Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
” Did you object to silence being used as a determing factor for guilt? Did you bother to state your thought that it shouldn’t be used? “
Again you misrepresent what I said. My statement was that he was convicted based on being drunk and running into someone at a high rate of speed and killing them. His silences was not the determining factor in his conviction. Even you agreed that he shouldn’t have gone free based on this ‘technicality.
“When you have to tools to grasp what I’ve written, get back to me.”
I can grasp that you said you agreed with my position after you had admitted that you had wrongly portrayed my position.
In that post I stated exactly what went down.
I did not misrepresent you at all.
You did not address the question I asked on point.
You decided to avoid answering it on point.
Why? You could have simply answered the question.
But it was not wrong for me to come to that conclusion.
There is a difference.
“You did not address the question I asked on point. You decided to avoid answering it on point.”
I answered by pointing out that he was not convicted on that point. He was convicted on the preponderance of the evidence. My point being that he should not be released based upon a legal technicality which probably did not affect the outcome of his trial.
Using your logic all confessions given to the police during any questioning should be inadmissible unless the defendant authorizes the prosecution to use it.
Miranda was an exercise in judicial legislating just like Roe v Wade.
“Not unless that figured into the verdict. If it did, it should be subject to Constitutional challenge.”
Please cite the constitutional issue.
You point in that post made no such claims. You asked a question in return and ignored the question I laid out for you.
I didn’t particularly mind the question, but it did seem odd that you would take a pass on answering the question.
It was a rather fundamental issue.
I don’t even know which posts you are referring to anymore.
LOL, we’ll it wouldn’t be a Constitutional challenge would it. It would be more accepted case law at this point.
Our legal system has accepted a “5th Amendment” claim, even if it does not exist. If it’s going to accept that, then it would be impossible to justify convicting someone for refusing to make comments prior to Maranda at the point of arrest.
In some instances, I believe that carving up or embellishing the Constitution is wrong. In the instance of the Second Amendment, I do not agree that personal weapons should be made so hard to own, that it makes it hard to do so. I think concealed carry should be available if you have a good record, and no mental illness.
The insertion of the “5th Amendment” right to not being forced to testify against yourself in effect, is reasoned IMO.
Until a person has legal council, they shouldn’t be subjected to having to make statements not knowing what the laws of our land are.
If all people were licenses attorneys, the case could be made that they should all know what the rules were. A layman simply doesn’t. He can say things that prejudice his right to a fair trial.
That’s why I believe the time before Mirandizing should conform to the intent of that law. A simple silence should mean nothing.
We’ve hashed this out enough. You strongly disagree with what I did. I accept that. I don’t blame you. I also understand why I came to the conclusion I did. You have had your opportunity to disagree with what I did, and explain your view.
I’m sorry we had this disagreement.
Take care.
“when the prosecutor says, “Tom didn’t ask about the well-being of those he had hit with his car.”, asserting that that lack of concern was perhaps an indication of his state of mind?”
That actually is a good additional point, even if you didn’t mean to make it: Prosecutors can now go from saying, “His silence is an admission of guilt”, to now also using silence of not asking a question as an admission of some sort. Before they could use silence, now they can. This could easily lead to silence of not asking specific questions, such as the condition of a victim, as an admission of guilt. Slippery slope.
Take care.
“If all people were licenses attorneys, the case could be made that they should all know what the rules were. A layman simply doesn’t.”
My take has always been that the legal profession is hypocritical: On one hand, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but on the other, “You need legal counsel because the law is just too complicated to go it alone.”
Thank you.
“Before they could use silence, now they can”
Before they COULD NOT use silence, now they can
Interesting observation, and there’s truth to it.
Thanks.
Novel idea....man up, say “Yes.” and take your licks since you earned em.
Likewise, using your logic means the police can delay announcing their interest in a subject until after they have beguiled and coerced as many incriminating (or twistable) statements while not allowing the subject to plead the fifth amendment and not answer their questions.
Both extremes are ripe for abuse.
I distrust abuse by the government more.
P: It would appear that most of the Freepers on this thread are in judicial communion with Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.
You: As soon as you begin the ad hominem and guilt by association, all it does is confirm you have no case.
I think it confirms that you have the same view as them. Their view was the minority view. Ergo, the conservative side and majority says YOU have no case.
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.