Setting up a nit-picking trap with “specifically?” is a patented Bricker ploy. ** Shodan** owes him a nickel.
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, it is a misconception that you get Mirandized when taken into custody. That (usually?) only happens when the police decide to interrogate you. I got arrested once (back in my wilder, dumber days) and was taken within hours to the magistrate to be released on PR. No where in all of that did the police desire to interrogate me and at NO time was I Mirandized. We know that she was *not *interrogated; why would you assume that she *did *get the Miranda? Why would her lawyer have mentioned something that wasn’t done if not doing it was not a violation?
I don’t personally know her but someone on the margins of society who got locked up for 96 days: almost certainly lost her job, which means she would have been unable to pay her rent, which means she probably would have been evicted, which means her possessions were auctioned to pay the rent, which means she probably would have been unable to make car payments, which means her car probably would have been repossessed, which means…
Take it as far as you want. For most people being locked up will probably have a negative impact on their lives. If you can’t figure out on your own how being locked up can affect someone’s life then…
If she was Mirandized, she was aware of her right to a lawyer. Because, you know, they told her.
Regards,
Shodan
What was her job?
Regards,
Shodan
If? Was she Mirandized?
Don’t know. What was her job?
OK, so all the stuff about her almost certainly losing her job was something you made up. How about having her car repossessed? Any indication that that happened?
Regards,
Shodan
Your theory is that she didn’t lose her job? You think employers hold their employees’ jobs while they’re locked up for 96 days? or perhaps that she is independently wealthy and therefore doesn’t need to work? Fill me in on your reasoning here.
If she were mirandized, which would have happened before she was interrogated, which she was not, she would have been told that she had the right to an attorney.
If she were in fact told of this right, she would not have been able to actually get this attorney until the actual arraignment, when said attorney is assigned by a judge.
This lawyer is also not free, you are expected to pay court costs, including reasonable lawyer fees. You don’t have to pay upfront, but you will get a bill.
As you were ignorant of the rights that you get when you are arrested, does that mean that you deserve to spend 3 months in jail?
I hope your answer is no, but if your answer is no, then it contradicts everything else you have said relating to this matter. If your answer is yes, well, at least you are consistent.
Putting innocent people in jail for 3 months helps no one and costs taxpayers money, and should rightly be condemned and those responsible disciplined. Surprised that any conservatives wouldn’t be upset about this.
I don’t recall this one coming up when it occurred in March of this year, but [a Wisconsin police officer faces a felony charge for allegedly shooting and injuring an unarmed man in March after removing him from a bus:
](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9b1c8ab6083240d0b6b86375f1cb251b/wisconsin-officer-facing-felony-charge-march-shooting)
In case anyone was wondering:
If we can agree that punishment has a deterrent effect and we can agree that the government fucked up in a way that we would like to minimize, then can we agree that the government has to be punished in a way that they (and other state and local governments) will be deterred from fucking up in this way again in the future?
For governments and corporation, (or anything else that you can’t actually put in prison), this usually means a wheelbarrel full of cash.
You have said this several times. IF she was mirandized. Neither your cite nor mine mention that she was mirandized.
We would naturally assume that LEOs would mirandize her when they arrested her on the outstanding traffic warrant. She may have waived counsel at time. Why would she need a lawyer then? Wasn’t gonna get out of a traffic issue.
So, they dismiss the misdemeanor but keep her on a felony indictment. Do they mirandize her again? Everyone agrees that when she was served with notice that she was indicted, she asked to see a judge and asked for a bail hearing.Do only those represented by counsel get to see a judge? Well, I guess she did get to see one 96 days later. I suppose she should be grateful that she only had to wait 3 months rather than 8 like she was originally told.
Even when our grand Constitution was written, 8 months for a bail hearing was not timely. In the days in intertubes and cell thingies, even three months for a bail hearing is a travesty.
Lets have a hypothetical. Shodan is driving through the great State of Mississippi and gets pulled over. He is told he an outstanding traffic warrant (based on a clerical error, of course) and is arrersted. You ARE mirandized,but you don’t care for lawyers. You ask for a bail hearing but you have to wait three months to see a judge to make bail or plead your case. (remember, she was originally told she would have to wait eight months)
Three months. How do you feel about being jailed for three months. Maybe you are a wealthy man and do not really need to do any business in that time. Do you have mortgage and car payments and credit card payments on auto-pay? If not, your credit rating has taken a hit at the very least. Or maybe your wife has your checkbook and can make tghos payments? Are you married? Or have a live in girlfriend? How would feel about not being able to touch her for three months? Or eat in a restaurant? Go to see movie? Attend church? Walk through the streets like a free man?
Would you still consider it a minor thing if it happened to you? Me? I would contemplating revenge. Because it was a travesty.
As mentioned, there is only negative evidence, just as there is only negative evidence that she didn’t ask for a lawyer. She does not complain that she asked for a lawyer and was denied - she never asked. Likewise she does not complain that she was never advised of her rights. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would appear that her complaint is not founded on the idea that she was never Mirandized. So she must have been.
Not exactly a nitpick - the outstanding warrant was for misdemeanor distribution of a controlled substance. Not for the traffic offense(s).
I would feel like an idiot. If I preferred to sit for three months because “I don’t care for lawyers”, I would **be **an idiot.
I think you have put your finger on it. This woman acted stupidly, just as I would if I were stupid enough to not answer Yes when they said I could have a lawyer. But she wants revenge on the state, because she is stupid. That’s not how revenge works, when it works.
Regards,
Shodan
You say she must have been mirandized. This shows that you are ignorant of the process. They only would have mirandized her before they interrogated her, and they never interrogated her. The did not need to. They already had an indictment, so the just locked her away.
She probably did complain to her lawyer, when she got one, about those things. And her lawyer probably advised her that they did not need to give her a lawyer until the arraignment, when a lawyer would be assigned by a judge, so it would not be possible to actually make that part of the official complaint against the dept. Not even a “free” lawyer, like you have said a few times, but a lawyer that she would be billed for, along with court costs.
I would assume that that is why it not part of the actual complaint.
Why do you think that they would have asked her if she wanted a lawyer, when at no time in the process would they have been required to ask if she wanted a lawyer? They did not need to give her a lawyer until the bail hearing.
As much ignorance as you have shown about this process, why do you think she was the one that was stupid?
She was arrested for traffic offenses, and then transferred to another county for the warrant after the arrest.
Do you think she didn’t care for lawyers? Do you have any cite that she said that? She asked to be taken in front of a judge for a bail hearing, was told that she wouldn’t get it until the next court term 3 months away, and then she was locked up. At no time was she offered a lawyer, a court hearing, or any of the other things we would generally think of as civil rights.
So, asked again, how would you feel if this were you? Arrested on a fake charge, detained for 3 months without bail or access to a lawyer. Away from your family, she was a mother, I don’t know if you have any children, but if you do, would you mind being locked up and away from them for that time.
The real complaint here isn’t that this happened, the real complaint is that apparently, it was perfectly legal. It was legal to lock her away without reviewing the evidence. It was legal to contact her family, and tell them that she was going away for a long time because she was a bad woman. It was legal to leave her in custody for 96 days without giving her access to a lawyer, a bail hearing, or a court. If this shit had gone down, and she had won her first suit, without needing to appeal (I really hope she wins on appeal, and then there is less to complain about [the forces of good win in the end]), some people got fired or at least disciplined and retrained on how to respect the people they are supposed to serve and protect, then it would not be that big a deal. It is the fact that she lost her suit, and that according to the judge who dismissed, people in Mississippi have no civil rights.
And you, my friend, have a great day,
K9befriender
Good friggin’ grief! This is a country with 320 million people (maybe as many as 370 million if, ahem, everyone were counted). Off the wall, out of the ordinary shit is going to happen sometimes. If this kind of thing were a frequently occurring problem then, yeah, outrage would be justified. But you don’t have to twist off and go ballistic every. damn. time. some oddball thing involving ‘teh authoritahs’ happens, even if it’s a once in a million occurrence. It’s not a perfect world and it never will be. Get over it.
Couple things, First, this is the thread for exactly the kind of thing you are chiding. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. No one forced yo to read it.
Second, this story is specifically about a singular person who went through all kinds of hell with no justification whatsoever, but it is not the only person to have had this happen to them. This is just an example. Now, the big thing about this example was not that it happened. The thing about this example is that it was ruled that everything that happened to her was perfectly legal. That means that it is not going to be a single occurrence, it means that it is systemic.
Now, you could argue that there are 50 states (maybe as many as 54 if, ahem, they were all counted), and that this only occurred in one of them. But that would be nearly as stupid an argument as the one you just spewed forth.
Would the lawyer have made a difference? Would you have gotten a sooner court date? Remember from the cite, she was told the NEXT time the court was in session was 8 months away. Was she lied to? Again, do only those represented by counsel get timely court dates?
From your cite:
This was in *January.
*
From my cite:
Justice was not served here.
It doesn’t matter how stupid she is. It is just as much the duty of the police, the jail officers, and the courts to ensure they are not holding people unreasonably, even if they aren’t represented by lawyers and no matter how stupid they are.
Some people in society are stupid. It is the duty of people who are given positions of authority—especially when that authority encompasses infringements on their liberty—to ensure that everyone in their custody is being treated fairly and reasonably. Even and especially the stupid ones.
Cops have the duty to serve and protect everyone, even those of they think are bad guys.