You have completely misrepresented this case. No one says that torture is acceptable. In this case, there is no allegation of torture - only that the officer interrogated the plaintiff without reading him his rights. No circuit claims that torture is acceptable - where do you get such complete nonsense?
You have completely misrepresented this case. No one says that torture is acceptable. In this case, there is no allegation of torture - only that the officer interrogated the plaintiff without reading him his rights.
Actually, you are correct. I believe the suit is over the damages, and Martinez seeks to get evidence contrary to his case thrown out based upon criminal law.
When I first read this, based upon the timing of the interrogation, it looked as if Chavez was the cop that shot Martinez. My bad.
Either way, this discussion has devolved into a discussion on whether or not the state can coerce a confession or evidence in a civil matter. The GWB administration seems to have taken an interest in the matter to shelve some rights for the War on Terrorism.
It is not a huge leap to think that an obsequious court would allow for the state to "beat a confession" out of a prospective terrorist, drug dealer, or even a tax cheat. I believe most of world history has had such an arrangement. It is my fear this could be the first step on the way toward coerced confessions. No circuit claims that torture is acceptable - where do you get such complete nonsense?
I was responding to the premise of post #25. I was assuming the poster was correct. Perhaps he is not.