Supreme Court said. You appear to be blurring the lines between the right and the exclusionary rule. I can understand why as the violation of one definitely leads to the other but they are two distinct things.
 
2013-04-20 06:02:02 PM
Perhaps Lindsey and friends should just sit this one out.

www.charlock.org
 
2013-04-20 06:02:22 PM

TerminalEchoes: Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens?


Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.
 
2013-04-20 06:02:28 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: So if a man is arrested and never read his Miranda rights, then taken to trial (where absolutely nothing he has said while in police custody is used against him) and he is convicted and sent to prison, you're saying he can get that conviction overturned because his 5th Amendment rights have been violated?

I'm saying no such thing. The right is against self-incrimination, Just like what the United States Supreme Court said. You appear to be blurring the lines between the right and the exclusionary rule. I can understand why as the violation of one definitely leads to the other but they are two distinct things.


So the man has his rights violated (according to you) and yet he cannot get his case overturned because of it?!?!?!

What are the possible consequences for violating his rights (as you claim) in my scenario, then? Are there none at all?
 
2013-04-20 06:03:49 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: stoli n coke: As for Miranda rights, the cops can ask whatever they want before reading someone their rights, but that person does not have to answer. Because you always have your Miranda rights and your 5th amendment rights, even before the cops read them to you. The only thing reading your rights does is make any statements you make admissible in court.

This guy in Boston has his Miranda rights already, even though people are fuming because the cops weren't yelling "You have the right to remain silent" as they were dragging his semi-concious body onto the gurney. This isn't a goddamn episode of The Shield.

Well, until they ship him to Guantanamo, water-board him, and hold him for years without a trial, an attorney, or any means of contesting. Then you don't have to worry about what is and isn't admissible in a silly court.



Won't happen with him, no matter what some butch lesbian senator wants. This guy killed a kid and a cop. If he survives, a trial is guaranteed.
 
2013-04-20 06:05:57 PM

Nobodyn0se: So the man has his rights violated (according to you) and yet he cannot get his case overturned because of it?!?!?!


The reason the case will not be overturned is because under your scenario, none of the evidence that was illegally garnered was used against him. His conviction was not based upon illegally seized and submitted evidence.

Nobodyn0se: What are the possible consequences for violating his rights (as you claim) in my scenario, then? Are there none at all?


I suppose he/she may have a 1983 suit but I cannot think of any instance where one brought a suit against the state for violating that constitutional right.
 
2013-04-20 06:07:42 PM

sammyk: Come on guys. We all know the only important part of the constitution is the 2nd amendment. We wont be 3rd world savages if we torture the guy. What's the worst we could become?


We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?


mimg.ugo.com
 
2013-04-20 06:09:38 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: So the man has his rights violated (according to you) and yet he cannot get his case overturned because of it?!?!?!

The reason the case will not be overturned is because under your scenario, none of the evidence that was illegally garnered was used against him. His conviction was not based upon illegally seized and submitted evidence.

Nobodyn0se: What are the possible consequences for violating his rights (as you claim) in my scenario, then? Are there none at all?

I suppose he/she may have a 1983 suit but I cannot think of any instance where one brought a suit against the state for violating that constitutional right.



So you say his rights were violated, and yet he has zero repercussion (aside from a "maybe" that you can't cite every happening before).

I say his rights weren't violated, and thus he has nothing to get repercussion for.

I'm starting to think my explanation makes WAY more sense, aren't you?
 
2013-04-20 06:09:53 PM
I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?
 
2013-04-20 06:11:20 PM

coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?


I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.
 
2013-04-20 06:14:52 PM

Nobodyn0se: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.


Pretty girl last night said she was in Model UN with him.
He's probably at least aware of the Miranda reading.
 
2013-04-20 06:15:18 PM

coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?


May have something to do with the fact that when they found him, he had massive blood loss and was drifting in and out of conciousness and would not remember being mirandized anyway.

Pretty sure the cops were just trying to find out if he had any more partners still on the loose before he passed out.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:13 PM

DamnYankees: TerminalEchoes: Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens?

Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.


You make sense and I can't really muster a logical argument against it. That being said, the whole idea still rubs me the wrong way. But I guess that's my problem.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:20 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nobodyn0se: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.

Pretty girl last night said she was in Model UN with him.
He's probably at least aware of the Miranda reading.


I would hope so, but I've heard of dumber things happening.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:35 PM

SkinnyHead: opiumpoopy: While i don't doubt the police have the right to use the exemption in this case - it surely isn't wise to use, if it gives the defence lawyers a technicality they can use later in court to try to get their client off the hook.

If they question him without Miranda, and the court finds a Miranda violation, that wouldn't get him off the hook.  It would just mean that his statements could not be used against him.  They could still prove him guilty with other evidence.


Unless that evidence was obtained due to him being question without being mirandized.

"I keep all my bomb making information under a loose floorboard, and the password to decrypt my hard drive is fuzzy wuzzy was a bear."

