Posted on 04/24/2009 11:06:19 PM PDT by Schnucki
Add one more fascist marker.
We have at least a dozen in the last 100 days, including the Home Security Right Wing Extremist Brief from Janet Napolitano, and the threat by Obama to prosecute CIA officials for “illegal” interrogation in order to prevent future intel leaks to the media, as was done to George Bush.
We have a government which is clearly arrayed against the American People.And they are NOT pulling in their horns, so it is our task to saw them off.
lol!
OMG!!! Obama had a fit when terrorists were not given their miranda rights, but American citizens are once again different and worse.
If this goes through Obama thugs can arrest at will and question anyone. Without anyone present to prove what they did or said. Another step to communism.
Chavez is surely proud of his American protege.
This conviction should be thrown out and a new trial granted. After that the cops who did this 'investigation' should be fired.
L
The LA SC obviously didn’t want to reverse the conviction because they know the state has no case against the guy and if the conviction is reversed and the coerced confession is tossed, he will have a huge civil rights lawsuit against the cops and the city/county.
I don’t have a problem with this, as long as there are reasonable requirements, such as the accused first being informed of his/her right to remain silent, and with the technology that’s readily available today, there should be a requirement that the questioning/answering is videotaped so that there’s evidence with which to address complaints that the arrested person was coerced.
If the accused has requested a lawyer, but the lawyer has not yet arrived, the accused may WANT to talk to police, especially if there’s a situation where, for example a victim may still be alive but might well die if there’s a delay in sending the police to find the victim. Someone who may have been eager to kill someone or not cared if they died, while they imagined they weren’t going to get caught, may have a whole new perspective after they’ve been arrested, when the difference between whether the victim lives or dies could mean a huge difference in the perp’s sentence. There are also situations where an innocent person who has been arrested would want police to go round up certain exculpatory evidence quickly, before it gets “disappeared” (possibly by the real perp). We don’t give up our First Amendment right to free speech, just because we’ve been arrested.
Well - he’s a great fan of A. Lincoln. And - Lincoln did suspend habeaus corpus......
It’s Islamo-fascists that he loves.
-aint that the truth
Also while she was the first “lady”, she spoke about how she favors the British governmental system of a parliament. Guess what, England does not have a Constitution.
btt
“I don’t have a problem with this, as long as there are reasonable requirements, such as the accused first being informed of his/her right to remain silent, and with the technology that’s readily available today, there should be a requirement that the questioning/answering is videotaped so that there’s evidence with which to address complaints that the arrested person was coerced.”
What, and have the poor guy say something that may incriminate himself? Have the guy get twisted and turned by professional interrogators so that he doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going or which way is up? Legal counsel is to protect the suspect’s rights and for advising the suspect to make sure he does NOT incriminate or harm himself. To deny a suspect the right to legal counsel is a horrendous idea, because — supposedly — a person is innocent until proven guilty, and benefit of legal counsel will help to uphold that fact.
This proposal is not about denying anyone the right to counsel. It’s about permitting people who have been arrested — and are still presumed innocent — to CHOOSE to answer police questions before their counsel arrive. Say you’ve been arrested because your young child has disappeared and your ex-wife told police she thought you must have absconded with the child, because there had been a bitter coustody dispute and a neighbor said she saw a car that could have been yours speeding away from the house shortly before the child was discovered missing. But you know full well you didn’t take the child, and you want to help police FAST to get every bit of information that could possibly help them find your child before it’s too late. Your lawyer is expected to arrive in a couple of hours. Have you seen the statistics on how many hours most children abducted by strangers survive? Do you realize how fast a young child can fall into a pool or pond or stream and drown? Do you really think police shouldn’t be allowed to question this parent before the lawyer arrives, even if the parent is eager to talk? That policy is consistent with a presumption of guilt — the arrested person has lost rights to communicate with police, that the person had right up until the second he was arrested.
WHY?
Anyone can talk to the police if he or she wants to. But, believe me, if that person runs up against a skilled interrogator you’d be surprised at how easily they can compromise themselves just by thinking they are saying something that is cooperative and innocent.
Let’s take your scenario: All that parent has to do is say something that might be construed differently than what he or she intended (and skilled interrogators can twist almost anything that has been said), and BINGO! They are a prime suspect, and then the real fun begins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.