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

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

[ncgal]

Chances are the writers of the Constitution didn't foresee the country going to hell in a handbasket!

[ncgal]

Chances are he wouldn't have all the "rights" at home

[No Longer Free State]

True. Here, he's a murderer whose lawyer probably wanted him out walking the street before his trial so he could melt into the illegal underground and not be held responsible for his actions.

[1rudeboy]

I will argue that the Founders knew exactly what they were doing, but I suspect you know that already.

[Texas Eagle]

How do you say, "Too bad, so sad" in Mexicanish?

[kstewskis]

I once went to court with a friend and we were sitting in there with mostly Latinos around us. Each time their case was called, the person would rise and say they could not speak or understand English. I was getting furious, since while we were sitting there waiting, they all were conversing with each other in English! I was so tempted to stand up and tell the judge! I have a feeling this is the same thing.

Just today, I had a man practically chew me out, wondering why I didn't speak Spanish (when "the girls up front said we did") while trying to make an appointment over the phone.

He somehow was able to tell me that he was seen by his doctor, was told to come into physical therapy, then told me his full name, his injury, and what time he'd like to come in for the next day....all in English.

Imagine that.

[1rudeboy]

What a shame. I was planning to school you on Constitutional Law.

[A Jovial Cad]

What a shame

It 'tis, but not in the way you mean with that pathetic line of rejoinder. "Debating" juvenile widdle trolls like you inevitably reaches a point where nothing more productive can be gained from further interaction, as here: every point you offered up was decisively refuted, and so you simply kept changing the subject. This is the typical modus operandi of scummy disruptor's.

I was planning to school you on Constitutional Law

Uh-huh, I'll just be you were...

...(snicker)...

[1rudeboy]

That's fine. Run away, little man.

[1rudeboy]

But I don' wanna discuss Constitutional Law!

[A Jovial Cad]

Not "running" anywhere, sport. I just prefer to debate with someone with a demonstrated maturity level that ranks above that of your average fifteen year old, and an IQ that breaks, at a bare minimum, the low threshold of 60.

You don't fit into either of those categories.

EOM.

[1rudeboy]

I refer you to my comment #37, which is still awaiting a response. Read it again.
Use your finger and mouth out the words if you must.

[A Jovial Cad]

I refer you to my comment #37

Well, Troll, your "comment #37," besides being irrelevant to the discussion at hand, is a silly pastiche of disjointed assumptions & contrived special pleading that wouldn't fool even a semi-literate moonbat.

So, try again.

But what's fascinating to me in this mismatched battle of wits--to which you've arrived on the field half-armed--is your curious disinterest in refuting the charge, oft-stated, that you are nothing more than a scummy little troll.

One realizes, upon reflection, that this is a rare bow to reality on your part: the charge is irrefutable, and you well know it.

Please proceed to gibber on, along these same silly lines, all you wish: it provides genuine entertainment, with a minimum investment of time.

Thanks for the laughs...

[1rudeboy]

It stretches the imagination why you think the concept of Due Process is irrelevant to this discussion. If your rhetorical position was as superior as you alone believe, then it should've been no problem at all to explain why. Let me emphasize: I would've preferred to see you explain why this man's Due Process rights can be ignored (or "adjusted") under the current state of law, instead, you inflicted me with your simple opinions about the role of Congress, and meaningless blather about irrelevancies.

I'll maintain (again, presuming your attention span is less than optimal) that this man can be deported after a simple hearing before an administrative judge. But in order to send this man to prison for murder, a trial in which he gets the full benefit our legal system must occur. And please, spare me from your yammering that "I need not respond because the Constitution is irrelevant to this discussion;" I've seen it already, and would welcome the opportunity to observe the judge's reaction if you ever found the chutzpah to argue it in court.

For your education, I'll include the following "inconvenient" passages from the Bill of Rights. Please note the distinction that is drawn between "persons" and "citizens."

Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Seems to me that if he hadn't been here in the first place he wouldn't be in this pickle and the young lady would still be alive.

Take him out back of the police station, put him on his knees and put a bullet in his brain, kick him into an open grave and cover him up.

He has NO constitutional rights.

[A Jovial Cad]

Does it ever get any easier?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States (emphases added).

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (emphasis added).

The individual in question is an illegal immigrant, i.e., neither "born" nor "naturalized," here, Troll.

And just whom, one wonders, gets to make the decision on exactly what defines a "citizen"? Well, unless one is born or naturalized on American soil, it is (drum roll)...ta da!: Congress.

Which is precisely what I pointed out the first time you limbered up your nimble fingers, and decided to make a fool of yourself by posting to moi.

You've been hoist on your own petard, and are in way over your head in this debate, Troll. I'd quit while I was behind, were I you.

But if you wish further intellectual humiliation, by all means reply. I'm always game for some more easy laughs.

[1rudeboy]

Is English your second language?

[marty60]

Ofcourse he speaks English. He understood the nuainces of "you could tell he (the cop)was being deceitful."

Murdering slime.

[A Jovial Cad]

Looks like I struck a nerve with the poor widdle Troll...his "constitutional" analysis has been shown up as a fraud and is in shambles, and so his only shabby retort is a silly rhetorical question that belies frustration, befuddlement, and deep anger at his own intellectual shortcomings.

You dug the hole, Troll. Don't blame me if you find it increasingly difficult to slither your way out of it.

[1rudeboy]

Please re-read my reply #29, from days ago, and apply it to your limited understanding of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Some hole indeed . . . you couldn't even bring yourself to cite the relevant clause!