"Hey he was telling the truth!"

Two months later...

"Your honor this evidence can't be used court, because officers questioned my client before he was read his rights, including the right to counsel, thus leading to it's discovery."

Law enforcement should play this by the book as much as possible so that this SOB will go away fro the rest of his life, and so they can avoid any pled deals. The only deal that should be made is the  possibility of parole in 40 years if he provides good intel on people that may have helped him.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:45 PM

Nobodyn0se: I say his rights weren't violated, and thus he has nothing to get repercussion fo


Well, the US Supreme Court says (and the US Const.) that there is a right against self incrimination and that exclusion of that evidence is the sanction for a violation of that right, so it's not simply me saying it.

In order to get repercussions one has to show harm. I'm not sure what harm one actually suffered in a scenario of being interrogated with out being mirandized but I'm sure someone could craft a reason.

No, your  explanation only makes sense if you make the false assumption that the use of the evidence is a violation of the right. That is not the right.  That is the sanction. The use of that evidence in a court of law over objections that the evidence should be excluded would be a violation of the right of Due Process of Law.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:51 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: sammyk: Come on guys. We all know the only important part of the constitution is the 2nd amendment. We wont be 3rd world savages if we torture the guy. What's the worst we could become?

We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?


[mimg.ugo.com image 392x214]


What is over when the Czechs bombed Boston?
 
2013-04-20 06:18:39 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: I say his rights weren't violated, and thus he has nothing to get repercussion fo

Well, the US Supreme Court says (and the US Const.) that there is a right against self incrimination and that exclusion of that evidence is the sanction for a violation of that right, so it's not simply me saying it.

In order to get repercussions one has to show harm. I'm not sure what harm one actually suffered in a scenario of being interrogated with out being mirandized but I'm sure someone could craft a reason.

No, your  explanation only makes sense if you make the false assumption that the use of the evidence is a violation of the right. That is not the right.  That is the sanction. The use of that evidence in a court of law over objections that the evidence should be excluded would be a violation of the right of Due Process of Law.


So you're sticking with "his rights were violated, but he has absolutely no recourse for it."

Got it.
 
2013-04-20 06:21:20 PM
What next?  Will the next step down that slippery slope be, "no real 'merican would act this way, so the Constitution does not apply"?  If you set aside our rights because you find the person contemptible, who will stand up for you when the same happens to someone merely protesting something?

We've already lost too much in this war on terror.  Just like we lost too much in the war on drugs and every other pseudo war.  Enough is enough.

How about we get a new Constitutional amendment.  Any politician who says it's ok to ignore the Constitution is deemed permanently unfit for office, fark-tard.
 
2013-04-20 06:22:13 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm

That's the exclusionary rule applying because a right has been violated.


It's the exclusionary rule applying because a right hasn't been properly waived.  Miranda stands for the proposition that a defendant cannot waive his right to remain silent or to an attorney unless he has been explicitly informed of them.
 
2013-04-20 06:23:47 PM

Nobodyn0se: So you're sticking with "his rights were violated, but he has absolutely no recourse for it."


No monetary recourse, but he does have a recourse by being able to keep that evidence out of court. The exclusionary rule is the recourse. Not the right. The exclusionary rule is a court/judge created sanction for violation of a right protected by, in relevant instances, the 4th and 5th amendments.
 
2013-04-20 06:24:20 PM

CheapEngineer: \he's not a member of the frickin Obama administration, you toad


Yeah, the Obama administration has done a spectacular job of stopping these blatant violation of our Constitution and international law.
 
2013-04-20 06:24:54 PM

Cataholic: It's the exclusionary rule applying because a right hasn't been properly waived. Miranda stands for the proposition that a defendant cannot waive his right to remain silent or to an attorney unless he has been explicitly informed of them.


I don't disagree.
 
2013-04-20 06:25:02 PM

stoli n coke: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

May have something to do with the fact that when they found him, he had massive blood loss and was drifting in and out of conciousness and would not remember being mirandized anyway.

Pretty sure the cops were just trying to find out if he had any more partners still on the loose before he passed out.


From what I read it seems as though they don't want to Mirandize him at all (the Justice Department is broadly applying a narrow public safety law), but perhaps I'm wrong.
 
2013-04-20 06:25:31 PM

Nobodyn0se: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nobodyn0se: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.

Pretty girl last night said she was in Model UN with him.
He's probably at least aware of the Miranda reading.

I would hope so, but I've heard of dumber things happening.


All the kids who knew Whitecap I've seen interviewed have been quite articulate, more so than the usual, "OMG, I can't believe it!" stuff we usually see in aftermath interviews. I think this kid was no dummy. Although most of his family seems delusional.
 
2013-04-20 06:27:24 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: So you're sticking with "his rights were violated, but he has absolutely no recourse for it."

No monetary recourse, but he does have a recourse by being able to keep that evidence out of court. The exclusionary rule is the recourse. Not the right. The exclusionary rule is a court/judge created sanction for violation of a right protected by, in relevant instances, the 4th and 5th amendments.



I'm saying the violation of the right is not the "not Mirandizing" part, it's the "Using the non-Mirandized intel against the person in a court of law" part, which doesn't contradict anything you just said.

The exclusionary rule is how they prevent a violation of this right. It's not a recourse after a right has been violated, it's a way to avoid the violation in the first place.
 
2013-04-20 06:30:49 PM

Nobodyn0se: Using the non-Mirandized intel against the person in a court of law"


That is actually a violation of Due Process of Law.

Nobodyn0se: The exclusionary rule is how they prevent a violation of this right. It's not a recourse after a right has been violated, it's a way to avoid the violation in the first place.


I'd argue that it serves both issues.It is a recourse and a guideline.

We've beaten this dead horse to a pulp. I think we're on the same page, but just starting at different points and looking at it from different perspectives.
 
2013-04-20 06:38:42 PM

Rabbitgod: SkinnyHead: opiumpoopy: While i don't doubt the police have the right to use the exemption in this case - it surely isn't wise to use, if it gives the defence lawyers a technicality they can use later in court to try to get their client off the hook.

If they question him without Miranda, and the court finds a Miranda violation, that wouldn't get him off the hook.  It would just mean that his statements could not be used against him.  They could still prove him guilty with other evidence.

Unless that evidence was obtained due to him being question without being mirandized.

"I keep all my bomb making information under a loose floorboard, and the password to decrypt my hard drive is fuzzy wuzzy was a bear."

"Hey he was telling the truth!"

Two months later...

"Your honor this evidence can't be used court, because officers questioned my client before he was read his rights, including the right to counsel, thus leading to it's discovery."

Law enforcement should play this by the book as much as possible so that this SOB will go away fro the rest of his life, and so they can avoid any pled deals. The only deal that should be made is the  possibility of parole in 40 years if he provides good intel on people that may have helped him.


Actually, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule does not apply to physical evidence seized as a result of a  Miranda violation.  If he talks voluntarily, without getting a Miranda warning, and his statements lead to the discovery of physical evidence, the physical evidence will not be excluded.
 
2013-04-20 06:39:31 PM

FlashHarry: NewportBarGuy: The 48 hours thing? Sounds reasonable. After that, read him his rights, give him a lawyer and stand him before a judge and jury.

While we're at it, let's do that to everyone in GITMO.

i understand the miranda exemption. but he MUST be tried as any american citizen would be tried, with ALL the rights due to him under the constitution.

lindsay graham wants to turn this country into a police state. he is a real piece of shiat.


Fact - Any US citizen can be held indefinitely without access to any of those rights.

Fact - Lindsey Graham isn't the one who made it that way.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama -s igns-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

"With reservations" my ass.
 
2013-04-20 06:47:20 PM
Lindsey Graham is a fool who happens to be up for re-election.

The Boston bomber is a murderer and should be treated as such.
 
2013-04-20 06:48:19 PM

SkinnyHead: Rabbitgod: SkinnyHead: opiumpoopy: While i don't doubt the police have the right to use the exemption in this case - it surely isn't wise to use, if it gives the defence lawyers a technicality they can use later in court to try to get their client off the hook.

If they question him without Miranda, and the court finds a Miranda violation, that wouldn't get him off the hook.  It would just mean that his statements could not be used against him.  They could still prove him guilty with other evidence.

Unless that evidence was obtained due to him being question without being mirandized.

"I keep all my bomb making information under a loose floorboard, and the password to decrypt my hard drive is fuzzy wuzzy was a bear."

"Hey he was telling the truth!"

Two months later...

"Your honor this evidence can't be used court, because officers questioned my client before he was read his rights, including the right to counsel, thus leading to it's discovery."

Law enforcement should play this by the book as much as possible so that this SOB will go away fro the rest of his life, and so they can avoid any pled deals. The only deal that should be made is the  possibility of parole in 40 years if he provides good intel on people that may have helped him.

Actually, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule does not apply to physical evidence seized as a result of a  Miranda violation.  If he talks voluntarily, without getting a Miranda warning, and his statements lead to the discovery of physical evidence, the physical evidence will not be excluded.


Doesn't change the validity of my argument, this case and everything about it, including the suspect, should be carried on a fine silk pillow, so we can smother the mother farker with it when the trail comes.
 
2013-04-20 06:58:23 PM

TerminalEchoes: DamnYankees: TerminalEchoes: Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens?

Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.

You make sense and I can't really muster a logical argument against it. That being said, the whole idea still rubs me the wrong way. But I guess that's my problem.


There's a reason the fifth amendment mentions "persons" and not "citizens". If the idea still rubs you the wrong way, then what you're really saying is that the Constitution itself rubs you the wrong way.
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report