Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 174

Thread: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

  1. #121
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Not silly, sarcstic yes. I was just asking 66 because of the negative tone towards cops. I personally am tired of people claiming "its not my fault", when in fact all or a good part is. (ex: person suing google maps because they got hit by a car while following the gps direction.). I also don't like when people get off on a technicality.
    Technicalities are Law loopholes are such BS.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  2. #122
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Technicalities are Law loopholes are such BS.
    Yeah, that damned Constitution!

  3. #123
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Yeah, that damned Constitution!
    What does the constitution have to do with a box not being filled in with ink when the information line next to the box IS filled in with ink on a form?

    Like I said, technicalities.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  4. #124
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    What does the constitution have to do with a box not being filled in with ink when the information line next to the box IS filled in with ink on a form?

    Like I said, technicalities.
    No idea what you're talking about.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    No idea what you're talking about.
    When scheming defense attorney's get information suppressed or cases dismissed because one of the 6 times a bit of information was put on a one of several forms, a box next to the information on the form was not filled with ink, and thus, the information contained therein was suppressed and caused the case to be thrown out. Something like that.

    Tell me Mr. Defense attorney, you've never used BS technicalities like that to "get your client off" with something that they knowingly and willingly did?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  6. #126
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    When scheming defense attorney's get information suppressed or cases dismissed because one of the 6 times a bit of information was put on a one of several forms, a box next to the information on the form was not filled with ink, and thus, the information contained therein was suppressed and caused the case to be thrown out. Something like that.
    Seriously? You have examples of that actually happening? With a link? Not just some story?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Tell me Mr. Defense attorney, you've never used BS technicalities like that to "get your client off" with something that they knowingly and willingly did?
    Nope, never used BS technicalities. However yes I have gotten clients freed when the police broke the law by searching without a warrant or questioning them without a lawyer or filing the charges past the statute of limitations. See? No BS technicalities.

    I believe the police should follow the law just like everyone. And when they don't, there should be consequences. I want bad guys caught and punished too -- I live here and don't like crime -- but I don't want to give up my rights to be crime-free.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Seriously? You have examples of that actually happening? With a link? Not just some story?
    Its a true story, but there is no link because it was a lowly misdemeanor DWI charge I dealt with. I was not yet certified on Intox and thus had to have another officer be the "chemical analysis". He had ran like 12 tests that night and just failed to fill in a box mark next to the section about the Preventive Maintenance having been completed on the instrument. However, the officer DID fill in the information showing that the instrument had preventive maintenance done within the time period required by statute. The DA even offered to pull the maintenance record off the DHHS public website where the maintenance records of all instruments in the state of viewable by the public at no cost, proving that the information on the box was accurate. The judge dismissed the results of the intox test, and even though she agreed my field sobriety tests showed I had probable cause, she could not convict due to the fact that the tests were peformed on a slight uphill area (like I can literally move mountains at will) thus she had 'reasonable doubt" as to the full impairment of the individual.

    It was no big deal because the guy was a real nice fellow who just made a mistake so I wasn't pissed that he got off, I was pissed that such a BS technicality could work in the courts.
    To be fair though, the Judge was a recently 'elected' judge who had previously been a magistrate and literally had to recess after every trial to go look up how the law applied to the cases. Judges like this are easily confused by smooth talking defense attorneys. She no longer does criminal courts... I wonder why?




    Nope, never used BS technicalities. However yes I have gotten clients freed when the police broke the law by searching without a warrant or questioning them without a lawyer or filing the charges past the statute of limitations. See? No BS technicalities.

    I believe the police should follow the law just like everyone. And when they don't, there should be consequences. I want bad guys caught and punished too -- I live here and don't like crime -- but I don't want to give up my rights to be crime-free.
    I agree, if rights were violated then I see the reason for such defenses. Ive seen some of the stuff on your website about cases in the media, and I agree with those Ive read (reading the 'media' side of things that is) that those cases were not technicalities for the most part.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  8. #128
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,444

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    If he didn't, he is pretty dumb.
    Did you tell the officer to back off or you will file a complaint?
    Just asking, were you guilty?
    I didn't tell the officer anything because I don't talk to cops.

    I was very clear I wouldn't talk without my attorney there. He didn't care.

    At that point I wasn't even sure what the whole case was about or what the charges were.

    No I was not guilty. The cops were just too lazy to go after who actually commited the action.

  9. #129
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,444

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Silly Mike. People are rarely self admittedly guilty of anything.

    Thats my beef with society as a whole, people feel that they have a right to "get off" with being charged for a crime that they willingly committed.
    There are two kinds of people in the world as far as cops are concerned.

    Cops and suspects.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I'm confused. Okay, so you're TOLD that you 'have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you'. And the suspect SAYS something. This ruling just confirms that it can be used against them? Just seems redundant, or am I missing something?
    I think all criminally-minded individuals should start practicing the phrase, "I invoke my right to remain silent" in sign language.

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •