Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4

[CrusaderFrank]

If Al Qaeda isn't free to commit mass murder, are any of us truly free?

 

[Bfgrn]

If Al Qaeda isn't free to commit mass murder, are any of us truly free?

Great point Frank...here's what you need to do. Gather up all the statist you can find and empower the glorious and always rightful 'state' to pass a Patriot Act that removes individaul freedoms and liberties in exchange for the security of the collective. And while you're at it; the state shouldn't be burdened with seeking a warrant to wiretap anyone's phone conversations or intercepting their e-mails.

And of course, if someone is captured, and the agent of the state SAYS they are a terrorist, then there really is no need to go any farther with any rights or protections. The 'state' says they are a terrorist, so that should be good enough!!!

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

 

[Liability]

So what you don't like is the exclusionary rule?

That's a kind of an obtuse question, GC. No one answer fits all scenarios.

If the suspect DOES properly invoke his right to remain silent but the officer persists in questioning the suspect anyway, damn skippy I believe the exclusionary rule should apply to prevent the prosecution from making use of that statement (at least on the government's case in chief).

By contrast (in a world where the Miranda rules still applies), if the cops GIVE the suspect his warnings and the dope decides to stand mute for some moment in time but later elects (without being forced in any way) to chatter about things that implicate him, then not only does that NOT qualify in my book as a Constitutional violation of any of his rights, but nothing should be excluded on that basis!

Not obtuse at all. For all your bluster I'm 100% positive you've read the case and probably at least some of its progeny and understand its impact. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is about Miranda that offends you so much. The rules are the rules, and the rules that spring from Miranda do in fact apply to all custodial situations.

The problem is the scenario you describe was pretty much the status quo before this decision. If a suspect invoked his right to be silent by his silence, only HE could initiate further questioning and have what he says be admissable. If he's an idiot and decides to blab, that's all on him. And as you know that hasn't changed, except he can no longer invoke his right to silent by being silent.

I guess I'm confused as to the basis of your opinion, since you seem to be all for it in some situations but not in others.

I have already answered that question.

The Miranda rule is entirely made-up by a Court and although it has weak linkage back to the Constitution, it is NOT a rule that the Constitution actually calls for. The effect of that judicial legislating is that actual criminals who have made the mistake of yabbering too much -- thereby implicating themselves enough to perhaps get their asses convicted -- nevertheless get the benefit of having their statements excluded as evidence against them. THEY of all people get a benefit (totally unwarranted) and the rest of us are blessed with the privilege of not having them convicted and excluded from our presence for a while. Society's loss is certainly their gain.

And you are wrong too in your legal analysis. If a suspect allegedly invoked his right to remain silent only by being quiet (but not verbalizing his desire to take advantage of the privilege) then he could speak after the passage of some time whether or not he initiated the communication. The problem was that some courts found it necessary to entirely exclude such subsequent statements MERELY because the suspect had been quiet (without explicitly claiming the right to remain quiet). That's crazy. There's no valid CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to exclude whatever a suspect says at that point.

The exclusionary rule being applied to that situation is absolutely without ANY basis in rational Constitutional analysis. I don't care what Courts may have layered over this topic. Cutting through all of their inappropriate legislating gets us back to the one real question: Does the Constitution, itself, require that a statement taken from some talkative, guilty, dumbass criminal suspect must be excluded? The answer is (or OUGHT to be) "no way."

 

[Liability]

If Al Qaeda isn't free to commit mass murder, are any of us truly free?

Great point Frank...here's what you need to do. Gather up all the statist you can find and empower the glorious and always rightful 'state' to pass a Patriot Act that removes individaul freedoms and liberties in exchange for the security of the collective. And while you're at it; the state shouldn't be burdened with seeking a warrant to wiretap anyone's phone conversations or intercepting their e-mails.

And of course, if someone is captured, and the agent of the state SAYS they are a terrorist, then there really is no need to go any farther with any rights or protections. The 'state' says they are a terrorist, so that should be good enough!!!

Except, of course, as always, it is tools like you, Bfgrn, who are the statists. And, also, your premise is bullshit. The USA PATRIOT Act (which Frank is not even a proponent of, you schmuck) absolutely does NOT (as you erroneously and stupidly contend) "remove[] individaul [sic] freedoms and liberties . . . ." It doesn't remove ANY.

And accidentally (because you are too stupid to understand what you are saying) you DID grunt out (in your pathetic way, relying on sarcasm) the correct answer. Yes, in fact, the Government absolutely SHOULD be able to intercept the communications of some people without a warrant.

Idiots like you, robotic liberoids unable to think independently of the crap spewed by the Daily Kos, the DU or George Soros, are completely clueless as to how and why that is a perfectly valid assertion. You are unequipped to draw principled distinctions. You are wetting your panties over the ridiculous "slippery slope" canard so fully that you actually believe that rule (no warrantless searches) is a one size fits all absolute. It never was. It still isn't.

And no matter how often this is pointed out to you pinheads, you are too blind and stupid to perceive any portion of reality even when laid out before your myopic eyes.

 

[Liability]

That's quite a wish list. No surprise I disagree with most of it. But what the hell, it's politics not personal.

And you're right, that is what you said. I was under the impression you were talking about the rights of the accused associated with the decision. So what exactly is it about Miranda that makes it "insane" in your opinion?

It is insane to reward the stupid criminal who says stupid incriminating things by disallowing the use of the stupid incriminating things he has said to be used against him as evidence in his prosecution. This serves not only to reward him but to punish society. And over what? Over the fact that a police officer has not educated the stupid and ignorant suspect about the law -- which the suspect should be legally presumed to know in the first place.

I don't want the judicial branch to tell the executive branch law enforcement officers HOW to do their jobs PARTICULARLY when they are thereby legislating from the bench and imposing a school teacher duty on those police officers. That also is a violation of one of the basic precepts of our limited government -- that the executive branch does the enforcement thing, the legislative branch does the legislating thing and the judicial branch should limit itself to judiciously serving as mere umpires.

Liability (to humanity and reason)... you go WAY beyond the label of a devout statist, which you ARE. You don't even believe in the presumption of innocence. You already have the person arrested a CRIMINAL.

Criminal
crim·i·nal
–adjective
2. guilty of crime.

Antonyms
1. lawful. 2. innocent.

To a TRULY devout statist, the state is ALWAYS right, thus, when an agent of that state arrests a private individual, the ARE guilty...

You are the biggest IDIOT on the planet...

I understand that you are mentally retarded, so I shouldn't express too much contempt for you or for your inability to be logical. But even retards ought to be honest. Since you aren't, you deserve only contempt.

Again, it is YOU who is the statist. Assholes like you fully trust the nanny state to do all things FOR you and only challenge the powers and abilities of the state when it might interfere with your personal (selfish) interests.

Folks like me who are opposed to statism (you being a prime example of statist, of course) realize something which retards like you are unable to grasp. That for those things which we collectively ASK the government to attend to (like national security, police work, the judicial system, mail delivery, etc), we would be kind of silly to deny them the ability to get those things done.

Now, since you are so tragically retarded, I am compelled to state the obvious. ANY person arrested is PRESUMED in the eyes of the law to be innocent. But here's the thing retards like you cannot grasp: despite the legal presumption, it is often the case that these folks ARE actually guilty. Morons of your low intellect cannot handle this notion, so again, I have to state the obvious.

If some complete scumbag asshole, let's call him "B," decides that he is just too impoverished to go on like this, and decides on that basis that he just has to go rob a bank (using a gun he bought off of some other criminal on the street), and then B goes ahead and does exactly that killing a bank guard in the process and making off with $5,000.00, sometimes such idiots leave enough of a trail behind to make them suspects. The police do their thing and follow the leads. Pretty soon, they detain B for questioning. In fact, let's make this simpler. They arrest B (with probable cause) for the felony murder, the armed robbery, the gun possession and for the possession of stolen property.

At that moment, in the eyes of the law B is PRESUMED to be INNOCENT. That is as it should be.

In your retarded universe, asshole, that MAKES him actually innocent. But you are just a retard, so you need to be educated. He is NOT actually innocent. Nevertheless, he is ENTITLED to be treated with all the protections we would want him to be given EXACTLY AS THOUGH he were innocent and the police had screwed up and arrested the wrong man.

Agreeing that B should be arrested does not make me a statist, you moron. Agreeing that he SHOULD be able to be questioned (albeit properly, without coercion) does not make me or anyone who agrees with me on that point a statist, either.

Spouting that he is presumed innocent doesn't help your illogical argument in any way, you pathetic retard, since nobody disagrees with the application of the presumption of innocence. You don't get to speak for me at all, much less when you must rely on your lies to make your arguments. I am fully in favor of the presumption of innocence. Unlike you (and other retards with your tragically flawed ability to grasp basic concepts), however, I and many others appreciate what the 'presumption of innocence' actually means.

In short, you dishonest retard, nothing I have said makes ME a statist. You remain the actual statist.

And you still don't have the foggiest notion of what "statist" actually means.

 

[Bfgrn]

If Al Qaeda isn't free to commit mass murder, are any of us truly free?

Great point Frank...here's what you need to do. Gather up all the statist you can find and empower the glorious and always rightful 'state' to pass a Patriot Act that removes individaul freedoms and liberties in exchange for the security of the collective. And while you're at it; the state shouldn't be burdened with seeking a warrant to wiretap anyone's phone conversations or intercepting their e-mails.

And of course, if someone is captured, and the agent of the state SAYS they are a terrorist, then there really is no need to go any farther with any rights or protections. The 'state' says they are a terrorist, so that should be good enough!!!

Except, of course, as always, it is tools like you, Bfgrn, who are the statists. And, also, your premise is bullshit. The USA PATRIOT Act (which Frank is not even a proponent of, you schmuck) absolutely does NOT (as you erroneously and stupidly contend) "remove[] individaul [sic] freedoms and liberties . . . ." It doesn't remove ANY.

And accidentally (because you are too stupid to understand what you are saying) you DID grunt out (in your pathetic way, relying on sarcasm) the correct answer. Yes, in fact, the Government absolutely SHOULD be able to intercept the communications of some people without a warrant.

Idiots like you, robotic liberoids unable to think independently of the crap spewed by the Daily Kos, the DU or George Soros, are completely clueless as to how and why that is a perfectly valid assertion. You are unequipped to draw principled distinctions. You are wetting your panties over the ridiculous "slippery slope" canard so fully that you actually believe that rule (no warrantless searches) is a one size fits all absolute. It never was. It still isn't.

And no matter how often this is pointed out to you pinheads, you are too blind and stupid to perceive any portion of reality even when laid out before your myopic eyes.

You're right, what gives me the right as an individual citizen to question the wisdom and rightful power of the state. I must be some robotic liberoid! If the state says it absolutely SHOULD be able to intercept the communications of some people without a warrant, who am I to question that. I'll try harder to avoid any Soros' induced 'slippery slopes'. I know, I will play a recorded subliminal message while I sleep

'The state is never wrong'
'The state is never wrong'
'The state is never wrong'
'The state is never wrong'
'The state......................'
'The state......................'
'The state......................'

BTW...Are you aware YET, that ALL you've done on this thread is defend the STATE over the individual citizen?

March 22, 2005
ACLU Joins Conservatives to Restore Freedoms Lost Under Patriot Act; "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances" Hopes to Shape National Dialogue

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [email protected]

WASHINGTON -The American Civil Liberties Union said today that it has joined forces with the several conservative organizations to fix the most extreme provisions of the Patriot Act, some of which are scheduled to "sunset," or expire, at the end of the year. Former Congressman Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia, will chair the new group, "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances," which includes Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union and others.

