*blood boils* - Page 2

Splintered · 08-09-2008, 01:04 AM

How is it an urban myth?

Your Miranda warning is mandated from 1996 on in Miranda v. Arizona, and was upheld by Dickerson v. United States. True, it only applies if you've been arrested, not detained, but once you're actually arrested for the claim, you're covered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You know, that now makes me wonder. If you did nothing wrong but they try to arrest you, then they can arrest you because you're resisting arrest. But if there was no reason to be arrested in the first place so that you might have resisted it, then what would the court decision be?

The only thing I know about that is this:

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

And:

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

However: I am not a lawyer, so I can very well be wrong, this isn't legal advice, everything I say is a lie, informational purposes only, etc, etc. And for the love of all that's good, most police officers aren't trying to screw you, so try and walk in with a good attitude.

Godslayer Jillian · 08-09-2008, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splintered

How is it an urban myth?

Your Miranda warning is mandated from 1996 on in Miranda v. Arizona, and was upheld by Dickerson v. United States. True, it only applies if you've been arrested, not detained, but once you're actually arrested for the claim, you're covered.

Sternn meant the tip of calling out on a narc.

Splintered · 08-09-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Sternn meant the tip of calling out on a narc.

Ah. I see then. All I saw was "Thats actually an urban myth. They don't have to tell you anything.", and thought it was that they don't have to tell you your Miranda Rights, not the Narc part.

Curses you internet.

kikrox · 08-09-2008, 05:36 AM

This is *quite* old. But, interesting none the less. I personally think the kid was acting like an idiot. It basically turned into harassment by the kid after a certain point. What, was the Kerry campaign supposed to stop the entire event to please this one little whining brat ? "Don't tase me bro !" Lmao !

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kikrox

It basically turned into harassment by the kid after a certain point. What, was the Kerry campaign supposed to stop the entire event to please this one little whining brat ?

What the shit are you talking about? He tried to ask a few questions and they forcibly dragged him out of the room. Although he was actively not resisting, they fucking TASED HIM.
I don't think addressing his questions constitutes 'stopping the entire event'.

kikrox · 08-09-2008, 06:01 AM

What the shit are you talking about? He tried to ask a few questions and they forcibly dragged him out of the room. Although he was actively not resisting, they fucking TASED HIM.
I don't think addressing his questions constitutes 'stopping the entire event'.

Yes, true. Maybe I was being a little bit harsh. Maybe, he didn't deserve the tasing, you're right. Lol. I just think he was being obnoxiously rude with his questions, really.

Underwater Ophelia · 08-09-2008, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Again, I'm not talking about legalities here.

That's fine, I am.

And Gothicus, as far as the kid asking "questions," he was just saying questions to rile everyone up.
Notice he didn't ask them calmly, and he didn't give Kerry time to answer before asking the next.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

And Gothicus, as far as the kid asking "questions," he was just saying questions to rile everyone up.
Notice he didn't ask them calmly, and he didn't give Kerry time to answer before asking the next.

You make it sound like he did what he did just to cause a disturbance. What seems to be the case from my perspective is that he read Armed Madhouse, was excited by what he read, and decided to confront Kerry about it. I don't think he was going to yell until they dragged him from the room.

Underwater Ophelia · 08-09-2008, 01:37 PM

I don't believe that.
If he wanted to confront Kerry, why didn't he calmly ask a question, and then give Kerry time to respond instead of just bombarding him with questions?

KontanKarite · 08-09-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

That's fine, I am.

And Gothicus, as far as the kid asking "questions," he was just saying questions to rile everyone up.
Notice he didn't ask them calmly, and he didn't give Kerry time to answer before asking the next.

I think you're trying to elude that legal trumps right and wrong.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I don't believe that.
If he wanted to confront Kerry, why didn't he calmly ask a question, and then give Kerry time to respond instead of just bombarding him with questions?

I'm not saying he was perfectly tactful, just that his intent wasn't utterly malicious. Unless you believe he had an half-hour's worth of questions prepared, that he would have given Kerry a chance to respond eventually can be reasonably inferred. He was abrasive, but brutality shouldn't be law enforcement's response to rudeness.

KontanKarite · 08-09-2008, 01:51 PM

Yeah, I didn't know they were lockin' fuckers up for being rude. o_0

onedarkly1 · 08-09-2008, 02:05 PM

Splintered

You quote case law like a lawyer, so I don't know if you are one or not. Since I have some legal training, I willl however, comment on the Miranda, as "Urban Myth" concept.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it an "Urban Myth," but I would say it is not as effective as one might be lead to believe. The biggest problem with a "Miranda Defense" is that most times it becomes a he said/she said event. That is Police Officer versus arrestee.

When that is the case, like it or not, most of the time the courts believe the Police Officers version. Many people believe they are heroes, out there putting their lives on the line.

And if the Officer needs corrobration, there is usually, conveniently of course, another officer there to say that Miranda righhts were read.

Unfortunately kiddies, in the real world police lie on the stand.
_________________________________________________

" I died a long time ago."

Underwater Ophelia · 08-09-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

I think you're trying to elude that legal trumps right and wrong.

I don't know why you would think that, but ok.

Underwater Ophelia · 08-09-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I'm not saying he was perfectly tactful, just that his intent wasn't utterly malicious. Unless you believe he had an half-hour's worth of questions prepared, that he would have given Kerry a chance to respond eventually can be reasonably inferred. He was abrasive, but brutality shouldn't be law enforcement's response to rudeness.

It wasn't.
It was a response to trespassing and resisting arrest.

If he had gotten loud and just left when asked, nothing would have happened.
Instead, he got louder, and refused to leave.

He wasn't in a public place, he was on private property at an event that requires an invitation.

KontanKarite · 08-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I don't know why you would think that, but ok.

Because you brought it up in the first place. NO ONE mentioned the legality of the actions until you brought it up.

You said, "It's totally legal, but it's wrong!"

So please, explain what and why you would even use that as part of your statement. I mean, was it just a useless aside added on without much forethought on your part?

The way you're communicating it sounds as if just because it's legal, it doesn't matter what real justice is.

Your stance is confusing to me.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

It wasn't.
It was a response to trespassing and resisting arrest.

If he had gotten loud and just left when asked, nothing would have happened.
Instead, he got louder, and refused to leave.

He wasn't in a public place, he was on private property at an event that requires an invitation.

You see him resisting arrest? The only thing I see him doing is asking "why are you arresting me?". The police seem to tackle him right away, without even explaining his crime, which he may not have personally understood immediately. The tasing was entirely uncalled for.

Underwater Ophelia · 08-09-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Because you brought it up in the first place. NO ONE mentioned the legality of the actions until you brought it up.

You said, "It's totally legal, but it's wrong!"

So please, explain what and why you would even use that as part of your statement. I mean, was it just a useless aside added on without much forethought on your part?

The way you're communicating it sounds as if just because it's legal, it doesn't matter what real justice is.

Your stance is confusing to me.

I simply made two statements--one reflecting my personal opinion, and one reflecting the situation in the eyes of the law.

If you want to connect the two and read too far into what I've said, go ahead and do that, but I'm not entertaining this conversation.

As for you saying it was useless and I said it without forethought, I'm ok with you thinking that, but I'm not one to throw information away as "useless" when it pertains directly to the discussion being held.

KontanKarite · 08-09-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I simply made two statements--one reflecting my personal opinion, and one reflecting the situation in the eyes of the law.

If you want to connect the two and read too far into what I've said, go ahead and do that, but I'm not entertaining this conversation.

As for you saying it was useless and I said it without forethought, I'm ok with you thinking that, but I'm not one to throw information away as "useless" when it pertains directly to the discussion being held.

Forgive me if it simply sounded as if you didn't agree with it but subscribed to the idea that it was fine because it was legal.

That's how I understood your post. I was wrong. I am however noticing a LOT of people misunderstanding your posts. o_0

Underwater Ophelia · 08-09-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Forgive me if it simply sounded as if you didn't agree with it but subscribed to the idea that it was fine because it was legal.

That's how I understood your post. I was wrong. I am however noticing a LOT of people misunderstanding your posts. o_0

You can imagine how frustrating that must be for me.

KontanKarite · 08-09-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

You can imagine how frustrating that must be for me.

Not much at all I gather.

CptSternn · 08-10-2008, 01:48 AM

It's America. They can taser anyone who looks at a cop funny these days. They can shoot your dogs, if they feel like it. They can round up groups of peaceful protesters and put them in jail for the day, then let them out without pressing charges and say thats legal as well.

The bottom line is America is now a police state. The police act outside the law, then justify their actions after the fact. The judicial system works with them hand in hand to allow such illegal acts to continue unabated.

Even when police are caught breaking the law, shooting unarmed civilians, raiding the wrong house, raiding a home without a warrant, these days the cops get a verbal reprimand, thats it.

Why would this case be any different?

As I said, in many, many threads here going back 7+ years, its the proverbial 'slippery slope'.

Once you say cops can work outside the law to take down a group, in this case 'terrorist', then it opens the door for other cops to break the law without issue when arresting other criminals. It's now gotten to the point where police can kick in doors, shoot at innocent people, taser protesters, without any fear of repercussions because society in America has grown to expect such, therefore the out cry when it happens is, well, non existent.

You also have to consider most of the police force in America today has a military background. The US military operates in the same manner. They bring this mentality to the civilian police force and further perpetuate this sort of behaviour.

Joker_in_the_Pack · 08-14-2008, 03:47 PM

He was on private property though...

Unimatrix 00 · 08-14-2008, 03:55 PM

Whats this all about him apologising and saying "they were only doing their job?" :S

viscus · 08-14-2008, 04:13 PM

The guy was an asshole. He cut in line, barraged Sen. Kerry with questions before he had a chance to respond, and made it pretty clear with the cameraman he brought that what he was doing was to cause a spectacle.

However, what the police are supposed to do is strive to de-escalate a situation like that, and they did the exact opposite.