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.

(The New York Times)   New Miranda warning: "You're not under arrest and you're free to go at any time, therefore your refusal to speak with us now can be used at trial as evidence that you're guilty"   (nytimes.com) divider line 140
    More: Asinine, false confessions, self-incriminations, Fifth Amendment, oral arguments, guilty, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals  
•       •       •

16514 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2013 at 3:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-21 06:03:35 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Nobody is convicted of a DUI crime for refusing an alcohol test, breath or blood.  Driver's licenses are suspended for refusals.  Suspension hearings are civil matters separate from criminal proceedings.  "Refusal penalties"  may be added to license reinstatement fees, along with other onerous conditions to restore the driving privilege.

The consequences are heavy but do not include a criminal  conviction or prison sentence.


Maybe where you live, but that isn't the case in New Mexico, along with some other states that are trending in the same direction.



This article sums it up nicely.
 
2013-04-21 06:11:35 PM

bugontherug: It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure the Court has held that you cannot be prosecuted for failing to report or pay tax on income from criminal activity, unless the state offers ways to do so in non-incriminating ways. This resulted in some states a few years back enacting things like tax on marijuana sales, and creating special offices where dealers could pay them anonymously.


You absolutely can be prosecuted for not paying tax, you just don't have to tell the IRS where the money came from.  "[T]he amount of a taxpayer's income is not privileged even though the source of income may be, and Fifth Amendment rights can be exercised in compliance with the tax laws 'by simply listing his alleged ill-gotten gains in the space provided for 'miscellaneous' income on his tax form.'"
 
2013-04-21 06:16:14 PM

buzzcut73: BarkingUnicorn: Nobody is convicted of a DUI crime for refusing an alcohol test, breath or blood.  Driver's licenses are suspended for refusals.  Suspension hearings are civil matters separate from criminal proceedings.  "Refusal penalties"  may be added to license reinstatement fees, along with other onerous conditions to restore the driving privilege.

The consequences are heavy but do not include a criminal  conviction or prison sentence.

Maybe where you live, but that isn't the case in New Mexico, along with some other states that are trending in the same direction.

This article sums it up nicely.


The article says exactly what I said.  "Charged" is not "convicted."

A driver who refuses to blow is automatically charged with aggravated DWI, the same charge that very drunk drivers face.

Under New Mexico law, drivers also sign off on taking a blood test or breath alcohol test just by getting a driver's license. Licenses are automatically revoked if drivers refuse the breath test.

"If you win, you're off scot-free, and if you lose, you're getting a much more severe sentence," said Serna.
 
2013-04-21 06:17:22 PM

Great Janitor: A cop once explained to me that there is no right to a phone call. Yes, they have no problem letting you have a phone call at some point, but there is no right to a phone call. He even went further to say "I"ll hand you a copy of the Constitution and you can read every word of it and you can show me where it says you have a right to a phone call."


So, that cop is of the opinion that the Constitution is the ONLY law of the land, and if it's not written in there, it doesn't exist??

/WTF do they teach in police academy?
 
2013-04-21 06:22:57 PM

fredklein: /WTF do they teach in police academy?


Steroid injection technique?
 
2013-04-21 06:27:26 PM

Great Janitor: A cop once explained to me that there is no right to a phone call. Yes, they have no problem letting you have a phone call at some point, but there is no right to a phone call. He even went further to say "I"ll hand you a copy of the Constitution and you can read every word of it and you can show me where it says you have a right to a phone call."


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090304123344AAY4ts4
"In most states, there is a Code of Regulations that stemmed from the Supreme Court case of Miranda v Arizona. While there is no federal law that requires any law enforcement agency to grant a phone call to those arrested, each state has a way of determining how to regulate procedure. California, Illinois, New York, Virginia and the District of Columbia offer the right to a phone call. Defense attorneys can usually argue that denying a person who has been arrested a phone call is equivalent to not allowing the person the right to counsel and could motion to dismiss"

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/277#cont281
Right to Telephone Calls, per P.C. § 851.5: An arrested person has the right, immediately after booking and, except when physically impossible, no later than three (3) hours after arrest, to make at least three (3) completed telephone calls. The calls are to be free if completed in the local calling area, and are at the arrestee's expense if outside the local area. The calls must be allowed immediately on request, or as soon as practicable. The calls may be made to:

An attorney of the arrestee's choice, public defender, or other attorney assigned to assist indigents (which may not be monitored).
A bail bondsman.
A relative or other person.

This information, including the phone number of the public defender or other attorney assigned to assist indigent defendants, must be posted.
...
Case Law:

Plaintiff's civil rights were violated by denying her access to a telephone while she was jailed after her arrest on charges of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The state right to a post-booking telephone call (P.C. § 851.5) creates a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and due process protections of prisoners' liberty rights were clearly established long before plaintiff was arrested in 1991. (Carlo v. City of Chino, supra.)



...so, yeah, it's not "in the Constitution", but if you're arrested, you do have the right to a phone call.
 
2013-04-21 06:29:41 PM

Great Janitor: Get rid of our rights to own guns, see how fast we lose our right to follow the religion that we choose to believe in.  See how fast we go to prison for speaking out against the party in power.  See how fast we can no longer plead the fifth.  This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a real issue.


No, as you've phrased it here it is literally a slippery slope argument.
 
2013-04-21 06:31:16 PM
How did I know it was Texas?
 
2013-04-21 06:32:20 PM

Great Janitor: doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...

I'm pro-second amendment, and a few days ago, here on Fark, I made the comment of on if we got rid of the Second Amendment, what protects the rest of the Bill of Rights from getting the very same treatment?  Because it seems logical to me that if you can get rid of one, you can get rid of them all, something that I am very opposed to.  Someone responded to my comment by saying that there is no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and the rest of the Constitution, and this Farker continued to tell me that the Constitution needs to have the ability to grow and if needed, to restrict our rights lined out in the Bill of Rights.

Don't blame the pro-Second Amendment people for only focusing on one aspect of the Constitution and thinking that they want to get rid of the rest or even care if the rest goes away.  That's not 100% true.  I don't own a gun, I have considered it, but there is a good chance that I never will.  The reason why I support the Second Amendment is because if it goes away, if it gets repealed, then what makes the rest of the Bill of Rights so important that it can't be repealed?  Every right we have in the Bill of Rights needs to be protected and viewed in the light that gives the PEOPLE the most freedom, not in the view that gives the GOVERNMENT the most control.  Get rid of our rights to own guns, see how fast we lose our right to follow the religion that we choose to believe in.  See how fast we go to prison for speaking out against the party in power.  See how fast we can no longer plead the fifth.  This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a real issue.  Once you create the precedent to do something, you open the door for similar things to happen in the future.


I couldn't have said it better myself. The Constitution was written as a framework of only what the federal government was allowed to do. If it wasn't in there, it was reserved to the states and the people to do. There was a process put into place to add things to the Constitution, and it required a rather hefty majority of both the Congress AND the people/states to approve it. The Commerce clause has been stretched and warped to cover anything, which is beyond the initial intent. There have been so many sketchy interpretations that give the federal government more power than it ever should have had. It disgusts me.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you on the removal of one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights leading to an erosion of the rest. I truly believe they are all inextricably linked to each other, and if one falls, so do the rest, likely in short order.
 
2013-04-21 06:38:39 PM
I wonder how much good the right to a phone call does people who put all their memories in smartphones.
 
2013-04-21 06:45:03 PM

Warlordtrooper: Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

They convict people all the time on their refusal to take a breathalyzer test.

The Constitution died many many years ago and nobody noticed.


"convict?"

No....

They will revoke you license for refusing to comply, but NO ONE has a Constitutionally protected right to drive.  It's a privileged.

That's what happens when you refuse.
 
2013-04-21 07:15:51 PM

bugontherug: Lawyers With Nukes: Hey, since you guys appear to be concerned about this whole 5th Amendment thingy, is it cool if I plea the 5th on my tax returns next year?

<crickets>

Hey, where'd you all go? I thought you had my back?

