Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
To make it official.
Do you think Miranda was a good decision? Is Earl Warren one of your constitutional heroes?
Sure that wasn’t “thunderous” silence, or “guilty” silence, or “prevaricating” silence that was miraculously transformed into undeniable stone cold evidence. Is there a legal guide that defines silence evidence that the defendant can refer to?
“Do you think Miranda was a good decision?”
Evidently, it doesn’t matter anymore.
This case is a good one.
Where there is no issue as to whether or not the defendant killed the victim (there is no issue in this case) and where the only issue is the defendant's state of mind (which in this case was whether or not the defendant had a callous disregard for human life) then cold silence in the face of a dying child or a screaming mother can be interpreted by a jury that the defendant really didn't give a damn about the consequences of his actions and had no regard for anyone other than himself.
I think the facts of this case bear out that the defendant didn't really give a damn about whether or not he killed a child. His only concern was for himself. Just as it was when he was driving drunk and speeding.
I'm fine with that. Remember, Kali, on a Berlin Wall, the gun towers face INWARD! As long as they remember that, I'm cool It'll keep the commies from getting out and staining the good part of the country.
I'll accept that as a "YES".
Yikes. LOL
So you believe that someone not making a statement before they are Marandaized should be grounds for conviction? That is the premise of this article.
I don’t agree.
Seems to me I remember Robert’s class act, declaring the Obamacare fees taxes, and thus legitimate, so Obamacare could remain the law of the land.
Folks on the court don’t always get it right.
I would have to agree that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreeing with my take is unsettling.
What would you venture the reason to be?
Maybe you should re-evaluate your position in light of the actual wording of the fifth amendment and the intent of the framers.
If you are in agreement with those clowns, then you are obviously not thinking correctly.
Whaaaaa? So you have to utter some magic incantation for silence not to be used against you? Shoot after this ruling, I'd think if you DID say you were standing on the 5th it could be used against you, because since the 5th provides protection from self-incrimination, then if you don't want to talk, then anything you had to say must then have been incriminating!
In all honestly, when someone does something like this, the last thing the parents want to hear is the idiot slobbering all over everyone expressing remorse.
IMO, just shutting up and remaining on the sidelines is about all you can do.
The guy is already the slime-ball to beat all slime-balls.
Was Robert’s thinking correctly when he ruled that the Obamacare fees were taxation?
I’ll be interested if you’re rethinking your take on that one.
This was the appeal, to the Supreme Court of California. The only possible further appeal is to SCOTUS, which agrees to hear only a tiny fraction of cases appealed to it.
I do not include Roberts in any argument about the Constitution. I only reference Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Roberts was in agreement with Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor on Obamacare. Kennedy was on the other side.
So when Roberts is in agreement with those clowns, then he must be numbered among the clowns. I now permanently number him among the clowns and I would move to impeach him if I were in Congress.
Note that with this sort of idea as precedent — that your rights come into existence when you are told about them by an official — they could beat you until you confess and then Mirandaize you and let you have legal representation [et al].
What do they care? They already have a confession.
I would have to agree with you. Over time I think he’s going to screw us again from time to time.
The problem is impeaching these sorts and getting it through the Senate. Same problem with Obama. They’re clearly problematic, Obama even criminally IMO, but what can you do.
He has members of a terrorist organization as his advisers.
Well, off topic...
I don’t necessarily object to looking at this again.
But it is something the jury might want to consider. When the only issue is the defendant's state of mind at the time of the accident, a callous silence in the face of the suffering you have caused is evidence that you had a callous disregard for life, especially if you were drunk and speeding at the time.
To deny the jury access to that information when deciding the case is to deny the parents the justice they deserve.
If you were the judge, would you have kept the undisputed FACT that the defendant did not utter a single word after killing an 8 year old from the jury?
I know that you are agreeing with me, but I do see a valid argument against mine. If it only goes to frame of mind and not guilt, it could be a decent argument.
It still verges on self-incrimination. I’ll take another look.
It was the three most far-left judges on the California Supreme Court who dissented. The decision was written by the closest thing that court has to a conservative.
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.