Trump explicitly floats idea of delaying the election ...

[Cow Poke]

Once again.....

I find Nolo to be a pretty reliable source on the law, as opposed to somebody's emotional distortion of it. I posted this earlier for JimL....


Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights

Detentions and Arrests

An officer’s “brief and cursory” holding and questioning someone is a detention. An example is a cop stopping someone who is behaving suspiciously in order to ask a few questions. The suspect isn’t free to leave, but he also isn’t under arrest, at least until the officer develops probable cause. Another common example is an officer pulling over a driver for some kind of traffic or equipment violation.

An arrest, on the other hand, involves the police taking someone into custody through a more significant restraint on movement. The quintessential example involves the use of handcuffs and an advisement that the suspect is under arrest.

You’re walking down the street when a police officer orders you to halt and begins asking you questions. You’re pretty sure that you’re not free to leave. Does that mean that you’ve been arrested, or are you simply being detained?

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an arrest. Determining which can be tough—and sometimes crucial. Suppose, for instance, that an officer has reasonable suspicion to detain someone, but not probable cause to arrest them. In the course of the encounter, the officer discovers incriminating evidence. In this situation, if the defense attorney persuades the court that, instead of merely detaining her, the officer arrested the suspect without probable cause, then the evidence may be inadmissible in court.

(For information about the level of suspicion police officers must have in order to detain or arrest, see What’s the difference between an arrest and a detention or “stop and frisk”?)

[Cow Poke]

No - we haven't.

Yes, we most certainly have. It's more stuff you simply failed to read.

So you support police being able to detain two women at gunpoint without cause all the while ignoring their little children are in the back of the car? They were handcuffed. They were not mirandized - so clearly they didn't intend to use any statements from them in court. And they were not allowed to comfort the children. So what were they doing, intimidating two black women randomly to make sure they never came back to the DC mall again? They also damaged their car, in case that part wasn't clear.

Answered in my prior post.

So the police - in your view - have the right to damage and search my property without reading me my rights, without having any sort of warrant, on even any probable cause to do so that they are required to make public?

Never said that. They would need a reason to act, but no reading of rights is necessary. Are you actually familiar with what the Miranda Warning says?

It's interesting learning more and more about what you support CP.

I support the laws and Constitution of the United States of America -- you seem to defend anarchy and mayem at every turn, as long as it supports the OMB narrative.

Seems to me you'd be more at home in Communist China or serving on the KGB than the in the US.

That's how screwed up your head is, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

So you support police pointing guns at innocent civilians out taking their children to play in a fountain? You support the police being able to at gunpoint detain anyone, anywhere, without cause or reason?

The were handcuffed, therefore - at least according to this website:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html#:~:text=It%20doesn't%20matter%20whether ,ask%20questions%20and%20use%20the

Source: above

When the Miranda Warning Is Required
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.

© Copyright Original Source

The key there is "if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial".

There were handcuffed and held at the scene.

It is not at all unusual for police to stop somebody and even handcuff them for their own safety (the safety of the person being detained and the safety of the officer(s).
They are not necessarily "under arrest" until told they are "under arrest", and a reason is given.

Now, if the police have no intention of asking any question because they know the people the are searching and detaining have done nothing wrong ...

You don't get it - the police can ask anything they want, but if they intend to use the response AT TRIAL, they must Mirandize.
They do NOT have to Marandize if they're simply trying to obtain information that might indicate further action is needed - like an official arrest.

but that would be UNLAWFUL search and seizure.

No, it would not.

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, we had been over this in great detail.

No - we haven't.

The whole bit about "arrested" doesn't necessarily mean "under arrest", and Miranda is only necessary as you state.
If they're asking general information they don't intend to use at trial, there is no requirement or obligation to Marandize.

The whole "totally unidentified 'troops' kidnapped innocent people and stuffed them into unmarked vans to interrogate them without telling them what they were arrested for or reading their rights" is a stinking pile of horise poo on so many levels.

It's crazy Aunt Betty Drama Queen stuff.

So you support police being able to detain two women at gunpoint without cause all the while ignoring their little children are in the back of the car? They were handcuffed. They were not mirandized - so clearly they didn't intend to use any statements from them in court. And they were not allowed to comfort the children. So what were they doing, intimidating two black women randomly to make sure they never came back to the DC mall again? They also damaged their car, in case that part wasn't clear.

So the police - in your view - have the right to damage and search my property without reading me my rights, without having any sort of warrant, on even any probable cause to do so that they are required to make public?

It's interesting learning more and more about what you support CP. Seems to me you'd be more at home in Communist China or serving on the KGB than the in the US.

[oxmixmudd]

Nice of you to edit your post after I had already responded.

And, no, I wasn't wrong.

What your source says: "...the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial."

What I said: "You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested."

Seriously, man, are doing this on purpose?

Seriously man, are you doing this on purpose?

So the issue is that these women were detained, at gunpoint, for no reason. They were not mirandized, but they were detained. They were not given a waiver to sign either. And this women was savvy enough to get all their badge numbers and names.

Again - so you support the police randomly detaining people for no known reason and not reading hem their rights and searching their vehicles without a warrent. These are two women out on a playdate with their kids. And you support that kind of violent confrontation from the police being legal without cause or provacation?

[firstfloor]

Dump Trump and come back to Jesus:

A left-leaning group focused on persuading religious Americans to vote out Donald Trump in November has recruited some of the president’s leading Republican agitators to assist them.

On Wednesday, Vote Common Good will launch a new partnership with the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump GOP group founded by veteran Republican strategists, to mobilize faith voters to reject Trump on Election Day.

