This is an example of bastardizing the Constiution.

[tim]

NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee - Murder Conviction Overturned, Miranda Ruling Cited

 

[therealUT]

If you outrage is towards the police officers who obviously were trying to con the statement from the suspect, then we are experiencing the same emotion. If not, then I fail to feel your outrage.

 

[gsvol]

If you outrage is towards the police officers who obviously were trying to con the statement from the suspect, then we are experiencing the same emotion. If not, then I fail to feel your outrage.

I disagree, the officers had no evidence before the confession other than a hunch, therefore shouldn't have been required to inform him of anything, least of all his rights.

Were the rights of the murdered woman violated???

If we are going to continue to honor this horrendous court ruling then I propose we erect a sign informing everyone of their "miranda rights" on every street corner and take the burden of law enforcement officers.

 

[therealUT]

I disagree, the officers had no evidence before the confession other than a hunch, therefore shouldn't have been required to inform him of anything, least of all his rights.

If they had no evidence, then why was he a suspect? The officers admitted that they were calling him in for more fingerprints simply so they could get him to talking...?

 

[orangeblooded2]

They forget to mention that police office are trained in ways to circumvent Miranda.To get around those pesky constitutional rights.

I can see this ruling affecting training courses all over Tennessee.

Quiet frankly I am glad to see It finally being enforced.

 

[tim]

They forget to mention that police office are trained in ways to circumvent Miranda.To get around those pesky constitutional rights.

I can see this ruling affecting training courses all over Tennessee.

Quiet frankly I am glad to see It finally being enforced.

Can, in your infinite wisdom, explain to me why the police must inform a potential criminal that they have the right to remain silent? This crap was made up by lawyers insuring their futures in criminal law.

 

[orangeblooded2]

Can, in your infinite wisdom, explain to me why the police must inform a potential criminal that they have the right to remain silent? This crap was made up by lawyers insuring their futures in criminal law.

If one were to follow that line of thinking,one could ask the questions or state the following.Why not just take him outside and hang'em high? Your not allowed to voice your opinion.You can't hunt or carry a weapon for self protection.What right to vote!

 

[gsvol]

If they had no evidence, then why was he a suspect? The officers admitted that they were calling him in for more fingerprints simply so they could get him to talking...?

I don't have all the facts of the case at hand.

At any rate, damn the rights of the real victim, the dead woman.

I too am sick and tired of violent criminals being portrayed as victims of the most fair judicial system in the world.

They forget to mention that police office are trained in ways to circumvent Miranda.To get around those pesky constitutional rights.

I can see this ruling affecting training courses all over Tennessee.

Quiet frankly I am glad to see It finally being enforced.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!! And make sure you inform the criminal of his rights in the language of his choice.

A logical progression of your (so-called) 'liberal' thought method could be found in the case of the rural English farmer who shot an intruder and served more time for that "crime" than the perpetrator, leading the British Home Secretary to say; "We simply must do something to protect our burglars!"

 

[gsvol]

If one were to follow that line of thinking,one could ask the questions or state the following.Why not just take him outside and hang'em high? Your not allowed to voice your opinion.You can't hunt or carry a weapon for self protection.What right to vote!

Then one following your line of reasoning would say that Scooter Libby should never have been charged with a "crime?"

You sure did go off on a wild tangent at the last of your post, I don't follow your reasoning.

 

[orangeblooded2]

Then one following your line of reasoning would say that Scooter Libby should never have been charged with a "crime?"

You sure did go off on a wild tangent at the last of your post, I don't follow your reasoning.

The reasoning being.The law is written, we are not above it so why should Uber-right wingers such as yourself or cops be above the law.

I also doubt you had any problem following the train of thought!I rather suspect the post just assaulted you senses.

Like it or not Miranda is there for YOUR protection.
It is also the law,as well as the poo,so take a good whiff.

 

[gsvol]

The irony of the Miranda ruling:

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for stealing $8 from bank worker and charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary.

While in police custody he signed a written confession to the robbery, and to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery.

After the conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination.

The case, Miranda v. Arizona, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was overthrown.

In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights.

The case was later re-tried, Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years.

He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 34, after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested but chose to exercise his right to remain silent, and was released.

History of 'Miranda.'

In 1968, Congress passed a law trying to get around the Miranda ruling, which said that prosecutors in federal cases can use statements gathered without informing suspects of their Miranda rights, as long as the statements were given voluntarily.

This law was seldom invoked. However, in February, 1999, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that in Federal cases the law has precedence over the 1966 Miranda ruling by the Supreme court.

