U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2011, 06:26 PM
 
Location: FL
1,716 posts, read 2,627,850 times
Reputation: 1852

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
"Cant find much fault with anything else you have said but im sure your wrong about this one. { and again, a lack of knowledge of the most basic of things. } When you are being arrested, the officer is required to read you your rights. I think there have even been instances where cases have been thrown out or overturned because an officer either didnt read read them, didnt read them at the right time, or didnt read them correctly or in whole. Basicly, if an officer dosnt read you your rights, anything incriminating you say when in custody cannot be used against you in court.

Now to just detane you they dont have to read them to you."

No, you are completely wrong and that is what is driving this ignorance. Somewhere, sometime, you read something, saw something on TV, or your "uncle" told you this.

A police officer (I am one) DOES NOT have to read you your Miranda "rights," because he/she arrests you. Miranda vs Arizona sets out TWO THINGS:

Custody and interrogation. Therefore, in order for Miranda to apply, you have to be INTERRORGATED, while in police custody. I've arrested HUNDREDS of persons and never "Mirandize" them, because I really don't care what it is they have to say.

Again, Miranda ONLY applies if the police are interrorgating you and you are IN CUSTODY. And routine booking questions, such as name, address, etc DO NOT APPLY. There are also other exceptions
.
But still anything one says to you before they are Miranded can still be used in the court of law? Also another of what I consider a "gray" area of law is the issue of probable cause. Say for instance, I'm cruising down the road in a white small pick up truck, the lights come on, I pull over you throw me to the ground, cuff me, put me in the back seat and I'm saying "what on earth for, what did I do?" You reply we just had a burglary in the area and your vehicle matches the description (probable cause). I was not involved in the burglary at all, but you find a joint in the ashtray and make an arrest for possession of MJ, that was not the original reason for the probable cause but the charge can still stick?

I occasionally read the arrest reports for people in my community and a lot of them are folks getting arrested in areas that are said to be "known drug areas" or "areas where suspicious activities occur".......in other words you can just about make up any reason for probable cause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2011, 09:40 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,794,736 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by faeryedark View Post
I agree.
I think people are so used to the neatly wrapped TV drama trials and when they don't see that or get the 'obvious outcome" they were expecting the want a re-do.
Exactly. Things dont work in the real world the way they do on CSI or law and order. If only they did! Unfortunantly, the police and detectives dont always get every dot connected, the bad guy dosnt come right out and admit it in the last five minutes, and lo and behold...... justice has been served in as little as an hour.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post


No, you are completely wrong and that is what is driving this ignorance. Somewhere, sometime, you read something, saw something on TV, or your "uncle" told you this.

A police officer (I am one) DOES NOT have to read you your Miranda "rights," because he/she arrests you. Miranda vs Arizona sets out TWO THINGS:

Custody and interrogation. Therefore, in order for Miranda to apply, you have to be INTERRORGATED, while in police custody. I've arrested HUNDREDS of persons and never "Mirandize" them, because I really don't care what it is they have to say.

Again, Miranda ONLY applies if the police are interrorgating you and you are IN CUSTODY. And routine booking questions, such as name, address, etc DO NOT APPLY. There are also other exceptions.
Ok, I think we can chalk this up to a draw. They may not be required to read them to you just to arrest you, but are required if they want to question you....right?

With that though, let me ask...... wouldnt it be good practice to do so even if you arnt required?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 10:34 PM
 
18,852 posts, read 31,742,630 times
Reputation: 26119
We have been quite critical of the "Amanda Knox" trial in Italy, I wonder what people from other countries think about our brand of "American Justice", based on the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 11:18 PM
 
9,215 posts, read 9,286,664 times
Reputation: 28891
I'm going to try to recapitulate what Phil has said about the Miranda Rule. It really would do several posters here a world of good to read the thread that Phil cited about the Miranda Rule. I am a practicing attorney. I explained how the rule works in detail for anyone who is interested in reading before they give an opinion.

Let's begin by understanding that the police are not obligated to give Miranda Rights unless two separate conditions are first met:

1. A person must be in police custody;

2. The person is actually being interrogated or questioned.

Sgt Buzzcut gave an example of a motorist being pulled over and handcuffed. Once that occurs the individual is in police custody. If the police intend to question the individual than Miranda Rights must be given. The definition of being "in custody" means that the person is not free to leave. For example, many people go to the police station to give a statement. This does not automatically mean these people are in police custody. As long as a person knows they are free to leave, the police need not give Miranda Rights there when they questions someone even if they believe he/she committed a crime.

Whippersnapper asks the question if it wouldn't be good practice to give Miranda Rights to a suspect even in situations where they are not technically required. I guess that depends on your definition of a "good practice". The police try not to give Miranda Rights where they don't have to because of a belief that it will keep people who are guilty of crimes from giving incriminating statements. One has to ask why the Supreme Court developed the Miranda Rule in the first place. It goes back to a time when some police departments were seriously abusing their powers. Keep in mind that the court decided the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1967. Many of the reasons that the rule was adopted are historical ones. People who only think in the context of "here and now" and try to imagine how rule works today often get lost if they don't understand that background.

