• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you know your Bill of Rights?

Do you know your Bill of Rights?

Oh shit. How much do I owe?

You take plastic?

How much you owe depends largely on your (reported) income and, of course, how and upon who your later spent it. ;)
 
I know you have the Right to remain silent.

I learnt that from watching the original Robocop film which had a ludicrous amount of swearing in it.
Robocop is the best!!!!!!!!

Not necessarily - you could be interviewed by the police as a witness.
 
Not necessarily - you could be interviewed by the police as a witness.
Actually, most people don't understand what is required when speaking with the police.

"Right to remain silent" is part of what is called the Miranda warning that police often give criminal suspects before questioning them. A lot of people believe that the police are required to issue the Miranda rights to a suspect before questioning them. They are not.

First, Miranda does not apply to anyone who is not in custody or otherwise free to leave. Whether it is on the street, in a squad car, or at the station, unless the person is not free to leave, Miranda does not apply. If they are wearing handcuffs, clearly they are not free to leave. Does that mean the police are then obligated to inform them of their rights? Nope.

The police may question anyone they believe may have information regarding a criminal investigation. If the person they are questioning is in custody and that person reveals a fact that implicates them in a crime, that statement by the person cannot be used in their prosecution sans a Miranda warning.
 
The Bill Of Rights is now null and void.

There is no freedom of speech.
There is no free press.
There is no right to bond.
There is no right to attorney-client privilege.
There is no presumption of innocence.
There is no freedom of religion.
The right to peacefully assemble to protest is now illegal.

What of the Bill Of Rights do you claim still exists?
 
Actually, most people don't understand what is required when speaking with the police.

"Right to remain silent" is part of what is called the Miranda warning that police often give criminal suspects before questioning them. A lot of people believe that the police are required to issue the Miranda rights to a suspect before questioning them. They are not.

Are you sure? I think that if you gave the police some incriminating information (after an arrest and during a formal interview) and the prosecution brings it up in court, I think it would be inadmissible if the police had not read you your rights.

"It is important to note that police are only required to Mirandize a suspect if they intend to interrogate that person under custody. Arrests can occur without the Miranda Warning being given. If the police later decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given at that time..."


Basically the rule for those arrested is to not say anything until your lawyer gets there


First, Miranda does not apply to anyone who is not in custody or otherwise free to leave. Whether it is on the street, in a squad car, or at the station, unless the person is not free to leave, Miranda does not apply. If they are wearing handcuffs, clearly they are not free to leave. Does that mean the police are then obligated to inform them of their rights? Nope.

The police may question anyone they believe may have information regarding a criminal investigation. If the person they are questioning is in custody and that person reveals a fact that implicates them in a crime, that statement by the person cannot be used in their prosecution sans a Miranda warning.

I think if you are arrested and they question you in an interview room and don't read you your rights, a DA would be foolish to enter it into evidence.

But on a side note, Michael Cohen (the former disgraced attorney to Trump himself), riased the point that if Trump pardons someone (like his children) and they accept, they can no-longer plead the 5th Amendment as they cannot incriminate themselves.
 
Are you sure? I think that if you gave the police some incriminating information (after an arrest and during a formal interview) and the prosecution brings it up in court, I think it would be inadmissible if the police had not read you your rights.

"It is important to note that police are only required to Mirandize a suspect if they intend to interrogate that person under custody. Arrests can occur without the Miranda Warning being given. If the police later decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given at that time..."


Some people are under the mistaken impression that if the Miranda warning is not given, that the arrest is illegal. That is simply false. Miranda says if the police choose to interrogate a suspect in custody without informing the suspect of their rights, any information or evidence obtained during that interrogation will not be entered into evidence in a trial.

The police are not legally required to issue the Miranda warning. However, failure to do so risks having good police work come to naught.
 
Some people are under the mistaken impression that if the Miranda warning is not given, that the arrest is illegal. That is simply false. Miranda says if the police choose to interrogate a suspect in custody without informing the suspect of their rights, any information or evidence obtained during that interrogation will not be entered into evidence in a trial.

