Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 286

Thread: RGIII speaks out against Jason Collins

  1. #221
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,228
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Perhaps I should have said the obvious... "what he said to authorities..." and no they can't use statements he makes to authorities unless he waives his Miranda rights. He was not offered his rights and had nothing to waive. As soon as they did read him his rights, he clammed up. Now why would he do that? Because he seems to know the law better than you do. Re the last point, I think it's already been said. Regardless of how damning the case appears against him Tsarnaev is stlll innocent until proven guilty. That's his right as a citizen. You mess with that concept and the core of our Bill of Rights goes down the tubes.

    BULLSH*T. If they gave him his miranda rights and he has not given an option, they CAN use whatever he says against him. Unless he says after being mirandized, that he wants an attorney, THEN and only then will his words NOT be held against him.

    Do you even watch court cases? I mean no insult here, but I honestly think you couldn't be watching how the system of justice works. If you are arrested (mirandized), handcuffed and placed in a cruiser, UNLESS you say that you want an attorney, anything that you say CAN be used against you.

    Hell, even if you do say you want an attorney, but before you get an attorney by your side, you start talking, the prosecution will TRY to get that introduced as evidence.

  2. #222
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    ft lauderdale
    Posts
    1,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stanner View Post
    Custody + guilt seeking questions trigger Miranda. Spontaneous statements or responses to benign conversation are all good.
    Miranda must be given once in custody prior to asking ANY questions. If any question is answered prior to Miranda, the subject then has the right to a suppression hearing. Not saying he or she has to ask for the hearing but has the right

  3. #223
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bcess View Post
    Miranda must be given once in custody prior to asking ANY questions. If any question is answered prior to Miranda, the subject then has the right to a suppression hearing. Not saying he or she has to ask for the hearing but has the right
    If we agree, then why are we arguing?

    But, it's specifically interrogatory questions seeking guilt, and doesn't apply to questions designed to remedy a dangerous situation, like "where's the gun, " etc.
    Last edited by stanner; 05-03-2013 at 07:53 AM.

  4. #224
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    ft lauderdale
    Posts
    1,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    That's also not true. If the accused has not asked for an attorney at that juncture, ANYTHING that you choose to say, at any time, CAN be used against you.

    I mean if everything we say can be suppressed after getting your miranda rights, why do they tell their clients not to speak to anyone besides counsel?

    ANYTHING that you choose to open your mouth and say before or after being mirandized CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law.

    your words are ONLY suppressed if you ask for an attorney, that's it.
    No, law enforcement must advise a subject of his of her Miranda rights prior to questioning. If a person waves his or her rights, it's typically done in writing?

    It's easy really, you say here are your rights, now I have some questions for you do you want to answer them? They answer more offen then not
    Last edited by bcess; 05-03-2013 at 07:46 AM.

  5. #225
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    BULLSH*T. If they gave him his miranda rights and he has not given an option, they CAN use whatever he says against him. Unless he says after being mirandized, that he wants an attorney, THEN and only then will his words NOT be held against him.

    Do you even watch court cases? I mean no insult here, but I honestly think you couldn't be watching how the system of justice works. If you are arrested (mirandized), handcuffed and placed in a cruiser, UNLESS you say that you want an attorney, anything that you say CAN be used against you.

    Hell, even if you do say you want an attorney, but before you get an attorney by your side, you start talking, the prosecution will TRY to get that introduced as evidence.
    LOL. You mean like "Law and Order"? Or "Court TV?"

  6. #226
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bcess View Post
    Not exactly true, if you are not told you have the right to an attorney while being detained and in custody, any and all statements would likely be suppressed
    Only as against you. As against any third parties you implicate, that's not the case. It's the same standing issue that allows the fruits of unlawful searches and seizures to be used against a defendant that has no privacy interest in the area searched.

  7. #227
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    Your full of questions, but certainly no answers.

    That's obviously a dumb question. But it is new in the sense that our country has always provided legal means for immigrants to enter this country. You never know what happens after that. In a changing world, you need to provide tighter security because of the rest of us is at stake.
    On what piss-ignorant planet did this become a legal immigration issue?

  8. #228
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    Do you honestly believe this? That's a complete crock of sh*t. ANYTHING that you say can be used against you. Watch any court case where someone has been murdered and the prosecution will always introduce to the jury what the defendant has said in the past. That is a fact. It's called EVIDENCE of the accused state of mind.
    MJ - I'm a lawyer. I know what I'm talking about. And the above is a sterling example of why people say that "a little knowledge is dangerous". You really have no idea what you are talking about here, or the interplay between the evidentiary rules applicable to the various situations implicated by the use of prior statements as evidence. You are also apparently unaware that Miranda is only applicable to custodial/police interrogation, not what the defendant may have said to a buddy some day. Please stop offering opinions on things you don't really know about.

  9. #229
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    On what piss-ignorant planet did this become a legal immigration issue?
    because obviously when these kids were 10 they should have been denied entry to the country because its pretty obvious that 15 years later they would set off that bomb. Am I making this cut and dries enough for you? You must be a Democrat! The rest of us is at stake!

