Posted on 07/22/2017 2:31:41 PM PDT by Ray76
“Point to where the constitution says a lawyer should make up stories or outright lie in order to defend a client.”
If you believe that any attorney involved in this case has acted unethically or has violated any law during his representation of a client, you should file a complaint with the Minnesota Bar Association and or the district attorney in that jurisdiction.
The following statement allows some wiggle room:
“There’s still a lot about the lead-up to the shooting that’s unknown, said Jenny Singleton of the Police Conduct Oversight Commission. But it appears to her that the cameras should have been turned on.”
The Assistance of Counsel Clause in the Sixth Amendment is rather clear.
Non answer
I agree with you that he won’t be prosecuted for what he did.
Why did the chief of police step down?
Did the mayor fire her, or was she handed her hat?
Nothing about this story makes sense.
Then again, I can't imagine a scenario that *would* make sense.
And if the defense is at all competent, they will try to get a number of Muslims on the jury. Noor will certainly walk in that event.
But the Minneapolis political authorities badly want this case to go away. The longer the prosecution takes to make the indictment, the better the chances that will happen.
How long do you think that witness to the event will last before he is threatened by local Muslims and clams up. Or is killed by a "lone-wolf" assassin? Or by another police officer while "being uncooperative" and "assaulting an officer"?
I would like to believe your assessment that a careful DA is making a diligent case for prosecution and that will take more time that people would like.
But I have seen too many inflammatory political cases where the prosecution drags their feet, places a gag order on the whole proceeding, and then quietly plea-bargains an abominable felony down to a minor misdemeanor with trivial penalties after enough time has passed for things to quiet down.
The Muslim rape case in Idaho stands as a recent example.
This case has all the earmarks to be another example. The prosecution had better move quickly and carefully.
And here we go, more of the narrative that Muslims are a oppressed people and it is always the white person’s fault, no matter how outlandish of a claim is made such as someone having Ambien in their system.
Blame the victim is exactly what liberals do to advance the narrative.
JoMa
My bad. “Pop into view” would probably have been better.
When bad things happen it’s very rarely because one thing went wrong. Tragedies generally are the result of multiple small failures adding up, many/most of them inconsequential in themselves.
Never put something down to ill intent when mere stupidity will do.
They are going for mental impairment of the woman.
Many many women are on antidepressants and they do affect behavior.
However, the other officers statements negate that this was going on in this particular case.
I was in law enforcement and heard “innocent” subjects say things like, “She had it coming”, or “I had no choice but to do it”. LEOs learned “workarounds”, but thousands had skated murder charges—only to do it again—armed with Miranda.
Someone is doing bad police work if thousands of murder cases have been tossed because arresting officers are not mirandazing people that are arrested for murder.
While chatting with the "person of interest", detectives can witness a guilty outburst. At that point, they can THEN make an arrest, and THEN inform the subject of Miranda.
Cases won by prosecutors are today being appealed citing Miranda—going back decades. That the NYTs writes glowingly of Miranda "Rights" should be a clue. "Police are chipping away at Miranda"
American Spectator:
"After the Supreme Court handed down Miranda, hundreds of criminals had their convictions overturned because of retroactive application. Many were admitted murderers. Thousands of other confessions have since been thrown out before they ever reached the courtroom.
All this turned loose a lot of potentially dangerous people."
He's busy. He's over at Miracle Ear trying to get his hearing restored.
It is best to never talk to the police.
With that, you will never knowingly, unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally incriminate yourself for a crime that you may have committed or a crime that you had nothing to do with.
I have never spoken to a person that was arrested and not read their Miranda Rights or made aware of their rights under Miranda.
LOL it certainly is: You enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for defense. Until 1963, however, everyone interpreted that to mean you could do so if you so chose. But even giving that away - I think the idea that lawyers should defend anyone, by any means, destroying any reputation, by manipulating emotion rather than sticking to fact, by lying, by coaching witnesses, etc., is odious. Same goes for DA’s.
“I think the idea that lawyers should defend anyone, by any means, destroying any reputation, by manipulating emotion rather than sticking to fact, by lying, by coaching witnesses, etc., is odious. Same goes for DA’s.”
Both the prosecution and defense must act in an ethical and legal manner, but everyone, no matter how horrific the crime they may be accused, has the right to a defense.
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.