"Commitment to America's freedoms transcends any political ideology," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The Patriot Act went too far, too fast, and now is the time to determine what freedoms have been unnecessarily lost in the name of national security. Now is the time for Congress to restore those freedoms."

The new organization is urging Congress to thoroughly review the most intrusive and constitutionally suspect provisions of the Patriot Act. Specifically, the act allows federal agents to gather highly personal information -- including library, medical and gun purchase records-- without criminal suspicion, permits secret searches of homes and businesses with indefinite notification, and expands the definition of domestic terrorism to potentially include political protest.

"Checks and balances are absolutely essential, even and especially during times of threat," Barr said. "Our message is universal: liberty is not divisible, even in the face of terrorism, and we must not allow any part of it to be sacrificed in our efforts to defeat acts of terrorism."

The growing list of member organizations includes -- in addition to the ACLU, the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Free Congress Foundation, the American Policy Center, Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

 

[FA_Q2]

That ambiguity is exactly the type of thing that leads to defense cases like this where the lawyer is not attempting to prove innocence at all, just challenging the system and getting a criminal off that way.

Need I remind you that it is not incumbent upon the defense to prove innocence? Rather, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove anything. All the defense has to do is raise a reasonable doubt.

"Challenging the system" is PRECISELY what we do.

If you have a problem with "getting a guilty person off on a technicality," I would suggest that you subscribe to the English system of criminal justice. We have a different system here.

No, it is the pursuit of EVIDENCE and the defense casts doubt on or explains that EVIDENCE that makes a trial, not attacking the system or process. The fact that you believe that is about the system and not the evidence is telling of how far our judicial system has slid from its path. Our legal system was NEVER designed to get criminals off on technicalities. I addressed the innocent before guilty in my last post. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt but casting that shadow by playing the system and NOT challenging the evidence itself is a moronic way to chase justice.

 

[Liability]

Great point Frank...here's what you need to do. Gather up all the statist you can find and empower the glorious and always rightful 'state' to pass a Patriot Act that removes individaul freedoms and liberties in exchange for the security of the collective. And while you're at it; the state shouldn't be burdened with seeking a warrant to wiretap anyone's phone conversations or intercepting their e-mails.

And of course, if someone is captured, and the agent of the state SAYS they are a terrorist, then there really is no need to go any farther with any rights or protections. The 'state' says they are a terrorist, so that should be good enough!!!

Except, of course, as always, it is tools like you, Bfgrn, who are the statists. And, also, your premise is bullshit. The USA PATRIOT Act (which Frank is not even a proponent of, you schmuck) absolutely does NOT (as you erroneously and stupidly contend) "remove[] individaul [sic] freedoms and liberties . . . ." It doesn't remove ANY.

And accidentally (because you are too stupid to understand what you are saying) you DID grunt out (in your pathetic way, relying on sarcasm) the correct answer. Yes, in fact, the Government absolutely SHOULD be able to intercept the communications of some people without a warrant.

Idiots like you, robotic liberoids unable to think independently of the crap spewed by the Daily Kos, the DU or George Soros, are completely clueless as to how and why that is a perfectly valid assertion. You are unequipped to draw principled distinctions. You are wetting your panties over the ridiculous "slippery slope" canard so fully that you actually believe that rule (no warrantless searches) is a one size fits all absolute. It never was. It still isn't.

And no matter how often this is pointed out to you pinheads, you are too blind and stupid to perceive any portion of reality even when laid out before your myopic eyes.

You're right, what gives me the right as an individual citizen to question the wisdom and rightful power of the state.

Bfgrn, you stupid liar, there you go lying again. YOu are too stupid to see how transparent you've become.

But to highlight it for you, you retarded liar, let's put your stupid dishonest ass to the test:

Find ANY quote where I EVER said or even suggested that you don't have a right to question the government. Provide the quote WITH link or admit that you are just a liar, you deliberate fraud.

I must be some robotic liberoid! If the state says it absolutely SHOULD be able to intercept the communications of some people without a warrant, who am I to question that. I'll try harder to avoid any Soros' induced 'slippery slopes'. I know, I will play a recorded subliminal message while I sleep

'The state is never wrong'
'The state is never wrong'
'The state is never wrong'
'The state is never wrong'
'The state......................'
'The state......................'
'The state......................'

As I said before you have just re-established that you are too shallow, dishonest and stupid to draw distinctions.

Let's highlight your stupidity (and/or your dishonesty) on that point to, shall we? Yes. We shall. This might take a little back and forth, though.

Pretty basic question, you schmuck. Try to be honest and responsive. Short sweet and to the point ought to suffice. Give that a try. Here it is: In your infinite wisdom, are you contending that there is never a valid time or set of circumstances that authorizes the Government to conduct a search (such as an electronic communications intercept) without first obtaining a warrant?

BTW...Are you aware YET, that ALL you've done on this thread is defend the STATE over the individual citizen? * * * *

I AM aware that you are a compulsive liar. Your question presumes a fact which is (on its face) a lie. Sorry. You earn no bonus points by such illogical and dishonest debate, you shithead. But let's turn your dishonest "question" around on your stupid ass.

Are you aware that you have yet (ever, so far as I can recall) to defend the power or authority of the state to act with regard to criminal suspects? In your tiny little prick-ish mind, is there ANYTHING the State has a legitimate right to do, or ARE you working for 60 Minutes?

 

[Bfgrn]

It is insane to reward the stupid criminal who says stupid incriminating things by disallowing the use of the stupid incriminating things he has said to be used against him as evidence in his prosecution. This serves not only to reward him but to punish society. And over what? Over the fact that a police officer has not educated the stupid and ignorant suspect about the law -- which the suspect should be legally presumed to know in the first place.

I don't want the judicial branch to tell the executive branch law enforcement officers HOW to do their jobs PARTICULARLY when they are thereby legislating from the bench and imposing a school teacher duty on those police officers. That also is a violation of one of the basic precepts of our limited government -- that the executive branch does the enforcement thing, the legislative branch does the legislating thing and the judicial branch should limit itself to judiciously serving as mere umpires.

Liability (to humanity and reason)... you go WAY beyond the label of a devout statist, which you ARE. You don't even believe in the presumption of innocence. You already have the person arrested a CRIMINAL.

Criminal
crim·i·nal
–adjective
2. guilty of crime.

Antonyms
1. lawful. 2. innocent.

To a TRULY devout statist, the state is ALWAYS right, thus, when an agent of that state arrests a private individual, the ARE guilty...

You are the biggest IDIOT on the planet...

I understand that you are mentally retarded, so I shouldn't express too much contempt for you or for your inability to be logical. But even retards ought to be honest. Since you aren't, you deserve only contempt.

Again, it is YOU who is the statist. Assholes like you fully trust the nanny state to do all things FOR you and only challenge the powers and abilities of the state when it might interfere with your personal (selfish) interests.

Folks like me who are opposed to statism (you being a prime example of statist, of course) realize something which retards like you are unable to grasp. That for those things which we collectively ASK the government to attend to (like national security, police work, the judicial system, mail delivery, etc), we would be kind of silly to deny them the ability to get those things done.

Now, since you are so tragically retarded, I am compelled to state the obvious. ANY person arrested is PRESUMED in the eyes of the law to be innocent. But here's the thing retards like you cannot grasp: despite the legal presumption, it is often the case that these folks ARE actually guilty. Morons of your low intellect cannot handle this notion, so again, I have to state the obvious.

If some complete scumbag asshole, let's call him "B," decides that he is just too impoverished to go on like this, and decides on that basis that he just has to go rob a bank (using a gun he bought off of some other criminal on the street), and then B goes ahead and does exactly that killing a bank guard in the process and making off with $5,000.00, sometimes such idiots leave enough of a trail behind to make them suspects. The police do their thing and follow the leads. Pretty soon, they detain B for questioning. In fact, let's make this simpler. They arrest B (with probable cause) for the felony murder, the armed robbery, the gun possession and for the possession of stolen property.

At that moment, in the eyes of the law B is PRESUMED to be INNOCENT. That is as it should be.

In your retarded universe, asshole, that MAKES him actually innocent. But you are just a retard, so you need to be educated. He is NOT actually innocent. Nevertheless, he is ENTITLED to be treated with all the protections we would want him to be given EXACTLY AS THOUGH he were innocent and the police had screwed up and arrested the wrong man.

Agreeing that B should be arrested does not make me a statist, you moron. Agreeing that he SHOULD be able to be questioned (albeit properly, without coercion) does not make me or anyone who agrees with me on that point a statist, either.

Spouting that he is presumed innocent doesn't help your illogical argument in any way, you pathetic retard, since nobody disagrees with the application of the presumption of innocence. You don't get to speak for me at all, much less when you must rely on your lies to make your arguments. I am fully in favor of the presumption of innocence. Unlike you (and other retards with your tragically flawed ability to grasp basic concepts), however, I and many others appreciate what the 'presumption of innocence' actually means.

In short, you dishonest retard, nothing I have said makes ME a statist. You remain the actual statist.

And you still don't have the foggiest notion of what "statist" actually means.

I don't need to speak for you, you are doing a great job all by yourself...

Actually, devout statist Liability; "B" IS innocent. The burden of proof always lies totally on the state to prove otherwise, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But why should our beloved and glorious state be bothered with all that legal gobbly gook. We already know he is a 'complete scumbag asshole too impoverished to go on'...just shoot the fucker!

But I sure am glad you cleared up what statism really is.

So, if a mother gets public assistance to feed her children or has a government worker remove rats from her building, and you support THAT, you're a statist...

BUT if agents of the beloved and righteous state arrest, handcuff, incarcerate or execute human beings, then we need to step aside, keep our mouths shut and just trust the beloved and righteous state do their righteous and glorious duty.

Hey maybe we can kill two birds with one stone...make poverty, hunger and living with rats a CRIME!

SOLVED!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In affirming the conviction, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that because law enforcement officers did not question the defendants, there was no compulsion to speak and their silence was therefore proper evidence of guilt at trial.130 The Eighth Circuit noted that there may be circumstances where compulsion may exist so as to warrant a finding that the use of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence would be impermissible, but under the facts before the court, such comment on silence was permitted.131

Because the guy did not get angry and resist arrest, that is evidence that he is guilty of something else? How the fuck does that make any sense?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a kind of an obtuse question, GC. No one answer fits all scenarios.

If the suspect DOES properly invoke his right to remain silent but the officer persists in questioning the suspect anyway, damn skippy I believe the exclusionary rule should apply to prevent the prosecution from making use of that statement (at least on the government's case in chief).

By contrast (in a world where the Miranda rules still applies), if the cops GIVE the suspect his warnings and the dope decides to stand mute for some moment in time but later elects (without being forced in any way) to chatter about things that implicate him, then not only does that NOT qualify in my book as a Constitutional violation of any of his rights, but nothing should be excluded on that basis!

Not obtuse at all. For all your bluster I'm 100% positive you've read the case and probably at least some of its progeny and understand its impact. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is about Miranda that offends you so much. The rules are the rules, and the rules that spring from Miranda do in fact apply to all custodial situations.

The problem is the scenario you describe was pretty much the status quo before this decision. If a suspect invoked his right to be silent by his silence, only HE could initiate further questioning and have what he says be admissable. If he's an idiot and decides to blab, that's all on him. And as you know that hasn't changed, except he can no longer invoke his right to silent by being silent.

I guess I'm confused as to the basis of your opinion, since you seem to be all for it in some situations but not in others.

I have already answered that question.

The Miranda rule is entirely made-up by a Court and although it has weak linkage back to the Constitution, it is NOT a rule that the Constitution actually calls for. The effect of that judicial legislating is that actual criminals who have made the mistake of yabbering too much -- thereby implicating themselves enough to perhaps get their asses convicted -- nevertheless get the benefit of having their statements excluded as evidence against them. THEY of all people get a benefit (totally unwarranted) and the rest of us are blessed with the privilege of not having them convicted and excluded from our presence for a while. Society's loss is certainly their gain.

And you are wrong too in your legal analysis. If a suspect allegedly invoked his right to remain silent only by being quiet (but not verbalizing his desire to take advantage of the privilege) then he could speak after the passage of some time whether or not he initiated the communication. The problem was that some courts found it necessary to entirely exclude such subsequent statements MERELY because the suspect had been quiet (without explicitly claiming the right to remain quiet). That's crazy. There's no valid CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to exclude whatever a suspect says at that point.

The exclusionary rule being applied to that situation is absolutely without ANY basis in rational Constitutional analysis. I don't care what Courts may have layered over this topic. Cutting through all of their inappropriate legislating gets us back to the one real question: Does the Constitution, itself, require that a statement taken from some talkative, guilty, dumbass criminal suspect must be excluded? The answer is (or OUGHT to be) "no way."

The Constitution itself does not say anything about murder, does that mean that all the laws against it are unconstitutional?

 

[Intense]

Not obtuse at all. For all your bluster I'm 100% positive you've read the case and probably at least some of its progeny and understand its impact. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is about Miranda that offends you so much. The rules are the rules, and the rules that spring from Miranda do in fact apply to all custodial situations.

The problem is the scenario you describe was pretty much the status quo before this decision. If a suspect invoked his right to be silent by his silence, only HE could initiate further questioning and have what he says be admissable. If he's an idiot and decides to blab, that's all on him. And as you know that hasn't changed, except he can no longer invoke his right to silent by being silent.

I guess I'm confused as to the basis of your opinion, since you seem to be all for it in some situations but not in others.

I have already answered that question.

The Miranda rule is entirely made-up by a Court and although it has weak linkage back to the Constitution, it is NOT a rule that the Constitution actually calls for. The effect of that judicial legislating is that actual criminals who have made the mistake of yabbering too much -- thereby implicating themselves enough to perhaps get their asses convicted -- nevertheless get the benefit of having their statements excluded as evidence against them. THEY of all people get a benefit (totally unwarranted) and the rest of us are blessed with the privilege of not having them convicted and excluded from our presence for a while. Society's loss is certainly their gain.

And you are wrong too in your legal analysis. If a suspect allegedly invoked his right to remain silent only by being quiet (but not verbalizing his desire to take advantage of the privilege) then he could speak after the passage of some time whether or not he initiated the communication. The problem was that some courts found it necessary to entirely exclude such subsequent statements MERELY because the suspect had been quiet (without explicitly claiming the right to remain quiet). That's crazy. There's no valid CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to exclude whatever a suspect says at that point.

The exclusionary rule being applied to that situation is absolutely without ANY basis in rational Constitutional analysis. I don't care what Courts may have layered over this topic. Cutting through all of their inappropriate legislating gets us back to the one real question: Does the Constitution, itself, require that a statement taken from some talkative, guilty, dumbass criminal suspect must be excluded? The answer is (or OUGHT to be) "no way."

The Constitution itself does not say anything about murder, does that mean that all the laws against it are unconstitutional?

Federal Jurisdiction V.S. State Jurisdiction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Federal Jurisdiction V.S. State Jurisdiction.

Your field goal

Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

is blocked and run back for a touchdown.

 

[Intense]

Federal Jurisdiction V.S. State Jurisdiction.

Your field goal

Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

is blocked and run back for a touchdown.

