Its pretty hard to believe that family members would have been kept in the darkfor 10 years; its a 1400 sq foot house…being able to prove it is another matter. The family has not been exonerated in any way.
The death penalty was made for this guy; his very survival will trigger anxoety for the rest of his victims lives.
How so? Nobody in the history of the United States has ever been sentenced to death for murder when the victim was an embryo or fetus, and the death penalty isn’t allowed for kidnapping or rape.
No, kidnapping is not completely legal. If the brothers were involved in this manner then they are complicit in the crime.
Because of the heinousness of the crime; and the suffering of the victims. The law can occasionally be wrong.
But its only relatively recent that causing miscarriage, even by assault and obviously deliberate and premeditated, is considered murder. It was only the harm to the women that could be prosecuted over..
I guess its a new law.. a test case. The lack of previous use of a law doesn’t prevent a new law being used the first time.. How else can a new law be used ?
Well this is a new use of the law. Did any prosecutor ever try for the death penalty over 5 murders by inducing miscarriage ?
I never woke up to find my two brothers searching my house from attic to basement.. did you ?
I would be willing to bet that you also don’t have some of the interior doors locked, the majority of the time, either. :rolleyes:
It’s Cleveland, dude. If no one answers the door, the complaint is dismissed.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
And what, exactly, is that going to accomplish?
Other than, cost me time and money, with the end result being diddly squat.
I take it, you’ve never had much dealings with LEO’s, have you? :dubious:
Case in point, I happened to walk into a neighborhood ‘beer joint’ (ice house) early one evening during the middle of a ‘raid’.
The ‘raid’ was ostensibly because the bartender was serving alcohol to ‘intoxicated’ people. I didn’t even know that was what was going on, when I approached the door. There was a uniformed officer standing in the open doorway, and as I walked up he moved out of the way so that I could enter. (My first thought was that perhaps the convenience store a couple of blocks away had been robbed, and the LEO’s were canvassing the area, looking for the ‘perps’.)
As I walked up to the bar, a LEO in ‘plainclothes’ approached me and asked “What do you want?”
Well, hell’s bells, it’s an ice house/beer joint, so I stated the obvious, “I want a beer.”
He said, “Have you got an ID?” “Yeah, sure.” (I was kind of young at the time, 23 or so.) After I produced my DL and he examined it for a few seconds, he then said, “Put you hands on the bar, and don’t move.”
“Why?”
“You’re under arrest.”
“What in the world, for?!” 
“Public intoxication.”
“Sir, I haven’t even had a beer, yet.” (I had just got off of work and hadn’t even consumed any alcohol. Besides the fact, that I wasn’t ‘in public’.) 
At this point, I was getting a little ‘peaved’, if you know what I mean, so I stated, “I want to take a ‘sobriety test’, I am not intoxicated!”
“Shut, the fuck, up!” :eek:
I was arrested and charged with Public Intoxication, I could have pled ‘No Contest’ and been released with ‘time served’ in four hours.(Just like the other 12-13 people, that were hauled in.)
I told the LEO, "I’m not pleading “No Contest’, I’ll see you in court.” and had to have my Dad come down and post a cash bond and bail me out. (Which took about 6-7 hours. :smack:)
Long story, short…
When I showed up for court, the LEO was a ‘no show’, the charges were dismissed and I got my money back.
Like I said earlier, 'You might beat the rap, but you don’t beat the ‘ride’. :mad:
So now I’m curious, lawbuff.
What, exactly, do you think hiring an attorney would have accomplished? (Other than making me about $150 poorer, and the attorney $150 richer. :rolleyes:)
Who said anything about searching his house? I just said that it’s hard to imagine that the brother’s didn’t know. Just because something is hard to imagine, though, doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible.
Yes. It’s (generally, in the US) legal to detain a suspect for questioning, it’s always legal to say that, if the suspect doesn’t voluntarily submit to questioning they will be arrested, and the requirements for probable cause are low enough that being in proximity to a crime is usually sufficient. Attempting to prevent the police questioning people is an abuse of the law.
If the police do something wrong during the arrest or questioning, they should of course be responsible for it, but simply questioning someone isn’t wrong.
I’m pretty interested in this question too. In the story as described did the LEO do anything illegal? Or actionable in some other sense?
In the FIELD only requires reasonable suspicion for investigative detention, transportation to jail requires probable cause.
Arrested for what?
No, that is simply not true by 4th AM jurisprudence.
The poster was talking about HIS arrest, not the brothers.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The fact that probable cause is a low standard, and that in practice the police can question a suspect without arresting them.
Yes, I know. I was interested in the question he asked about his own arrest.
If he feels they can hold people for 72 hours for nothing at all, they did, at least part of it, so he should have no problem with arrest.
Police can question a suspect without arresting them in theory, not just in practice. It’s called noncustodial questioning. However, they can’t demand that the suspect answer or face arrest; that’s called coercion, and would almost certainly render any subsequent questioning custodial (triggering a number of rights).
A “Seizure” must be reasonable, that is all. Now, an investigatory detention “can” turn into a defacto arrest if it is prolonged past the acceptable norm.