Posted on 04/22/2013 12:21:37 PM PDT by Kaslin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2638646/posts
The first one is: 1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States
I wonder if what he did could be considered treason?
Paladin, I have personally told people to tell the police they can’t search them, their car, their homes, or property. I have personally told people to invoke their Miranda rights upon being questioned. And in a couple of instances, people I had talked to were arrested and either incriminated themselves by statements or allowed a search. It is easy for us to tell people to assert their rights, but once someone is in a tough spot, they find it difficult to do so.
It apparently takes training or life experiences. As an old fart, I now have both.
I like Alysin Camerota, but sometimes she get things wrong, I could just scream
“So the penalty for no Miranda:
The cops may interrogate a person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use the statements in a criminal trial.”
Close but incomplete. Not only can defendant’s statements not be used, any evidence gleaned from the statements cannot be used (Poisonous Tree Doctrine) unless the discovery of the evidence would have been inevitable (through another source).
Was it an overt act of war? It was done in the open, at least two witnesses can be produced to bear witness to the act, and firing upon forces seems like a continuation of that act...
I’d say it’d have a good chance of passing judicial review as being acts of treason.
The Miranda Warning got "invented" when I was a teenager; since then, criminality has gone rampant.
Would a reasonably intelligent and informed person consider the act of placing explosive devices to maim and kill persons attending a sporting venue to be 'waging war against these United States'? If the answer is affirmative, then, by the definition present within the Constitution, which is the sole legal definition of the crime of Treason, then it is, in fact, Treason.
the infowarrior
One of the consequences of the Miranda ruling and having to “Mirandize” suspects is that people can now get lazy about their Constitutional liberties. If we reward lasy, dummies we’ll get more of them.
I’d say it’d have a good chance of passing judicial review as being acts of treason.
An excellent summation. Now, for the $64,000.00 question. Was is this not applied to this case, or even more importantly, the case of Nidal Hasan?
the infowarrior
This is a dead issue now (at least for this guy) as he was read his Miranda rights, by the judge at his hearing today. His lawyer was right at his side, too!
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.