Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on September 03, 2017, 02:24:44 PM
-
Interesting. This is from the Nevada Bundy case, not the Oregon case. Idaho lawmakers have sent a letter to Jeff Sessions asking him to knock it off.
Apparently DOJ lost two trials already and is going for "three times is the charm". I have to agree with Idaho here. Whatever you think of the Bundys and their supporters, it's not the roll of government to simply exact vengeance and make life miserable for people. If they couldn't make their first cases, they need to stop coming up with new charges and drop it. They lost. As one Idaho lawmaker said, "Get over it."
Interesting side point - Ammon Bundy continues to be held without bail - again, for the Nevada incident of 2014. Three years behind bars awaiting trial(s) I think starts to fall into "cruel and unusual". Is he really a flight risk? Seems to me he's the opposite - he wants to go to court.
Side point #2: I'm really glad I've chosen Idaho for my retirement. Good people (including elected representatives) there.
https://idahostatesman.relaymedia.com/amp/news/politics-government/state-politics/article170864727.html
-
I know a fair number of prosecutors who I think hold literally insane views of justice; devoid of any comprehension of real world impact. So I never know if its that ivory tower variant or just another sociopathic attorney.
Don't know vs. Don't care
Being of a libertarian bent; I do view the whole social construct as a bit fragile. It is very easy to see with folks not acculturated in the manner of the usual american upbringing; the notion of trusting police as an absurdity and in equal measure those with the view of 'of course you do what the government men with guns say without question.'
I'd really like the United States of America to be work a bit harder at being the ideal. It is a continuous effort kinda of thing.
-
I'd really like the United States of America to be work a bit harder at being the ideal. It is a continuous effort kinda of thing.
But ... whose definition of the ideal?
-
But ... whose definition of the ideal?
The Constitution would be a good start for too many prosecutors.
-
But ... whose definition of the ideal?
I'll go with mine. =D
-
Interesting side point - Ammon Bundy continues to be held without bail - again, for the Nevada incident of 2014. Three years behind bars awaiting trial(s) I think starts to fall into "cruel and unusual". Is he really a flight risk? Seems to me he's the opposite - he wants to go to court.
I'm amazed at this. If it were me I'd have my lawyer filing motion after motion (writ of habeas corpus??) and appealing every denial of bail all the way to SCOTUS if I had to.
-
I'm amazed at this. If it were me I'd have my lawyer filing motion after motion (writ of habeas corpus??) and appealing every denial of bail all the way to SCOTUS if I had to.
The cynical part of me wonders if this isn't a "plan B" for a gov that doesn't have a case. At some point they may attempt the plea bargain thing and then find him guilty with "time served" so that they can say they won and had him in jail. From what I've read of Bundy though, I doubt he'd let his attorneys go for a plead down guilty verdict. He seems to be an "all or nothing" kind of guy.
-
My old police captain mentor often said that if a police officer asks you a question, keep your mouth shut.
-
I'll go with mine. =D
That's what they all say. Therein lies the problem ...
-
My old police captain mentor often said that if a police officer asks you a question, keep your mouth shut.
Not to take this thread too far off track . . . but clearly the "technical advisors" on most TV cop shows never heard of this advice.
-
Not to take this thread too far off track . . . but clearly the "technical advisors" on most TV cop shows never heard of this advice.
I've seen plenty of police procedural shows. That's how I know that most police interviews take place while walking around the subject's workplace. Why, I don't know. Time-honored cop technique, I guess.
-
Not to take this thread too far off track . . . but clearly the "technical advisors" on most TV cop shows never heard of this advice.
Na, they actively promote "If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide. Only criminals refuse to talk."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnlyBadGuysCallTheirLawyers
Funny now a TV tropes website offers better advice than 99% of humanity. "So, if you are arrested: Say nothing. Write nothing. Do nothing except ask for a lawyer and refuse to answer questions without one. Above all, sign nothing."
Exception is you have to give your name and provide ID, unless you are actually a criminal. Don't ask. Courts take a tortured view on things.
-
Exception is you have to give your name and provide ID, unless you are actually a criminal. Don't ask. Courts take a tortured view on things.
Judge: Officer Friendly, you must have a clearly articulable basis for claiming you arrest someone on a reasonable suspicion. What was the factual basis for you arrest of the suspect?
Officer Friendly: He refused to show me identification, your honor.
Judge: Why do you consider that as justification for an arrest?
OF: Well, Your honor, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wanted criminal doesn't have to show identification because that would be self-incriminating. So when this defendant refused to identify himself, I had to assume there's a warrant out for him.
-
Judge: Officer Friendly, you must have a clearly articulable basis for claiming you arrest someone on a reasonable suspicion. What was the factual basis for you arrest of the suspect?
Officer Friendly: He refused to show me identification, your honor.
Judge: Why do you consider that as justification for an arrest?
OF: Well, Your honor, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wanted criminal doesn't have to show identification because that would be self-incriminating. So when this defendant refused to identify himself, I had to assume there's a warrant out for him.
That's sadly not far from how it played out. Thanks Nevada and Bush administration. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, not the worst decision by Scalia. But near the top. The Fifth was compromised, because the Supreme Court now says you do NOT have a right to remain silent. For the moment, you cannot remain silent on your name.
Oh, and you have to SAY you're invoking your right to remain silent and probably/maybe specifically that you are invoking your Fifth Amendment rights. Actually being silent can be used against you, per Berghuis v. Thompkins. And Salinas v. Texas. Only a court could take that tortured reading of the Fifth Amendment.