Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

by Robdar 46 Replies latest jw friends

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    Take a look at this article. This is what is going on in the USA while it's citizens are being distracted by rumors of war. This is a bad, bad, thing. Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country. Any opinions?

    http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14686

    Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

    By Charles Sheehan-Miles, AlterNet
    December 4, 2002

    In what may be a landmark Supreme Court case to overturn the Miranda decision, the court is scheduled to hear arguments from Solicitor General Theodore Olsen on December 4, 2002.

    Bush's political appointee intends to claim our government has the right to coerce information from a witness, as long as the evidence obtained isn't used at trial against the witness.

    The landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision ruled that suspects could not be interrogated without first being advised of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. The wording of Miranda is familiar to all Americans who watch TV, and is assumed as a basic right. The Justice Department wants to change all that.

    In other words, Olsen plans to argue the police can detain or arrest anyone for any reason and then beat you up or even shoot you to get information, even if there are no emergent circumstances.

    In other countries, this is called torture. In our country, we have the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent such horrendous abuses by the police.

    What events could possibly lead Bush to champion a police state over liberty? In the case, Chavez v. Martinez, the U.S. government supports a police officer who interrogated a man the police shot 5 times, once in the face. The injured man also demanded that the questioning stop, but the officer continued his interrogation until the injured man fell into unconsciousness.

    Interestingly, the police and the United States don't argue the facts of the case. Five years ago, Oliver Martinez was riding his bike down a path when he came upon two police officers questioning another man. The officers ordered Martinez to stop, forcibly stopped him, frisked him, wrestled him to the ground, and then shot him five times at point-blank range. Martinez was blinded and paralyzed and screamed for medical care.

    What the police did next will shock you even more. A police officer, Sergeant Ben Chavez, kept the injured passerby in police custody. Chavez climbed into the ambulance with the paralyzed and blind man and interrogated him for 45 minutes in the ambulance and at the hospital. Chavez tape recorded the injured man's pleas to leave him alone and stop questioning him.

    Chavez tried in vain to get Martinez to incriminate himself by confessing he was doing something more than riding his bike in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, Martinez, a farm laborer, possessed a knife.

    Chavez wanted to "clear" his fellow police officers of wrongfully shooting a passerby. Chavez tried over and over again to coerce Martinez into saying he tried to take one of the police officer's weapons. Then the officers would have had grounds to shoot Martinez. If anything, the police were trying to cover up their own abusive practices. Yet none of the officers involved have ever been reprimanded.

    After the incident, Martinez hired an attorney and sued the police for illegal arrest, use of excessive force, and coercive interrogation while in police custody. Though he was shot five times, no charges were ever filed against him, and the police department never provided any assistance or compensation.

    This horrific story becomes more amazing when the Bush Administration sided with the abusive police. Bush, through Olsen, makes the argument there is no constitutional guarantee against coercive police questioning, even when medical personnel are telling the police to move back.

    In other words, Bush says it is okay for the police to grab citizens off the street, shoot them, question them without an attorney, keep medical assistance away, and try to cover up a police shooting with impunity.

    In essence, Bush says beat them and shoot them, because the ends justify the means.

    Bush says "trust us," we won't use the tainted confessions in court.

    If the court rules in Chavez' favor, what will the Bush Administration's policy mean for innocent bystanders who are picked up by the police for being near a crime scene or merely walking down the street?

    Will innocent civilians, under the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act and the end of Miranda warning, have to submit to a beating before they get their one phone call?

    Has the U.S. political leadership in Washington, DC gone crazy?

    And, I ask, why is this news, and the broad impact it may have on liberty, limited to the Los Angeles Times and the alternative press?

    The Bush Administration is expanding the power of the police and assaulting our civil liberties with a hatchet. Yet Congress, TV, and major newspapers, aren't watching and reporting.

    If Bush wins this case, America may plunge into our darkest hour. To paraphrase Sinclair Lewis, "It is happening here."

    Now is the time to stand up and stop these horrors, before President Bush completes his plan to turn America into a police state, where anyone, anywhere, can be picked up off the street, shot, beaten, questioned without an attorney, and not told why we are in custody.

    Charles Sheehan-Miles is a Gulf War combat veteran and the author of the novel, "Prayer at Rumayla." He is a former president of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

    Discuss this story!

  • freedom96
    freedom96

    First of all, I do believe that there are two sides to every story.

    Was it tragic that some of the events listed in this article happened? Of course. But to say that is always what happens is too extreme.

    How many times have known, confessed criminals gotten away with murder because they "were not read their rights?" It has happened many times. Why is no one complaining about that? I would imagine more people have gotten away with major crimes than have been " tortured" as the article claims.

    I have a neighbor that is a criminal defense attorney. According to him, there are MANY cases thrown out on obviously guilty case, because someone did not give him his rights.

    A criminal, before he is given his rights, can loudly proclaim that he is guilty, and how he did it, etc, and if he was not given his Miranda rights beforehand, none of what he says can be entered into court. Something wrong with that picture too.

    In my opinion, this article, while it may raise concerns, is not a balanced view from which to make an intelligent decision.

  • Sargon
    Sargon

    Good post Rob!

    I can't remember who said this but it was quoted in a Higgins novel ' All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'

    It's getting harder all the time to tell who the good guys are. Since Sept 11, there has been a gradual eroding of individual rights in America. I always shudder when I hear lawyers or politicians stating 'the end justifies the means'

  • Sargon
    Sargon

    Good post Rob!

