|
Post by ltdc on Jun 13, 2009 13:30:07 GMT -6
On US soil, Miranda rights must be given (with a few limited exceptions) when the suspect is both in "custody" and is presented with questions or statements designed to elicit an "incriminating response." However, a violation of Miranda does (generally) not occur until such statements are used against the defendant at trial. If an in-custody defendant voluntarily tells the authorities something in violation of Miranda, the fruits of that statement can be used under the federal Constitution in the prosecution of that individual. Only the statement itself is inadmissible at trial. Not sure how that plays out in the international context, but I hope I helped explain it a bit. a defendant cannot violate miranda. he can voluntarily give up any of his rights. you can invoke silence, you can un-invoke silence. you can invoke an attorney, you can un-invoke one, but it's a bit trickier here. I'm totally against miranda. not his "rights", mind you but the ruling that says we have to "teach" him his rights. why? with or with out miranda virtually no plea is taken with out the judge asking the defendent if he is pleaing of his own volition and free will. he will be asked if any promises, gaurantees or threats and coercion was used to gain this plea. so why not tell him he has the right to refuse to house the queens soldiers? or the right to join the church of his choice? to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? or to chew your food 28 times before swallowing? or that smoking is bad for you? always wear your seatbelt? I know, it's here to stay and may have served a purpose at one time but I don't believe it is necessary today.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 13, 2009 14:19:36 GMT -6
On US soil, Miranda rights must be given (with a few limited exceptions) when the suspect is both in "custody" and is presented with questions or statements designed to elicit an "incriminating response." However, a violation of Miranda does (generally) not occur until such statements are used against the defendant at trial. If an in-custody defendant voluntarily tells the authorities something in violation of Miranda, the fruits of that statement can be used under the federal Constitution in the prosecution of that individual. Only the statement itself is inadmissible at trial. Not sure how that plays out in the international context, but I hope I helped explain it a bit. a defendant cannot violate miranda. he can voluntarily give up any of his rights. you can invoke silence, you can un-invoke silence. you can invoke an attorney, you can un-invoke one, but it's a bit trickier here. I'm totally against miranda. not his "rights", mind you but the ruling that says we have to "teach" him his rights. why? with or with out miranda virtually no plea is taken with out the judge asking the defendent if he is pleaing of his own volition and free will. he will be asked if any promises, gaurantees or threats and coercion was used to gain this plea. so why not tell him he has the right to refuse to house the queens soldiers? or the right to join the church of his choice? to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? or to chew your food 28 times before swallowing? or that smoking is bad for you? always wear your seatbelt? I know, it's here to stay and may have served a purpose at one time but I don't believe it is necessary today. If one goes back and studies the Miranda warnings, the officer does not have to read the warning if he is making an arrest as we see on TV. It is only if the officer wishes to get a statement or a confession that the miranda warnings must be given to protect the 5th Amendment rights. A police officer can ask name, address, etc without violating Miranda (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)) So what is the purpose of the warning? It is to eliminate possible police intimidation and coercion. By telling a suspect they have the right to silence and counsel by an attorney, the pd is protecting any confession from an attack based on the 5th. Think about how many confessions would have been tossed out if not for the Miranda warning.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 13, 2009 17:05:18 GMT -6
a defendant cannot violate miranda. he can voluntarily give up any of his rights. you can invoke silence, you can un-invoke silence. you can invoke an attorney, you can un-invoke one, but it's a bit trickier here. I'm totally against miranda. not his "rights", mind you but the ruling that says we have to "teach" him his rights. why? with or with out miranda virtually no plea is taken with out the judge asking the defendent if he is pleaing of his own volition and free will. he will be asked if any promises, gaurantees or threats and coercion was used to gain this plea. so why not tell him he has the right to refuse to house the queens soldiers? or the right to join the church of his choice? to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? or to chew your food 28 times before swallowing? or that smoking is bad for you? always wear your seatbelt? I know, it's here to stay and may have served a purpose at one time but I don't believe it is necessary today. If one goes back and studies the Miranda warnings, the officer does not have to read the warning if he is making an arrest as we see on TV. It is only if the officer wishes to get a statement or a confession that the miranda warnings must be given to protect the 5th Amendment rights. A police officer can ask name, address, etc without violating Miranda (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)) So what is the purpose of the warning? It is to eliminate possible police intimidation and coercion. By telling a suspect they have the right to silence and counsel by an attorney, the pd is protecting any confession from an attack based on the 5th. Think about how many confessions would have been tossed out if not for the Miranda warning. I'm fully aware of how it all came about, I just disagree with it. Like I said ealier, they have the rights whether told about them or not, it's covered again at the plea, and if criminals want to know their rights, then they should take a civics class. with no intention of misconduct it shouldn't be my job to teach him. there is all kinds of possible police misconduct, miranda or no miranda. and like I said it's not that big of a deal to just spit it out, nodding your head yes, and be done with it. those that will invoke it know it better than the cops anyway. most of the rest are thinking more about how to lie their way out of this than paying attention. and it is so easy to shame some people into waving their right to silence and attorney. I even once shamed a guy into confessing child rape with his attorney present. they are his rights not his attorney's rights, he can wave them if he wants to. and to get back on track here, how much more insane is it to have to teach foreign nationals/combatants our rights?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 14, 2009 10:45:43 GMT -6
If one goes back and studies the Miranda warnings, the officer does not have to read the warning if he is making an arrest as we see on TV. It is only if the officer wishes to get a statement or a confession that the miranda warnings must be given to protect the 5th Amendment rights. A police officer can ask name, address, etc without violating Miranda (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)) So what is the purpose of the warning? It is to eliminate possible police intimidation and coercion. By telling a suspect they have the right to silence and counsel by an attorney, the pd is protecting any confession from an attack based on the 5th. Think about how many confessions would have been tossed out if not for the Miranda warning. I'm fully aware of how it all came about, I just disagree with it. Like I said ealier, they have the rights whether told about them or not, it's covered again at the plea, and if criminals want to know their rights, then they should take a civics class. with no intention of misconduct it shouldn't be my job to teach him. there is all kinds of possible police misconduct, miranda or no miranda. and like I said it's not that big of a deal to just spit it out, nodding your head yes, and be done with it. those that will invoke it know it better than the cops anyway. most of the rest are thinking more about how to lie their way out of this than paying attention. and it is so easy to shame some people into waving their right to silence and attorney. I even once shamed a guy into confessing child rape with his attorney present. they are his rights not his attorney's rights, he can wave them if he wants to. and to get back on track here, how much more insane is it to have to teach foreign nationals/combatants our rights? You know what? I agree with you here. It really makes no sense to advise them they have the right to remain silent and then waterboard them to get them to talk.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 14, 2009 11:15:54 GMT -6
If one goes back and studies the Miranda warnings, the officer does not have to read the warning if he is making an arrest as we see on TV. It is only if the officer wishes to get a statement or a confession that the miranda warnings must be given to protect the 5th Amendment rights. A police officer can ask name, address, etc without violating Miranda (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)) So what is the purpose of the warning? It is to eliminate possible police intimidation and coercion. By telling a suspect they have the right to silence and counsel by an attorney, the pd is protecting any confession from an attack based on the 5th. Think about how many confessions would have been tossed out if not for the Miranda warning. I'm fully aware of how it all came about, I just disagree with it. Like I said ealier, they have the rights whether told about them or not, it's covered again at the plea, and if criminals want to know their rights, then they should take a civics class. with no intention of misconduct it shouldn't be my job to teach him. I hear what you are saying, but in America, how hard is it for the police to read a dude his rights? Pretty much everyone can recite Miranda off the top of their head as it has become so culturally ingrained. Certainly it can't be that hard for a police officer to do. Takes less than 30 seconds, and it is not like you are required to explain all the nuances of Miranda. Just tell him the standard rights. It's easy and can save prosecutors a ton of headaches.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 14, 2009 11:34:46 GMT -6
I'm fully aware of how it all came about, I just disagree with it. Like I said ealier, they have the rights whether told about them or not, it's covered again at the plea, and if criminals want to know their rights, then they should take a civics class. with no intention of misconduct it shouldn't be my job to teach him. there is all kinds of possible police misconduct, miranda or no miranda. and like I said it's not that big of a deal to just spit it out, nodding your head yes, and be done with it. those that will invoke it know it better than the cops anyway. most of the rest are thinking more about how to lie their way out of this than paying attention. and it is so easy to shame some people into waving their right to silence and attorney. I even once shamed a guy into confessing child rape with his attorney present. they are his rights not his attorney's rights, he can wave them if he wants to. and to get back on track here, how much more insane is it to have to teach foreign nationals/combatants our rights? You know what? I agree with you here. It really makes no sense to advise them they have the right to remain silent and then waterboard them to get them to talk. now that wraps it up pretty good right there.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 14, 2009 11:39:39 GMT -6