My point, though unspecified was that under enumerated powers, there was a time when murder fell under State jurisdiction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not if it is committed on federal lands.

 

[lawbuff]

Not if it is committed on federal lands.

True, federal murder MUST have a federal element, but if the state has concurrent jurisdiction, both sovereigns can try for murder and Double Jeopardy is not triggered.

 

[Intense]

Not if it is committed on federal lands.

And what percentage of land would that have been in 1791? Where would the majority of murders have been committed? You miss the point.

 

[Liability]

Not obtuse at all. For all your bluster I'm 100% positive you've read the case and probably at least some of its progeny and understand its impact. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is about Miranda that offends you so much. The rules are the rules, and the rules that spring from Miranda do in fact apply to all custodial situations.

The problem is the scenario you describe was pretty much the status quo before this decision. If a suspect invoked his right to be silent by his silence, only HE could initiate further questioning and have what he says be admissable. If he's an idiot and decides to blab, that's all on him. And as you know that hasn't changed, except he can no longer invoke his right to silent by being silent.

I guess I'm confused as to the basis of your opinion, since you seem to be all for it in some situations but not in others.

I have already answered that question.

The Miranda rule is entirely made-up by a Court and although it has weak linkage back to the Constitution, it is NOT a rule that the Constitution actually calls for. The effect of that judicial legislating is that actual criminals who have made the mistake of yabbering too much -- thereby implicating themselves enough to perhaps get their asses convicted -- nevertheless get the benefit of having their statements excluded as evidence against them. THEY of all people get a benefit (totally unwarranted) and the rest of us are blessed with the privilege of not having them convicted and excluded from our presence for a while. Society's loss is certainly their gain.

And you are wrong too in your legal analysis. If a suspect allegedly invoked his right to remain silent only by being quiet (but not verbalizing his desire to take advantage of the privilege) then he could speak after the passage of some time whether or not he initiated the communication. The problem was that some courts found it necessary to entirely exclude such subsequent statements MERELY because the suspect had been quiet (without explicitly claiming the right to remain quiet). That's crazy. There's no valid CONSTITUTIONAL requirement to exclude whatever a suspect says at that point.

The exclusionary rule being applied to that situation is absolutely without ANY basis in rational Constitutional analysis. I don't care what Courts may have layered over this topic. Cutting through all of their inappropriate legislating gets us back to the one real question: Does the Constitution, itself, require that a statement taken from some talkative, guilty, dumbass criminal suspect must be excluded? The answer is (or OUGHT to be) "no way."

The Constitution itself does not say anything about murder, does that mean that all the laws against it are unconstitutional?

I like it when you guys resort to that stale old gambit. It shows that you STILL aren't thinking.

I never said, suggested or implied that if something isn't mentioned in the Constitution that any law about that topic is unConstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't mention an air force either, that doesn't mean that I think an advancement in military technology or general technology is unConstitutional, either.

What I DID say was that the Constitution does not call for -- and no VALID inference of anything said IN the Constitution compels -- the absurd conclusion that cops must advise suspects that they are permitted to remain silent. The consequence for failing to adhere to that JUDGE-MADE rule are also patently ridiculous. A jury serves a truth seeking function. But the penalty for failing to TELL some schmuck that he has a Constitutional right he should already know about is that the jury gets deprived of the statements made BY the accused for no rational reason. That makes it a bit difficult for them to find the truth. In fact, it is the government denying them the ability to do so. Society pays. There's no rational Constitutionally-VALID argument in support of that nonsense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not if it is committed on federal lands.

And what percentage of land would that have been in 1791? Where would the majority of murders have been committed? You miss the point.

No, you miss the point. There are powers not enumerated in the Constitution that do belong to the federal government.

 

[Intense]

Not if it is committed on federal lands.

And what percentage of land would that have been in 1791? Where would the majority of murders have been committed? You miss the point.

No, you miss the point. There are powers not enumerated in the Constitution that do belong to the federal government.

Not my argument.