Missing word in Miranda warning frees killers

[-Cp]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...10jul13,0,3149545.story?track=mostemailedlink

 

[Hobbit]

What...the...hell. Appealate judges seem to be more interested in freeing criminals than protecting their victims. If this kind of stuff keeps up, expect to see an epidemic of vigilante justice begin to "violate the rights" of these scumbags.

 

[Mr. P]

What...the...hell. Appealate judges seem to be more interested in freeing criminals than protecting their victims. If this kind of stuff keeps up, expect to see an epidemic of vigilante justice begin to "violate the rights" of these scumbags.

Sheriff's top officials insisted on using the form even after State Attorney Michael Satz urged them to change it as early as May 2001.

Don't blame the judges Hobbit..The law does apply to all..
The Sheriff's office screwed this up.

 

[archangel]

Don't blame the judges Hobbit..The law does apply to all..
The Sheriff's office screwed this up.

as the old saying goes..."cross the T's and dot the I's"

 

[Mr. P]

as the old saying goes..."cross the T's and dot the I's"

100% of the time, else ya get this outcome.

 

[insein]

Thanks to all the Fucking lawyers out there who made this kind of situation possible.

 

[Mr. P]

Thanks to all the Fucking lawyers out there who made this kind of situation possible.

Yea, if you ever have a need for one because maybe you were say, in the wrong place at the wrong time and your ass is in trouble and you're innocent, I bet you don't call them "fucking lawyers" then. Geeezzzzzz

 

[Hobbit]

Don't blame the judges Hobbit..The law does apply to all..
The Sheriff's office screwed this up.

Those crooks knew exactly what their rights were. They found a place to nitpick and some pinhead judge decided it was enough to let murderers back on the street. It's a traveshammockery. As in one of my favorite quotes from Law & Order, "They should all rot in Hell, along with their attorneys."

 

[Merlin]

Don't blame the judges Hobbit..The law does apply to all..
The Sheriff's office screwed this up.

Yes it did, but I would like to know where this stupid rule came from that some judge some 40 years ago decided that you had to read rights to anyone. Is it in the constitution? I can't find it. Is ignorance of the law now a defense? There are laws broken that someone does not know that it is illegal to do, and yet they go to jail/prison. Can they use the defense that no one came and read them the law that made that act illegal and that is why they broke it? I don't understand why the Miranda Right has to be read to anyone. If they want to hear it, Google it and read away.

 

[Mr. P]

Yes it did, but I would like to know where this stupid rule came from that some judge some 40 years ago decided that you had to read rights to anyone. Is it in the constitution? I can't find it. .... I don't understand why the Miranda Right has to be read to anyone. If they want to hear it, Google it and read away.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

 

[insein]

Yea, if you ever have a need for one because maybe you were say, in the wrong place at the wrong time and your ass is in trouble and you're innocent, I bet you don't call them "fucking lawyers" then. Geeezzzzzz

Depends. If my lawyer tells me the best course of action is to plea bargin because he just wants to get paid, then yes he too is a fucking lawyer.

Lawyers and judges are one and the same. They may know the LAW but they know nothing about justice.

 

[Merlin]

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

Mr. P, I realize and agree that is a constitutional right, no argument at all. We have a lot of constitutional rights that nobody reads to us though. Why would a judge pick just one constitutional right and say it had to be read to a criminal? The idea of having to read it at all just sounds moronic to me.

 

[Mr. P]

Mr. P, I realize and agree that is a constitutional right, no argument at all. We have a lot of constitutional rights that nobody reads to us though. Why would a judge pick just one constitutional right and say it had to be read to a criminal? The idea of having to read it at all just sounds moronic to me.

It's a matter of your freedom being taken by the Government..that's why. In addition one is not a criminal until convicted....So we are all do the same "reading of rights".

 

[insein]

It's a matter of your freedom being taken by the Government..that's why. In addition one is not a criminal until convicted....So we are all do the same "reading of rights".

So what of the freedoms of the person that was killed? His rights were violated and they have no means to defend themselves now. I understand for cases where the evidence is shady or its not a cut and dry conviction, but these people were tried, convicted and sometimes admitted to committing the crime (even though i dont always trust police confessions because they can be coerced). Now they go free because they werent read their rights? That automatically implies that they are too stupid to KNOW their rights? All the while this supposed protection of individual's rights endangers the public by setting a killer free on a technicality. Yet other times when an individual's rights are infringed upon (property rights, gun ownership, freedom of speech) they are ignored in favor of government. Why the hypocracy and the protection of dangerous criminals? It makes ZERO sense.