This decision was highly criticized because it greatly weakened defendants' rights in federal cases, and because courts' ruling invoked the 1968 law, even though the prosecution had not tried to invoke the law in its appeal.

In June 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Dickerson that the 1966 Supreme Court ruling had precedence over the 1968 federal law because the ruling was based on constitutional rights.

--------------------------------

Michael Alvarado was brought in for questioning when he was seventeen, and was not read his Miranda rights before the interrogation session began.

He was convicted of second degree murder and attempted robbery, in part based on incriminating statements made during the interrogation session.

While previous rulings have established that you do not have to read Miranda rights when a "reasonable person" knows that they can get up and leave at any time, the case has been appealed, since Michael was a minor and there are generally special protections for minors.

---------------------------------------

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was sitting on the side of the road in his truck when police asked him for identification, based on suspicions of a violent argument. Hiibel said he had done nothing wrong and refused to provide identification.

The police arrested him, and he was convicted of a misdemeanor for resisting arrest. Hiibel's case before the Supreme Court is that the police only had reasonable suspicion that he had done something wrong, and not probable cause, and therefore Hiibel should not have been required to give them any information, including his name.

 

[gsvol]

The reasoning being.The law is written, we are not above it so why should Uber-right wingers such as yourself or cops be above the law.

I also doubt you had any problem following the train of thought!I rather suspect the post just assaulted you senses.

Like it or not Miranda is there for YOUR protection.
It is also the law,as well as the poo,so take a good whiff.

Miranda is a court ruling not a law written!

Thanks for the name calling, uber left winger.

I admit your thinking is an assault to one senses.

I understand my rights and don't need a law enforcement officer reading them to me.

Citizens also have the right to obey the law and if they do that to begin with then they won't be brought before the courts to defend themselves against criminal charges.

 

[TreeGreen]

The police are under a lot of pressure to find murderers, and are not some infallible resource who are always correct. Miranda rights are just one thing to help protect people. Do criminals benefit from it sometimes? You bet. The negligence on the part of the officers in charge of this case is the only problem I see here. In their haste to try and find a suspect they ignored procedure. It is an unfortunate situation for the victim's family, but process is necessary to make sure cases can be brought about for convictions.

 

[gsvol]

The police are under a lot of pressure to find murderers, and are not some infallible resource who are always correct. Miranda rights are just one thing to help protect people. Do criminals benefit from it sometimes? You bet. The negligence on the part of the officers in charge of this case is the only problem I see here. In their haste to try and find a suspect they ignored procedure. It is an unfortunate situation for the victim's family, but process is necessary to make sure cases can be brought about for convictions.

I think the ruling was a miscarriage of justice because police are not required to read Miranda rights unless they have evidence enough to make someone a suspect, particularly if someone is arrested for a crime.

In this case they had no evidence other than a gut reaction hunch and so they lured the suspect in for an interview.

The arrest came after the confession which was voluntary, then they read him his rights, if they had arrested him first then, under current court rulings they would have been required to read him his rights before questioning, which was NOT the case.

 

[tim]

The police are under a lot of pressure to find murderers, and are not some infallible resource who are always correct. Miranda rights are just one thing to help protect people. Do criminals benefit from it sometimes? You bet. The negligence on the part of the officers in charge of this case is the only problem I see here. In their haste to try and find a suspect they ignored procedure. It is an unfortunate situation for the victim's family, but process is necessary to make sure cases can be brought about for convictions.

Please explain to me why Police must tell a turd what their rights are? Is it not the responsibility of the turd to know his/her rights?

This is a lot of responsibility to give a human being. Tell him to solve the crime (some very heinous) and also tell him that he needs to tell the suspected criminal that he doesn't have to talk to him. It maka no sense.

BTW the officers made one small mistake, which would have made this interview perfectly legal.

 

[alaVOL]

Timing your silence? Finding the killer is most important, not reading people their rights. If a person is unaware of the right to remain silent, that shouldn't be a cop's problem. The courts need to weight the rights of victims above and beyond criminals. If you're going to be dumb, then you better be tough. Stupidly shouldn't allow one to get out of a murder conviction. I understand we are a nation of laws, but at some point common sense and justice need to prevail.

 

[The Dude]

Please explain to me why Police must tell a turd what their rights are?

Because the Supreme Court says so. If cops are too stupid or unwilling to do it, then the conviction can be overturned.

 

[alaVOL]

Because the Supreme Court says so. If cops are too stupid or unwilling to do it, then the conviction can be overturned.

I understand that it is the law....but at some point that shouldn't let killers go free. We have laws about illegal aliens not being allowed to stay here, but we've got MILLIONS of them. I guess since it would COST to much to ship them back we just overlook that law...........well I think it's time to overlook criminal rights over victims' rights for common sense justice.

