Miranda – You probably don’t know what you’re talking about!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "state" and "court" are one in the same. The courts are the state.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a problem since it is the state which makes the law and is responsible for prosecution. The court used to remain impartial and presume innocence until guilt is proven.

I see your point though considering the courts are now making laws. No wonder more people are taking a stand for themselves and not wanting to roll the dice at a chance to prove themselves innocent.

I've had the fortune to meet some ultra-super impartial judges in my days. These are the single most honorable people I've ever met. I was happy that they existed and was thankful for their ability to see through to the truth. These kind of judges are for the good of the free state. When a prosectuted person is innocent that is persecution, when there is no protection from persection that is oppression. Where there is oppression there is enslavement.

Brownie, this is the first time I have ever disagreed with anything you've written. :confused: You feeling OK? ;)
 
I followed this thread with interest, but with your last post you move, IMHO, into the Tin Hat area.
Click to expand...

I love that expression... :D


You find cases like this by doing lots of research on the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Well, if you don't want to answer my question, you have the right to remain silent, and everything you've said so far has been used against you.

You might be good at research, Graystar, but your conclusions are a little bizarre.
:neener:

You still haven't told me how a god that doesn't exist grants Englishmen the right to bear arms.
 
Well, if you don't want to answer my question
Click to expand...
I did answer the question. Don't say I didn't answer simply because you don't like the answer. If you start doing a little research on the right to keep and bear arms you will come up with many links to cases all over the Internet. I even provide links to the two cases I referenced.
You still haven't told me how a god that doesn't exist grants Englishmen the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I stated that god granted our rights. And please don't point to my quoting the Declaration of Independence. First, from within the context of the discussion, it was clearly the "all men" part that was being emphasized. Second, I didn't write the Declaration of Independence. Those are not my words.
 
I did answer the question. Don't say I didn't answer simply because you don't like the answer. If you start doing a little research on the right to keep and bear arms you will come up with many links to cases all over the Internet.
Click to expand...

Yup, tin hat club.

You don't inspire me, graystar.

I have a new expression! :neener:
 
Tin Hats

"Tin Hat" territory is precisely where legal scholars should concentrate their research.

The purpose is to protect people even in a "worst case" scenario. Graystar is presenting a 1-4 case that *can* happen, but that does not necessarily happen every day. The founding father's were very paranoid, but the population has since become less so, and has suffered as a result.

As Caesar is claimed to have remarked during the Cataline Conspiracy:
"All bad precedents began as justifiable measures."

-Morgan
 
Innocence

The basis of not abusing arrested people is based on our belief that people are to be "assumed innocent until proven guilty" this should be the guiding action in all matters where the law interacts with the people.

If an LEO arrests you, he should arrest you as though he is arresting an innocent man who has done nothing wrong. If an LEOis interrogating you, he should interrogate you as though he is interrogating an innocent man. When the prosecutor is putting together his case, he should put together the case under the belief that he is prosecuting an innocent man.

In much the same way that we have the rule regarding "all firearms are always loaded" it is appropriate to treat "all citizens as innocent" until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I've witnessed two people getting arrested for crimes they did not commit, and I do not feel that they were treated as innocent, in one case the man was found guilty because a member of his jury pool was a former prosecutor who was "convinced he was guilty" and who proceeded to pressure the other jurors into finding him such.

It was asked whether we want to let guilty men go, the argument was presented that Miranda was a crook. The system is designed such that "100 guilty men go free rather than a single innocent man" be imprisoned. It is done this way on purpose.

If you behave as though "only other people" get arrested, if you assume that you will never be arrested, or that such things only happen to criminals, minorities, or that entire subset of "other people" you are prejudicing your responses. The judicial system should be arranged such that it treats ALL people as YOU would want to be treated if you were arrested for the same crime that you did NOT commit.

There was once an expression: "A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."
This is based on the various people's EMOTIONAL reactions to both such events.

Imagine how an LEO who knew of Jeff Cooper would treat Jeff Cooper if he were charged with arresting him, and you will know how the system should treat all accused criminals.

-Morgan
 
"If an LEO arrests you, he should arrest you as though he is arresting an innocent man who has done nothing wrong. If an LEO is interrogating you, he should interrogate you as though he is interrogating an innocent man. When the prosecutor is putting together his case, he should put together the case under the belief that he is prosecuting an innocent man."

I disagree with your wording, but not the thought behind it. I hope cops and DAs don't go after people they think are innocent, but those people should be treated as if they are. ("Innocent until proven guilty.")


"It was asked whether we want to let guilty men go, the argument was presented that Miranda was a crook. The system is designed such that "100 guilty men go free rather than a single innocent man be imprisoned." It is done this way on purpose."

I agree 100%, it's something we must live with. Besides, we are not discussing the fact that Mirande was not the best example of a citizen but how his case was handled.

"If you behave as though "only other people" get arrested, if you assume that you will never be arrested, or that such things only happen to criminals, minorities, or that entire subset of "other people" you are prejudicing your responses. The judicial system should be arranged such that it treats ALL people as YOU would want to be treated if you were arrested for the same crime that you did NOT commit."

Again, I agree 100%. Too many people prejudice their decisions with emotion when they should use facts.

Greystar started this thread (and I am sure he will correct me if wrong) on the premise that LEOs only explain Miranda rights so they can then go on and abuse the arrestee, stepping over the line even to the point of breaking the law. I can't say that never happened, or doesn't happen, but that's not why the Miranda rights were instituted. They were to protect people who didn't know their rights. Cops, BGs, and lawyers understand the system, Mr. Joe Citizen doesn't and when arrested is ushered into a strange new world. Maybe he should listen to the rights, ask for a lawyer, and then shut up. The interrogation process is SUPPOSED to stop at that point. If, after the rights, I can get him to sign the declaration at the top of the form and talk to me and admit his guilt, whose fault is it? His, for making a bad decision, or mine, for trying to get a conviction? If I stick a .38 in his ear to get his signature, I hope that will be rectified down the line and appropriate action taken against both of us. I THINK that is Greystar's point.
Don't be too hard on a guy who is reading the ideal situation and looking at a possible reality, I just hope he's wrong. If he's not, any competent lawyer should be able to handle it. He did a good job on the 2A thread about the Miller decision, so maybe a tin hat is a little harsh. Perhaps, in this case, aluminum foil.
 
Greystar started this thread (and I am sure he will correct me if wrong) on the premise that LEOs only explain Miranda rights so they can then go on and abuse the arrestee, stepping over the line even to the point of breaking the law. I can't say that never happened, or doesn't happen, but that's not why the Miranda rights were instituted.
Click to expand...
That’s Graystar. :)

I think that’s taking my premise to an extreme. I don’t believe that all LEOs are abusing the people they arrest. My premise related mainly to the words of the Supreme Court when they stated that statements from interrogations couldn’t be used unless safeguards are taken.

It is clear from their decision that they were very concerned about the rights of individuals. The problem is that, as has happened before, the Court made some mistakes.

The first was in their summary...
the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Click to expand...
To not being compelled to self-incriminate is a right, not a privilege.

The second mistake they made was in thinking that a warning would achieve their stated goal...
... unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Click to expand...
The court is essentially instructing the state to protect our right. However, as I’ve pointed out, the effect of the use of the warning has been to transfer this responsibility to the accused. That is to say, that, once warned, it is now incumbent upon the accused to prevent himself from being compelled to testify. This is a transfer that the court never intended.

Some people here have asserted that it’s your own fault if you incriminate yourself. I would like to give an example of an early Fifth Amendment case to demonstrate why this is not so. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the name of the case. It was from the 1890s, I believe, and if I find the reference to it I’ll be sure to post it.

This was a case of murder on the high seas. The accused was told that one of his shipmates claimed to witness the act from a specific vantage point. The accused, thinking he was making an exculpatory statement, said that the claim was false, as it would have been impossible for the witness to see him for that particular vantage point. This statement was presented to the court as a confession. The prosecution placed their own meaning on the words of the accused, stating that the words meant that there could be no witnesses to his murderous act. The accused attempted to clarify his statement, saying that his intended meaning was that the witness could not have physically seen himself or anyone else from that vantage point. With no physical evidence, the accused was convicted based on his “confessionâ€.

