Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Trump explicitly floats idea of delaying the election ...
Collapse
X
-
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNot all that frequent, and they are mistakes, never intentional.
OTOH, never (except perhaps as an intentional and obvious joke) do I purposefully distort your posts or leave out critical content when which you do routinely.
It isn't deceptive at all.
They used gas against them to disperse them. By some reports, both tear gas and pepper balls. Either way that they were gassed is simply a matter of public record.
Really? Rioting -> violence. I said you used the PRETENSE they were violent to justify the use of the gas. Nothing inaccurate there.
rioting
/ˈrīədiNG/
noun
the violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.
I in fact, get most things right CP.
But to a fellow that thinks 2+2=5, most math looks 'wrong'.
Yes they were.
Gas was used to disperse the crowd to make a way for trump over to the church so he could pretend his presidency and actions are somehow tied to the Bible.
2) It's still not proper to say that they were "gassed". That's a real kick in the teeth to holocaust survivors.
They were gassed to facilitate the photo op.
There is nothing nice or non-violent or 'harmless' about tear gas and pepper gas. They just don't happen to be lethal. They were gassed.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYes, the second part of your first post was indeed wrong. How good of you to adjust your comment accordingly.
And, no, I wasn't wrong.
What your source says: "...the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial."
What I said: "You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested."
Seriously, man, are doing this on purpose?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostNice of you to edit your post after I had already responded.
And, no, I wasn't wrong.
What your source says: "...the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial."
What I said: "You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested."
Seriously, man, are doing this on purpose?
The whole bit about "arrested" doesn't necessarily mean "under arrest", and Miranda is only necessary as you state.
If they're asking general information they don't intend to use at trial, there is no requirement or obligation to Marandize.
The whole "totally unidentified 'troops' kidnapped innocent people and stuffed them into unmarked vans to interrogate them without telling them what they were arrested for or reading their rights" is a stinking pile of horise poo on so many levels.
It's crazy Aunt Betty Drama Queen stuff.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
The narrative of the left demands that the vast majority of protesters be seen as "peaceful", and only a "tiny fraction" are "anarchists".
Logic would ask "what the heck are 'peaceful protesters' doing hanging out in a scene that we know turns violent every evening, and HAS been for TWO MONTHS"?
Second question - what, exactly, are the peaceful protesters protesting?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostNice of you to edit your post after I had already responded.
And, no, I wasn't wrong.
What your source says: "...the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial."
What I said: "You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested."
Seriously, man, are doing this on purpose?
So the issue is that these women were detained, at gunpoint, for no reason. They were not mirandized, but they were detained. They were not given a waiver to sign either. And this women was savvy enough to get all their badge numbers and names.
Again - so you support the police randomly detaining people for no known reason and not reading hem their rights and searching their vehicles without a warrent. These are two women out on a playdate with their kids. And you support that kind of violent confrontation from the police being legal without cause or provacation?My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYeah, we had been over this in great detail.
The whole bit about "arrested" doesn't necessarily mean "under arrest", and Miranda is only necessary as you state.
If they're asking general information they don't intend to use at trial, there is no requirement or obligation to Marandize.
The whole "totally unidentified 'troops' kidnapped innocent people and stuffed them into unmarked vans to interrogate them without telling them what they were arrested for or reading their rights" is a stinking pile of horise poo on so many levels.
It's crazy Aunt Betty Drama Queen stuff.
So you support police being able to detain two women at gunpoint without cause all the while ignoring their little children are in the back of the car? They were handcuffed. They were not mirandized - so clearly they didn't intend to use any statements from them in court. And they were not allowed to comfort the children. So what were they doing, intimidating two black women randomly to make sure they never came back to the DC mall again? They also damaged their car, in case that part wasn't clear.
So the police - in your view - have the right to damage and search my property without reading me my rights, without having any sort of warrant, on even any probable cause to do so that they are required to make public?
