Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #101
you people screamed when he wasnt mirandized immediately and now your pissed he got mirandized?
you people have no shame
you people have no shame
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What a stupid comment, katz. Grow up or step off.
I'm sorry but in a country of 315,000,000 people, 4 dead individuals is not sufficient reason for us to suspend and give up rights (ie due process) that took thousands of years of fighting to obtain.
Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that the great majority of us were either serfs or slaves.
.
What a stupid comment, katz. Grow up or step off.
Dear KND and JS:
I agree in essence with KND statement, that if you breach the contract and violate terms of citizenship then you should not be able to invoke rights under the same.
I'm sorry but in a country of 315,000,000 people, 4 dead individuals is not sufficient reason for us to suspend and give up rights (ie due process) that took thousands of years of fighting to obtain.
Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that the great majority of us were either serfs or slaves.
.
It depends how the system is used, if the person gives up their rights or not.
If you abuse the system to hide information and obstruct due process and justice,
then you lose your rights to free speech and to have equal say in the outcome.
You are gambling with your own rights to take the fifth amendment.
Isn't he entitled to the same rights Timothy McVeigh received?
Stupid liberal!
I'm sorry but in a country of 315,000,000 people, 4 dead individuals is not sufficient reason for us to suspend and give up rights (ie due process) that took thousands of years of fighting to obtain.
Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that the great majority of us were either serfs or slaves.
.
It depends how the system is used, if the person gives up their rights or not.
If you abuse the system to hide information and obstruct due process and justice,
then you lose your rights to free speech and to have equal say in the outcome.
You are gambling with your own rights to take the fifth amendment.
If you use the legal defense to cooperate with authorities and the system FULLY to get everyone's grievances and issues resolved in the course of due process, then you might be able to preserve your rights to the extent you respect that of others.
Others may still abuse information you give to impose greater punishment than you think you deserve, so it depends what conditions you can work out with the lawyers.
If the govt wants full disclosure, this can be a bargaining chip to have more say in the outcome in exchange for information.
If parties do not respect each other's rights equally, then it's a gamble.
Some may win some concessions, others may lose.
All sides can win if the focus is to correct and redress all grievances, where everyone is satisfied and all issues are included and resolved. Emotionally, people are not that perfect. so that is why our legal system is a gamble. it does not fully allow for people to be human.
You'd almost have to take people OUT of the political context our govt has become biased by, work through all these issues on a human level, reach an agreement then plug that back into the system to work things out logistically given the legal constraints.
My prayers to the families and recovering victims, to make their peace on this spiritual personal level. And hopefully to remove themselves and not depend on a biased political system for any kind of conditions on closure to be met because that's not guaranteed.
Whatever happens I pray for the healing and closure to be on an unconditional level so all pepole find peace regardless what our justice system does with this case. Peace to all.
Emily, I disagree with your analysis.
The 5th's protections are absolute until they are changed by appropriate constitutional procedure.
For over forty years Police Officers have had to tell persons they arrested that they had the right to an attorney and anything they said would be held against them and nobody on the left or right gave a damn that slickster attorneys were getting felons off the hook for no other reason than a rookie cop forgot to Marandize a monster. Here we are in the 21st century and all of a sudden, duh, everyone is hysterical that the feds are forced to give a citizen his Miranda rights. Live with it or get rid of it but you might be next if you allow the federal government to choose which citizen is covered by the Constitution.
But Emily, the whole point of having a "right" is that it can't be 1. suspended under any circumstance. 1. f the gov't can suspend it during any occasion it deems as "suitable", then how dependable is that right? What's even the point of having it on the books?
2. How about we just say "based on the situation, the gov't will decide whether or not we will enjoy the right to due process"? See where I'm getting at?
These rights we have as Americans are important, Emily, and I realize that it's easy for us (who have it so good here) to take them for granted. I urge you not to!
.
Emily, no, it is not how the "system is used" that determines rights.
The 5th Amendment is the guide that determines rights.
But Emily, the whole point of having a "right" is that it can't be 1. suspended under any circumstance. 1. f the gov't can suspend it during any occasion it deems as "suitable", then how dependable is that right? What's even the point of having it on the books?
2. How about we just say "based on the situation, the gov't will decide whether or not we will enjoy the right to due process"? See where I'm getting at?
These rights we have as Americans are important, Emily, and I realize that it's easy for us (who have it so good here) to take them for granted. I urge you not to!
.
1. I'm not saying to suspend that right, but to make sure it's not abused. Not by imposing from the govt side, but by educating the people on the defense side to choose not to abuse the laws where they risk protections to the same degree they deny this to others.
you still keep and enforce laws as is but people can use their rights differently under that structure. you use your first amendment free speech right to petition and free exercise of religion to negotiate better terms where you DON'T fear incrimination or punishment.
But you get the conditions you want by agreeing to cooperate fully under legal defense.
2. the govt already imposes all kinds of conditions on the process that makes it
almost impossible to have due process protected equally for all people.
I am not trying to introduce this problem of arbitrary justice, which already exists, but undo the conflicts causing this which is already going on and skewing the system where it's a gamble and does not guarantee anyone's rights the way it is run.
3. I am trying to encourage greater respect for equal protection of all interests under law, as the spirit of the laws based on consent of the governed, and to interpret and apply
all existing laws WITHIN that context of equal justice, NOT suspending these laws
but using them in context where no one's right are violated. that is not suspending
laws to ask people to enforce and use them consistently within constitutional due process.
I think the misunderstanding is you think I am saying that the govt takes rights away; but what I am saying is that people freely choose to use their rights under law in ways that don't abuse the system to obstruct justice. This is not done by govt force or taking away laws, but educating people on the spiritual process of justice so they choose freely to further and work with it, not against it; to protect their own rights by respecting those of others equally. Those are spiritual laws, so following those within the secular system.
The only laws that might change, are any restrictions preventing certain sentences from being carried out. Such as if the victims and offenders agree to a restitution program to pay back debts and damages before the person is executed, if the law does not permit such labor to be done freely by the offender as restitution, then maybe that law might change if the people involved in a case argue it is necessary for justice and closure. But such agreements can be legally reached using the given laws of free speech, due process, right to petition for redress of grievances, even free exercise of religion etc. So this is not going against the given laws, but using them in new ways for restoring justice and peace.
Wrong. You never lose your right to free speech or any other right protected by the Constitution.
Your understanding of the law is fascist to the bone.
Take up your changes to the 5th Amendment by constitutional action, not by procedural definition.
Aren't we just discussing whether or not the suspect should have been granted the same miranda rights as every other US citizen who is arrested?
My point was that these are legal rights, and these legal rights shouldn't be suspended on 'a pick and choose basis' by our Gov't. If they can be suspended at any willy nilly time, then what's the point of even calling them a right?
Sorry if I'm missing your point...
.
Take up your changes to the 5th Amendment by constitutional action, not by procedural definition.
If you really want the right not to incriminate yourself, then don't do anything incriminating and don't obstruct due process where people would use govt to punish or force you.
The 5th permits us to use the rights as we, the citizen, sees fit.
That cannot be changed except by constitutional procedure.