I'm fully aware of how it all came about, I just disagree with it. Like I said ealier, they have the rights whether told about them or not, it's covered again at the plea, and if criminals want to know their rights, then they should take a civics class. with no intention of misconduct it shouldn't be my job to teach him. I hear what you are saying, but in America, how hard is it for the police to read a dude his rights? Pretty much everyone can recite Miranda off the top of their head as it has become so culturally ingrained. Certainly it can't be that hard for a police officer to do. Takes less than 30 seconds, and it is not like you are required to explain all the nuances of Miranda. Just tell him the standard rights. It's easy and can save prosecutors a ton of headaches. not hard at all. I've said that in two different posts. in fact it's no more difficult than for a criminal to either learn his own rights or not commit crime. it's just no longer necessary, but it will never change for our homegrown criminals. so as to the point of this thread let's not start down this ill advised road for foreign enemy combatants.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 14, 2009 11:44:57 GMT -6
I hear what you are saying, but in America, how hard is it for the police to read a dude his rights? Pretty much everyone can recite Miranda off the top of their head as it has become so culturally ingrained. Certainly it can't be that hard for a police officer to do. Takes less than 30 seconds, and it is not like you are required to explain all the nuances of Miranda. Just tell him the standard rights. It's easy and can save prosecutors a ton of headaches. not hard at all. I've said that in two different posts. in fact it's no more difficult than for a criminal to either learn his own rights or not commit crime. it's just no longer necessary, but it will never change for our homegrown criminals. so as to the point of this thread let's not start down this ill advised road for foreign enemy combatants. I fully agree. While I certainly think alleged enemy combatants should probably have certain rights such as habeas, Miranda is not one of those rights I would extend to such situations.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 14, 2009 12:58:09 GMT -6
I hear what you are saying, but in America, how hard is it for the police to read a dude his rights? Pretty much everyone can recite Miranda off the top of their head as it has become so culturally ingrained. Certainly it can't be that hard for a police officer to do. Takes less than 30 seconds, and it is not like you are required to explain all the nuances of Miranda. Just tell him the standard rights. It's easy and can save prosecutors a ton of headaches. not hard at all. I've said that in two different posts. in fact it's no more difficult than for a criminal to either learn his own rights or not commit crime. it's just no longer necessary, but it will never change for our homegrown criminals. so as to the point of this thread let's not start down this ill advised road for foreign enemy combatants. Ltdc, you are someone who I genuinely respect. As veteran law enforcement professional, you have seen it all, I'm sure. So I really do value your opinion on this. Now I get the impression you don't like Miranda or at least find it unnecessary. But by providing a nationwide clear and simple guideline for confessions, don't you think Miranda has helped law enforcement in general? Mainly, even though the suspect probably knows his rights beforehand, he might make up some BS about how he was somehow tricked or misled. For example, he might say he did not know that his statements could be used against him or that he thought he had no choice but to talk. But when the prosecutor puts you on the stand, your a$$ is covered because you can say that you read him his standard set of rights. If Miranda were abolished, many cops wouldn't follow it, and courts would have to make ad hoc, fact intensive investigations over the voluntariness of confessions. They do that already. But as long as Miranda rights are given, at least that base is covered. By forcing police to read such rights, it thus gives prosecutors one less issue to litigate and one less issue for police to contest. Accordingly, it seems to me Miranda is a good thing for law enforcement because cops know that they are covered if they read a simple statement to the defendant. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 14, 2009 19:17:24 GMT -6
Ok. Looking at it from another angle...can it be seen as trying to promote peace? Being the better country? No. Advertising your weakness does not promote peace. A dead country cannot be a better country.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 15, 2009 9:28:44 GMT -6
I agree David but some were taken from their country of origin (kidnapped to most) and then flown to gitmo via various dubious connections. Since when did America do that? When they did, they dug this big fat hole that you guys seems to be making bigger and deeper by the day. Just try the pricks and move on. So long as they are there untried by civilian court you are handing the ragheads all the ammunition they need.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 15, 2009 10:25:47 GMT -6
