Murder suspect claims he didn't understand right to remain silent (ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT)

The Daily Item (Sunbury, PA) ^ | 10/29/2005 | John Finnerty

[A Jovial Cad]

The U.S. Constitution delegates those "distinctions" you're so anxious to excuse this little murdering sweetheart over to Congress, which can make all the "distinctions" it wants save in "strictly defined instances."

You need to buy a clue, or at least pretend to.

[BenLurkin]

"[A] translator who was present for the interview, read the form to Mr. Fuentes in Spanish."

Put the translator on the stand. If he testifies he read the Miranda warning to the killer in Spanish then I don't see what the problem is.

[Born Conservative]

Agreed; the rural areas surrounding Lewisburg are staunchly "red".

[Onelifetogive]

Mr. Fuentes, said that when he was taken to the Milton Police station a few hours after Carly's body was found in her 130 Upper Market St. apartment, he was given papers to sign but he didn't realize that those papers explained he had a right to remain silent or speak to an attorney.

Note to self...Next time I plan to illegally enter a country where I don't understand the language or the laws, do some basic research before I confess to murder...

[1rudeboy]

I'm not anxious to excuse anyone. I'm sorry that you find our Constitution inconvenient.

[No Longer Free State]

I guess next time he wants to murder someone he'll stay in a country where he understands the language, huh?

[festus]

If you have stabbed someone to death without justification no matter what country you are in and no matter how the legal system there works. Don't say you did it.

He admitted to doing this because he is a moron. And I can't see aquiting just because he's stupid.

[A Jovial Cad]

I'm sorry that you find our Constitution inconvenient

The Constitution is fine; your pretended interpretation of it is ignorant, silly, and irrelevant.

Go troll somewhere else.

[1rudeboy]

The Fifth Amendment states that no "person" shall be deprived of due process. Seeing that other portions of the Constitution distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, it can safely be argued that the Framers deliberately chose not to make that distinction in this case. I am truly sorry that you fail to comprehend originalism, newbie.

[A Jovial Cad]

The Fifth Amendment states that no "person" shall be deprived of due process

The Constitution explicitly grants to Congress the right to define citizenship--and that includes all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, troll.

[1rudeboy]

Congress does not have the power to interpret the Fifth Amendment, n00b.

[A Jovial Cad]

Nice try, Troll--but that's not what was stated, and is not even the issue in contention.

The issue is CITIZENSHIP. Come along with me now, let's spell it: C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S-H-I-P.

Got it?

Now, try again, Tr0ll.

[1rudeboy]

You might wish to spend some time with the 14th Amendment, as wll.

[Churchillspirit]

No comprede = I cannot be held reponsible for anything.

[A Jovial Cad]

You might wish to spend some time with the 14th Amendment, as wll (Sic)

That's the best you can do? Just gurgle some further irrelevancies?

You need to either sober up, cease the lame trolling, or both.

[A Jovial Cad]

Well, Troll, what's the matter? Kitty got your tongue?

The bottom line of this entire one-sided affair--"one-sided" in the sense that you got your rear handed to you in the "debate" with ease--is that you popped into this thread with some comment that was irrelevant to the issue at hand, but aimed at furthering some kind of pro-illegal immigrant axe-grinding agenda.

Why don't you just run along now, and take your lame trolling act somewhere else?

And I don't just mean from this thread, in which you were obviously bested by an intellectual superior, but from a forum in which you are evidently trolling in bad faith?

[1rudeboy]

First of all, I will reply at my convenience . . . not yours. Secondly, it looks like the source of your confusion is your inability to distinguish between removal and incarceration. Removal of a criminal alien is an administrative matter, decided by an administrative judge (no cross-examination of witnesses, etc.). Incarceration necessarily entails criminal proceedings with all the bells and whistles.

Now if you wish to argue that someone is not entitled to due process in a murder trial in a U.S. court because he or she is not a U.S. citizen, be my guest. I'd enjoy the spectacle. Moreover, if you are ever accused of a crime in, say, the United Kingdom, I'll defend your rights under UK law against any internet constitutional "expert" that comes along.

[1rudeboy]

bttt

[ncgal]

They had an translator read his rights in Spanish. Never heard of throwing out a confession because the killer was dumber than dirt.

[ncgal]

They don't seem to have any trouble understanding "free"