Author Topic: UK Slips Further Toward Police State (Read 1326 times)

Furball · « **Reply #45 on:** May 29, 2007, 01:04:54 PM »

BTW this thread and law is flawed. We would have to have policemen in order for them to ask questions. They all got replaced by cameras.

Slash27 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 29, 2007, 02:47:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruv119
I'm sure the US jails are what my idea of a jail should be like.

Dou you get playstations, pool time and gym rooms?

Pretty damn close.

sgt203 · « **Reply #47 on:** May 29, 2007, 10:23:05 PM »

A personal attack Mav.....

OK...

First... I never said you had to mirandize anyone just because they are under arrest......

Second... I never said it was your interpretation...

Third.. Get a new legal advisor cause the one your department has is a Moron.. Any first year law student should know in what situations miranda applies... Focus of investigation, reasonable suspicion have nothing to do with it..

And yes I am sure you are familiar with Miranda Case but being "familiar" does not equate to understanding... Obviously..

As I said I can provide you with as many cases as you so desire to back up my point... can you provide me with 1????

Unfortunately you are mistaken and so is your department.. although there is nothing worng with reading Miranda under the cirsumstances as you said to say it is required is blatantly false..

To be honest I am absoulutely dumbfounded by your last response and cannot beleive that you actually beleive this..

And yes I may be sgtboring, but I would much rather be boring than to be so wrong as to be laughable...

<<>>

Maverick · « **Reply #48 on:** May 29, 2007, 10:29:41 PM »

First off I made no personal attack. If you think I did you really have a problem.

As to the rest of your post and your most definite personal attack, go take a hike. We're done discussing much of anything.

sgt203 · « **Reply #49 on:** May 29, 2007, 11:49:36 PM »

Yes I took exception to being called sgtboring when I was discussing an issue and took that as personal attack and responded accordingly. For that I apologize.

If you do not wish to respond thats fine.. but the facts are the facts and you are mistaken about this and I am actually trying to help you out. However as stated this is a COMMON MISCONCEPTION and that in no way was an attack on you.

But as stated I can back up my point and if you have access to legal research here it is. I will only go back as far as 1999 till 2004.

Commonwealth vs Fetter
Superior Court of Pa
770 A.2d 762

Interest of V.H. , A Juvenile
Superior Court of Pa
788 A.2d 976

Comm vs Templin
Supreme Court of Pa
795 A.2d 959

Comm vs Donovan
Commonwealth Court of Pa
829 A.2d 759

Yarborough vs Alvarado
US Supreme Court
June 1, 2004

Comm vs. Smith
Supreme Court of Pa
836 A.2d 5

Comm vs. Sepulveda
Supreme Court of Pa
No. 402 (8/19/04)

In all of these case the courts have ruled the defining issue for Miranda is Custody.

I cant post all of the material in here for you but I will briefly quote the US Supreme Court in Yarborough vs Alvarado (2004).

" The rule is this: Warnings must be given prior to interrogation because of the compulsion that is present when a person is in custody and the warnings help eliminate the compulsion and thus, enable the person to be able to make a free will decision whether to waive his rights. The Miranda decision held that "custodial interrogation" meant questioning started by law enforcement officers AFTER A PERSON HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY OR OTHERWSIE DEPRIVED OF HIS FREEDOM OF ACTION IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY (my emphasis). Later, the test for for custodial interrogation was stated by our Court as follows: whether there is a formal arrest or restraint upon freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest."

I apologize for my remarks as I was offended by your reply but I do have copies of the cases cited above if you would like them if you do not have access to do the research yourself.

You can PM me a fax number and I will fax them to you (about 25 pages) for you to review.

<<<~~>>.~~

Slash27 · « **Reply #50 on:** May 30, 2007, 02:12:43 AM »

And who could forget Kramer vs Kramer?

sgt203 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 30, 2007, 10:03:34 PM »

^^^^
lol...

That was a civil (or uncivil) action if you will...

Maverick · « **Reply #52 on:** May 31, 2007, 08:16:24 PM »

Sgt203,

The handle Sgt boring is another poster I know from another bbs that I am on. I ended up typing that instead of sgt203. No intent to render a personal attack was intended, it was a case of dyslexic keyboard.

68ZooM · « **Reply #53 on:** May 31, 2007, 09:31:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruv119
Sorry to hear about the chavs wurzel.

I'm lucky where I live there arent too many young uns around that chav age. When I was growing up there were quite a few more of us but we never sunk as low as what some get up too these days. At least not from what i recall lol.

Personally I blame the parents, America, the education system and Tony Blair. Not necessarily in that order.

Well i hope your meaning American politicans and not Americans in general, we are just like you dealing with the same problems, OR can we just blame the whole world for our problems?

Squire · « **Reply #54 on:** May 31, 2007, 10:45:32 PM »

Yes, and the Police get their marching orders from the Government, who never do anything unless its for "the good". Right? They never cross the line or do something, lets say, in their own self interest.

...and of course, the police never make mistakes.

By the logic some of you post we dont need any rights at all, because, well, only those that break the law need them. Innocent people dont need rights.

Kinda scary logic.

sgt203 · « **Reply #55 on:** June 02, 2007, 09:54:53 PM »

OK Mav

<<>>

Hope theres no hard feelings none here..