You mean it's not like on Reno 911??
You mean it's not like on Reno 911??
Sorry I thought you were being serious. I just don’t understand why someone would spill their guts on scene. I would assume you are already going downtown if you have used deadly force,but I’m not an LE. I really don’t think either of these guys were BAD guys,but one or both made terrible decisions.
Last edited:
A lot of people are stupid and talk talk talk, I am not saying anything to anyone and if you're smart you won't either . The minute the questions begin , I 'd like my lawyer please .
The cops aren't your friend in any kind of potential criminal investigation .
This brings up a point I've often thought about: you say you would have shot him if you had a gun, but in the end somehow bumping him with your car door solved the problem and everyone got to go home.
Even if we carry with all righteous intent to protect self and family, how many shots are fired when maybe something less lethal would have worked?
Really hard to say.
I'm old an in no way could last more than a few seconds in a bare handed fight, and simply being knocked down can seriously injure or kill you, so disparity of force is definitely in the back of my mind.
It’s Kaleb’s lol
Yeah, that was the alternate, only for use in the extreme cases of the ***.
An interesting tidbit almost no one knows.
Ernesto Miranda was not a very nice guy. He was a Mexican immigrant arrested for kidnapping and ****. During the investigation and subsequent line up, he was identified by his victim. Miranda was told this information and confessed to the crimes. He also signed his confession which indicated his statement was made knowingly and voluntarily.
Miranda was unaware that a defendant could remain silent and could request to speak with an attorney before being questioned in connection to the crimes.
Miranda's signed confession was used as the primary piece of evidence during his trial and led to his conviction and sentencing of 20-30 years in prison. During the initial trial, however, there was an objection to his confession being introduced as evidence. Because Miranda was ignorant of his rights against self-incrimination, the confession should have been deemed involuntary. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court where the lower court’s ruling was upheld.
Miranda’s case was appealed again and landed before the United States Supreme Court in early 1966. At this time, the high court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and sided with Miranda, 5-4. The court determined that due to the intimidating situation of a police interrogation, suspects need to explicitly waive their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney for their protection. It was also acknowledged that should the suspect invoke either of these rights, the interrogation must cease until an attorney arrives.
Miranda was granted a new trial in 1967, where he still found guilty of the same crimes, despite the omission of his signed confession from evidence.
Ernesto Miranda did, indeed, get a new trial based on the Supreme Court ruling, and his original confession was thrown out. However, based on the evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and ****, and served 11 years in prison before being paroled in 1972. In 1976, at the age of 34, Miranda was stabbed to death in a barroom brawl.
Police arrested a suspect in the killing who, after choosing to exercise his Miranda Right to remain silent, was released without being charged with the crime.
I remember the reaction in the classroom when this news was brought to light. At the time, most cops thought they were being reined in, and hamstrung when dealing with suspects. The class was college level Arrest, Search and Seizure.
Ernesto Miranda was not a very nice guy. He was a Mexican immigrant arrested for kidnapping and ****. During the investigation and subsequent line up, he was identified by his victim. Miranda was told this information and confessed to the crimes. He also signed his confession which indicated his statement was made knowingly and voluntarily.
Miranda was unaware that a defendant could remain silent and could request to speak with an attorney before being questioned in connection to the crimes.
Miranda's signed confession was used as the primary piece of evidence during his trial and led to his conviction and sentencing of 20-30 years in prison. During the initial trial, however, there was an objection to his confession being introduced as evidence. Because Miranda was ignorant of his rights against self-incrimination, the confession should have been deemed involuntary. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court where the lower court’s ruling was upheld.
Miranda’s case was appealed again and landed before the United States Supreme Court in early 1966. At this time, the high court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and sided with Miranda, 5-4. The court determined that due to the intimidating situation of a police interrogation, suspects need to explicitly waive their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney for their protection. It was also acknowledged that should the suspect invoke either of these rights, the interrogation must cease until an attorney arrives.
Miranda was granted a new trial in 1967, where he still found guilty of the same crimes, despite the omission of his signed confession from evidence.
Ernesto Miranda did, indeed, get a new trial based on the Supreme Court ruling, and his original confession was thrown out. However, based on the evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and ****, and served 11 years in prison before being paroled in 1972. In 1976, at the age of 34, Miranda was stabbed to death in a barroom brawl.
Police arrested a suspect in the killing who, after choosing to exercise his Miranda Right to remain silent, was released without being charged with the crime.
I remember the reaction in the classroom when this news was brought to light. At the time, most cops thought they were being reined in, and hamstrung when dealing with suspects. The class was college level Arrest, Search and Seizure.
Just another example of principle overriding emotion. Miranda was indeed a POS, but the SCOTUS ruling is righteous, IMHO.
I've seen examples of young teens being questioned without parents for hours on end by cops that were "sure" they had the right guys. A young kid, alone, under interrogation by intimidating cops will admit to about anything after a time. The laws that allowed this have largely been rectified.
Sometimes laws protect scumbags, sometimes laws protect us from scumbags. Sticking to principle regardless of the situation is what makes us a nation of laws - not rulers.
Damn! You were a cop in '66?? **** me. You ARE an OLD fart ...
I was 9 ...
But you wanna hear something funny?? I remember when that ruling came down. My uncle by marriage was a criminal defense attorney in OKC. He was happy as a bug in a rug with Miranda. Said he never expected an "ignorant ne'er-do-well" to make his job so easy. When we heard he had died he said "******* probably had it coming." Haha! He is a big part of the reason I learned to think like a lawyer before I really even knew what a lawyer was. He was a really nice guy.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gallup: Gun Ownership Higher Among Republican Women Than Democrat Men- Latest: MilitantBEEMER
-
-
-
