Originally Posted by SteelersinCA
Haha, you crack me up, did you read the original post? Maybe, I shouldn't assume such simple things.
"But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityf ilter, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said."
People make uninformed choices all the time, choices that have can have grave consequences, people that are particularly vulnerable, this protects them, what is so hard for you to understand about that?? You ever read a legal book? Ever tried reading the penal code? Do you understand it completely? Would you feel comfortable if a cop essentially forced you to make a decision?
Perhaps you think you have the steel resolve to resist, not everyone does. The point is everyone should be given that protection.
Incidentally, I find it ironic you are arguing against protections in the very document you are sworn to protect. Of course you also do your fair share of criticizing the President and when I was in the military that was a violation of the UCMJ, maybe it's changed now? You want to talk to a lawyer before you get back to me?
I never said that there weren't exceptions...and I offered a viable alternative. Any questioning needs to be on video tape where the defendent is in clear view. This way, the defendents lawyer can refute the evidence if necessary. Although I didn't mention it, I was particularly concerned for the mentally challenged and juveniles. Being poor isn't really much of an excuse. I grew up poor and don't exactly have a lot of money now. But, that doesn't stop me from going to a Library and reading books on a myriad of subjects.
You're right, not everyone has my resolve. But I don't pity them. Personally, I think this nation is chock full of thin-skinned spineless ninnies who believe that being PC is the right answer and that discipline can be maintained strictly by talking. Sorry, I don't buy into it.
I've done my fair share of legal research. There's a lot of excessive verbage used, but, generally speaking, it's not that difficult if you take some notes and have a dictionary/thesaurus handy. I'm just a regular uneducated country bumpkin...so I have to go about things differently. I've had my problems in the past, though (for the most part) it's been relatively minor
Glad to know that I have a legal expert on this site though. We have a doctor here too. Because my wife is studying to be a Medical Transcriptionist, I'm picking up on a lot of Medical knowledge too. Oh, it's like a great many things in my life, knowledge that will likely never be used...but it's still fascinating stuff. Who knows, maybe when she's done, I'll pick up a copy of the Penal Code somewhere and begin studying it.
I am pretty sure I answered the BO issues. I can disagree with policies...I can even voice that disagreement. Show me where I've posted a picture or said something (that wasn't in Jest) against Obama. We'll take each one individually if you'd like. I disagree with his policies...and yet, that is allowed. I disagreed with his platform, which is allowed. I disagree with his ideology, which is allowed.
As for the "document" I'm sworn to protect...show me where I haven't. I've debated an issue, but when it comes down to it, I still stand by the constitution.
Could you please do me one little teensy favor though? Show me (in the constitution) where it says that once someone asks for a Lawyer that cops have to immediately stop questioning? Which article specifically states that?
I am pretty sure I don't need a lawyer to talk to you. Just a CPU. Isn't this fun?