It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 11:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 403 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
I have. Twice. I don’t get your point.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
:lol: I wasn't wrong here. You jumped in without knowing what you were talking about, like usual. I know the lawyer jab gets to you so I tossed it in there while correcting you.



You said "that's not how Miranda rights worked" in reference to "he was...locked up with no explanation". By "explanation" did you mean something other than "explanation of charges" or "meaning for the arrest"?

I meant what I said. There is no need to read any further into it and it doesn’t require elaboration to understand.
Ok, then my point stands: Miranidizing doesn't require an explanation of charges or reason for the arrest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
FavreFan wrote:
I have. Twice. I don’t get your point.


I've been arrested several times, been read miranda rights maybe 3 times. It's nothing like TV shows where you are cuffed and read your rights.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
312player wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I have. Twice. I don’t get your point.


I've been arrested several times, been read miranda rights maybe 3 times. It's nothing like TV shows where you are cuffed and read your rights.

:lol: Sounds like you’re not a very good criminal

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
:lol: I wasn't wrong here. You jumped in without knowing what you were talking about, like usual. I know the lawyer jab gets to you so I tossed it in there while correcting you.



You said "that's not how Miranda rights worked" in reference to "he was...locked up with no explanation". By "explanation" did you mean something other than "explanation of charges" or "meaning for the arrest"?

I meant what I said. There is no need to read any further into it and it doesn’t require elaboration to understand.
Ok, then my point stands: Miranidizing doesn't require an explanation of charges or reason for the arrest.

My point stands as well. They still require being read before being detained and brought to a cell and locked up. You remain wrong here. Take the L

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
I don't think so FF.. It's more about being questioned and using statements against you.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
And as far as when the Mirandizing happens, it need not be immediate, either. Feel free to check with an actual lawyer, but I think that one can go from arrest to trial to conviction without being read your rights if circumstances allow (like, the police don't need to question you about things that could incriminate you in order to get a conviction).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
:lol: I wasn't wrong here. You jumped in without knowing what you were talking about, like usual. I know the lawyer jab gets to you so I tossed it in there while correcting you.



You said "that's not how Miranda rights worked" in reference to "he was...locked up with no explanation". By "explanation" did you mean something other than "explanation of charges" or "meaning for the arrest"?

I meant what I said. There is no need to read any further into it and it doesn’t require elaboration to understand.
Ok, then my point stands: Miranidizing doesn't require an explanation of charges or reason for the arrest.

My point stands as well. They still require being read before being detained and brought to a cell and locked up. You remain wrong here. Take the L
:lol: Oh, THAT'S your point, that Mirandizing needs to be immediate upon arrest? :lol: No, go smoke another blunt because you're wrong here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Good thing you’re just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Last edited by FavreFan on Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 28664
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
If the feds are going by the NDAA provision then the people being apprehended can be categorized as domestic terrorists.

Do they also need to be mirandized?

_________________
Nardi wrote:
Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
So your contention is that guys can pull you off the street, blindfold you, bring you to a cell and lock you up, all without saying anything to you about who they are or what you’re doing, and this is all cool and legal and not a problem?

Also, your explanation of Miranda rights doesn’t make sense in this context since they DID read him his Miranda rights after blindfolding him, tying him up, and throwing him in a cell without, as I said, any explanation.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
FavreFan wrote:
So your contention is that guys can pull you off the street, blindfold you, bring you to a cell and lock you up, all without saying anything to you about who they are or what you’re doing, and this is all cool and legal and not a problem?


See, this is the problem arguing with idiots like you: Absolutely nothing was said about whether this tactic is acceptable in a modern society (and saying it is unacceptable isn't the same as saying it is strictly "illegal") or from a government that's supposed to be accountable to the people, but when you start to sense that maybe you're showing your ass on your silly declarations about How Miranda Rights Actually Work, you concoct this strawman out of whole cloth. In fact, I've said before on this board about this very topic that the federal government, or any government, shouldn't be engaging in these practices, even if they aren't illegal.

FavreFan wrote:
Also, your explanation of Miranda rights doesn’t make sense in this context since they DID read him his Miranda rights after blindfolding him, tying him up, and throwing him in a cell without, as I said, any explanation.


My explanation is that they don't have to read you your rights if they don't plan on questioning you and using your answers against you at trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 28664
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.

Jbi11s wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Who is reporting on the story?

I believe Oregon Public Broadcasting first had the story. Another legacy media outlet responsible for the Russian story no doubt



I read it in WaPo. And for the record, the piece contained a lot of ambiguity and weasel language like "apparently". Also it clearly stated that Pettibone was read his Miranda rights.

He was read his Miranda rights after being detained and locked up with no explanation. That is not how Miranda rights work.

But Obama...

No seriously.