It's interesting learning more and more about what you support CP. Seems to me you'd be more at home in Communist China or serving on the KGB than the in the US.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostSo you support police pointing guns at innocent civilians out taking their children to play in a fountain? You support the police being able to at gunpoint detain anyone, anywhere, without cause or reason?
The were handcuffed, therefore - at least according to this website:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html#:~:text=It%20doesn't%20matter%20whether ,ask%20questions%20and%20use%20the
There were handcuffed and held at the scene.
They are not necessarily "under arrest" until told they are "under arrest", and a reason is given.
Now, if the police have no intention of asking any question because they know the people the are searching and detaining have done nothing wrong ...
They do NOT have to Marandize if they're simply trying to obtain information that might indicate further action is needed - like an official arrest.
but that would be UNLAWFUL search and seizure.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo - we haven't.
So you support police being able to detain two women at gunpoint without cause all the while ignoring their little children are in the back of the car? They were handcuffed. They were not mirandized - so clearly they didn't intend to use any statements from them in court. And they were not allowed to comfort the children. So what were they doing, intimidating two black women randomly to make sure they never came back to the DC mall again? They also damaged their car, in case that part wasn't clear.
So the police - in your view - have the right to damage and search my property without reading me my rights, without having any sort of warrant, on even any probable cause to do so that they are required to make public?
It's interesting learning more and more about what you support CP.
Seems to me you'd be more at home in Communist China or serving on the KGB than the in the US.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Once again.....
I find Nolo to be a pretty reliable source on the law, as opposed to somebody's emotional distortion of it. I posted this earlier for JimL....
Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights
Detentions and Arrests
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYes, we most certainly have. It's more stuff you simply failed to read.
Answered in my prior post.
Never said that. They would need a reason to act, but no reading of rights is necessary. Are you actually familiar with what the Miranda Warning says?
I support the laws and Constitution of the United States of America -- you seem to defend anarchy and mayem at every turn, as long as it supports the OMB narrative.
That's how screwed up your head is, Jim.
And the only places I know of where that sort of abuse by police is OK are places like China and Russia. In the US, police need a reason to point a gun at you, block your car in, handcuff you and detain you.
Or are you saying we already are a police state and all those rights we are taught about in school just don't really exist?My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostSeriously man, are you doing this on purpose?
So the issue is that these women were detained, at gunpoint, for no reason. They were not mirandized, but they were detained. They were not given a waiver to sign either. And this women was savvy enough to get all their badge numbers and names.
Again - so you support the police randomly detaining people for no known reason and not reading hem their rights and searching their vehicles without a warrent. These are two women out on a playdate with their kids. And you support that kind of violent confrontation from the police being legal without cause or provacation?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostBottom line - you are defending this random confrontation by police on these innocent women out for a play date CP.
You are doing it by trying to claim I don't understand what police are allowed to do.
But in the process, you are saying that what these police did to these women is OK, no big deal, nothing to care about or be concerned about.
That the fact police can block you in, point guns at you, terrify your children with no cause, no warrants, no reason, is OK.
And the only places I know of where that sort of abuse by police is OK are places like China and Russia. In the US, police need a reason to point a gun at you, block your car in, handcuff you and detain you.
Or are you saying we already are a police state and all those rights we are taught about in school just don't really exist?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOnce again.....
I find Nolo to be a pretty reliable source on the law, as opposed to somebody's emotional distortion of it. I posted this earlier for JimL....
Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights
Detentions and Arrests
What part of 'they were handcuffed' are you not comprehending:
Not only were they cuffed, the police cruiser had been crashed into their fender to prevent the care from leaving, and a rifle was pointed at them.
But again, according to you, Police can do that sort of thing any time they want.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, 05-11-2024, 07:25 AM
|
23 responses
98 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by eider, 05-11-2024, 06:00 AM
|
38 responses
205 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:22 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-10-2024, 03:54 PM
|
14 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 03:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-10-2024, 12:05 PM
|
7 responses
64 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-10-2024, 05:10 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-09-2024, 04:14 PM
|
32 responses
200 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-11-2024, 04:50 AM
|
Comment