Is it before or after the story about: Miracle Baby Born Fully Encased in Giant Liquid-Filled Bubble?
That is true and such births do occur!
Well sure, though it wasn’t a ‘Giant Liquid-Filled Bubble’ but an amniotic sac. I guess that COULD be a ‘Giant Liquid-Filled Bubble’ for some definitions of ‘Giant’ and ‘Bubble’ (I think we can all agree to give ‘Liquid-Filled’ a pass, right?). I’m pretty sure the woman who gave up Wall Street for Porn was real too. But your story doesn’t seem to be on the front page under the news section, not even after the ‘‘Mein Kampf’ to be published in Germany for first time since WWII’ or ‘Cherry tycoon kills himself amid drug raid on factory’ stories. I’m sure it will be there sometime though. Probably have their keen eyed reporters and editors dotting all the I’s and crossing all the T’s to make sure they have all the bases covered.
I don’t see that admission anywhere in the Tribune article you cited.
You owe me a new one of these.
With all due respect to the NATO Three - I’m sure they are just the best at being revolutionaries, and their iPods are probably filled with the best dubstep that their coop has to share – can someone answer a legal question for me?
If I am arrested, and I ask for a lawyer, is there a guideline of how quickly the lawyer must be able to see me? Surely if I’m in the middle of some kind of inprocessing, the police wouldn’t have to stop that immediately. And surely the questioning would have to stop when I request a lawyer. But is there some law on how promptly my demand must be satisified?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
If I am arrested, and I ask for a lawyer, is there a guideline of how quickly the lawyer must be able to see me? Surely if I’m in the middle of some kind of inprocessing, the police wouldn’t have to stop that immediately. And surely the questioning would have to stop when I request a lawyer. But is there some law on how promptly my demand must be satisified?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on the SDMB, but I think it’s something along these lines:
Without delay and as soon as possible. I THINK this means you should be provided with a phone, at a minimum to contact a lawyer once you are in custody, and the whole if you don’t have a lawyer one will be appointed bit. So, assuming these folks were arrested and booked and then not provided the means to contact a lawyer in a timely fashion then it’s a real issue. But, like I said, I am not a lawyer so maybe Bricker or one of those guys will weigh in with the sometimes murky law stuff with a definitive answer.
Thanks, but you did notice that’s a Canadian website, right?
I wasn’t aware that the state was referred to as “The Crown.”
Edit: Ninja’d!
:smack: Nope. Oh well, that’s what I get for not reading through it fully and just picking out the parts I thought were answering the question. I am now going to go back and read that article on the woman who gave up Wall Street for Porn much more carefully…
To answer your original question, you have a constitutional right to an attorney during questioning. You do not have a right to an attorney to sit with you during the booking process or while you are waiting for arraignment or transport or any of the myriad of administrative details that pop up. Martin Hyde explained it pretty well in post #29. I know of no bright line as to when you must be allowed to contact an attorney when not being questioned. Most likely there are 50 different laws, case law and guidelines for it. Or if there is a bright line case I welcome the education from someone.
And if nothing much comes of it, and there doesn’t seem to be anything beyond unsubstantiated rumors, is that an indication that the whole thing is BS, or that the NY Times is part of the conspiracy?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Regards,
Shodan
That is a reprint of something already posted in this thread.
An ad hominem is an argument, just a fallacious one. Mockery is not an argument - though in this case it’s pretty amusing.
If a person comes into a room during a party, drops their pants, takes a dump on the floor, and proceeds to yell as loud as they can that parts of Jupiter are emanating from their body, people aren’t going to really argue with them. They may mock them though.
It is an interesting question how long a person can be detained/arrested without access to a lawyer. In most states, you can only be detained up to 72 hours without charges being filed (48 in CA I believe), but this says nothing about when a lawyer must be provided. Of course during questioning, and other steps yes. But what if you are simply held without being charged, or questioned - can you be deprived of the ability to speak with a lawyer for those same 48 or 72 hours? I dont know.
Yes, pretty much, unless you’ve been charged. It is interrogation that triggers the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, and “critical stages of prosecution” that trigger the Sixth Amendment one. Just being in the jailhouse doesn’t trigger anything, at least not under the Federal Constitution. Most states law constitutional or statutory provisions requiring access to counsel during detention though.
How many times do we have to ask the OP what the debate is???
OP: What is the debate???
You posted this in GD, but gave no indication of what you wanted to debate. And you wonder why people are treating this like a joke…
Pick One:
[ul]
[li]US Police: Bad or Very Bad?[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Resolved: The US Sucks[/li][/ul]
Or, the question posed in the OP Title:
[ul]
[li]US Police operating Detention Blacksites?[/li][/ul]
Review:
Just to add my two cents, I second the idea that Martin Hyde (post #29) gives us a good rationale as to why the allegation might be baseless. I will note that he also adds that nothing the Chicago Police would do would be surprising.
Yeah, that’s about right.
That’s a factual question that can only be answered by an investigation. It’s not a debate.