The police are not legally required to issue the Miranda warning. However, failure to do so risks having good police work come to naught.


If the police arrest you they have to charge you with something or let you go (though they can do both)
If they charge you with something, they need to bring you in front of a judge and if they do that, they have to offer you counsel.
 
If the police arrest you they have to charge you with something or let you go (though they can do both)
If they charge you with something, they need to bring you in front of a judge and if they do that, they have to offer you counsel.
The police have up to 48 hours to charge you. During that 48 hours police can question you, unless you invoke your right to counsel. Police have been known to interrogate suspects unceasingly for days, saying "he didn't ask for a lawyer." Miranda puts an effective end to that kind of behavior.
 
hell, a ton of people don't even understand the FIRST one.
 
The police have up to 48 hours to charge you. During that 48 hours police can question you, unless you invoke your right to counsel. Police have been known to interrogate suspects unceasingly for days, saying "he didn't ask for a lawyer." Miranda puts an effective end to that kind of behavior.

I know and it's a good thing, in some states, you get a public defender before interrogation, in others not until you go to court

But if you have your own lawyer, you can ask to see him immediately after they book you in (unless they release you).

Important rule: Don't talk to the police - it can NOT help you.
 
If right wingers were really serious about gun rights and everyone should have a few, they would have charities that ran around providing firearms to the homeless. Wonder why they don't.

Think about how many Second Amendment supports own guns. They are just afraid of being forced to give their own guns away by police officers.
 
Think about how many Second Amendment supports own guns. They are just afraid of being forced to give their own guns away by police officers.

Ultimately yes, if there's a gun ban and gun owners refuse to surrender their guns....the police would seize them and cart the owners off to jail.
 
The police have up to 48 hours to charge you. During that 48 hours police can question you, unless you invoke your right to counsel. Police have been known to interrogate suspects unceasingly for days, saying "he didn't ask for a lawyer." Miranda puts an effective end to that kind of behavior.

Shame on them. Even before the Miranda law was enforced, that type of behavior was illegal based on the Fifth Amendment. Also, another amendment gives everyone the right to have a lawyer, which is totally different.
 
Ultimately yes, if there's a gun ban and gun owners refuse to surrender their guns....the police would seize them and cart the owners off to jail.

You must be really stupid to think gun control is the same as forcing gun owners to surrender their guns to police. Democrats always talk about gun CONTROL. Banning certain types of guns can mean phasing them out: you can keep your automatic rifles, but those shopping for new guns will have to settle for semiautomatic. Stuff like that is not prohibited in the Second Amendment.
 
You must be really stupid to think gun control is the same as forcing gun owners to surrender their guns to police.

You must be really stupid if tou think making gun owners surrender their guns isn't "gun control"


Democrats always talk about gun CONTROL. Banning certain types of guns can mean phasing them out: you can keep your automatic rifles, but those shopping for new guns will have to settle for semiautomatic. Stuff like that is not prohibited in the Second Amendment.

Half measures and lip service to gun control demands

There can be no significant gun control without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Ultimately yes, if there's a gun ban and gun owners refuse to surrender their guns....the police would seize them and cart the owners off to jail.
If guns are illegal, only criminals would have guns. Which is a tautology.
 
Ultimately yes, if there's a gun ban and gun owners refuse to surrender their guns....the police would seize them and cart the owners off to jail.

I support concealed carry. I also support background checks, and a state govt.s right to decide who is considered a 'militia member'; most states' National Guard units qualify, and if a state chooses to restrict gun ownership they have a right to. I just don't think they can enforce that very well, but to each his own. I have a leg in both 'sides', and support neither fully in an ideological sense. The Constitution was about limiting Federal powers, not so much the states, as far as 'original intent' goes. I do realize they certainly didn't mean Goober up the street had a right to try and build his own nuclear warhead in his garage on weekends, that sort of absurd 'logic' fashionable with certain sub-cultures.
 
Back
Top Bottom