I don't know if the term "The Third Degree" means anything to anyone here. Basically, its slang for aggressive interrogation practices followed in the past by some police departments. These interrogation practices might include: Denying the suspect food and water; shining bright lights in their face; denying a suspect a bathroom break; refusing to allow even suspects who asked for the interrogation to end or if they could obtain the services of an attorney to do so; and out-and-out physical violence against a suspect to force him to confess to a crime.

The Supreme Court came up with the Miranda Rule because it wanted to stop coercive interrogation practices at that time being conducted by some police departments. Based on history, the court was primarily concerned with the situation of the suspect who was in police custody who be subjected to a variety of abuses. The court was less concerned with the suspect who was not in police custody who could voluntarily make a decision to simply leave if the police were bothering him.

Essentially, what the Supreme Court has tried to do is to strike a balance. The court doesn't believe that the police should be prohibited from questioning criminal suspects. It does believe that when those suspects are in actual police custody, a warning is essential so that suspects can take steps to protect themselves, and most importantly of all, the Court wanted to stop the most egregious abuses being committed by some law enforcement agencies while they interrogated suspects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 04:08 AM
 
18,852 posts, read 31,742,630 times
Reputation: 26119
I know this much, after my own experience with police officers, say nothing when they start with the "questions". Ask if you are under arrest, if not, leave. If you are under arrest, say nothing and lawyer up. Of course they say only the guilty get lawyers...well, it definitely helped Casey Anthony.

My perception of our legal system completely changed, after being suspected of a crime I did not commit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,794,736 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
I know this much, after my own experience with police officers, say nothing when they start with the "questions". Ask if you are under arrest, if not, leave. If you are under arrest, say nothing and lawyer up. Of course they say only the guilty get lawyers...well, it definitely helped Casey Anthony.

My perception of our legal system completely changed, after being suspected of a crime I did not commit.
Wow, thanks for this one!!!


It only goes to show that Im correctr in an earlier statement I made in another thread...

" our justice system DOES NOT always work, either for the innocent or the guilty"

This is something that alot of the "talking heads" fail to point out or realise. For them it seems that our justice system either works, or it dosnt. Something that alot of people seem to fail to grasp though, is that even though it may not always work and even with the flaws it has, its the best one available in the world. To spite that though, I do beleivve that reforms need to be made. i.e. banning any participant in a public proceding to collect profits for doing their job or civic duty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 01:15 PM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,686,574 times
Reputation: 32349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgain View Post
I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been amazed at how little people really understand how the criminal justice system works. I've seen people who seem to be well educated make statements which showed a stunning lack of knowledge about the court system!!!

They just seem to not be able to wrap their heads around a presumption of innocence and what that really means, and they don't seem to understand at all how IMPORTANT is it that the State is REQUIRED to prove their accusations against people beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't understand how that all relates to our freedoms as a society! I think you're totally right about the ignorance.
Part of the problem is it's not taught in the schools. I'm well educated but I can't remember more than a few days in a government class in high school focusing on the jury system. And not much more on the judicial system as a whole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 01:31 PM
 
Location: USA
4,980 posts, read 8,442,184 times
Reputation: 2506
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Thank you for your contributions to this thread , but the details and inner-workings of the Casey Anthony Trial specificly, is not what this thread was intended for. There are plenty of other threads doing just that. Rather, it was intended to discuss the lack of knowledge by citizens relating to the justice system in general.


In a few of the above quotes though, my point is clearly proven. I hear people say things like,

and

When infact there WERE lessor charges included. Whether that demonstrates a lack of knowledge just in this case or in the system in general, I dont know.

They have to be proved guilty without doubt.

Someone could think they are guilty, but have doubts.

If one has doubts, one is not to incriminate.

This keeps someone from going to prison because of some evidence, but not totally proven.

Unfortunately, it will let some of the guilty go. But it protects us.

One only has to read about the Sam Sheppard trial to understand what a circus trial is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 01:34 PM
 
Location: USA
4,980 posts, read 8,442,184 times
Reputation: 2506
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
I know this much, after my own experience with police officers, say nothing when they start with the "questions". Ask if you are under arrest, if not, leave. If you are under arrest, say nothing and lawyer up. Of course they say only the guilty get lawyers...well, it definitely helped Casey Anthony.

My perception of our legal system completely changed, after being suspected of a crime I did not commit.

That's an oversimplification. You can't just walk away, even if you should be allowed to with the laws, so you have to state your rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 04:21 PM
 
Location: tampa bay
6,589 posts, read 6,830,968 times
Reputation: 9856
Quote:
Originally Posted by nebulous1 View Post
They have to be proved guilty without doubt.

Someone could think they are guilty, but have doubts.

If one has doubts, one is not to incriminate.

This keeps someone from going to prison because of some evidence, but not totally proven.

Unfortunately, it will let some of the guilty go. But it protects us.

One only has to read about the Sam Sheppard trial to understand what a circus trial is.
Unless there is an admission of guilt,many eyewitnesses or a video of the crime there will always be some doubt?No doubt at all is an UNreasonable burden for the state to have who would ever be convicted on circumstantial evidence (which is often the case).People have also have been convicted when there is No body recovered!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top