• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

unrestricted police interrogations...

TMF Jeff

TMF owner and co-founder
Staff member
Joined
Apr 2, 2001
Messages
31,415
Points
113
http://startribune.com/stories/484/3468313.html

This is an article about a case going before the U.S. Supreme Court (tomorrow I think) involving a person who was interrogated without being read his rights and denied medical treatment in the process, although he was severely injured (ultimately he ended up being blind and paralyzed). It was ruled to be a coerced confession, but they are appealing.

The Dept. of Justice filed a "friend of the court" brief claiming that "unfettered police questioning is allowable so long as the information obtained from a suspect is not used against that person in court." The dept of justice saying that coerced confessions are ok scared me so much I went and joined the ACLU immediately. If you're interested, go to www.aclu.org
 
the aclu sucks

but i do share your fear, and revultion over this case.
i was with the chicago police dept for all of 2 years, but i can tell you i would never have allowed this type of abuse in my presence!
the sad part is, if you not read the maranda rights, you are not "offically" under arrest, and can be kept locked up for up to 24 hours, w/o a lawyer, or phone call. this is rarely done, and only with the knowledge of the local district attorny, when they think a real bad criminal is in their hands. unfortunately even cops can be assholes, or even assholes can be cops. this is such a sase.
there are changes that i'd like to see in our criminal justics system, but i fear the results once the tinkering starts.
steve
 
I don't love the ACLU either. I read an article on Salon.com that said a lot of conservatives and previous opponants of the ACLU are joining in the post 9/11 crackdown on liberties and I would probably fall into that category. I think it's important that there be a group who can swing some real weight and make it their business to get aggressively pissed off when there's a threat to liberties. Sometimes I disagree with their point of view, but I definitely wouldn't get rid of them if I could.
 
Most cops I know would never coerce anyone (allowable or not). But, there are plenty out there who are already pushing to boundaries. If the court system worked better and didn't toss criminals back onto the street for some stupid technicality, I think there'd be less concern. But, even the best cops can get frustrated and go overboard on particularly tough/emotional cases.

The ACLU is like most unions. They overstep their bounds and make themselves look like fools at times. But, they still do the good they were set up to do...protect our rights.

Ann
 
I think I still fear the ACLU more than the Gov't, but... I do not in any way agree with that idea. People deserve their rights. Even if they are guilty that is not an acceptable way of dealing with it!!!
 
Personally I fear the NRA more than the ACLU, but I do believe strongly in both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Luckily there are strong non-governmental organizations that look out for these rights when government enforcement of them gets a little lax. One of the reasons why the ACLU "sucks" is because it often finds itself defending unpopular viewpoints and ideas, which indicates to me that it is doing its job.
 
In my opinion interrogating someone under such conditions is sick. Also, did it not seem like the shooting itself was excessive? One would think after the first shot in the eye (or even leg for that matter) the guy would have ceased to make attempts at taking the officer's gun. I don't know the details though, so I can't really say. But as for the interrogation, why couldn't that wait until the poor bugger was out of the hospital? It was a drug bust, not a life or death emergency. Makes me so mad, and worried that those kind of policies become allowable under our laws in Canada (or anywhere else). Let's face it, one day it could be any one of us caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and even if we've done nothing wrong we could fall into the hands of some idiot who should never have gotten his or her badge. This kind of thing applies to everyone, and we should fight for our rights as human beings.
 
Thanks for the article, Jeff. I hope our Miranda rights won't be done away with because of this case, but we'll see. I did some searching and I found out that two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the Miranda ruling of 1966 in a case by a 7-2 vote. Here are the links:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa062600b.htm
http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=7996&c=15&Type=s

The ACLU is the only organization that has consistently defended the rights of our citizens. Bravo! 😎
 
there is something...

...inharently wrong with an organization, staffed mostly by jewish lawyers, that defends the "right" of the nazi party to march in a predominently jewish town. they lost a lot of members over that, and have not yet recovered. they should use more good judgement in the cases they take on.
steve
p.s. the nra doesn't do anything but fight for the second amendment rights of all americans! with out the second amendment you'd have didtatorship in this country.
 
Hey Steve,

the second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms, right? How does losing that equal a dictatorship?

Anyway, I thought you might like this story... I support civil rights and what the ACLU is doing, so this is just for your enjoyment. Without civil rights, then we're living in a dictatorship.

Biggles



NEW YORK—At a press conference Monday, American Civil Liberties Union officials announced that the organization will go to court to defend a neo-Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters.

ACLU president Nadine Strossen told reporters that her organization intends to "vigorously and passionately defend" the Georgia chapter of the American Nazi Party's First Amendment right to freely express its hatred of the ACLU by setting its New York office ablaze on Nov. 25.

"I am reminded of the words of Voltaire: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'" Strossen said. "While the ACLU vehemently disagrees with the idea of Nazis torching this building, the principle of freedom of expression must be supported in all cases. If we take away these Nazis' right to burn down our headquarters, we take away everyone's right to burn down our headquarters."

Buddy Carver, president of the Georgia chapter of the American Nazi Party, praised the ACLU for taking on his case. "I would like to thank Ms. Strossen and all the other nigger-loving bleeding-heart liberals at the 'ACL-Jew' for defending my constitutional right to express my loathing of them with hundred-foot-high flames," said Carver, sporting a tan uniform and swastika arm band. "We must finish the job Hitler was unable to."

ACLU associate director Mel Rosenblatt agreed. "The real danger here is not the American Nazi Party," he said. "The real danger here is what would happen to the rest of us if the Buddy Carvers of this world were not allowed to commit arson against nigger-loving, bleeding-heart-liberal Jew attorneys."

Making the case all the more controversial is the neo-Nazis' demand that the ACLU's entire 315-person staff be in the building at the time of the blaze. Strongly opposing the request are New York City police commissioner William Bratton, fire chief Ed Holm and mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who said that all 315 will die if trapped in the 47-story building during the blaze. ACLU attorneys responded that they will request a federal appeals hearing if the City of New York attempts to stop them and their fellow ACLU employees from perishing in the Nov. 25 blaze.

"Yes, my loving wife Linda and three wonderful children, Ben, Robby and Stephanie, will be devastated when I am killed next month," ACLU attorney Harvey Gross said. "But I recognize that, in a very real sense, it would be a victory for Mr. Carver and his fellow hatemongers if I did not burn to death, because their terrible message of bigotry and intolerance would be all the more effective if suppressed."

The Carver case is one of several controversial legal battles with which the ACLU has been involved this judicial year. In State of California v. Tubbs, the organization defended the right of a San Francisco art gallery to display a piece of performance art in which innocent passersby are shot to death by gunmen. In February, the ACLU went to U.S. Appeals Court to defend the Grand Wizard of the Coahoma County, Mississippi, chapter of the Ku Klux Klan's right to beat a black man to death and spray-paint 'White Pride' across his chest.

"We can have no arbitrary setting of limits when it comes to the Bill of Rights," Strossen said. "The Constitution does not say, 'You have the right to express these opinions, but not those opinions.' Nor does it say, 'You can express these opinions by word, but not by violence.' For a free society to work, hatred, in all its forms, must be encouraged."
 
p.s. the nra doesn't do anything but fight for the second amendment rights of all americans! with out the second amendment you'd have didtatorship in this country.




God, dont get me started on the NRA. :sowrong:
 
I suspect that there's more to this case than what's in the article. I reserve judgement until either I see the full story, or see what the Supremes have to say about it - especially the dissents.

Steve mentioned ACLU taking the case of the Nazis who wanted to march in a Jewish neighborhood. They've championed the "rights" of perverts to surf Internet pornography in public libraries. Also the "rights" of winos and junkies to loiter in public places, urinate in public, panhandle, sleep in doorways, and generally make things unpleasant for the citizens whose taxes pay for public streets, parks, libraries, etc. But they're not interested in defending the First Amendment rights of abortion protestors prosecuted under RICO, which was written specifically to attack organized crime, or the Second Amendment rights of anyone.

ACLU is just another left wing advocacy organization. It exists to throw sand in the gears of society. Screw 'em.

Strelnikov
 
Are U.S. citizens slowly losing their civil rights?

There will be many more legal arguments about citizens rights.
 
the second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms, right? How does losing that equal a dictatorship?

well biggles (and others who don't realize the truth) it is the presense of an armed populous that keep our government in check. it is one of the checks, and balances that our founding fathers had the forsight to put into the constitution. the right of the people to keep arms is what keeps the government from taking away our other rights. that's why the socialists(read far left democrates) keep attacking the 2nd amendment. once they take away our firearms, they can take our freedom of speach, to assemble, to invade our homes, our freedom of religion. look what happened in russia, and germany. the first step of all dictatorships is to disarm the people!


on another avenue. the japanese admited after the war that they didn't invade america in the early stages of the war, due to the american population being so well armed. documents obtained from germany also state that an invasion of america would meet with an armed, and enraged population. so, our guns, kept out the bad guys!
steve
 
Since the war on terrorism is on, will the U.S.government and law enforcement try to find ways to circumvent our rights as citizens? I believe they've already started.
 
Re: there is something...

areenactor said:

p.s. the nra doesn't do anything but fight for the second amendment rights of all americans! with out the second amendment you'd have didtatorship in this country.


How horrible! Much better to have it and also the highest gun related murder rate of the "civillised" world instead though. Last time I saw Steve, there weren't too many marauding redcoats massing on the Canadian border.
 
areenactor said:
the second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms, right? How does losing that equal a dictatorship?

well biggles (and others who don't realize the truth) it is the presense of an armed populous that keep our government in check. it is one of the checks, and balances that our founding fathers had the forsight to put into the constitution. the right of the people to keep arms is what keeps the government from taking away our other rights.

It's the best way of ensuring that common people keep fighting each other and not bothering to realise that the rights and liberties they love so much are gradually being usurped and destroyed by the very people the put on a crystal plinth and vote for. Someone who believes that guns being circulated among the population without proper vetting and examination is always going to live in a crime and misery riddled land.
 
BigJim said:


It's the best way of ensuring that common people keep fighting each other and not bothering to realise that the rights and liberties they love so much are gradually being usurped and destroyed by the very people the put on a crystal plinth and vote for. Someone who believes that guns being circulated among the population without proper vetting and examination is always going to live in a crime and misery riddled land.

There are weapons that are a million times more effective than guns, that don't destroy life in the process.
 
BigJim said:

pray tell jim, what is a million time more effective than a gun, at stopping an intruder who is trying to rape my 16 y.o. daughter?
this weapon i have to have!

as for forever living in a crime filled society, it isn't guns that make it so, but the people that make up the society. in america, with the people that live here today, if you took all the guns away (by magic) with in 1 week, you'd have a rash of drive by stabbings, or people being shoot with a bow and arrow! it's the people, not the tool that causes the crime.
i would have thought you'd have known that.
steve
 
areenactor said:


pray tell jim, what is a million time more effective than a gun, at stopping an intruder who is trying to rape my 16 y.o. daughter?
this weapon i have to have!

as for forever living in a crime filled society, it isn't guns that make it so, but the people that make up the society. in america, with the people that live here today, if you took all the guns away (by magic) with in 1 week, you'd have a rash of drive by stabbings, or people being shoot with a bow and arrow! it's the people, not the tool that causes the crime.
i would have thought you'd have known that.
steve

I didn't say I disagreed with normal citizens owning weapons for home defence; just that I thought America's gun laws are way to free and easy. I think there must be a submerged island somewhere in the Atlantic with ideal gun laws. The UK's are ridiculously stringent, the USA's (in this ineducated limey's opinion anyhow) are too lax. There is also something that causes more shit to happen in any society than any other thing. That thing is poverty. A huge proportion of crime is committed by drug addicts looking to fuel their habit right? A large percentage of drug addicts (more than 60% I'd say, although I've never been the Brit equivalent of a narcotics detective) first turn to drugs because of an empty life and quite often from backgrounds of extreme poverty by western standards. People use it as an escape, which is why most alcoholics can't afford to be and steal food from their children's mouths, by buying booze. A large amount of crimes in inner cities are committed by young black men. Coincidentally the population of the UK that is below the poverty line is massivley more black than white. So does this mean black people are more prone to crime, or have lower morals than white people? Does it cobblers! If white people were in poverty more than black people in the UK, then you'd quickly see a big upsurge of petty crime carried out by young white men. Poverty is the biggest reason.

There's also a point I'd like to make about a British tourist. He was in the suburbs of New York City looking for a newsagent and got mugged by a gang of youths at about 11:30 at night. With his shirt ripped and blood running down his chest, he knocked on the door of a house to ask for help. The door opened and the guy smiled hopefully through it. The only thing that came back the other way was the contents of a .00 buckshot cartridge. The dickhead who blew him away later told police that he thought they guy was going to rob him, because of the lateness of the hour. He didn't talk to him, didn't try to ascertain why the guy was knocking on his door at that late hour by putting the chain on the door. He just opened it and let the tourist have it. Guys like this get hold of guns without any sense of what responsibilities come with gun ownership. They don't have any training, they just walk into Ammu-Nation at legal age with the right ID and walk out again with an arsenal that would buckled the Terminator's knees. (Not to mention that 15 days later the handguns arrive!) I think I'm correct in saying that North Carolina's laws allow someone to buy a firearm at 16!!!! Six-smegging-teen?!?!?!?!? For Christ's sake you can't even be considered mature and responsible enough to buy a can of beer until you're 21 in most states, but you can buy a shotgun or something at six-frigging-teen?!?!?!?!?(I don't know just how many states have similar policies though.)

No-one is saying that people should be denied the right to own guns Steve, but in my own personal opinion there should be a hell of a lot more to go through before you can walk out of a gun shop with a SPAS-12.
 
This thread is starting to mirror the one about the 2nd amendment.

The FBI statistics on crime in the US have been showing a decrease for the last 20 some years.The two exceptions are the inner city gangs and drug related offenses.

If gun ownership is the cause of crime,how do you explain the low murder rates in Israel,wth practically every home armed,and those in Switzerland, where every adult male of "service age" is required to have their military weapons at home,with ammo?

Before you start the idea that registration is the reason,think again. The Canadian police,the RCMP,have already admitted that their registration program has NEVER solved a crime.In the US,the highest crime rates belong to the areas with the strictest laws.

In and of itself,I don't actually have a problem with a registration.
Given that such a tool would be used by the government,as has happened how many times in history throughout the world, it's just another scheme to control the population by whatever means the particular government has at its disposal.
 
Last edited:
shark said:
it's just another scheme to control the population by whatever means the particular government has at its disposal.

Interesting to see you say that shark. I believe that happens every day, but manipulation of gun owners is only a very small part of "controlling the population". I think a revival of "The big politics and religion thread" might be in order." 😉

On a slightly lower note though, there is I think, an organisation in America called the Christian Patriotic Movement? (I may have got the name wrong, but I think that's almost right anyway.) There was a guy touring America, giving talks on governmental abuse and public freedom and a guy from the CPM walked up to him afterwards and said how impressed he was by the talk and how he wanted the speaker to join. The speaker asked him what he thought should be done about the current situation. The guy replied along the lines of "One nation, under God, and we're building up our arms supplies in preperation for the struggle"; the apeaker looked at him and said........"I don't know what I fear most. The world you're trying to change, or the one you'd replace it with."

The shame is that the CPM has seen through a lot of smokescreens that have hook,lined and sinkered most of the population. But they cannot see beyond the scope of their own religion and their method of getting their desired world by bloodshed. Anyway, that was mostly a side-note.........I now return you, to your regularly scheduled thread.
 
shark said:
If gun ownership is the cause of crime,how do you explain the low murder rates in Israel,wth practically every home armed,and those in Switzerland, where every adult male of "service age" is required to have their military weapons at home,with ammo?



Ok then, if those places are armed but have low gun crimes, how come other countries which are equally as heavily armed have such high rates of gun crime? Maybe this has already been mentioned, but I haven't been keeping up.

Biggles
 
Biggles of 266 said:




Ok then, if those places are armed but have low gun crimes, how come other countries which are equally as heavily armed have such high rates of gun crime? Maybe this has already been mentioned, but I haven't been keeping up.

Biggles

the answer to that question is simple biggles. the criminals don't get their guns legally! you can have the all the gun laws you want, and they won't work, if you have a large criminal element. it's not your nra members, or hunters, or any other "joe average" citizen that's knocking over the 7-11, or shooting people on the street, from a car. it is criminals, and they don't obey the laws, of any type.
steve
 
areenactor said:


the answer to that question is simple biggles. the criminals don't get their guns legally! you can have the all the gun laws you want, and they won't work, if you have a large criminal element. it's not your nra members, or hunters, or any other "joe average" citizen that's knocking over the 7-11, or shooting people on the street, from a car. it is criminals, and they don't obey the laws, of any type.
steve

Good point, and from what you say Steve one that I didn't address earlier. I don't think anyone was ever suggesting that people who live in the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment do the crimes we're so concerned about. The main point (that I was making anyway) is that the 2nd amendment makes for such a lax legal atmosphere when it comes to guns in the US, that the dicks who get guns illegally find it a lot easier because it's more simple to resort to legal defences when they can use the 2nd as such a front for their business.

I also don't believe (for what a limey's opinion is worth) that corrupt government elements are in any way intimidated by the thought of citizens bearing arms. If anything they would love that sort of response because it gives them the chance to publicly legitimise their counter-measures. (Home grown terrorism must be put down, etc.) People like corrupt governments are far more frightened over power over people's minds, because it's effects are longer lasting than any armed insurrection if it suceeds.
 
What's New
2/12/26
Visit the TMF Welcome Forum and take a second to say hello!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top