The problem is that people do not know of their rights. Hence, we have to tell them. Personally, I love the 5th Ammendment (even if I cannot spell it correctly).
Shoot First, Ask Questions Later
by Robdar 46 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ThiChi
To go from what happened in this case to "Miranda Rights" are gone, is a really big leap, IMHO. His story confirms the Police version. So what?
With respect, even your topic "headline" Shoot First....... is just rubbish, when you examine the facts.
Edited by - thichi on 6 December 2002 13:15:17
Edited by - thichi on 6 December 2002 13:19:19
-
Trauma_Hound
I don't think the miranda rights, would apply in this case, I think they would go after them for unlawful detainment, or something like that.
-
ThiChi
TH: Now, you are heading on the right path..........I agree this may play a part.
When a cop asks a question I do not like, I always ask respectfully, "Are my answers to your questions mandatory or voluntary?" They must respond "voluntary." Then I may reply: "I choose not to volunteer, can I go now?" If a cop replies "Mandatory," ask, "please show me in the law where it is mandatory that I must answer your questions." He will not be able to show you.....
Edited by - thichi on 6 December 2002 13:32:36
-
Iwasyoungonce
ThiChi I wanted to add that in the article that I read (Maybe Wall Street Journal) the man shot also had a knife (sheathed) under his shirt. And (like you) I also read that he was trying to get the officers gun. He was shot by the other officer. As I read it, the argument is that if you say to the cops that you don't want to talk then they HAVE to leave you alone. Pleading the 5th means that you have the right to stay silent. I have not read where that means that the cops have to be silent. And the argument was over if medical care was being withheld and the anwer is again no. The cops left when told so by medical staff at the hospital. If this guy was minding his own business and got pissed at the cops and got paralized and blinded for being in the wrong place that is just wrong.Was his 5th (civil rights) violated we will see. But in my ordinary uneducated American citizen opinion, nope.
Here is a tip fighting with the cops is always a bad idea. Going for their gun that is suicide.
I guess some people will have to go back to the drawing board to sling mud at President Bush this one is not going to stick. I do not think that we are in a police state nor do I think that is what his intent is.
-
ThiChi
Iwasyoungonce: Good observations and points. I agree 100%
-
Trauma_Hound
Miranda rights only play a role, when they are actually charging you with a crime, and your in court, any evidence, like what you said, can't be used against you, if they haven't read you, your rights, this hasn't happened in this case, so I don't see how miranda rights apply. Who cares if he had a knife, they don't say what kind of knife it is. Weapons laws are so stupid in the US. For instance, in the city of seattly you can't carry a blade over 6 inchs, maybe less then that actually, might be 4 inches, don't remember. However it's perfectly legal to carry a sword. Guess how many sword welding wackos have been on the news? At least 2 that I can remember.
-
Elsewhere
The cops screwed up royally... I HATE the way cops "can" grab any person, slam him on the ground, and search him with a gun to his head. The courts have let them do this for a long time and it is wrong.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentivAmendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
-
Trauma_Hound
Exactly Elsewhere, that's why I think this could be unlawful detainment, not a miranda rights violation.
-
borgfree
Just want to mention, the Miranda ruling has only been around less than 40 years. We did not do too bad before that ruling.
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA
June 13, 1966, Decided
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Miranda/
Borgfree