/pro 5th-amenment

It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure the Court has held that you cannot be prosecuted for failing to report or pay tax on income from criminal activity, unless the state offers ways to do so in non-incriminating ways. This resulted in some states a few years back enacting things like tax on marijuana sales, and creating special offices where dealers could pay them anonymously.

I suppose you'd get like a "marijuana tax paid" stamp if you paid it. Then, if later you were caught dealing, but couldn't produce your stamps, could be prosecuted for failing to report and pay tax on your marijuana sails.

Although I disagree with that kind of a law as regards marijuana, because I'm pro-marijuana legalization, I do think it's a rather clever idea, and I'd support it for harder drugs and other contrband. There's no reason the crack economy should go untaxed. Nor the child porn economy, nor the illegal gun economy, etc.


bugontherug: Lawyers With Nukes: Hey, since you guys appear to be concerned about this whole 5th Amendment thingy, is it cool if I plea the 5th on my tax returns next year?

<crickets>

Hey, where'd you all go? I thought you had my back?

/pro 5th-amenment

It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure the Court has held that you cannot be prosecuted for failing to report or pay tax on income from criminal activity, unless the state offers ways to do so in non-incriminating ways. This resulted in some states a few years back enacting things like tax on marijuana sales, and creating special offices where dealers could pay them anonymously.

I suppose you'd get like a "marijuana tax paid" stamp if you paid it. Then, if later you were caught dealing, but couldn't produce your stamps, could be prosecuted for failing to report and pay tax on your marijuana sails.

Although I disagree with that kind of a law as regards marijuana, because I'm pro-marijuana legalization, I do think it's a rather clever idea, and I'd support it for harder drugs and other contrband. There's no reason the crack economy should go untaxed. Nor the child porn economy, nor the illegal gun economy, etc.


Look, I'm not being a spelling Nazi here, but marijuana sails caught my eye.  Picture a yacht with giant hemp leaves used for propulsion.  Breathe deeply as you savor the aroma that permeates the sea air while exploring new worlds.   You start the voyage weighing a lean 160 lbs., but those rations conspire to turn you into ballast as your crew is slowly influenced by the hypnotic power of those sails...  In spite of your determined efforts, you cannot hide that New England heritage with your cheap shoes and Chanel bag that conceal the extra portions you stole acquired pilfered as your mates slept.  Your cunning plan unraveled as you approached 350 lbs. while others struggled to avoid scurvy... As you lie awake pondering your future, thoughts of ice cream castles lightly coated with skittles tease your imagination as the restless sea transforms itself into torrents of chocolate.

Moral of the story:

Sails - as in sailboat
Sales - as in cha-ching!
Cells - as in I'll lock yo ass up if you use the wrong word again

/Marijuana Sails would make one hell of a band name
 
2013-04-21 07:16:42 PM

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


Then you are deaf or willfully ignorant.
 
2013-04-21 07:30:59 PM

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


If you assholes weren't so eager to remove the 2nd Amendment, we'd have time to worry about the others.
 
2013-04-21 07:39:37 PM

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


Because you have your ears plugged.  What makes you think those supporting the 2nd aren't supporting the 4th and 5th?  Is that something you tell yourself to justify your own biases?
 
2013-04-21 07:45:28 PM

HairBolus: Not to mention the right-wing war cheerleaders who want to declare the surviving bomber an enemy combatant so they can torture him because that will make him really sorry.


I would love to see the citation on a GOP senator/legislator calling for torture of him.
 
2013-04-21 07:48:40 PM

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


Another 2nd Amendment "white knight" checking in, to point out that I'm just as angry about the erosion of the 4th and 5th as I am the 2nd. I know it's shocking to some people, but lots of people get upset when any Constitutional Rights are actively whittled away, and  I'm even crazy enough that I get pissed off when people attack the Amendments that I don't even personally use, like the 2nd and 5th. Bizarre idea, I know, in our culture of "fark everything I don't like."
 
2013-04-21 07:49:36 PM

MyRandomName: HairBolus: Not to mention the right-wing war cheerleaders who want to declare the surviving bomber an enemy combatant so they can torture him because that will make him really sorry.

I would love to see the citation on a GOP senator/legislator calling for torture of him.


He might be referring to the people calling for the public safety exception to be applied, allowing interrogation without Miranda.
 
2013-04-21 07:54:49 PM

mattharvest: MyRandomName: HairBolus: Not to mention the right-wing war cheerleaders who want to declare the surviving bomber an enemy combatant so they can torture him because that will make him really sorry.

I would love to see the citation on a GOP senator/legislator calling for torture of him.

He might be referring to the people calling for the public safety exception to be applied, allowing interrogation without Miranda.


He's referring to Lindsey Graham and his minions, who indeed want the survivor treated as an enemy combatant.
 
2013-04-21 07:56:22 PM
Boo Hoo. I don't see the House or Senate accepting the judicial definition of the fifth amendment right to not self incriminate. When you're called to testify you can't send them a nice little card that says I invoke my fifth amendment right. No, you get sworn, they ask you questions and if you want to invoke your fifth amendment right you have to say it in the public hearing.

There was one crusty old gangster from the glory years of the Pendergast Kansas City gang when Truman set it up to allow the mob to use union pension funds to build casinos in Vegas and he was subpoenaed in the late 80s to a House or Senate hearing. He showed up, got sworn in and took the fifth to every question they asked him including his name which they asked three times. They were mad as hell but couldn't do anything because he didn't perjure himself and he didn't show any contempt so they had to let hem go.
 
2013-04-21 08:07:05 PM

letrole: If you're such a paranoid nutbag that your first and only instinct is to treat normal police procedures with suspicion and contempt, then you probably have something in your seedy past that very well explains your behaviour.

I have *NEVER* met a so-called libertarian who didn't.


Libertarian philosophy is pretty simple, and in many regards can be summed up by the following: Don't bully others. Don't do it personally, and don't do it through the apparatus of the State.

Now that you understand things a little better, perhaps you'll understand my concern when I ask: How is a refusal to bully others a sign of deeper character flaws?

/not a libertarian
 
2013-04-21 08:07:54 PM
The correct move is pretty obvious. You say, "I'm going to go discuss the case with several lawyers getting second and third opinions. If they advise me it is in my best interest to talk to you then I will have you send them a list of questions you'd like answered and then I will have them fax or email back the answers. Good day sir."
 
2013-04-21 08:55:37 PM

cptjeff: Frosty_Icehole: Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

I'm not even sure it's a legal requirement, akin to the myth that police must state they are indeed police if asked.

It's a legal requirement that police have to inform you of your rights upon arrest. Has been since the Supreme Court said it was in... drumroll please... Miranda v. Arizona.


Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

That would be the 'not clinically insane and trying to strip people of their constitutional rights because we don't like them very much' interpretation, yes.


Wrong. One only needs to be Mirandized when 1.) they are believed to have committed a crime and 2.) the arresting officer intends to question them regarding their involvement in said crime. Mere arrest alone does not trigger the Miranda requirement.
 
2013-04-21 08:57:47 PM

doyner: heypete: doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a gun owner and a strong believer in all rights, not just those explicitly protected by the Constitution.

/member of the NRA, ACLU, and EFF.

Count yourself as a member of a proud minority.  I'm right there with you.

My point, which (judging by the responses) is that the binning of political ideologies is at the heart of the overall erosion of our Constitutional rights. The consolidation of all positions held into two distinct and partisan bins IS the problem.  Want the NRA to support your "guy" in congress?  Congratulations, you voted for the dude that wants to restrict gay marriage and extraordinary rendition.  Want to do something about climate change?  Congratulations, gun ownership is now harder.

Effectively, your "one thing" may very well cost you those other ideals you hold dear if they don't fit into the same bundle of ideological views.


This, but on Fark you mention that the Democrats don't eat coal and shiat diamonds, and you get a reply from some Democrat nut-hugger mouthbreather with "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICAN!"
 
2013-04-21 09:33:39 PM

95BV5: cptjeff: Frosty_Icehole: Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

I'm not even sure it's a legal requirement, akin to the myth that police must state they are indeed police if asked.