The initiative will focus on courting white evangelicals and white Catholics — two demographics Trump won by significant margins in 2016 — who have lost patience with the president’s behavior or been disappointed with his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protest movement against racism. The efforts will be concentrated in six battleground states — North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida — where multiple polls have shown Trump trailing his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...e-biden-391427

[Cow Poke]

The narrative of the left demands that the vast majority of protesters be seen as "peaceful", and only a "tiny fraction" are "anarchists".

Logic would ask "what the heck are 'peaceful protesters' doing hanging out in a scene that we know turns violent every evening, and HAS been for TWO MONTHS"?

Second question - what, exactly, are the peaceful protesters protesting?

[Cow Poke]

Nice of you to edit your post after I had already responded.

And, no, I wasn't wrong.

What your source says: "...the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial."

What I said: "You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested."

Seriously, man, are doing this on purpose?

Yeah, we had been over this in great detail.
The whole bit about "arrested" doesn't necessarily mean "under arrest", and Miranda is only necessary as you state.
If they're asking general information they don't intend to use at trial, there is no requirement or obligation to Marandize.

The whole "totally unidentified 'troops' kidnapped innocent people and stuffed them into unmarked vans to interrogate them without telling them what they were arrested for or reading their rights" is a stinking pile of horise poo on so many levels.

It's crazy Aunt Betty Drama Queen stuff.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, the second part of your first post was indeed wrong. How good of you to adjust your comment accordingly.

Nice of you to edit your post after I had already responded.

And, no, I wasn't wrong.

What your source says: "...the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial."

What I said: "You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested."

Seriously, man, are doing this on purpose?

[Cow Poke]

Not all that frequent, and they are mistakes, never intentional.

OTOH, never (except perhaps as an intentional and obvious joke) do I purposefully distort your posts or leave out critical content when which you do routinely.

When you are just bloviating the same things over and over and over, yes, I tend to "cut to the chase". Nothing dishonest about that.

It isn't deceptive at all.

Yes, it really is.

They used gas against them to disperse them. By some reports, both tear gas and pepper balls. Either way that they were gassed is simply a matter of public record.

Which is not the same as "gassing them". That has implications far beyond crowd control.

Really? Rioting -> violence. I said you used the PRETENSE they were violent to justify the use of the gas. Nothing inaccurate there.

rioting
/ˈrīədiNG/
noun
the violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

You keep claiming it was a "peaceful" crowd --- look up that word, too.

I in fact, get most things right CP.

But to a fellow that thinks 2+2=5, most math looks 'wrong'.

Math has finite demonstrable solutions --- a "peaceful protester". however, who, moments before, was INSIDE the fence trying to burn down the federal building, could easily convince an anti-Trump leftist "he was INNOCENTLY standing there!"

Yes they were.

Nope. Were not.

Gas was used to disperse the crowd to make a way for trump over to the church so he could pretend his presidency and actions are somehow tied to the Bible.

A) That's debatable
2) It's still not proper to say that they were "gassed". That's a real kick in the teeth to holocaust survivors.

They were gassed to facilitate the photo op.

That's one perspective, for which there's no actual proof.

There is nothing nice or non-violent or 'harmless' about tear gas and pepper gas. They just don't happen to be lethal. They were gassed.

Nope. You're wrong again.

[oxmixmudd]

I support waiting for all the facts before reaching a conclusion. This is only one side of the story. Remember the words of wise King Solomon: "One man's story will appear true, until someone else challenges it."

Yes, the second part of your first post was indeed wrong. How good of you to adjust your comment accordingly.

[Cow Poke]

Not sure if it's pathological. I'm pretty sure he knows when he's lying, it just doesn't matter to him.

But you probably totally believe the "innocent protester" who was shot by police with bean bag bullets.

[Mountain Man]

So you support police pointing guns at innocent civilians out taking their children to play in a fountain? You support the police being able to at gunpoint detain anyone, anywhere, without cause or reason?

I support waiting for all the facts before reaching a conclusion. This is only one side of the story. Remember the words of wise King Solomon: "One man's story will appear true, until someone else challenges it."

[oxmixmudd]

This is only one side of the story. Remember the words of wise King Solomon: "One man's story will appear true, until someone else challenges it." Hard to tell what really happened when we don't have all the facts.

Also, not being read Miranda rights at the time of arrest is not illegal or improper. The whole, "I'm placing you under arrest for such and such. You have the right to remain silent..." is pure Hollywood. It doesn't go down that way in the real world. You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested (and as a side note, most people don't realize that when you sign on the dotted line, you are not affirming your rights; rather, you are agreeing to voluntarily relinquish them).

So you support police pointing guns at innocent civilians out taking their children to play in a fountain? You support the police being able to at gunpoint detain anyone, anywhere, without cause or reason?

The were handcuffed, therefore - at least according to this website:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html#:~:text=It%20doesn't%20matter%20whether ,ask%20questions%20and%20use%20the

Source: above

When the Miranda Warning Is Required
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.

© Copyright Original Source

There were handcuffed and held at the scene.

Now, if the police have no intention of asking any question because they know the people the are searching and detaining have done nothing wrong ...

but that would be UNLAWFUL search and seizure.

[Mountain Man]

They were held at gunpoint, they were never mirandized, this happened in front of their small children, and the cars were searched without probable cause. There was nothing here except two women out to let their kids play in the fountain on the mall.

This is only one side of the story. Remember the words of wise King Solomon: "One man's story will appear true, until someone else challenges it." Hard to tell what really happened when we don't have all the facts.

Also, not being read Miranda rights at the time of arrest is not illegal or improper. The whole, "I'm placing you under arrest for such and such. You have the right to remain silent..." is pure Hollywood. It doesn't go down that way in the real world. You're given the waiver at the time you're questioned, not when you're arrested (and as a side note, most people don't realize that when you sign on the dotted line, you are not affirming your rights; rather, you are agreeing to voluntarily relinquish them).