Chicago has never “run its own black site”, nor were anyone’s civil rights violated in the non-incidents that people are demanding the government Do Something about.
No, never. :rolleyes:
The media is obviously lying about this. Either than or you’re just denying the obvious because it would break your head.
Just because the media uses a sensational term to drive up clicks doesn’t make it literally true any more than my post implied that the government is literally searching for evidence that the Chicago PD practices witchcraft.
Is the existence of Homan Square classified? No, it is and has been a matter of public record.
Does the city deny that it exists? No, it does not.
Are people detained indefinitely without charges or trial? No, they’re there for a matter of hours.
Are those people denied their constitutional protections? No, they are not.
Are they tortured? No, they are not.
But “Chicago runs black site” is better clickbait than “Chicago runs temporary holding facility”.
**Smapti **says:
Meanwhile, the reporters say:
Apparently **Smapti **thinks being read Miranda rights and having access to lawyers aren’t constitutional protections.
Oklahoma City cop accused by multiple women (many/most black and all poor) of habitual sexual assault. I wonder how common this is with women who are afraid to report that they were raped.
There is no constitutional right to have a lawyer present and holding your hand the entire time you’re in custody. Nor is it necessary for them to Mirandize people they intend to question unless they plan on using evidence gathered there as evidence against that person in a trial. If all they want is some information on their gang-banging drug-dealing buddies in exchange for leniency, then no rights are being infringed upon.
Of course you try to minimize these routine violations of constitutional rights, because you are a fascist. Meanwhile, in Chicago:
I bet you would have made a great Hitler youth…except your physical and mental deformities would have had you sent to the ovens. Oh well, there’s probably no constitutional right not be be sent to the ovens.
Not sure what you mean here.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/right-to-counsel.html
I as understand…and maybe I misunderstand you…is that a person always has a right to counsel when in custody. Custody begins when you are not free to leave. Of course, it now falls on the individual to invoke that right.
I.e.; individuals in custody have the right to counsel when they are being questioned if the state intends to use information gathered in that questioning as evidence against them in a trial. You are also entitled to counsel before being questioned on the terms described above, though it is not required that you be informed of that right.
If there is no intent to put the person on trial, or if the state does not intend to use information from that questioning as evidence, then there is no constitutional need to provide them with counsel.
So Chicago operated a site that denied family and legal visits, denied that people were held, beating (and in a couple of cases, killing them) and you think this is all on the up-and-up and perfectly legal? :dubious:
Either you are intentionally trolling this site or you’re such a completely fucked up human that you shouldn’t be participating in such discussions.
Since the vast majority of this thread consists of you trolling us in this manner and people’s responses to you, I am reporting you for the same.
There is no legal requirement I know of that a person in holding be granted visitation rights.
I do not know if this was the case.
This is an unsubstantiated accusation. There are people who claim force was used against them. Assuming their allegations are true, it is possible that that force was completely justifiable.
It is reported that one person was found unconscious and later died. To assert that the police killed this person is a non sequitur on par with asserting that Sandra Bland was murdered.
Yes. They may be distasteful, but legality is not based on tastefulness. Such practices would not be necessary if the community and the culture were not so hostile to the concept of law and order.
I have said nothing in this thread that I do not believe to be true. I’m sorry you feel otherwise.
I think a stupid person could argue that you could arrest someone, shackle them to a bench for 17 hours, question them, charge them, and convict them, but that “there is no constitutional need to provide them with counsel because you weren’t necessarily going to use information from that questioning as evidence.”
The person making that argument would have to be spectacularly stupid. Oh, and here you are.
Yes, he believes what he says to be true. That makes him a shitty, disgusting human being, not a troll.
Hey Smapti, could you do me a favor and go be a fascist with all your stupid opinions? I’d prefer it if we didn’t have any opinions in common, and I think the conservatives would love you.
Cite?
Stop right there. If there is no intent to put the person on trial, then let the person go. Habeus corpus et ali. Or are you stating that all arrests are either of material witnesses or nutters?
So, Smapti’s now arguing that the government has the legal right to disappear people?
Predictable enough, I suppose. Nauseating, but predictable.
What questioning would they ask that didn’t intend to use as evidence. Have you ever heard the phrase…I know you have…c’mon, say it with me…‘Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law’. Are you trying to say that if they didn’t intend for it to used as evidence when they asked, it couldn’t be used? Of course not. Anything a person says in custody it fair game…so long as they are not coerced or deprived of their right to counsel. How do you know when someone is deprived of their right to counsel? It’s when they asked for a lawyer and the questioning continued.
Can I get a ruling on this from one of our Legal Eagles?
If there is no record of the detainee requesting counsel then the detainee never asked for counsel. Ergo, the police have done nothing wrong. :rolleyes:
The Miranda caution must have been given if testimonial evidence obtained by the state during a custodial interrogation is to be used at the trial of the person who gave the evidence during the custodial interrogation.
What then is custody? My understanding is that people are not free to leave Terry stops, but neither are they in custody, so they don’t get cautioned. People who wander up to a cop, or voluntarily meet with an officer in a police station, are not in custody, so there is no obligation to caution them. “You’re under arrest,” or being confined in the police car or in a cell, are pretty clearly examples of being in custody.
And what is interrogation? Interrogation is trying to elicit information relevant to the case: Where were you at 1:00 a.m.? Not interrogation: Officer “Would you like a glass of water?” Suspect “I shot the Sheriff!”
So yes, there are some ins and outs when it comes to when a caution must be given, but quite aside from this, it usually is not proper for a person to be in custody if there is no intention to try the person – if the person is in custody there is supposed to be probable cause of a crime being committed, which presupposes that the person will be tried unless upon further investigation a charge is not laid. It’s a timing thing that requires the caution prior to custodial questioning, rather than just once charges have been laid.
Kind of surprising not to see the Neenah (WI) story show up in this thread, given how truly odd it smells.
Summary:
• guy goes into motorcycle shop to demand his bike back: it was there for some work, brought in by its current owner (someone else)
• hostile words are exchanged; shop owner comes up from the basement, but a guy named Funk signals him to go back down, where he calls the cops
• apparent hostage situation develops, swatters encircle the shop; one officer has his helmet injured by a bullet while trying to enter the shop
• at some point, Funk exits the building; police order him to drop his weapon, he fails to comply, he is shot dead (police say they are not sure whether he was killed by them or by gunfire from inside the shop)
• hostage-taker eventually surrenders, is taken downtown
Two really odd things here. First, why would Funk be fleeing and also waving a gun around? Was he preparing to duel with the other guy? And are the police being honest about what actually happened?
Second odd thing is where the pungent odor wafts up from the story: Funk was party to a very big lawsuit against the police, for the way he had been treated in an earlier incident. One would have to guess that there is something about Funk that causes the police to react in bad ways. He must just look like the kind of guy who needs a bit of justice laid down on his head. You know, like a biker.