It's a legal requirement that police have to inform you of your rights upon arrest. Has been since the Supreme Court said it was in... drumroll please... Miranda v. Arizona.


Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

That would be the 'not clinically insane and trying to strip people of their constitutional rights because we don't like them very much' interpretation, yes.

Wrong. One only needs to be Mirandized when 1.) they are believed to have committed a crime and 2.) the arresting officer intends to question them regarding their involvement in said crime. Mere arrest alone does not trigger the Miranda requirement.


Wrong.  There is a two prong test for Miranda.  Custody and interrogation.  Period.  I can suspect person A of murder, and question them, and as long as they're not in custody (free to leave at anytime) they do not need to be read Miranda.
 
2013-04-21 09:39:23 PM

calbert: Frosty_Icehole: Arumat: I don't even have a GED in law, but shouldn't your fifth amendment rights be in effect 24/7, with the Miranda Warning only serving as a legally required reminder?

I'm not even sure it's a legal requirement, akin to the myth that police must state they are indeed police if asked.

as long as I still get my one free phone call.

and now I have to hit people over the head... YOU DO NOT HAVE THE 'RIGHT' TO ONE FREE PHONE CALL!!!

that is a Hollywood fabrication. if you are arrested and the police allow you a phone call, that is a COURTESY that they are extending to you, not a 'right' of yours.


actually, you have a right to pretty much unlimited calls if you're trying to get a lawyer.  Even Canada acknowledges this in a unique way:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57570343/canadian-court-finds-def e ndants-have-the-right-to-google/
 
2013-04-21 09:39:32 PM

fredklein: Great Janitor: A cop once explained to me that there is no right to a phone call. Yes, they have no problem letting you have a phone call at some point, but there is no right to a phone call. He even went further to say "I"ll hand you a copy of the Constitution and you can read every word of it and you can show me where it says you have a right to a phone call."

So, that cop is of the opinion that the Constitution is the ONLY law of the land, and if it's not written in there, it doesn't exist??

/WTF do they teach in police academy?


He should have given it back to the cop and said "Show me where it says DWI/Speeding/etc are not allowed"
 
2013-04-21 10:12:57 PM

buzzcut73: A lot of states already do something similar to this when it comes to DWI refusal...they'll use your refusal to blow into the magic box with the secret source code as evidence at trial that you must be guilty. Doesn't surprise me that they'll try and extend that to other things.


In Georgia, refusal of a blood test is an automatic 120 day license suspension.
 
2013-04-21 10:19:39 PM

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


The irony has not been lost on me lately that the people who scream so loudly about their 2nd Amendment rights just don't give a flying fark about the rights of ANYONE else.
 
2013-04-21 10:56:23 PM

heypete: doyner: Count yourself as a member of a proud minority. I'm right there with you.

Excellent. :)

My point, which (judging by the responses) is that the binning of political ideologies is at the heart of the overall erosion of our Constitutional rights. The consolidation of all positions held into two distinct and partisan bins IS the problem. Want the NRA to support your "guy" in congress? Congratulations, you voted for the dude that wants to restrict gay marriage and extraordinary rendition. Want to do something about climate change? Congratulations, gun ownership is now harder.

Effectively, your "one thing" may very well cost you those other ideals you hold dear if they don't fit into the same bundle of ideological views.

Yup. The binning is definitely an issue. On the gun-related message boards, forums, and blogs I occasionally participate in there's a fair bit of discussion about pro-gun-rights politics being increasing associated with right-wing politics. This is of concern for a lot of gun owners, as the gun-owning community can't just be limited to old guys, farmers, and Republicans. I know some Democrats who've held their nose and become (or continue to be) NRA members even with their raving about "liberals" because they are the 800lb gorilla in the room when it comes to defending that particular right., but I think the gun culture would do a lot better if it was more welcoming to (or at least less hostile toward) non-right-wing people who are interested in guns. Most of the gun owners I know are -- myself and a few others, most of us certified instructors, used to run informal range trips for university students who were curious about shooting, would teach them the safety rules, basic shooting techniques, etc. -- but I realize that there's quite a lot of "good ol' boys" out there.

I'm not really sure what can be done to disentangle party politics from people's rights, but I'm open for suggestions.

/that reminds me, I need to re-up my ACLU membership


As a gun owner (NRA member, instructor, standing offer to first-time shooters that the expenses of the first trip are on me) that believes in all ten Amendments, I occasionally have very difficult conversations with my allies about how we're screwing ourselves.

Sadly, they usually don't see it.
 
2013-04-22 02:00:38 AM

Your Average Witty Fark User: doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...

The irony has not been lost on me lately that the people who scream so loudly about their 2nd Amendment rights just don't give a flying fark about the rights of ANYONE else.


That is strange because I don't know of anyone who strongly supports the 2nd amendment who doesn't care deeply about the rights of EVERYONE else.
 
2013-04-22 02:10:11 AM
Was that article worded and written terribly or did I have a stroke while reading it?
 
2013-04-22 03:38:44 AM

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


Like we needed proof you don't listen.
 
2013-04-22 04:12:50 AM

letrole: If you're such a paranoid nutbag that your first and only instinct is to treat normal police procedures with suspicion and contempt, then you probably have something in your seedy past that very well explains your behaviour.

I have *NEVER* met a so-called libertarian who didn't.


Damned right! Nor a communist. Nor a Democrat. Nor Republicans or independents. And let's not forget priests, nuns, librarians, lawyers, programmers, authors, actors, beekeepers, carpetlayers, ...

We're an imperfect species, Mr. Trole.
 
2013-04-22 05:06:57 AM

WhoopAssWayne: It's no surprise that the neofascist liberals at the New York times are advocating for stripping the 5th Amendment.


You didn't understand the article, did you?

WhoopAssWayne: They also strongly oppose the 2nd Amendment and believe the 1st Amendment should only apply to some (them) and not others (the NRA.)


Citation needed. Everything else in your post was barely coherent gibberish. Per usual.
 
2013-04-22 05:23:18 AM

Sgt.Zim: As a gun owner (NRA member, instructor, standing offer to first-time shooters that the expenses of the first trip are on me) that believes in all ten Amendments, I occasionally have very difficult conversations with my allies about how we're screwing ourselves.

Sadly, they usually don't see it.


You know, there are actually more than that.
 
2013-04-22 05:30:21 AM

doyner: And yet, I don't hear much from the white knights of the 2nd Amendment crying foul over the erosion of the 5th and 4th...


Actually, I think it's deplorable!  They got him, the "Immediate threat to the public" is over.  They should have read him his rights.  Thanks to the Patriot Act and the following BS laws, this is another display of the Gov't wiping their collective asses with the Constitution for "our safety".  And no, I'm not remotely standing up for the POS either.
 
2013-04-22 10:41:25 AM

Abacus9: Sgt.Zim: As a gun owner (NRA member, instructor, standing offer to first-time shooters that the expenses of the first trip are on me) that believes in all ten Amendments, I occasionally have very difficult conversations with my allies about how we're screwing ourselves.

Sadly, they usually don't see it.

You know, there are actually more than that.


Pardon my tablet-induced typo; that was supposed to say "all ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights", since that was the topic of discussion.

To answer your question, yes, I am aware that there are more than that. Your point was?
 
kgf
2013-04-22 12:17:31 PM
We're gonna need a Texas tag soon.
 
2013-04-23 12:01:29 AM

Sgt.Zim: Abacus9: Sgt.Zim: As a gun owner (NRA member, instructor, standing offer to first-time shooters that the expenses of the first trip are on me) that believes in all ten Amendments, I occasionally have very difficult conversations with my allies about how we're screwing ourselves.

Sadly, they usually don't see it.

You know, there are actually more than that.

Pardon my tablet-induced typo; that was supposed to say "all ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights", since that was the topic of discussion.

To answer your question, yes, I am aware that there are more than that. Your point was?


Just checking. There are a lot of "patriots" around here that don't know the first damn thing about their own country.
 
Displayed 40 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report