_________________
Nardi wrote:
Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
So your contention is that guys can pull you off the street, blindfold you, bring you to a cell and lock you up, all without saying anything to you about who they are or what you’re doing, and this is all cool and legal and not a problem?


See, this is the problem arguing with idiots like you: Absolutely nothing was said about whether this tactic is acceptable in a modern society (and saying it is unacceptable isn't the same as saying it is strictly "illegal") or from a government that's supposed to be accountable to the people, but when you start to sense that maybe you're showing your ass on your silly declarations about How Miranda Rights Actually Work, you concoct this strawman out of whole cloth. In fact, I've said before on this board about this very topic that the federal government, or any government, shouldn't be engaging in these practices, even if they aren't illegal.

Nope. Sorry. You don't get to play the "Well Actually" card here when your only point in jumping in this thread was to defend this practice. You can keep playing the idiot card though because that's just funny coming from someone I routinely smack around here whenever I actually feel like engaging with your one trick act.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.


To me, "transport and lock up citizens walking the streets" is the very essence of an arrest. What allows law enforcement to make arrests? The constitution, I guess.

As for blindfolds, I don't know. It's pretty dickish, but I suppose it isn't cruel and unusual on its face.

As for not announcing/identifying themselves, I have long been against the concept no-knocks, but the argument as I understand it is that the law requiring universal announcing/identifying before arrest would reduce effectiveness of law enforcement, and the need for effective law enforcement was balanced by judges over time with the rights of the people, and this is where we're currently at.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Jbi11s wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.

Jbi11s wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Who is reporting on the story?

I believe Oregon Public Broadcasting first had the story. Another legacy media outlet responsible for the Russian story no doubt



I read it in WaPo. And for the record, the piece contained a lot of ambiguity and weasel language like "apparently". Also it clearly stated that Pettibone was read his Miranda rights.

He was read his Miranda rights after being detained and locked up with no explanation. That is not how Miranda rights work.

But Obama...

No seriously.


Well that sucks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
So your contention is that guys can pull you off the street, blindfold you, bring you to a cell and lock you up, all without saying anything to you about who they are or what you’re doing, and this is all cool and legal and not a problem?


See, this is the problem arguing with idiots like you: Absolutely nothing was said about whether this tactic is acceptable in a modern society (and saying it is unacceptable isn't the same as saying it is strictly "illegal") or from a government that's supposed to be accountable to the people, but when you start to sense that maybe you're showing your ass on your silly declarations about How Miranda Rights Actually Work, you concoct this strawman out of whole cloth. In fact, I've said before on this board about this very topic that the federal government, or any government, shouldn't be engaging in these practices, even if they aren't illegal.

Nope. Sorry. You don't get to play the "Well Actually" card here when your only point in jumping in this thread was to defend this practice.


No, the point was to correct you about your obvious misconceptions about Miranda Rights.

FavreFan wrote:
You can keep playing the idiot card though because that's just funny coming from someone I routinely smack around here whenever I actually feel like engaging with your one trick act.


I guess you can get so far behind in the race that you convince yourself you're actually leading. Keep blazing, dawg.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.


To me, "transport and lock up citizens walking the streets" is the very essence of an arrest. What allows law enforcement to make arrests? The constitution, I guess.

As for blindfolds, I don't know. It's pretty dickish, but I suppose it isn't cruel and unusual on its face.

As for not announcing/identifying themselves, I have long been against the concept no-knocks, but the argument as I understand it is that the law requiring universal announcing/identifying before arrest would reduce effectiveness of law enforcement, and the need for effective law enforcement was balanced by judges over time with the rights of the people, and this is where we're currently at.

The constitution provides permission to arrest and jail without reason?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.


To me, "transport and lock up citizens walking the streets" is the very essence of an arrest. What allows law enforcement to make arrests? The constitution, I guess.

As for blindfolds, I don't know. It's pretty dickish, but I suppose it isn't cruel and unusual on its face.

As for not announcing/identifying themselves, I have long been against the concept no-knocks, but the argument as I understand it is that the law requiring universal announcing/identifying before arrest would reduce effectiveness of law enforcement, and the need for effective law enforcement was balanced by judges over time with the rights of the people, and this is where we're currently at.

The constitution provides permission to arrest and jail without reason?
What do you mean by "without reason"? As in, "never given a reason"? No. As in "not given a reason as the arrest is happening"? Yes, I think so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
But I didn’t have any misconception and there was no correction. You didn’t know what we were discussing since you jumped in halfway through and misread a post of mine and dug in on being wrong about it.

But keep the pothead jokes flowing. They definitely make you sound like the more intelligent one.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:04 pm
Posts: 9979
pizza_Place: world famous
Apropos of nothing...I don't do much criminal work, usually just kids of clients who get busted doing something stupid, but they always say "they didn't read me my rights" like it's a get out of jail free card. They are always so disappointed when I tell them it doesn't matter.