Or maybe we need to change it from Justice Department to Law Department.

 

[gsvol]

I understand that it is the law....but at some point that shouldn't let killers go free. We have laws about illegal aliens not being allowed to stay here, but we've got MILLIONS of them. I guess since it would COST to much to ship them back we just overlook that law...........well I think it's time to overlook criminal rights over victims' rights for common sense justice.

Or maybe we need to change it from Justice Department to Law Department.

Smart Turban People!


I visit US, get treated regal,

so I stay, who care I illegal?

I cross ocean, poor and broke,

take bus, see employment folk.

Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, "You come no more,

we send cash right to your door."

Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,

Medicaid, it keep you healthy!

I go to college, for me it's free,

and now I have a PH.D.

By and by, I got plenty money,

thanks to you, American dummy.

Write to friends in motherland,

tell them come as fast as you can.

They come in turbans and Ford trucks,

I buy big house with welfare bucks.

They come here, we live together,

more welfare checks, it gets better!

Fourteen families they moving in,

but neighbor's patience wearing thin.

Finally, white guy moves away,

now I buy his house, and then I say,

"Find more aliens for house to rent."

and in the yard I put a tent.

Send for family (they just trash),

but they, too, draw the welfare cash!

Everything is very good,

and soon we own the neighborhood.

We have hobby - it's called breeding,

welfare pay for baby feeding.

Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?

We get free! We got no bills!

American crazy! He pay all year,

to keep welfare running here.

We think America darn good place!

Too darn good for the white man race.

If they no like us, they can scram,

got lots of room in Pakistan.

 

[alaVOL]

GS, are you published? Probably wouldn't sell since you're not PC though, but I'd buy a book.

 

[gsvol]

Timing your silence? Finding the killer is most important, not reading people their rights. If a person is unaware of the right to remain silent, that shouldn't be a cop's problem. The courts need to weight the rights of victims above and beyond criminals. If you're going to be dumb, then you better be tough. Stupidly shouldn't allow one to get out of a murder conviction. I understand we are a nation of laws, but at some point common sense and justice need to prevail.

Reminds me of a guy I visited one day and he was upset that he had almost killed a young guy the night before.

He was walking home from his neighborhood sports bar about two blocks away from home and the guy jumped out of the bushes on him with a knife in an attempt to rob him.

Being a special forces veteran trained in hand to hand, he disarmed the guy, put him on his back and caught himself just in time as he had the kids esophagus gripped with the thumb and fingers of one hand with his other hand about to cram the kids nose bone up into his brain but caught himself just in time, picked the kid up by his lapels, pulled out his hanker chief, wiped the blood off the kids face and said; "Look kid, you need to go home and have a long talk with your momma, you just aren't cut out to be a strong arm thief," and sent him on his merry way.

 

[gsvol]

Because the Supreme Court says so. If cops are too stupid or unwilling to do it, then the conviction can be overturned.

And you would say the Supreme Court ruling on Miranda rights was based on what in the US Constitution???

Supreme Court rulings have been overturned before, why no this one???

GS, are you published? Probably wouldn't sell since you're not PC though, but I'd buy a book.

Thanks for the encouragement, I've been thinking of asking my publisher for a quarter million $ advancement, let him worry about promotion.


"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this;
it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles
of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
John Quincy Adams

 

[Brog]

GS, are you published? Probably wouldn't sell since you're not PC though, but I'd buy a book.

The majority of his post's content are word for word pasted from articles on the internet if you do a quick google search.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

Reminds me of a guy I visited one day and he was upset that he had almost killed a young guy the night before.

He was walking home from his neighborhood sports bar about two blocks away from home and the guy jumped out of the bushes on him with a knife in an attempt to rob him.

Being a special forces veteran trained in hand to hand, he disarmed the guy, put him on his back and caught himself just in time as he had the kids esophagus gripped with the thumb and fingers of one hand with his other hand about to cram the kids nose bone up into his brain but caught himself just in time, picked the kid up by his lapels, pulled out his hanker chief, wiped the blood off the kids face and said; "Look kid, you need to go home and have a long talk with your momma, you just aren't cut out to be a strong arm thief," and sent him on his merry way.

He did the community a disservice. The punk will only get a gun, and the next innocent victim probably won't survive. He had a clear cut case of self defense. He should have dispatched the little thug.

 

[tim]

Because the Supreme Court says so. If cops are too stupid or unwilling to do it, then the conviction can be overturned.

What if they killed your mother? Would you care if they read Miranda?