Miranda
-
dammit, I really NEED an "UNTHANK" button.
In Heck's case, I need an "UNTHANK THIS OFFENSIVE PERSON'S STUPID AND OFFENSIVE POST".
so, tell us Heck,
when you say
"Yes, you're talking about fascism, you fat, ignorant xxxx."
you are engaging in "serious and intellectual conversation" you and you ilk have whined about
incessently in the past?
You're out of line, Heck. Did you ever man up and answer John's question to you, btw?
Now, you LIKE personal insults when you are getting your butt kicked by nearly all sides?
Your saving grace is that Vapor hasn't joined in the fray and kicked, too.
Where, oh where, are your bosom buddies Shep and MosquitoZits to worship you?
Surely you must miss them terribly.
Ole Vapor isn't one for worshipping, you keep attacking every opinion here, that makes you cry,
... it must suck to be you, HeckisHelenThomas
-
What idiotic responses. Honestly, I know these work in the bar, with other idiots, but try answering them again like a normal person would.
Hmm. Hundreds of years of legal tradition, dating back to the Magna Carta. ...I'll mention something else that's old - the Bible! Pow!
Dinosaurs. Cavemen. Helen Thomas.
And you did mention that. You mentioned today, just as you have before, how much it angers you that defense lawyer's job to "try and get them off whatever they did." Which isn't really what their job is, but whatever. This clearly upsets you. So what do you think their job should be?
Do you not believe in the idea that everyone is entitled to a sound, professional defense? Do you not believe that even the guilty have rights? Do you not believe that criminal procedure is important? These are some of the cornerstones of the system. They're sort of important.
And please, try thinking of some examples on your own. I'll give you one to start you off: putting yourself at the scene of a crime, even though you had nothing to do with it. But you really need to start doing some more thinking on your own. The fact that you can't even imagine these scenarios, and refuse to try, is part of your problem. You won't learn anything new. But I don't know how else to say it: you're just wrong here. You're just wrong.
Or here's another: Richard Jewell famously incriminated himself. And he could have been a terrorist! And there could have been more bombs he wasn't telling us about. I would imagine that you think they should have "tortured the shit out of him" too.
Because you have fascist sympathies.
Dinosaurs. Cavemen. Helen Thomas.
Hmmm Am I supposed to pick the one that doesn't fit?
And you did mention that. You mentioned today, just as you have before, how much it angers you that defense lawyer's job to "try and get them off whatever they did." Which isn't really what their job is, but whatever. This clearly upsets you. So what do you think their job should be?
Sigh. I know it's futile and you'll have your usual non response replete with childish insults but lets see.
The legal system SHOULD be about justtice.
If your client committed the crime that SHOULD be the focus.
His defense team might want to mitigate punishment but they SHOULD NOT try to get him off.
You and I know that is not the case.
Do you not believe in the idea that everyone is entitled to a sound, professional defense? Do you not believe that even the guilty have rights? Do you not believe that criminal procedure is important? These are some of the cornerstones of the system. They're sort of important.
But they are wrong.
They've been twisted into something we should all abhor.
And please, try thinking of some examples on your own. I'll give you one to start you off: putting yourself at the scene of a crime, even though you had nothing to do with it.
Uh OK. So what?
But you really need to start doing some more thinking on your own. The fact that you can't even imagine these scenarios, and refuse to try, is part of your problem. You won't learn anything new. But I don't know how else to say it: you're just wrong here. You're just wrong.
Why should I provide examples??
I asked YOU how an innocent person can incriminate himself by telling the truth.
I say you can't.
You say you can.
Or here's another: Richard Jewell famously incriminated himself. And he could have been a terrorist! And there could have been more bombs he wasn't telling us about. I would imagine that you think they should have "tortured the shit out of him" too.
How did Jewell incriminate himself?
He committed no crime did he?
How would refusing to tell the truth have helped him?
(remember, no one is even suggesting that anyone answer any way but truthfully)
Or back to the Rodriguez case.
Your wife is missing.
She might still be alive.
He's a convicted and realeased violent sex offender.
Her blood is in his car.
He won't talk.
Lets set aside legal dogma and pretend there is good and evil in the world.
At least right and wrong.
Because you have fascist sympathies.
Obama's a Nazi!!!!
How's that?
WSS
-
Never mind, Steve.
-
Heck translation:
"Please stopping kicking my butt on this forum, Steve."
-
Heck translation:
"Please stopping kicking my butt on this forum, Steve."
Well that's pretty close.
I'd say the translation is more like:
"Yes, everything you say is spot on.
I really wish I could convince the others you're some kind of evil bastard but even I agree in secrecy.
No normal human would think otherwise.
I haven't the wit to respond with anything but hyperbole and petty insults so I'm angry.
I can't and won't respond to anything you've said."
Oh well.
WSS
-
Yes, that's completely it.
Or it could be that I can't believe I've wasted so much of my life discussing politics and government with someone who doesn't really know much about politics or government, and imagines that his extremely simple quips are actually dispositive evidence in his argument's favor.
Yes, you actually think you win these. And Cal does, too, which should tell you something. Like I said, I'm sure this works in the bar, and with idiots.
For instance, you can claim that environmentalists are responsible for the spill. Then I can claim that they're not, and that BP drills there because that's where most of the remaining Gulf oil is - offshore. No environmental group made them go out there. They wanted to go out there. Because that's where the oil is.
Then you can claim people don't like to see oil wells from their beaches. And not get why that's not an argument for your point, but a point about something else.
Then you imagine that you won that round because you just said, "People don't like to see oil wells from the beaches." This is why I don't think much of your intellect.
I suppose I could give you a graph of Gulf oil deposits, showing how much of what's left is offshore and in deep water. I suppose I could challenge you to tell me what environmentalist-backed law made BP drill the Horizon well. And if you wanted to make that argument you're making, you'd have to back it up with facts like that.
But what's the point? You can't have those discussions.
And it never matters that you're just wrong. Like when you imagine that it's the defense lawyers job to decide his/her client's guilt or innocence. You don't get how absolutely, fundamentally wrong that is. That's not how our system works, nor should it. Because it could never work that way.
You think I can't answer that point? Honestly? I'm stumped by your arguments?
80% of the time, they're not even arguments. They're just dumb opinions you have because you don't know much about anything.
-
But if imagining I think you're actually right about torturing suspects in police custody, or that the Bill of Rights is super-flawed, or that environmentalists are really what forced BP to drill into an oil deposit that would make them tens of billions of dollars, or any of the other zillion idiotic things you've said over the years, and I just can't face how much you've stumped me, is actually going to put an end to this, go right ahead and imagine that. Also because it's pretty funny, and believe me, I have a big smile on my face as I shake my head. It's stunned amusement, daily.
-
Yes, that's completely it.
Or it could be that I can't believe I've wasted so much of my life discussing politics and government with someone who doesn't really know much about politics or government, and imagines that his extremely simple quips are actually dispositive evidence in his argument's favor.
Yes, you actually think you win these. And Cal does, too, which should tell you something. Like I said, I'm sure this works in the bar, and with idiots.
For instance, you can claim that environmentalists are responsible for the spill. Then I can claim that they're not, and that BP drills there because that's where most of the remaining Gulf oil is - offshore. No environmental group made them go out there. They wanted to go out there. Because that's where the oil is.
Then you can claim people don't like to see oil wells from their beaches. And not get why that's not an argument for your point, but a point about something else.
Then you imagine that you won that round because you just said, "People don't like to see oil wells from the beaches." This is why I don't think much of your intellect.
I suppose I could give you a graph of Gulf oil deposits, showing how much of what's left is offshore and in deep water. I suppose I could challenge you to tell me what environmentalist-backed law made BP drill the Horizon well. And if you wanted to make that argument you're making, you'd have to back it up with facts like that.
But what's the point? You can't have those discussions.
And it never matters that you're just wrong. Like when you imagine that it's the defense lawyers job to decide his/her client's guilt or innocence. You don't get how absolutely, fundamentally wrong that is. That's not how our system works, nor should it. Because it could never work that way.
You think I can't answer that point? Honestly? I'm stumped by your arguments?
80% of the time, they're not even arguments. They're just dumb opinions you have because you don't know much about anything.
You think I can't answer that point? Honestly?
Let's wait until you give me a straight answer on ony of it.
Until then we'll assume that's the case.
WSS
-
Wow. This took an unexpected turn. There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Miranda out there - every prosecutor has a story about losing evidence due to all of the legal protection given to suspects. I dont have much problem with the decision that started this thread. It just moves the right to remain silent into alignment with the right to an attorney. The less technical of the rebuttals - that it is crazy to make someone talk to invoke their right to silence - seems silly.
But torture, Steve? Really? That's a pretty big leap. Should we have any laws against it? Why even limit it to police? Why not let me torture my neighbor if I'm convinced that he knows something important enough to torture him for? Who would decide when torture is okay? Could I decide for myself, or would you subject me to the liberal Obama-appointed judges to decide right from wrong for me? I'm sincerely interested in your answers. You must want to put some limit on it, right?
-
Okay, Steve. What useless misdirect would you like me to answer this time?
Honestly, how can you pretend to make this case after I've been dealing with you almost exclusively for years? It's like Marvin Harrison complaining to Peyton that he doesn't get enough balls thrown his way.
-
Wow. This took an unexpected turn. There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Miranda out there - every prosecutor has a story about losing evidence due to all of the legal protection given to suspects. I dont have much problem with the decision that started this thread. It just moves the right to remain silent into alignment with the right to an attorney. The less technical of the rebuttals - that it is crazy to make someone talk to invoke their right to silence - seems silly.
But torture, Steve? Really? That's a pretty big leap. Should we have any laws against it? Why even limit it to police? Why not let me torture my neighbor if I'm convinced that he knows something important enough to torture him for? Who would decide when torture is okay? Could I decide for myself, or would you subject me to the liberal Obama-appointed judges to decide right from wrong for me? I'm sincerely interested in your answers. You must want to put some limit on it, right?
Wow. This took an unexpected turn. There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Miranda out there - every prosecutor has a story about losing evidence due to all of the legal protection given to suspects. I dont have much problem with the decision that started this thread. It just moves the right to remain silent into alignment with the right to an attorney. The less technical of the rebuttals - that it is crazy to make someone talk to invoke their right to silence - seems silly.
But torture, Steve? Really? That's a pretty big leap. Should we have any laws against it? Why even limit it to police? Why not let me torture my neighbor if I'm convinced that he knows something important enough to torture him for? Who would decide when torture is okay? Could I decide for myself, or would you subject me to the liberal Obama-appointed judges to decide right from wrong for me? I'm sincerely interested in your answers. You must want to put some limit on it, right?
Tom.
If you go back I was talking about the Rodriguez case and what one of us would condone in the same situation.
No, Tom, I don't think torture should be a legal part of the system, Heck's kinda making up a straw man there.
(so was claiming I was against giving someone an attorney, I just never said that)
OTOH I don't think that a suspect in that situation should have a right to stay quiet.
I think he should answer truthfully.
And I don't think criminals should be freed because of technicalities.
You may consider punishment for those who may have cut corners but not let the violent criminal free.
I don't see why that's an outrage.
Do you?
WSS
-
Okay, Steve. What useless misdirect would you like me to answer this time?
Honestly, how can you pretend to make this case after I've been dealing with you almost exclusively for years? It's like Marvin Harrison complaining to Peyton that he doesn't get enough balls thrown his way.
Honestly, how can you pretend to make this case after I've been dealing with you almost exclusively for years? It's like Marvin Harrison complaining to Peyton that he doesn't get enough balls thrown his way.
That, as you know, isn't my claim.
You're fine for answering questions I didn't ask.
WSS
-
So what if the suspect says, "No, I didn't do it." And nothing more. You can't force the truth out of someone.
-
Wow. This took an unexpected turn. There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Miranda out there - every prosecutor has a story about losing evidence due to all of the legal protection given to suspects. I dont have much problem with the decision that started this thread. It just moves the right to remain silent into alignment with the right to an attorney. The less technical of the rebuttals - that it is crazy to make someone talk to invoke their right to silence - seems silly.
But torture, Steve? Really? That's a pretty big leap. Should we have any laws against it? Why even limit it to police? Why not let me torture my neighbor if I'm convinced that he knows something important enough to torture him for? Who would decide when torture is okay? Could I decide for myself, or would you subject me to the liberal Obama-appointed judges to decide right from wrong for me? I'm sincerely interested in your answers. You must want to put some limit on it, right?
Tom.
If you go back I was talking about the Rodriguez case and what one of us would condone in the same situation.
No, Tom, I don't think torture should be a legal part of the system, Heck's kinda making up a straw man there.
(so was claiming I was against giving someone an attorney, I just never said that)
OTOH I don't think that a suspect in that situation should have a right to stay quiet.
I think he should answer truthfully.
And I don't think criminals should be freed because of technicalities.
You may consider punishment for those who may have cut corners but not let the violent criminal free.
I don't see why that's an outrage.
Do you?
WSS
Tom.
If you go back I was talking about the Rodriguez case and what one of us would condone in the same situation.
No, Tom, I don't think torture should be a legal part of the system, Heck's kinda making up a straw man there.
OTOH I don't think that a suspect in that situation should have a right to stay quiet.
I think he should answer truthfully.
And I don't think criminals should be freed because of technicalities.
You may consider punishment for those who may have cut corners but not let the violent criminal free.
I don't see why that's an outrage.
Do you?
WSS
I also read your original rodriguez comment as saying that you thought torture should be legal. Thanks for clarifying.
What is the alternative to the right to stay quiet? How do we force someone to talk that doesnt want to talk? The point of the right to remain silent is that it draws a big bright line between interrogation and the slippery slope to coercion and torture. If someone doesnt want to talk, we dont want police trying to force them to.
I don't want criminals to be freed on technicalities, but I also don't want innocent people to be harrassed by the police and/or wrongly convicted of crimes they didnt commit. Punishment for cops that cut corners is an alternative, but a difficult one. We dont want cops to be afraid to do their jobs, right? "Cutting corners" can be done either by mistake or in good faith all the time - that's one of the reasons that it remains so common. Currently, cops try to avoid cutting corners because it has no benefit - they lose the fruit of their corner cutting and cant use it against the suspect. If we threaten them with punishment, how many cops are even going to want to come close to the line of what is and isnt allowed? Criminals going free is frustrating, but cops not doing their jobs sounds even worse.
-
He does have to answer truthfully, Steve. In a court of law.
If he wants to answer truthfully after being arrested, he can do that, too. But if the person is smart, he'll say next to nothing and wait for an attorney, because police often get things wrong even when you're innocent, and you can say things that convince them that they're right about you being guilty.
You keep imagining that all these people are walking free on technicalities. That's not really the case either. Because someone cut a corner or didn't follow procedure, that doesn't mean someone walks free. The judge gets to rule whether that evidence will be thrown out, which is how we ensure that the police don't cut corners and follow legal procedures.
As for torture, let's not pretend you didn't write what you did. Or that you haven't advocated for it in the past. If you want to walk that back, go right ahead. But we can read what you wrote, and you're clearly advocating for torturing suspects to get information out of them, which is more than a little unconstitutional.
And would land you in jail.
-
Tom.
If you go back I was talking about the Rodriguez case and what one of us would condone in the same situation.
No, Tom, I don't think torture should be a legal part of the system, Heck's kinda making up a straw man there.
OTOH I don't think that a suspect in that situation should have a right to stay quiet.
I think he should answer truthfully.
And I don't think criminals should be freed because of technicalities.
You may consider punishment for those who may have cut corners but not let the violent criminal free.
I don't see why that's an outrage.
Do you?
WSS
I also read your original rodriguez comment as saying that you thought torture should be legal. Thanks for clarifying.
What is the alternative to the right to stay quiet? How do we force someone to talk that doesnt want to talk? The point of the right to remain silent is that it draws a big bright line between interrogation and the slippery slope to coercion and torture. If someone doesnt want to talk, we dont want police trying to force them to.
I don't want criminals to be freed on technicalities, but I also don't want innocent people to be harrassed by the police and/or wrongly convicted of crimes they didnt commit. Punishment for cops that cut corners is an alternative, but a difficult one. We dont want cops to be afraid to do their jobs, right? "Cutting corners" can be done either by mistake or in good faith all the time - that's one of the reasons that it remains so common. Currently, cops try to avoid cutting corners because it has no benefit - they lose the fruit of their corner cutting and cant use it against the suspect. If we threaten them with punishment, how many cops are even going to want to come close to the line of what is and isnt allowed? Criminals going free is frustrating, but cops not doing their jobs sounds even worse.
I also read your original rodriguez comment as saying that you thought torture should be legal. Thanks for clarifying.
No prob.
What is the alternative to the right to stay quiet? How do we force someone to talk that doesnt want to talk? The point of the right to remain silent is that it draws a big bright line between interrogation and the slippery slope to coercion and torture. If someone doesnt want to talk, we dont want police trying to force them to.
But we do actually.
Nothing illegal about locking a guy up and allowing him to wait for the PD.
I'd say refusing to answer honestly is akin to obstruction.
I don't want criminals to be freed on technicalities, but I also don't want innocent people to be harrassed by the police and/or wrongly convicted of crimes they didnt commit.
Neither do I toop, but that isn't the either or.
I expect everyone involved to be truthful.
I'm not suggesting wringing a false admission out of a guy or planting evidence.
Law enforcements job is to catch and punish the guy who committed a crime.
And that's all I want.
Punishment for cops that cut corners is an alternative, but a difficult one. We dont want cops to be afraid to do their jobs, right?
Nope. So take away some restrictions.
"Cutting corners" can be done either by mistake or in good faith all the time - that's one of the reasons that it remains so common. Currently, cops try to avoid cutting corners because it has no benefit - they lose the fruit of their corner cutting and cant use it against the suspect.
Another reason to loosen it up a little.
Look Toop, there's plenty of shit in our legal system on the other side I'd change too.
I can't imagine having my life depend on eyewitness ID.
Cripes I see guys a few times a summer I can't remember at all.
And how about your freedom hanging on whether your attorney can bullshit 12 morons or not??? And DNA limits? Don't get me started.
If we threaten them with punishment, how many cops are even going to want to come close to the line of what is and isnt allowed? Criminals going free is frustrating, but cops not doing their jobs sounds even worse.
Well then I disagree with you.
If someone gets hurt by the pervert who gets out because the cop f*cked up and searched his car without a warrant, then that's the worst.
And before anyone flips out I'm not advocating phony evidence.
But "doing their job" shouldn't be a game and unfortunately it is.
You do know that it's the law that an attorney must free a violent criminal if he can even if he knows the guy did it.
BUT:
It would be against the law for the prosecutor to imprison a man he knew to be innocent.
WSS
WSS[/b]
-
He does have to answer truthfully, Steve. In a court of law.
If he wants to answer truthfully after being arrested, he can do that, too. But if the person is smart, he'll say next to nothing and wait for an attorney, because police often get things wrong even when you're innocent, and you can say things that convince them that they're right about you being guilty.
You keep imagining that all these people are walking free on technicalities. That's not really the case either. Because someone cut a corner or didn't follow procedure, that doesn't mean someone walks free. The judge gets to rule whether that evidence will be thrown out, which is how we ensure that the police don't cut corners and follow legal procedures.
As for torture, let's not pretend you didn't write what you did. Or that you haven't advocated for it in the past. If you want to walk that back, go right ahead. But we can read what you wrote, and you're clearly advocating for torturing suspects to get information out of them, which is more than a little unconstitutional.
And would land you in jail.
As for torture, let's not pretend you didn't write what you did. Or that you haven't advocated for it in the past. If you want to walk that back, go right ahead. But we can read what you wrote, and you're clearly advocating for torturing suspects to get information out of them, which is more than a little unconstitutional.
And would land you in jail.
And I'm happy to repeat that if waterboarding the three terrorists helped prevent another 9/11 then I'll take that deal.
You wouldn't.
And I'll repeat the question.
Rodriguez case.
Go back and read it.
It's your wife/daughter.
Your call Heck.
WSS
-
This is why we have laws, and are governed by laws, and not the raw emotions we feel in our darkest hours. You're also assuming that torture works, even though it's something with a very mixed track record at best. You're also assuming we know the man is guilty that we're going to torture, which we don't.
So again, your asking a party question, not a policy question.
So here's the party answer: If I knew a man was guilty of such a crime, I'd spend all my waking hours thinking of ways to hurt him physically. But somewhere inside I'd understand that I'm not the only person who has ever been in this situation, and won't be the last, and that's not the type of society we have, or want to have.
Then I'd email my friend Tupa and see if he can talk to me about that whole forgiveness thing.
So you can have your torture fantasy. It seems to be a popular one among the right these days. I, however, don't get excited that way.
What you should think about is that you've gone from the ticking time bomb scenario, where terrorists are about to commit another act of mass murder, and once you're okay with that you moved on to torturing an American citizen that the police apprehend and you don't even know is guilty.
Because this is what happens when you start saying torture is okay in certain circumstances.
Well, if it's okay to stop a car bomb from going off that would kill 12 people, why not torture someone who may commit a similar act of violence?
What about someone who might have known about the Virginia Tech massacre ahead of time? He killed over 30 people. More than the terrorists and the car bomb in this scenario. Should we torture them too?
How many lives have to be at stake before torture is okay? 10? 20? 100? 3?
-
I'd say terrorism is the key.
Waterboard em. Get that information.
Shoot em full of sodium penethold, or whatever.
Make them listen to Hecki's posts read to them 24 x 7.
Not terrorists?
Then you find ways to interrogate them to want to comply truthfully.
It works all the time, Gibbs does it perfectly on NCIS. @@
-
Define terrorist. kthxbai
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login