Fortunately, upon appeal the court saw the error in the use of the statement and vacated the verdict.

It so happens that I had the same exact technique used against me on a traffic ticket. However, the judge sided with the prosecution and I had to pay the fine. I appealed and lost, but I’m sure they spent a lot more on the appeal than the 53 bucks they got from me! :neener:
 
I think a lot of you are using the term coercion in too extreme a fashion. If someone understands his rights to silence, and then is told that the charges against him will be a felony unless he makes a statement, it makes perfect sense to me to "plead to a lesser", to the investigating officer. If the arrested person does ****, and the officer files felony charges against him it is going to cost him what?? 30,000$? and a year or better before it ends? The defense lawyers that get appointed by the court here are overworked and mainly incompetent, and if you have to rely on one his first suggestion is to plead guilty to a lesser offense and take a light sentence rather than gamble on a conviction. Regardless of your guilt or innocence.

Our system does not work for the average man, because he can not afford justice.
Trial by his peers? YES, pick the next twelve on the list, with the exemptions of family, friends, and business associates of involved parties, or health. NO other exemptions. (OK, exempt the guy that was already shot by the man being tried too)
The NEED for a lawyer at 300$ per hour to find loopholes in the law? No, if evidence should be excluded, or the trial should not continue, the judge should point it out. The judges job SHOULD be to see justice done, not to put people in jail.
Instructions to the jury? NO, The jury is there to make a judgement of right or wrong much more so than legal or illegal.
Plea bargain? ABSOLUTELY NOT, if the LEO has reason to arrest, and the prosecutor has reason to try him they should try him and punish him for what he did. They should not reduce the work load of the court by minimizing what he did.
Prior criminal record? Admit it as evidence, for the consideration of the jury.

Yes, I think silence is golden when arrested, and I will not speak. I will expect to have charges filed against me far in excess of what I might get if I made a statement. My statement to the judge "No, I will not plead to a lesser offense, and no thank you, I can not afford bond, so Judge, feed me and keep me warm for the next year."

And thank all of us taxpayers for our nice new jail:p
 
Graystar:

So this is why the thread and your rantings about the miranda and your thoughts and statements. You had to pay a traffic ticket. Were you guilty of an infraction, or did the cop just draw you out of the crowd of cars on the road and pick on you?

So you don't like the techniquies used by cops. Big deal. It would seem from your postings you of all poeple would nto fall for any of their antics. I hope you are not telling us after all your posting on this thread that you were sucked into their game, I would have thought you were smarter than that from your posts.

Now it's plain why your posts seem to have anger and frustration behind them.

Using a ruling from the high seas [ maritime law ] from 1890's is a bad example.

Maritime law diffes from us landlubbers. Always has, and continues to this day.

Brownie
 
So this is why the thread and your rantings about the miranda and your thoughts and statements.
Click to expand...
No, that was several years ago and it was a parking ticket, no Miranda warning was involved. It has nothing to do with the point I'm making about the responsibility to protect your right being shifted from the state to the accused because of the warning.

My thread was prompted by the Missouri v. Seibert and U.S. v. Patane cases that were recently argued before the Supreme Court, and also the Central Park Jogger case, where the teens that had "confessed" were actually innocent.

The arguments surrounding the confessions in these cases all revolved around the giving (or not giving) of Miranda warnings, when they *should* be revolving around whether or not the confessions were compelled. This is my point. As soon as the court decides whether or not Miranda was required, the validity of the confession will be established (one way or the other.) That is not the way it should be. The validity of the confession should depend solely on whether it was compelled, and nothing else.

The Seibert case will be interesting because it involves an officer's deliberate effort to sidestep Miranda.
Maritime law diffes from us landlubbers. Always has, and continues to this day.
Click to expand...
Maritime law? What about our rights?? Do we have different rights just because we're on a ship? :rolleyes:
 
Yes, the law of the high seas is and always has been different than land lubbers.

Maritime law has it's own set of rules and laws, some will be the same and others very different. Thats why there are maritime attys: that specialize in that field of representation. It takes specific knowledge not gleened by the average atty: in school.

If procedures were not followed by he officer, that will come out in pretrial or trial and be weighed as to their validity. That is an issue the courts have with the officer, the dept policies in force, and the defendant.

It has nothing to do with Miranda itself or it's own merits.

Miranda can and has been abused, that does not make the Miranda guidelines invalid or wrong, it means the system expects the courts and cops to uphold the decision and act in accordance with that law.

When cops overstep the law or act inappropriately, the law does not become less valid.

Brownie
 
Speaking of Maritime law.....

....did you know that the flag on in the court room is a maritime flag (has gold braid all around the edges)? That means that court has no jurisdiction on land!

(actually heard (heck, posted in their literature and news letters) by members of the tin beanie club!)

TBO
 
Graystar, I think you need to reread the opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court in Seibert, because it sure looks like a voluntariness analysis as to the post-Miranda statement. In fact, I would say that it contradicts your position. As to the 10th Circuit in Patane, I don't think they got to the voluntariness issue because of the determination that Miranda was violated.
 
Graystar, I think you need to reread the opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court in Seibert, because it sure looks like a voluntariness analysis as to the post-Miranda statement. In fact, I would say that it contradicts your position. As to the 10th Circuit in Patane, I don't think they got to the voluntariness issue because of the determination that Miranda was violated.
Click to expand...
Seibert is a perfect example of what I’ve been trying to say. The dissenting judge, Judge Benton, got it right when he said,

“…there is no evidence the police officer used any deliberately coercive tactics in eliciting Seibert's confession.â€

And herein lies the problem. The validity of the confession was based solely on the reading of Miranda, which has nothing to do with whether a right was actually violated or not. The validity of the confession, as Judge Benton points out, *should* have been based on whether it was compelled, not on whether a Miranda warning was given.

The Patane case is even more ridiculous. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled *testimony*, not evidence. It’s pretty clear that the statement was not compelled. Also, two other circuits have ruled otherwise in similar situations (which is probably why the Supreme Court is hearing the cases.) In this case, once again, the focus is not on whether the statement was compelled, but whether the warning was read. If the warning had been read then there would be no issue. That is completely wrong. The standard should be compulsion, not a reading.
 
Yes, the law of the high seas is and always has been different than land lubbers.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask about law. I ask about rights. Are you saying the rights we have are different? That I don't have the right to free expression, or even a right to live, while on a ship??
 
I'm not an admiralty esquire, there are many differences.

To be knowledgeable in maritime law and due process on shore woud require a lifetime to reading, trying and defending cases, then you may only know 30% of it.

Maritime law is very old and has strict protocols which are necessary to maintain order.

I'm more concerned, however, with your statements alluding to the detainees.
You think they have rights?

They are an enemy of the state, of every American wherever they are, who would take any opportunity to kill you for being an American. That seems to be one of the biggest problems with the US liberalisitic mentality, that everyone has rights.

Where they come from they don't get the rights we enjoy here in this country as Americans as well as foreigners on visa. This way of idealistic life we have is going down the toilet because people think we need to be touchy feeley with everyone.

You turn the other cheek and you get 9-11. You keep turning the other cheek and you get to be no longer and American living the American way of life as our forefathers saw it. We'll become the military state everyone claims we have now.

Instead if we had kicked some butt over there in 91 and continued to solve the underlying problems we wouldn't have had 9-11. The US better wake up so that measures can be put in place for this country to hold itself out as the top dog, not to be messed with or you get hunted down and killed.

They don't like it? Other countries don't like it, tough. Live or die without us, I don't really care. There are people out there by the countries that would love to see the US fall to their knees and would strike at us every chance they get. They have proven this time and again so it's not hypothetical.

I say get back to some preemptive basics of survival. You know they are hunting you, so you hunt them first. As we have better technologies than they, we win by striking them first through intelligence.

Want to see the world really sit up and change their ideas about the US? Shoulda dropped a nuke on Affie, turned the remaining population into tattle tails unless they wanted some more.