  10. #230
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    MJ - I'm a lawyer. I know what I'm talking about. And the above is a sterling example of why people say that "a little knowledge is dangerous". You really have no idea what you are talking about here, or the interplay between the evidentiary rules applicable to the various situations implicated by the use of prior statements as evidence. You are also apparently unaware that Miranda is only applicable to custodial/police interrogation, not what the defendant may have said to a buddy some day. Please stop offering opinions on things you don't really know about.
    Lawyer Schmoyer.

    I'll go with Maine Jets info culled from too many episodes of Law & Order.

  11. #231
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    MJ - I'm a lawyer. I know what I'm talking about. And the above is a sterling example of why people say that "a little knowledge is dangerous". You really have no idea what you are talking about here, or the interplay between the evidentiary rules applicable to the various situations implicated by the use of prior statements as evidence. You are also apparently unaware that Miranda is only applicable to custodial/police interrogation, not what the defendant may have said to a buddy some day. Please stop offering opinions on things you don't really know about.
    Ummmmm this!!!!!!!!

  12. #232
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    Lawyer Schmoyer.

    I'll go with Maine Jets info culled from too many episodes of Law & Order.

    Ummmmmm you really do have a problem; do you know this???

  13. #233
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Arctor View Post
    Well, see, this would be where we disagree Mr. Cheney.
    Yes, it would be. My view is informed by study of the laws of war, history, law, and the actual goals and implications of the policies in question. Yours appears to be a function of listening to speeches at an OWS event, since you haven't even tried to back up your position with a logical argument.

    BTW, I appreciate the "Mr. Cheney" dig. Not only was it quite mature and witty, it manages to support your argument by . . . by . . .

    Actually, I give up, I've got no clue how it supports your position. I'd ask you to tell me why you think it was useful, but I doubt you have any answer to give.

    Terrorism carried out by individuals not authorized by and acting for a Nation State is not War.

    It's crime.
    Bobby - you don't mind if I call you Bobby, do you - are you familiar with the Latin phrase ipse dixit? You do realize that simply repeating the conclusion you are arguing for isn't, in fact, a viable argument, right? I mean I've gone to the trouble of responding to you on the assumption that you were both possessed of a basic grasp of logic and interested in a meaningful discussion; if I was wrong on either count, just let me know.

    But if you, like your good friend Mr. Bush, see it as War, and treat it like War, and demand everyone else call it War.....whelp, it's still not War.

    It's still crime.

    There is no "War" on Terrorism. There is no "War" of Drugs.
    Well, I guess if a random poster on a message board says so, without any argument to back it up, it must be true. I give up - you're right.

  14. #234
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    yes, agreed, the rest of us is at stake.

  15. #235
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    ha! I tried to get back to this thread on my desktop after posting from my phone, but couldn't find it. Little did I know it was the RGIII speaks out against Jason Collins thread. Typical internet.

  16. #236
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    That's also not true. If the accused has not asked for an attorney at that juncture, ANYTHING that you choose to say, at any time, CAN be used against you.

    I mean if everything we say can be suppressed after getting your miranda rights, why do they tell their clients not to speak to anyone besides counsel?

    ANYTHING that you choose to open your mouth and say before or after being mirandized CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law.

    your words are ONLY suppressed if you ask for an attorney, that's it.

    Please, please, I'm begging you to stop.

  17. #237
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,228
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bcess View Post
    No, law enforcement must advise a subject of his of her Miranda rights prior to questioning. If a person waves his or her rights, it's typically done in writing?

    It's easy really, you say here are your rights, now I have some questions for you do you want to answer them? They answer more offen then not
    NO, they do not. They can ask anyone to come in for questioning WITHOUT giving them their miranda rights. It is ONLY in the event of an ARREST, that they must give them their miranda rights. You are WRONG. And even after giving them their miranda rights, if they choose not to say "I want an attorney", then they will use anything you say against you.

  18. #238
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,228
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    MJ - I'm a lawyer. I know what I'm talking about. And the above is a sterling example of why people say that "a little knowledge is dangerous". You really have no idea what you are talking about here, or the interplay between the evidentiary rules applicable to the various situations implicated by the use of prior statements as evidence. You are also apparently unaware that Miranda is only applicable to custodial/police interrogation, not what the defendant may have said to a buddy some day. Please stop offering opinions on things you don't really know about.
    Well, I come from a family of law enforcement. I can tell you without a doubt that they DO use or at least try to use ANYTHING you say against you. that's improving the prosecutions case in the event it gets to trial. After you are given your miranda rights and without asking for an attorney, you choose to simply say "I did it" they will use that against you.

    At that point you have been advised of your miranda rights and you chose to say you did it. You also did not ask for an attorney. They can use that against you.

    I sense you are not a criminal lawyer?

  19. #239
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    yes, agreed, the rest of us is at stake.
    MMMM......stake......

  20. #240
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    NO, they do not. They can ask anyone to come in for questioning WITHOUT giving them their miranda rights. It is ONLY in the event of an ARREST, that they must give them their miranda rights. You are WRONG. And even after giving them their miranda rights, if they choose not to say "I want an attorney", then they will use anything you say against you.
    I'll let the Courts know the below is no longer true, per MJ:

    "A suspect is . . . 'in custody' for Miranda purposes when placed under formal arrest or when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us