Author Topic: Arrest mistake (Read 4056 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #90 on:** March 05, 2005, 10:54:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Maveric, I'm not dancing around anything. You're asking for specific personal information that I won't give to you. What the hell is your expertise? You're a cop. So what? Your expertise is transport-period. Everything else is very gray including efforts to circumvent Miranda even if not stated. Efforts to circumvent Miranda are violations of Miranda (more specifically the the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona ) - "well if you don't talk to me I'll put you in a cell with people who know what you've done" or "if you talk to me I'll help you" All that is hollywood BS. Both violate Miranda.

You are stating I'm assigning too much importance to Miranda, and I'm telling you Miranda is based on constitutional rights that do NOT have to be read to be in place. Miranda is the precedent - the RIGHTS are in the constitution. How is that dancing around what you've asked?

As far as as this board is concerned, my name is TweetyBird and my expertise is putty tats. Your expertise is either horses, cars or old tv shows as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to post as an authority, post under your real name where your credentials can be checked -not under some pseudonym.

Yeah, Maverick. You don't know jack. Tweety does, though. He's connected.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #91 on:** March 05, 2005, 10:57:30 PM »

Yea, Martlet, you're right again

Martlet · « **Reply #92 on:** March 05, 2005, 11:06:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yea, Martlet, you're right again

Of course. We've established that several times.

I'm surprised your "connections" didn't tell you that, since you're "not just anybody".

TweetyBird · « **Reply #93 on:** March 05, 2005, 11:10:22 PM »

>>Of course. We've established that several times.

I'm surprised your "connections" didn't tell you that, since you're "not just anybody".<<

That really bugged you eh? I knew it would. Best way to show a weakness is to try to hide it. Gotcha.

But you have the fact that you were right to hold on to

Martlet · « **Reply #94 on:** March 05, 2005, 11:17:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Of course. We've established that several times.

I'm surprised your "connections" didn't tell you that, since you're "not just anybody".<<

That really bugged you eh? I knew it would. Best way to show a weakness is to try to hide it. Gotcha.

But you have the fact that you were right to hold on to

Ahhh yes. Tweety's lies to create self importance bug me.

Obviously your community standing bugs you, or you wouldn't be compelled to portray delusions of grandeur. Then, when called on it, pull the "I can't tell you routine.

It does make me laugh, though. Keep it up. Get a few more lines from your "connections".

TweetyBird · « **Reply #95 on:** March 05, 2005, 11:19:09 PM »

Anything you say, Anavar...

Martlet · « **Reply #96 on:** March 05, 2005, 11:20:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Anything you say, Anavar...

Of course. I'm "not just anybody". I have "connections".

TweetyBird · « **Reply #97 on:** March 05, 2005, 11:22:55 PM »

lol

always a pleasure

Maverick · « **Reply #98 on:** March 06, 2005, 12:21:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Maveric, I'm not dancing around anything. You're asking for specific personal information that I won't give to you. What the hell is your expertise? You're a cop. So what? Your expertise is transport-period. Everything else is very gray including efforts to circumvent Miranda even if not stated. Efforts to circumvent Miranda are violations of Miranda (more specifically the the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona ) - "well if you don't talk to me I'll put you in a cell with people who know what you've done" or "if you talk to me I'll help you" All that is hollywood BS. Both violate Miranda.

You are stating I'm assigning too much importance to Miranda, and I'm telling you Miranda is based on constitutional rights that do NOT have to be read to be in place. Miranda is the precedent - the RIGHTS are in the constitution. How is that dancing around what you've asked?

As far as as this board is concerned, my name is TweetyBird and my expertise is putty tats. Your expertise is either horses, cars or old tv shows as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to post as an authority, post under your real name where your credentials can be checked -not under some pseudonym.

Tweetybird

You just proved that you are nothing but a troll.

Please post where I said you were puttingh too much importance on Miranda.

Miranda deals with one thing and only one thing. As stated earlier, it is related to questioning a suspect. It is not required to make an arrest. BTW I didn't ask you a thing about Miranda. Go back and look it up. You are really reaching with the story you stated there in that last post.

I never mentioned anything about trying to circumvent Miranda. I have no idea where you got that from.

I don't have to put down my real name to prove what I say as you've already admitted I have professional experiance in law enforcement. FYI it is just short of 2 decades worth. If I hadn't been disabled in the line of duty it would have been 25.

Just to clarify, here are the 2 questions I asked you.

"What jusrisdiction are you talking about? The reason I ask is that I can't tell if you are even in the US on a bbs.

Secondly, are you an attorney qualified to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you claim this happened in?"

As even a quick reading will reveal I did not ask for any personal information. If that is your main concern it shouldn't be as I didn't ask you for any information that could be used to check up on you. A simple confirmation that it was in the US and which state is hardly key information other than to make sure we were discussing the appropriate legal system. Which was why I asked it. As to the second question, a simple yes or no was all that would be needed to answer it.

Other than my pointing out to you that you are confused in the difference between arreest and detention, I have no idea why you are so defensive. If being told you are wrong makes you upset you are overly sensitive.

Since you're so concerned about it, I worked in Arizona, Tucson specifically. You know, the same jurisdiction that the Miranda case came from. It was a homicide case. He did get off after appeal (justifiably so) and ended up being killed some time later in a knife fight.

Nash · « **Reply #99 on:** March 06, 2005, 12:39:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
If I hadn't been disabled in the line of duty it would have been 25.

What happened?

mechanic · « **Reply #100 on:** March 06, 2005, 12:45:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Martlet... what would you say....

On a scale of 1 to 10......

How big of a knob are you?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

new sig material.

Maverick · « **Reply #101 on:** March 06, 2005, 01:03:16 AM »

Motorcycle collision. A kid going to school in town hung a very quick left turn right in front of me then nailed the brakes stopping in the lane. He tried to make the turn after the panel truck in front of me started to clear the intersection. It was oh ****! bang. It turned out it was his 3rd collision in 2 weeks and both of the other officers who investigated them also ended up responding to my crash. I "t-boned" the mustang and totalled it. Impact was computed at 30 MPH. I had a short but interesting flight and a brisk landing roll.

I lost partial use of my right wrist as hydrostatic shock going through the hand to the arm just blew out all the ligaments holding the wrist joint together. It was rebuilt twice and is held by a mesh and a couple screws. Of course I'm right handed. I have partial movement in it. The right knee was pretty badly torn up but the ligaments were only partially torn. I couldn't be certified for street duty again and I had to retire. It took a bit over a year before the surgeon said it was all I'd ever get back. Arthritis will be a when, not if. Someday I'll have to have the wrist fused, until then I ignore the pain and go on.

The surgery was a bit interesting as they did it with a local only. They numbed the entire arm, not a pleasant experiance. It was very sureal hearing an electric drill (Dr. said it was black and Decker when I asked) while they placed 4 pins through the wrist.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #102 on:** March 06, 2005, 01:04:19 AM »

>>Please post where I said you were puttingh too much importance on Miranda.

Miranda deals with one thing and only one thing. As stated earlier, it is related to questioning a suspect.<<

I'm not trying to diminish your service, but Miranda deals with more than one thing, i.e., precedent defining rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It deals with many things (rights) that are gauranteed and do not have to be stated to be in place. It makes the abstract more concrete.

The whole idea of detention over arrest deals with Miranda in that statements made during detention are admissable even though no Miranda warning is given. Therefore it is crucial that it is determined that detention is not an arrest used to circumvent Miranda.

I'm sorry you feel I'm a troll. But when you stated people can go from arrest to jail without being Mirandized, it seemed to imply that those constitutionaly guaranteed rights set plainly in precedent (Miranda vs Arizona), were not in place - that would be false.

It was not meant to slight your service. However, in this context, demanding the nature of my expertise is out of line because I cant prove mine and you cant prove yours.

Maverick · « **Reply #103 on:** March 06, 2005, 01:19:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Please post where I said you were puttingh too much importance on Miranda.

Miranda deals with one thing and only one thing. As stated earlier, it is related to questioning a suspect.<<

I'm not trying to diminish your service, but Miranda deals with more than one thing, i.e., precedent defining rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It deals with many things (rights) that are gauranteed and do not have to be stated to be in place. It makes the abstract more concrete.

The whole idea of detention over arrest deals with Miranda in that statements made during detention are admissable even though no Miranda warning is given. Therefore it is crucial that it is determined that detention is not an arrest used to circumvent Miranda.

I'm sorry you feel I'm a troll. But when you stated people can go from arrest to jail without being Mirandized, it seemed to imply that those constitutionaly guaranteed rights set plainly in precedent (Miranda vs Arizona), were not in place - that would be false.

It was not meant to slight your service. However, in this context, demanding the nature of my expertise is out of line because I cant prove mine and you cant prove yours.

You have posts confused here I think.

First off let me restate what I said earlier. You can be arrested and not have your miranda rights read to you. Miranda applies to questioning by law enforcement of a person who is a suspect of a criminal act. If no questions related to the act are asked there is no need to mirandize the suspect. Example, I stop a person driving on a suspended license. I run the license for wants and status. It comes back suspended. I have observed the act of driving and after I confirm identity with the license I have no need to ask if the person was driving as I saw it. The person is arrested, either placed in full custody or released on the basis of a criminal citation. Either way it is still an arrest. Questions regarding identity are not subject to the Miranda situation (name, address etc.)

Detention is not arrest. Even witnesses can be detained and they certainly are not under arrest.

Telling people that detention is totally voluntary and that they can leave when detained by a law enforcement officer is incorrect. You have already seen the court decision confirming that situation as it was posted earlier. If you do not agree then that is your perogative, you'll still be in error but you can disagree if you want.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #104 on:** March 06, 2005, 01:46:22 AM »

First off

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436

That is the Miranda decision

Second, certain constitutional rights spelled out in Miranda do not have to be stated to be in place, e.g., the right to council, indigent or not, questioned or not. Just because you arrest someone for a blatant crime that requires no investigation or interview from the suspect, does not mean he has no right to council. Mirandize or not - the constitutional rights spelled out in Miranda v Arizona exist.

>>Detention is not arrest. Even witnesses can be detained and they certainly are not under arrest.
<<

THAT is entirely up to a judge (or even jury) to decide. It is not black and white. Sometimes a detainment IS an arrest as has been proven in civil suits.

>>Telling people that detention is totally voluntary and that they can leave when detained by a law enforcement officer is incorrect.<<

I said detention is cooperative. I said a person can force the issue by walking away in which case they must either be arrested or let go. In cases where detention is being used to coerce a person into self incrimination, the smartest course is to force arrest (i.e., arrest me now or I AM LEAVING). It is much better to deal with detectives, DA's and your lawyer than it is a police officer who expertise is not law, but law enforcement.