_________________
Nas wrote:
We lose a lot of rights when we look the other way when it doesn't affect our lives or it isn't a cause we agree with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Franky T wrote:
Apropos of nothing...I don't do much criminal work, usually just kids of clients who get busted doing something stupid, but they always say "they didn't read me my rights" like it's a get out of jail free card. They are always so disappointed when I tell them it doesn't matter.

Oh I’m not disagreeing with that notion. JLN got hung up on the Miranda rights part of it but that was a tiny piece of my overall point.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:04 pm
Posts: 9979
pizza_Place: world famous
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.


To me, "transport and lock up citizens walking the streets" is the very essence of an arrest. What allows law enforcement to make arrests? The constitution, I guess.

As for blindfolds, I don't know. It's pretty dickish, but I suppose it isn't cruel and unusual on its face.

As for not announcing/identifying themselves, I have long been against the concept no-knocks, but the argument as I understand it is that the law requiring universal announcing/identifying before arrest would reduce effectiveness of law enforcement, and the need for effective law enforcement was balanced by judges over time with the rights of the people, and this is where we're currently at.

The constitution provides permission to arrest and jail without reason?

Police can arrest and hold you for up to 48 hours I believe. Maybe 72.

_________________
Nas wrote:
We lose a lot of rights when we look the other way when it doesn't affect our lives or it isn't a cause we agree with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22577
pizza_Place: Giordano's
FavreFan wrote:
But I didn’t have any misconception and there was no correction. You didn’t know what we were discussing since you jumped in halfway through and misread a post of mine and dug in on being wrong about it.

But keep the pothead jokes flowing. They definitely make you sound like the more intelligent one.
There clearly was. You even said "that's not how miranda rights work" to cap it off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19488
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Who is reporting on the story?

I believe Oregon Public Broadcasting first had the story. Another legacy media outlet responsible for the Russian story no doubt



I read it in WaPo. And for the record, the piece contained a lot of ambiguity and weasel language like "apparently". Also it clearly stated that Pettibone was read his Miranda rights.

He was read his Miranda rights after being detained and locked up with no explanation. That is not how Miranda rights work.


Um I can tell you they can do it that way.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Franky T wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Good thing you’re not just a pretend lawyer. You’re out of your depth here. The pothead dig is the last refuge of a man who lost.


Then toke up, degenerate.

http://www.mirandawarning.org/arepolice ... 0be%20read.

Quote:
Question: Are police always required to read Miranda rights?
Answer: Miranda rights are only required when the police are questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation and hope to or desire to use your statements as evidence against you. Otherwise, Miranda doesn’t apply and they’re not required to be read.


It doesn't even affect the arrest, only the use of your answers under questioning against you at trial.

Honest question, what allows secret police to blindfold, transport and lock up a citizens walking the streets. I'm not a lawer or pretend lawer.


To me, "transport and lock up citizens walking the streets" is the very essence of an arrest. What allows law enforcement to make arrests? The constitution, I guess.

As for blindfolds, I don't know. It's pretty dickish, but I suppose it isn't cruel and unusual on its face.

As for not announcing/identifying themselves, I have long been against the concept no-knocks, but the argument as I understand it is that the law requiring universal announcing/identifying before arrest would reduce effectiveness of law enforcement, and the need for effective law enforcement was balanced by judges over time with the rights of the people, and this is where we're currently at.

The constitution provides permission to arrest and jail without reason?

Police can arrest and hold you for up to 48 hours I believe. Maybe 72.

Damn, that really sucks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19488
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Who is reporting on the story?

I believe Oregon Public Broadcasting first had the story. Another legacy media outlet responsible for the Russian story no doubt



I read it in WaPo. And for the record, the piece contained a lot of ambiguity and weasel language like "apparently". Also it clearly stated that Pettibone was read his Miranda rights.

He was read his Miranda rights after being detained and locked up with no explanation. That is not how Miranda rights work.
Pretty sure that being Mrirandized doesn't require the police to list the charges against you or explain/articulate their probable cause for arrest.

Pretty sure being Mirandized does require them to read you your rights before blindfolding you, throwing you in a van, and taking you to lock up. But you're the pretend lawyer here, not me.


No they dont

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19488
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
:lol: I wasn't wrong here. You jumped in without knowing what you were talking about, like usual. I know the lawyer jab gets to you so I tossed it in there while correcting you.



You said "that's not how Miranda rights worked" in reference to "he was...locked up with no explanation". By "explanation" did you mean something other than "explanation of charges" or "meaning for the arrest"?



This is for FF

Quote:
Miranda rights only need to be read prior to a custodial interrogation. ... If a police officer arrests the person without asking him any questions after the arrest, then Miranda rights are not necessary. Also, if a person is questioned prior to being arrested, Miranda rights are not necessary.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 403 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group