You will never reap what our forefathers hoped for in the writings until the world knows, sh%t in our sandbox and you'll cease to exist. No exceptions.

Then we might have a chance of getting back to what this country was all about 50 years ago.

You think they are being abused at gitmo? Deprived of something? They've never had it so good as when we mistakenly allowed them to live in lieu of bringing them near our homeland.

So to my thinking, the liberal thought process has us where we are today, and they clamour for more by shouting "the poor terrorists rights are being violated"

Makes me sick to my stomach to know I fought in a war for the ideals of this country and that those ideals are not threatened from abraod but from within.

Brownie
 
Apples and oranges

Man, you just won't let this go........... Now I think the 2 issues are apples and oranges.
1) Cops are taught that custody (you are not free to leave) AND questions require the Miranda warning, and then any answers to questions will be admissable. Without those 2 together it's not required. If you sit in the car with an open door (Delancy clause) and answer questions, it's admissable. If you are in custody and shoot your mouth off before I can read the warning and ask you questions, it's admissable (see Rae Gestae). BUT the custody AND questioning require the Miranda, if I want the answers to be admissable. "Please sign the top of the form..."
2) I have a problem with your "compelling" testimony. If I feed you misinformation, even lie to you, about what your buddy is confessing to in the next room and trying to pin it on you, it's OK. If you then spill your guts AFTER the warning it's admissable. Is that "compelling" testimony? Maybe it's a trick, maybe you don't like it. It's admissable.
3) So, listen to the warning, say "I want a lawyer", and SHUT UP.
4) If I FORCE you to talk, it would (and should) cost the badge. What does that have to do with Miranda? If you choose to remain silent and I FORCE testimony, I obviously don't care about the law, your rights, or Miranda.
5) If I present your signed Miranda card and your signed confession to the judge he probably won't see any problem. If I FORCED them from you, you better talk to the lawyer I told you you could have. If I convinced you to sign them through any of the investigative techniques taught to LEOs, see #3 above.
 
Man, you just won't let this go........... Now I think the 2 issues are apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
That's right, I won't let this go because of people that think as you do. You think that anything a person says after being given the warning is his own fault. He should have shut up. But you are wrong.
Maybe it's a trick, maybe you don't like it. It's admissable.
Click to expand...
With that view, you have placed the responsibility for the protection of the person's right upon the person himself, when that responsibility actually remains with the state.

The simple fact is that the police are not supposed to try to get you to say anything. "Get you to" is the definition of “compelâ€! (To cause to do.)
4) If I FORCE you to talk, it would (and should) cost the badge. What does that have to do with Miranda?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
That is the point of the discussion. You can force someone to talk, but then claim the confession is voluntary simply because you had given the Miranda Warning.
3) So, listen to the warning, say "I want a lawyer", and SHUT UP.

If I convinced you to sign them through any of the investigative techniques taught to LEOs, see #3 above.
Click to expand...
I’d think that at this point it’s a little too late for that.
 
"With that view, you have placed the responsibility for the protection of the person's right upon the person himself, when that responsibility actually remains with the state."

Not quite. The states burden was only to inform you of those rights only. Once you understood them, the police, courts and state no longer have a responsibility to the citizens exercising his right to speak. Thats with full knowledge that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. I'm not sure thats so hard to understand.

Even smart guys are tricked into talking after miranda. The states responsibility to keep you from self incriminating has been met by miranda. Miranda is a warning. Those foolish enough not to pay attention to the warning are like that fish I told you about earlier. They get caught before they get to be big fish. Thats not the states fault if mirandization has taken place.

Brownie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Hollywood’s Patriots Step Up to the Plate
Replies
15
Views
712
2dogs
2
D
  • Locked
‘Shoot Me!’ (I don't know about this fellow...)
Replies
20
Views
963
Yowza
Y
G
  • Locked
Please Don’t allow Col. West to “stand alone.â€
Replies
15
Views
593
gunsmith
G
2
  • Locked
Let’s quit the UN
Replies
2
Views
545
Steel
S
6
  • Locked
Miranda rights for suspects
Replies
4
Views
650
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top