StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... stioning_4

What the FUCK are those morons on? If I ever get arrested, I better damn well have the right to remain silent.

"If you are going to die, tell me what happened," the officer said.

WTF!?!??!? And then to PROCEED INTERROGATION IN THE HOSPITAL!! That's fucking BULLSHIT!

Oy vey...

Here is the REALLY stupid thing. The police are arguing that they are allowed to use coercive interegation means without Miranda so long as they don't use the confession or evidence in court.

WTF is the point of interegating them if it has zero evidence value? Any lawyer with half a brain can get all evidence that stems from such confessions thrown out in a heart beat.

You only have to be advised of your Miranda rights if the Police want to use what you say against you. If they don't want to do that then they don't have to advise you of them.

Until they do so you can say anything you want and it can never come up in a trial or at a grand jury.

Jeez. Just because it may help the Bush Administration also? Damn. So would torture, I don't see them trying that.

Neolong wrote

So would torture, I don't see them trying that.

Yet.....with Asscroft, who knows?

Vertigo1 wrote:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... stioning_4

What the FUCK are those morons on? If I ever get arrested, I better damn well have the right to remain silent.

Ummmm you DO have the right whether or not they read it to you. Nothing changes your right to remain silent the only thing at stake is whether they have to warn you of your right after arresting you. Heck even that isn't really at stake, they can question you however they want without "Mirandizing" you they just can't use it in court.

These are the kinds of things that make me wish I had an orbital satellite to bomb these kinds of idiots to hell.

I can see only a few situations where mirandizing is not an option, but even then its only temporary.

1) Tactical raid situations. You can't expect a SWAT member on a raid to mirandize a suspect they are restraining while the area still isn't clear. Afterwards read them their rights, but not at that exact moment.

2) Emergency medical situations. Where officers may be too busy administering aid to a suspect to mirandize them. Even then, the moment they regain conciousness mirandize them.

Jesus.... now THIS is happening.
I thought that citizen-spying porgram was bad enough......
What is America coming too?

JFC, what the hell are these guys thinking? You can interrogate a suspect however you like so long as you don't use the evidence in court? The whole point of interrogation is to gain evidence, if it isn't being used for that, then it is essentially torture for the sake of torture. All this is doing is giving police yet more excusses to violate just about every civil right we have in order to enact Bush's "anti-terrorist" policies, which stem more from personal vendetta than any actual threat to the United States.

*sadly records another drop in the global intelligence percentage*
*apoligizes to Shinova for stealing her line*

data_link wrote:JFC, what the hell are these guys thinking? You can interrogate a suspect however you like so long as you don't use the evidence in court? The whole point of interrogation is to gain evidence, if it isn't being used for that, then it is essentially torture for the sake of torture. All this is doing is giving police yet more excusses to violate just about every civil right we have in order to enact Bush's "anti-terrorist" policies, which stem more from personal vendetta than any actual threat to the United States.

*sadly records another drop in the global intelligence percentage*
*apoligizes to Shinova for stealing her line*

You question them to discover leads. If they confess then it confirms your suspicion and you can eliminate all unrelated inquiries, further more they mgiht reveal something which, as evidence, is meaningless but leads to information that can be obtained through normal search procedures.

Finally no matter what the ruling you ALWAYS have a right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. In other words its your own damn fault if you keep talking.

CmdrWilkins wrote:You question them to discover leads. If they confess then it confirms your suspicion and you can eliminate all unrelated inquiries, further more they mgiht reveal something which, as evidence, is meaningless but leads to information that can be obtained through normal search procedures.

Which you can fucking do without arrresting them, when they still have the right to walk away. (or in this case, to have the medical staff order you out of the room). This was not a case of confirming suspicions, this was a case of interrogating someone to gather inadmissable evidence without letting them call their lawyer so that he could inform the cops of the definition of police brutality. Besides, if evidence gathered under a forced interrogation that would be inadmissable in court is later used to find other evidence, then barring "inevitable discovery," the evidence they found is also inadmissable in court, because without the illegal evidence, a warrant would never have been issued.

CmdrWilkens wrote:Finally no matter what the ruling you ALWAYS have a right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. In other words its your own damn fault if you keep talking.

Except that without the Miranda ruling, police officers would be under no obligation to tell people when they are under arrest. This means that you can forcibly interrogate someone and not have them call their lawyer because they don't know they can and are under the false impression that they will be arrested if they refuse to answer questions. There is a reason that people even have these right, and that is the probability of police deception. And now you want to make the most basic of those deception tactics, not telling the defendant when they are under arrest, legal?

The guy was dying because he'd been shot five times. Any confession out of him should be considered coerced just to get the officer to stop. Police may find citizens' rights to be inconvenient roadblocks to arrests, but that's too damned bad.

Durandal wrote:Police may find citizens' rights to be inconvenient roadblocks to arrests, but that's too damned bad.

Bit of a generalization, don't you think?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Durandal wrote:Police may find citizens' rights to be inconvenient roadblocks to arrests, but that's too damned bad.

Bit of a generalization, don't you think?

Yes. We are forgetting the peopple who think citizens' rights is supporting terrorism.

......Just thinking about England & Ireland.....

["I am dying! ... What are you doing to me?" Martinez is heard screaming on a recording of the persistent interrogation by police Sgt. Ben Chavez in Oxnard, a city of 182,000 about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles.


"If you are going to die, tell me what happened," the officer said. He continued the questioning in an ambulance and an emergency room while Martinez pleaded for treatment. At times, he left the room to allow medical personnel to work, but he returned and continued pressing for answers.]




Christ...That guy should've been fired, if not prosecuted for toturing a wounded man! They're actually fucking thinking about throwing out Miranda? After THAT?
Welcome to the Divine Empire of Ashcroft.

Sienthal wrote:["I am dying! ... What are you doing to me?" Martinez is heard screaming on a recording of the persistent interrogation by police Sgt. Ben Chavez in Oxnard, a city of 182,000 about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles.


"If you are going to die, tell me what happened," the officer said. He continued the questioning in an ambulance and an emergency room while Martinez pleaded for treatment. At times, he left the room to allow medical personnel to work, but he returned and continued pressing for answers.]




Christ...That guy should've been fired, if not prosecuted for toturing a wounded man! They're actually fucking thinking about throwing out Miranda? After THAT?
Welcome to the Divine Empire of Ashcroft.

This event has sparked a debate in my comunity, and this is freaking Montana, home of the conservatives. The local police chief said that Miranda could some times be a nuicance, but that this incident was a gross violation of police conduct. Another judge asked what the hell good the intregation was since it had no evidentary value whatsoever.

Durandal wrote:The guy was dying because he'd been shot five times.

Minor point: cops are trained to put a target down. Depending on the round carried, one or two rounds may be insufficient (especially with regard to the 9mm often carried). This may be why he was shot five times (and usually explains the other incidents where cops pump some poor guy full of lead)

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote:The guy was dying because he'd been shot five times.

Minor point: cops are trained to put a target down. Depending on the round carried, one or two rounds may be insufficient (especially with regard to the 9mm often carried). This may be why he was shot five times (and usually explains the other incidents where cops pump some poor guy full of lead)

Yeah, like the one's where the cops have reloaded and KEPT ON FIRING once the person is down.

Look, it's all well and good to take a dangerous target down, but then hauling him to an interrogation and not leaving him alone even as he finally does acquire medical attention. Stress is very deadly to a severely injured person.

weemadando wrote:

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote:The guy was dying because he'd been shot five times.

Minor point: cops are trained to put a target down. Depending on the round carried, one or two rounds may be insufficient (especially with regard to the 9mm often carried). This may be why he was shot five times (and usually explains the other incidents where cops pump some poor guy full of lead)

Yeah, like the one's where the cops have reloaded and KEPT ON FIRING once the person is down.

I'm not talking about every incident, Anders, stop being an ass. I'm referring to the ones where the cops pumped someone full of lead while they were up and ceased afterwards.

Sienthal wrote:Look, it's all well and good to take a dangerous target down, but then hauling him to an interrogation and not leaving him alone even as he finally does acquire medical attention. Stress is very deadly to a severely injured person.

Indeed, that's just wrong.