I think the Supreme Court screwed the pooch on this decision. 
‍♂
‍♂
This decision seems sketchy
- Thread starter wvfarrier
- Start date
Not a Lawyer.
I think you have the wrong stuff highlighted. I have not read the full case opinions and such.
This sounds like they are saying arrested dumbass cannot sue the Officer who didn't Mirandize him. Let's assume Officer Newguy Dumbass didn't know better. Just to argue a bit.
Should one Dumbass sue another Dumbass for relief? Or should we look at the bigger picture of Dumbass #1's rights being violated by way of not being Mirandized? I am asking.
This shit gets pretty specific and picky pretty quick. There is a reason our legal system (is supposed to) protects the innocent until proven guilty.
If you sue someone and your point of law was NOT the pivotal thing to make your case, you didn't show burden of proof... I think they flush it till the correct pivotal thing (burden of proof at the correct level) becomes the focus.
Could be wrong.
Just sayin'.
No this is the equivalent of cutting one of Miranda’s nuts off. In this particular case the court couldn’t completely overturn Miranda because it was a civil action in question not a criminal one, but it surely sounds like they wanted to.
Shut your pie hole except to say "I want a lawyer".
Never never never ever talk to the cops. It's pretty simple.
Never never never ever talk to the cops. It's pretty simple.
There is a 90% chance Deputy Vega did everything exactly as described by Tekoh. There is a slight chance Tekoh touched that woman's clam because it was soooo lovely he had to give it a tickle and she had no sense of humor. It is more likely than not that this poor bastard was trying to get her positioned for the MRI and opps it and she was humorless.
I'd have made that Deputy shoot me before writing a statement.
I'd have made that Deputy shoot me before writing a statement.
This is exactly how I read the decision too. Miranda keeps LEO violations of the 5th amendment out of court. That is literally the physical manifestation of your right not to incriminate yourself when accused of a crime (exactly as described in the Constitution). The guy got completely off on the charges because his admission of guilt wasn't allowed to be used against him in court (his rights were NOT violated). The precedent of the Miranda case was upheld in the man's criminal trial, his admission of guilt was set aside and the jury was not allowed to hear it, and he was acquitted of the crime (even though he admitted to his guilt). In other words, the cops fucked up, and the system worked as it was supposed to work.
Now, after the fact, he wants money for his troubles even though his 5th amendment rights were not violated, and the unmirandized admission of guilt was not used against him in court. He is basically wanting to hold the cops personally accountable for a procedural error even though his rights were not violated.
This decision was correct as far as I'm concerned.
Now, after the fact, he wants money for his troubles even though his 5th amendment rights were not violated, and the unmirandized admission of guilt was not used against him in court. He is basically wanting to hold the cops personally accountable for a procedural error even though his rights were not violated.
This decision was correct as far as I'm concerned.
You do not have a constitutional right to have your Miranda rights read to you by a police officer. Miranda is a procedural rule, not a constitutional right. If the rule is violated, the evidence might be excluded.
And, in Miranda v Arizona, the remedy for the civil rights violation was that the conviction was vacated and he was retried- and convicted using other evidence. In this case, Tekoh was not convicted- thus "no harm, no foul."
I don't agree with the concept of "no harm, no foul" in the context of civil rights, but it appears that this is what the majority opinion is based upon.
I though because he was found innocent the evidence was not used...
How the fuck do you confess and get found not guilty?
How the fuck do you confess and get found not guilty?
Tekoh was arrested and charged in state court with unlawful sexual penetration. In the first criminal trial, a witness for the prosecution provided evidence that wasn't provided to the defense. The court declared a mistrial. During retrial, the prosecution introduced Tekoh's confession as evidence of guilt. Dr. Iris Blandon-Gitlin, with expertise is in coerced confessions, testified on Tekoh's behalf. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.[3]
Easiest way to handle this, is....keep your mouth shut until you have obtained legal council.
If anything, just a basic/minimal info./statement. Once in court, let your attorney duke it out. Mac
If anything, just a basic/minimal info./statement. Once in court, let your attorney duke it out. Mac
Let's also remember that Tekoh is an immigrant from Cameroon (green card holder) who was held against his will in a windowless room while the officer threatened him with deportation, and intimidated him with his hand on his pistol, all while vigorously encouraging him to confess.
It is easy to monday morning quarterback this and say "don't talk to the cops."
But, as Bill Engval says in one of his comedy routines about parents with kids acting a fool;
"Do you want me to take you outside?"
"Nope. Because outside, there are now witnesses."
When you have been detained by the police, you are way behind the power curve...
Agreed. My statement was a generalization for those of us that are smoothbrains.
In other words...don't hang yourself. Mac
That version of what happened was presented in court and determined not to be a custodial interrogation because maybe it did not happen that way.
An immigrant from Africa is desensitized to all sorts of brutality. If such a person admits to raping a child under the circumstances alleged above, I don’t see how they can claim they were coerced.
African immigrants aren’t stupid. They are prolly better educated than most people in the US. They are fully aware of their rights and that’s one of the reasons they come. They know the police can’t beat them or abuse them. I don’t believe the confession was coerced.
African immigrants aren’t stupid. They are prolly better educated than most people in the US. They are fully aware of their rights and that’s one of the reasons they come. They know the police can’t beat them or abuse them. I don’t believe the confession was coerced.
This should be taught in every school, and recapped every year.
You are the dumbest person in this thread.
Who are you quoting? I never said that.
The whole continent of Africa is brutal when it comes to police interaction with criminals. You should change your handle to McMoron.
Anything you say can be used against you.
If you give them information that gives the police another avenue to arrest/charge/convict you then it doesn't matter if you were given Miranda rights.
During questioning (without Miranda) you admit that you did the crime and include that John public was there or anything else they can use to prove you did the crime. Then they don't have to use your admission. John public can be used against you or any other avenue that you provided.
Again.... Shut the fuck up!!
If you give them information that gives the police another avenue to arrest/charge/convict you then it doesn't matter if you were given Miranda rights.
During questioning (without Miranda) you admit that you did the crime and include that John public was there or anything else they can use to prove you did the crime. Then they don't have to use your admission. John public can be used against you or any other avenue that you provided.
Again.... Shut the fuck up!!
If I recall correctly, doesn't Miranda only kick in when the suspect is detained or in custody?
BUT, I believe, you are generally better off if you keep your mouth shut ( and always decline to speak until you can discuss your situation with an attorney ).
BUT, I believe, you are generally better off if you keep your mouth shut ( and always decline to speak until you can discuss your situation with an attorney ).
I'm not sure there's anywhere on the African continent that I would consider going to. And that includes South Africa. As far as Canada is concerned I have seen it referred to as North Mexico. All joking aside, the question is without that confession would there have been a second trial? If not then he was damaged as he had to go through the trial process with the possibility of jail time. Imagine having to go to court for the length of the trial and having the possibility of a guilty verdict hanging over your head.
I never thought I would find someone too stupid for the bear pit, but here you are. I did not say what you quoted. When you put something in quotation marks, you should make sure it is what the person said or wrote. It’s pretty easy, just copy and paste.
Clearly, if the confession was admitted into evidence at trial, the court determined it was voluntary. Keep in mind this is Commiefornia not Mississippi.
So the Deputy must not have treated the immigrant like shit because he was from a shit country.
This is what I wrote:
“An immigrant from Africa is desensitized to all sorts of brutality. If such a person admits to raping a child under the circumstances alleged above, I don’t see how they can claim they were coerced.
African immigrants aren’t stupid. They are prolly better educated than most people in the US. They are fully aware of their rights and that’s one of the reasons they come. They know the police can’t beat them or abuse them. I don’t believe the confession was coerced.”
This is what he quoted:
"youre from a shit place, so we can treat you like shit and it wont phase you"
underneath this:
“...literally one of the most ignorant things ive ever read...”
He made up a statement and attributed it to me in quotes. Turd behavior.
Yes. You are idiotically suggesting the cop violated the perv’s rights by coercing a confession out of him thereby causing a federal civil right violation.
California leftist? You’re dumber than AOC.
Did I accuse you of being a pedo? No. But upon further reflection I apologize for my rudeness. I got carried away.
Last edited:
I have noticed QUITE a bit of "I'm placing these cuffs on you for safety, you are not under arrest. Now tell me why you are in this location??" LMAO...cuffs on...NOT under arrest....AND you start asking questions??? 
Similar threads