So long as they are there untried by civilian court you are handing the ragheads all the ammunition they need. That amount of ammuntion would be zero, which is, indeed, all of the ammunition that they need from us. Their wish to control the world is independent of what anybody else is or does.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 15, 2009 11:14:40 GMT -6
not hard at all. I've said that in two different posts. in fact it's no more difficult than for a criminal to either learn his own rights or not commit crime. it's just no longer necessary, but it will never change for our homegrown criminals. so as to the point of this thread let's not start down this ill advised road for foreign enemy combatants. Ltdc, you are someone who I genuinely respect. As veteran law enforcement professional, you have seen it all, I'm sure. So I really do value your opinion on this. Now I get the impression you don't like Miranda or at least find it unnecessary. But by providing a nationwide clear and simple guideline for confessions, don't you think Miranda has helped law enforcement in general? Mainly, even though the suspect probably knows his rights beforehand, he might make up some BS about how he was somehow tricked or misled. For example, he might say he did not know that his statements could be used against him or that he thought he had no choice but to talk. But when the prosecutor puts you on the stand, your a$$ is covered because you can say that you read him his standard set of rights. If Miranda were abolished, many cops wouldn't follow it, and courts would have to make ad hoc, fact intensive investigations over the voluntariness of confessions. They do that already. But as long as Miranda rights are given, at least that base is covered. By forcing police to read such rights, it thus gives prosecutors one less issue to litigate and one less issue for police to contest. Accordingly, it seems to me Miranda is a good thing for law enforcement because cops know that they are covered if they read a simple statement to the defendant. What are your thoughts? I realize where it came from, it did and still does have it's value, and it will never go away, and is only a minor inconvenience if even that. my thought is rather facetious. he has all the rights in question whether he knows he does or not, we don't allow "ignorance of the law" as an excuse to his violating said law, why do we allow "ignorance of my rights" as an excuse? I've had many a person tell me the criminal has all the rights, I respond that no, you have every single right a criminal has you simply don't need them or haven't had a need to utilize them. but we all have them. I just find it ironic and odd we have to teach these mopes their rights. why just the two? why not all of the bill of rights? if they choose to talk and confess why not then teach them all the appeals process and procedures. and so forth and so forth. a dirty cop can misuse his authority with or without miranda.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 15, 2009 13:48:41 GMT -6
I agree David but some were taken from their country of origin (kidnapped to most) and then flown to gitmo via various dubious connections. Since when did America do that? When they did, they dug this big fat hole that you guys seems to be making bigger and deeper by the day. Just try the pricks and move on. So long as they are there untried by civilian court you are handing the ragheads all the ammunition they need. As I said I have no problem trying them or hell send them back to country of origin, and I do not care if the country will kill them or does not want them. They are their citizens let them deal with them, next time we catch them on the battle field shoot them no trial needed.
|
|
|
Post by johnbgraf on Jun 15, 2009 15:39:55 GMT -6
Let's just send them to Bermuda and set them free, and smack in the face all the innocent people who died on September 11th, after all where were their rights? and where was the ACLU and the AFL-CIO and NAACP and all the other agencies fighting for the freedom of these" terrorist detainies" when real Americans and Coalition Forces were giving their lives and dying for peace and true freedom?
Some of my best friends died during OEF, it does'nt make sense to give 'terrorist" any freedoms at all! These detainies will be back in the business of "terrorism" in no time...these terrorist should of been fed to the fishes a long time ago...ya know what I mean???
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jun 15, 2009 17:30:08 GMT -6
Let's just send them to Bermuda and set them free, and smack in the face all the innocent people who died on September 11th, after all where were their rights? and where was the ACLU and the AFL-CIO and NAACP and all the other agencies fighting for the freedom of these" terrorist detainies" when real Americans and Coalition Forces were giving their lives and dying for peace and true freedom? Some of my best friends died during OEF, it does'nt make sense to give 'terrorist" any freedoms at all! These detainies will be back in the business of "terrorism" in no time...these terrorist should of been fed to the fishes a long time ago...ya know what I mean??? No, not really.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 16, 2009 0:40:30 GMT -6
Exactly John ,they should have been shot in theatre, not brought back to US territory. Until they are tried they are in effect civilians.
Donnie, understand your point i do but im looking at the bigger picture here. They think the same as you so in the meantime nothing gets done, we keep hating each other and innocents get killed like those in 9/11 and the London and elsewhere.
try them by civilian courts and then show the world they were tried fairly regardless of the fundamentalists propaganda.
Its win win.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Jun 16, 2009 5:56:52 GMT -6
Lawrence you are correct. These guys should have been dealt with in theater or "disappeared". Unfortunately, we were too busy trying to sort out the bad guys from the really bad guys and set up Gitmo. Now we have a problem! Can't live with them, can't kill them. What appeared like a bad decision by Bush has turned into a never ending nightmare for Obama.
Maybe we should use a tag and release method.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 16, 2009 7:58:22 GMT -6
So tag and release sub, They just should have been shot. By the way, wasnt there some yank civie guy fighting for the Taliban captured in that fort that we attacked, the SAS and your Delta fellas? what happened to that little *jerk*?
|
|
|
Post by johnbgraf on Jun 16, 2009 8:40:46 GMT -6
Tag and release program...humm... sounds like hunting terrorist is always in season with no limits and no need to release... if tagged make it fatal....after all give them a taste of their own medicine...2 in the chest,1 in the head...tagging complete.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Jun 16, 2009 10:47:25 GMT -6
So tag and release sub, They just should have been shot. By the way, wasnt there some yank civie guy fighting for the Taliban captured in that fort that we attacked, the SAS and your Delta fellas? what happened to that little *jerk*? John Walker Lindh changed his name to Hamza Walker Lindh. Is doing 20 years in a Federal Prison. He asked for early release or reduced sentence and was laughed out of court. Tag and release - I personally would vote for the Tac-50 .50 BMG sniper rifle as the prefered tag. Tag you're it!
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 16, 2009 17:41:27 GMT -6
So tag and release sub, They just should have been shot. By the way, wasnt there some yank civie guy fighting for the Taliban captured in that fort that we attacked, the SAS and your Delta fellas? what happened to that little *jerk*? John Walker Lindh changed his name to Hamza Walker Lindh. Is doing 20 years in a Federal Prison. He asked for early release or reduced sentence and was laughed out of court. Tag and release - I personally would vote for the Tac-50 .50 BMG sniper rifle as the prefered tag. Tag you're it!I second that vote.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 16, 2009 19:11:27 GMT -6
Summary executions. I like what I'm reading here
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 17, 2009 8:11:15 GMT -6
Ive got a better idea, what was the name of that film in which the convicts (Jean Cluad Van Knobhead) i think starred in it when all the inmates had this bomb around their necks and if they went outside of the range of the fence their heads got blown off. Now thats a good idea. Televise it too and get the nation to vote off their worst scumbag and pay for view to see them explode That would be ironic wouldnt it.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Jun 17, 2009 8:17:06 GMT -6
Ive got a better idea, what was the name of that film in which the convicts (Jean Cluad Van Knobhead) i think starred in it when all the inmates had this bomb around their necks and if they went outside of the range of the fence their heads got blown off. Now thats a good idea. Televise it too and get the nation to vote off their worst scumbag and pay for view to see them explode That would be ironic wouldnt it. Wasn't that The Running Man with Arnie Mayor of California?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 17, 2009 9:07:38 GMT -6
Im not sure Steve, all i know is that the film was awful if you know what i mean but fun. A real low budget no story load of pants. It wasnt based on fact so Mike would get confused. that type of film. ;D
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Jun 17, 2009 9:48:09 GMT -6
Im not sure Steve, all i know is that the film was awful if you know what i mean but fun. A real low budget no story load of pants. It wasnt based on fact so Mike would get confused. that type of film. ;D Aye there's been a few of these films. I know Arnie's been in one, and that guy off Highlander.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 17, 2009 10:17:26 GMT -6
Going to see that new Transformers film Fiday, love that sci-fi stuff, still not seen that Drag me to Hell yet, that looks fun too. Have you seen that Terminator movie yet, thats great fun too and brilliant special fx. Still cant quite get used to Brit actors with yank accents though, confuses the hell out of me.
I get a lot of these complimentary tickets off suppliers etc so i tend to go to the movies at least once a week or once a fortnight. Love it.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Jun 17, 2009 10:24:07 GMT -6
Ive seen Drag Me To Hell, its great too. Well I thought so. Not seen Terminator yet. Next on my to see list.
|
|
|
Post by johnbgraf on Jun 17, 2009 15:41:18 GMT -6
671 grains of diplomacy...Tag them then bag them...its that simple. I hear Burmuda's a nice place to let all those detainies free...WTF was our National Security Advisor's thinking, I guess they were just trying to please our Commander and Chief after WTH does he know about terrorism? I guess he (Obama) was just trying to show the Muslim world that he's going to play fairly, but what about All the innocent people who have been killed at the hands of these terrorist???
|
|