    I can't remember who said this but it was quoted in a Higgins novel ' All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'

    It's getting harder all the time to tell who the good guys are. Since Sept 11, there has been a gradual eroding of individual rights in America. I always shudder when I hear lawyers or politicians stating 'the end justifies the means'

  • Trauma_Hound
    Trauma_Hound

    This story just sounds really fishy to me, since I've never heard about this case, in any news papers, or indy media, which I'm a member of, if it was, then there would be riots if it was as bad as this, and thusly making national headlines. That's why this sounds fishy. The ACLU would be all over this like white on rice. So please reference where this has been in mainstream media. Also it doesn't mention what police department, or what city it happened in, another clue that this is made up.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    And now, for the rest of the story....

    The 9 th Circuit is the most overturned Court in the history of the US.......

    STATEMENT

    1. On the evening of November 28, 1997, police officers Maria Pena and Andrew Salinas were investigating suspected narcotics activity near a vacant lot in Oxnard, California. Pet. App. 2a. While questioning an individual, they heard a bicycle approaching on the unlit path that crossed the lot. Officer Salinas ordered the rider, respondent Oliverio Martinez, to dismount, spread his legs, and place his hands behind his head. Respondent complied. Id. at 2a-3a.

    During a protective pat-down, Officer Salinas discovered a knife in respondent's waistband. Pet. App. 3a; C.A. App. 121. Salinas notified Pena and pulled respondent's hands from behind his head to place him in handcuffs. Salinas maintains that respondent attempted to flee; respondent claims that he offered no resistance and Salinas tackled him without provocation. A struggle ensued. Officers Salinas and Pena testified that respondent drew Salinas' pistol and pointed it at them (see C.A. App. 68-71, 183-185); respondent alleges that he grabbed Salinas' hand to stop him as he drew his pistol from its holster. Id. at 85. It is undisputed, however, that Officer Salinas shouted "[h]e's got my gun." Pet. App. 3a. Officer Pena drew her pistol and fired at respondent. One bullet struck respondent in the face, injuring his optic nerve and blinding him. Another bullet fractured a vertebra, paralyzing his legs. Three bullets struck his leg. The officers handcuffed respondent and called for assistance. Ibid.; C.A. App. 62.

    Petitioner Ben Chavez, a police sergeant and patrol supervisor, arrived at the scene a short time later along with paramedics. The handcuffs were removed from respondent. C.A. App. 271. After speaking with Salinas and Pena about what had happened, petitioner ordered Salinas and Pena separated so they would not discuss the incident. Id. at 39, 100, 116. Paramedics stabilized respondent for transport to a hospital emergency room. Petitioner accompanied respondent in the ambulance. Id. at 270, 275.

    After arriving at the hospital, and in the presence of medical personnel, petitioner conducted a tape-recorded interview of respondent "intermittently for approximately 45 minutes." Pet. App. 27a. Because petitioner periodically stopped questioning and waited outside the room as medical personnel treated respondent, the interview consumed only approximately 10 minutes of tape. See J.A. 6-20. Petitioner identified himself as a policeman and asked respondent to "tell [him] what happened." J.A. 9. Respondent answered that he had "fought" with the police but did not know why they had fought. Petitioner asked respondent whether he had "grab[bed] the gun of the other policeman." J.A. 9-10. Respondent said that he had "pulled the gun" from Salinas' holster (J.A. 13) and "pointed it" at the police. J.A. 14. Respondent complained repeatedly about pain, e.g., J.A. 8, 16, 17, 18, said that he wanted treatment, J.A. 12, 13, 17, 18, and stated several times that he believed he was dying. J.A. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19. In the middle of the interview, respondent said "I am not telling you anything until they treat me." J.A. 12. Petitioner responded that medical personnel were treating respondent and he wanted to get respondent's side of the story so he did not have to rely solely on Salinas' and Pena's description of events. J.A. 13. When respondent later said "I don't want to say anything anymore" (J.A. 17), petitioner asked respondent if he thought he was going to die (J.A. 18), assured him "the doctors are going to help you with all they can do" (J.A. 19), and ended the interview. Ibid. Near the end of the interview, respondent said that he had been drinking that day and had used heroin that evening. J.A. 15-16. It is undisputed that petitioner did not recite Miranda warnings. C.A. App. 113. Respondent has not been charged with any crime stemming from the incident.

    Edited by - thichi on 6 December 2002 12:21:47

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    Freedom,

    Thank you for your response. I agree, abuses have been made regarding the Miranda rights. BUT, does that mean that the rights should be taken away permanently?

    Is it better to execute a hundred people because we don't know which one of them is innocent or to let those people go to save that innocent person? Personally, I am on the side of saving the innocent.

    Without due process, we are all doomed. Innocent and guilty alike.

    Robyn

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    ""Respondent answered that he had "fought" with the police but did not know why they had fought. Petitioner asked respondent whether he had "grab[bed] the gun of the other policeman." J.A. 9-10. Respondent said that he had "pulled the gun" from Salinas' holster (J.A. 13) and "pointed it" at the police. ""

    Ha, yea, lets talk about Rights.........If this is your example of a "poster boy" for due process, then good luck!

    Edited by - thichi on 6 December 2002 12:29:23

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    TH said:

    So please reference where this has been in mainstream media

    The answer from the above article is:

    And, I ask, why is this news, and the broad impact it may have on liberty, limited to the Los Angeles Times and the alternative press?
    Robyn
  • Robdar
    Robdar
    Respondent has not been charged with any crime stemming from the incident

    So why haven't there been any charges filed against this guy?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit