Moderateman Moderateman

Is it time to rethink "miranda rights"?

Is it time to rethink "miranda rights"?

Monsters hide behind this.

While in 1966 Miranda rights {the right to remain silent and to an attorney} was a ground breaking rule to keep cops from pounding a confession out of you, I think because of the coeuy case in fla. And the present case in Idaho, of Shasta groene, and this level 3 child molester hiding behind Miranda rights while a Childs life might hang in the balance we might want to revisit Miranda rights.

The right to remain silent when a life hangs in the balance should be revoked; this particular monster should be eligible for coercive interrogation, just like any other terrorist. Because in fact that is what a child molester does, terrorize his victims.

To be fair as panel should be present during interrogation of a defendant to make sure he or she is not tortured into a confession, but sleep deprivation and other gentle tactics should be allowed.

Why we as a country insist on protecting these monsters is beyond me. We afford more protection under the law than the victims get from the degenerate creatures.

It’s about time the people get back one of the basic freedoms that America used to stand for, the freedom from fear.

These particular evil beings move from state to state molesting and defiling our children and we get no protection from the courts.
18,029 views 72 replies
Reply #51 Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005I think that you are missing the point that the "monster" asked for his lawyer TWICE and the police ignored him. The police didn't fail to read him Mirranda Rights--they failed to provide him counsel when he asked for it more than once.These officiers are the ones who are letting him off on a technicality--they know the law, the rules that they have to play by...so if you want to "blame" someone, blame them.


I was refering to the Idaho monster shades that upon capture invoked his rights immediatly.
Reply #52 Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005While very few would like to see Couey and the other creep suffer horrendously, we cannot compromise our rights for expedience. Once we start, where do people draw the line. What is reasonable to you and me, is not reasonable to Judges and others.It is a slippery slope that once began is almost impossible to stop the slide.


Doc it is a moot point for law abiding people anyways, we do not get advised of miranda because we do not get arrested.
Reply #53 Top
I can't really log in--something is going screwy.

Sorry, MM, I got confused by the reference to the Coeuy case in Florida. I will read more carefully next time....
Reply #54 Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005I can't really log in--something is going screwy.Sorry, MM, I got confused by the reference to the Coeuy case in Florida. I will read more carefully next time....


tis ok shades..
Reply #55 Top

I can't really log in--something is going screwy.

Sorry, MM, I got confused by the reference to the Coeuy case in Florida. I will read more carefully next time....

Some one sounds like they are twitterpated......

 

Um, hmmm.

Reply #56 Top
Me?

I'm all in favor of due process as a prerequisite for putting even the most monstrous criminal in prison for his crimes.

On the other hand, I'm not the kind of guy to let the rules get in the way of saving a child's life.

My solution? Write off the trial, since the cops screwed up what must be the most obvious and easy part of the arrest: reading the suspect his rights. (I mean, come on, how hard can it be to remember to recite the simple nusery rhyme that every American child knows by hear?) Then, before letting the suspect walk, take him into a back room and beat him anyway, until the child is safe. What's a judge going to do? Rule that the cops can't rescue the child, because they didn't read the guy his rights before they hit him like a pinata until the child's location fell out?
Reply #57 Top
Police excesses are crimes. If they deny someone their rights, if they abuse them, deny them due process, fine. Charge the policeman with a crime.

It doesnt' erase what the criminal has done, though, and evidence that can be independantly verified shouldn't be thrown out. If the prisoner leads someone to a body, you can't go back in time and stop it from happening. He was stupid, and did it without a lawyer present. If you want to censure the cops, fine, but it doesn't change the fact that he offered evidence, and the evidence should stand.
Reply #58 Top
Reply By: stutefishPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005Me?I'm all in favor of due process as a prerequisite for putting even the most monstrous criminal in prison for his crimes.On the other hand, I'm not the kind of guy to let the rules get in the way of saving a child's life.My solution? Write off the trial, since the cops screwed up what must be the most obvious and easy part of the arrest: reading the suspect his rights. (I mean, come on, how hard can it be to remember to recite the simple nusery rhyme that every American child knows by hear?) Then, before letting the suspect walk, take him into a back room and beat him anyway, until the child is safe. What's a judge going to do? Rule that the cops can't rescue the child, because they didn't read the guy his rights before they hit him like a pinata until the child's location fell out?


maybe they could puntuate the miranda warnings like this YOU {pound, kick bite} HAVE {smash punch} THE{poke eye} RIGHT thump kick} TO {rip tear rend} Remain{set on fire} you get the point.
Reply #59 Top
Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005Police excesses are crimes. If they deny someone their rights, if they abuse them, deny them due process, fine. Charge the policeman with a crime.


agreed , but as you pointed out why let one crime {police violence} erase another one {child molesting}
Reply #60 Top
think that you are missing the point that the "monster" asked for his lawyer TWICE and the police ignored him.

The police didn't fail to read him Mirranda Rights--they failed to provide him counsel when he asked for it more than once.


That's EXACTLY my point! If they were so concerned about finding this missing boy, why didn't they provide him with counsel immediately? If they wanted the information he was holding and knew that he had invoked his Miranda rights, why in the hell didn't they move their asses?

This has less to do with Miranda and more to do with the cops and DA's office ignoring his request.
Reply #61 Top
Reply By: dharmagrlPosted: Wednesday, July 06, 2005think that you are missing the point that the "monster" asked for his lawyer TWICE and the police ignored him. The police didn't fail to read him Mirranda Rights--they failed to provide him counsel when he asked for it more than once.That's EXACTLY my point! If they were so concerned about finding this missing boy, why didn't they provide him with counsel immediately? If they wanted the information he was holding and knew that he had invoked his Miranda rights, why in the hell didn't they move their asses?This has less to do with Miranda and more to do with the cops and DA's office ignoring his request


you are confusing the 2 cases D, coeuey is the man that killed jessica in fla. his "rights" were alledgedly violated, the other monster in idaho , asked for a lawyer imediatly when the groene boy is still missing.
Reply #62 Top
"That's EXACTLY my point! If they were so concerned about finding this missing boy, why didn't they provide him with counsel immediately?"


Because the first thing your lawyer tells you is to shut the hell up and admit nothing. It isn't in his interest to say a single word the moment he gets a lawyer.

The only time it IS in his interest is when he's been charged, the state's evidence is shown, and only THEN could he productively deal. Until then, anything he says IS evidence.
Reply #63 Top
Rules need to mean something, Helix. Police procedure should be kept to, but if it isn't the person to punish is the policeman.

Do these criminals need to be reminded of their rights, really? Didn't they get it the first three or four times? Do we forgive them because they weren't reminded of all the laws they break?

Explain to me how ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking one, but ignorance of your rights is the police's fault. When someone leads a policeman to a body, there's no reason for any indescretion to "erase" the event.

If you want to punish the cop for not saying his little limerick, fine, but don't punish the victim. Don't punish the rest of us by turning a monster loose.
Reply #64 Top

The issue here, MM, is that the system let this monster go in the first place!

Sell a couple ounces of pot...go to prison for life; sexually molest a kid, get paroled before the kid graduates high school.

F&^*ed up system, if you ask me

Reply #65 Top

Because the first thing your lawyer tells you is to shut the hell up and admit nothing. It isn't in his interest to say a single word the moment he gets a lawyer.

Remember Dirty Harry? Very Prophetic.

Reply #66 Top
Because the first thing your lawyer tells you is to shut the hell up and admit nothing. It isn't in his interest to say a single word the moment he gets a lawyer.

Remember Dirty Harry? Very Prophetic.


Ah Ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
Reply #67 Top
#65 by Helix the II
Wednesday, July 06, 2005


Moderateman, I feel your sentiments and understand where you are coming from, it is a travesity to have a technicality interfer with saving lives, however.. You wish to punish monsters.. Little things such as the Miranda, due process, and all of those technicalities help us from becoming monsters. It is too easy to abuse rules and laws. Criminals do it all the time. That does not mean those who uphold the law should be allowed to abuse it, as well.. elsewise.. we're all criminals in the end, some worse than others. I refuse to let my compassion and my empathy turn me into a monster.


You cannot fight monsters by being proper, it's about time to show the monsters our fangs.
Reply #68 Top
#67 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, July 06, 2005


The issue here, MM, is that the system let this monster go in the first place!
Sell a couple ounces of pot...go to prison for life; sexually molest a kid, get paroled before the kid graduates high school.
F&^*ed up system, if you ask me


boy do I agree with that GID, we really need stronger laws and more supervision if the molesters ever get free. maybe a huge tatoo on the forehead" I MOLEST CHILDREN"
Reply #69 Top
68 by Dr. Guy
Wednesday, July 06, 2005


Because the first thing your lawyer tells you is to shut the hell up and admit nothing. It isn't in his interest to say a single word the moment he gets a lawyer.

Remember Dirty Harry? Very Prophetic.


yeh doc, some real street justice. animals need to be killed anyways.
Reply #70 Top
#69 by drmiler
Thursday, July 07, 2005


Because the first thing your lawyer tells you is to shut the hell up and admit nothing. It isn't in his interest to say a single word the moment he gets a lawyer.

Remember Dirty Harry? Very Prophetic.


Ah Ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?


ah "dirty doc" shoots first and asks questions much later, my kind of man.
Reply #71 Top
66 by BakerStreet
Wednesday, July 06, 2005


Rules need to mean something, Helix. Police procedure should be kept to, but if it isn't the person to punish is the policeman.


rules are only meaningfull if BOTH sides play by them, otherwise it's a handicap.