- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Everyone has the right to remain silent, but in this instance his not calling and talking to be police is used as an attack against him, ie his exercising his right to remain silent. That is a specific right in the Constitution according to the United States Supreme Court.Seems you want to avoid being called on this little nugget, pulled fresh from your nether regions..."Yes, I understand your hatred of the Bill Of Rights".
Please explain that accusation of 'Chomsky' to the class.
You never heard the words of the Miranda warning, beginning with: "You have a RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney."
Did he have a right to remain silent? Yes. Can this be used against him in a criminal case? No, but in Democratic Dallas County they will used it anyway in trial because Dallas Country Democratic officials see the Bill Of Rights as having less value than toilet paper. Did he and his wife have a right to talk to an attorney first? Yes. But the Dallas County Democratic officials will also use that his wife called an attorney before calling the police against him too.
He had no legal duty to call the police and 100% the right not to. She has a right to call an attorney before calling the police, and also had no duty to call the police at all.
While I will not go into any details, I have shot people. I did not call the police for over a decade. I was not charged with anything and do not have so much as a speeding ticket conviction nor ever put on trial. There was no hint that my not calling the police was any offense nor any indication of wrong doing because those in the criminal justice system apparently were not fascist-anarchist progressive Democrats who claim that a person exercising their Constitutional rights indicates the person is a criminal the way the Dallas Country Democratic officials do.
Did he have a legal duty to call for an ambulance? No. Even if he knew the person was shot, which he didn't. But they will wrongly use that against him in court too.
Given that in fact no jury should ever even hear a person refused to talk to the police - but that has been splashed all over the Dallas area media and press - if the case is not moved out of Dallas County it is impossible for him to receive a fair trial. But most likely he will get an attorney appointed by the Democratic judge, with such attorneys knowing if they don't do everything possible to bully their clients into pleading and, if not, the attorney asks for a jury or otherwise makes it more than a summary trial that judge will never appoint that attorney (his/her income source) again due to inconveniencing the judge.
That old guy is poor. He will get railroaded by the Democratic justice system in Dallas including by his own attorney. Law, due process and Constitution will be irrelevant in this case.
Last edited: