Dallas man went back to bed after killing burglar, police say

Grand Mal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Chomsky said:

Problem is, the article was missing a great many details, which is why I said we'll have to see what shakes-out in court. Obviously, by the evidence available the state feels compelled to charge him. Unless the trial presents a clear picture as to Meyer's defense, I can see the disturbance of the scene, along with the long period of time before reporting the incident, to be problematic for him in the hands of the jury. As a juror I'd certainly want to know why he was doing yardwork, rather than informing the authorities and calling for medical assistance for the dying man.

Click to expand...

Once again, you ratify your claim that the Bill Of Rights should be voided, at least in this case.

He had NO duty to talk to the police nor in legitimate trials is a jury even allowed to hear that a person wouldn't, nor delayed, talking to the police. He also had no duty to call for medical assistance even if he knew the guy was shot. Of course there is no evidence in the article whatsoever that he knew anyone had been shot as the guy ran off into the dark.

joko104 said:

Once again, you ratify your claim that the Bill Of Rights should be voided, at least in this case.

He had NO duty to talk to the police nor in legitimate trials is a jury even allowed to hear that a person wouldn't, nor delayed, talking to the police. He also had no duty to call for medical assistance even if he knew the guy was shot. Of course there is no evidence in the article whatsoever that he knew anyone had been shot as the guy ran off into the dark.

Click to expand...

B.S. He can stand by his rights, and the jury can decide the propriety of his actions.

AProudLefty said:

Not too bright is he? The funny part is he went back to bed as if nothing happened.

Click to expand...

What is his name Ted Kennedy. Didn't he think it was OK to drive his car into the water and kill someone and report it after a good nights sleep or he sobered up. I guess a slap on the wrist should suffice then he would qualify for the senate.

Chomsky said:

B.S. He can stand by his rights, and the jury can decide the propriety of his actions.

Click to expand...

Not legitimately. In any legitimate trial, a jury can not be told a person exercised their right to remain silent or that the person asked for a lawyer due to how prejudicial it is - with your message an example of proof that it is.

Chomsky said:

James Meyer very likely lied about going back to sleep, but most importantly he disturbed the crime scene and sought-out legal advice before calling the police.

in due time, I suspect we'll find-out much more about the circumstance that implored the SA to file charges. Things they know, that you & I do not.

Click to expand...

If you were ever on the jury pool for a criminal trial it is unfortunate the defense would not have access to your messages on this thread. It would be basis to remove you from the jury pool "for cause" given you openly admit you would be prejudiced against a person for speaking to an attorney before speaking to the police. This would be instant disqualification.

No question you can hate the Bill Of Rights. But people who openly hate and declare they would defy the Supreme Court and the Bill Of Rights publicly declaring so in relation to criminal law, rights and trials is always disqualified and should be.

Every criminal lawyer and everyone who teaches CW classes all explain:

1. NEVER talk to the police after you shoot someone until you have talked to an attorney and not for at least 48 hours. A person's mind will be confused, the police can say you said anything - whether you said it or not - and it instinctive for people to construct a whole story - while only actually knowing bits and pieces they assemble the story from - meaning innocently saying details that are untrue or unknown.

2. Do NOT admit to shooting anyone when/if you call 9-11. Just say "someone has been shot."

This actually it is a call your attorney should make, not you, and explaining what happened should be by your attorney for you, not you.

Assume you will be arrested. Assume you will be put on trial. Assume the police and DA will do and say anything to try to convict you. It is NEVER the police's or DA's job to show anyone is innocent. It is their job to convince grand juries, juries and judges that people are guilty. Police do NOT interview people seeking evidence to show people are innocent. They seek evidence to show people are guilty. That's their job. If is defense lawyer's job to show people are innocent, not police.

It's like if police ask to search your car. They are not asking because they want to help you. They ask because they want to find a reason to arrest you and put you in a cage.

Most people really don't understand that.

Nor is this an anti-police statement. Rather, it is just a statement of reality of what the job of police and prosecutors is. TV shows like Law And Order are not reality and most are an orgy in bad law and bad rules of evidence. But most people think it is reality, sadly. In addition, I doubt 1 public defender or court appointed attorney worked 1% as hard and cleverly as on those shows. Instead, they have a mountain of cases for which their job is to make the cases go away anyway possible as fast as possible. They exist to make guilty plea deals, keeping poor people in jail until they accept making a deal is the only option they really have.

joko104 said:

...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…

Click to expand...

From the Texas Penal Code - note the bolded:

Sec. 38.171. FAILURE TO REPORT FELONY.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted; and
(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in which:

(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported; and
(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death​

Click to expand...

Meyer stated he fired at the burglar at least twice and didn’t know whether he had hit him. You may quibble, but that would lead one to reasonably believe that serious bodily injury or death may have resulted.

The Miranda Warning, which derives from 5A, does mention the rights to remain silent and to have an attorney. Meyer should have exercised them. There’s no need for a jury to hear that he refused to talk to police because he did talk to them.

CHuDWah said:

From the Texas Penal Code - note the bolded:



Meyer stated he fired at the burglar at least twice and didn’t know whether he had hit him. You may quibble, but that would lead one to reasonably believe that serious bodily injury or death may have resulted.

The Miranda Warning, which derives from 5A, does mention the rights to remain silent and to have an attorney. Meyer should have exercised them. There’s no need for a jury to hear that he refused to talk to police because he did talk to them.

Click to expand...

Unconstitutional laws are quite common.

joko104 said:

Unconstitutional laws are quite common.

Click to expand...

The courts disagree with you on this one, or at least have not yet agreed. 5A, from which Miranda derives, states, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". It is not a blanket authorization to remain silent. It might be argued Meyer's rights were violated had he been charged under the failure to report law. But he wasn't - he voluntarily called police and talked to them.

CHuDWah said:

The courts disagree with you on this one, or at least have not yet agreed. 5A, from which Miranda derives, states, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". It is not a blanket authorization to remain silent. It might be argued Meyer's rights were violated had he been charged under the failure to report law. But he wasn't - he voluntarily called police and talked to them.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's ever been ruled on. But logic says the right to remain silent means the right to remain silent - and the right to have an attorney present during questioning is the right to have an attorney present.

ANYTHING said, anything not said, anything even of voice inflection, even a recording of his phone call, would be presented as evidence. How would that be an exception to having the right to an attorney present during a police questioning and how did he not have the right to remain silent?

He did talk to the police. But can the prosecutor tell a jury he didn't call until after he spoke to an attorney, remaining silent until then?

I do know in legitimate courts it can not be presented that a person wouldn't talk to the police. But I don't think this specific question has been adjudicated.