Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers

LOL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-30-2009, 11:07 PM   #21
xfl2001fan
Living Legend
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 3,641
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
Did it ever occur to you that because the cops can lie they can scare people into doing things they don't want to do? Ever cross your mind or do you just like to argue with me cause I don't drink the OSU Kool-Aid?
I am well aware that all people are capable of lying...and that some cops will do whatever it takes (no matter how far over the line it might be) to get what they want. There are good cops and bad cops...just like there are good lawyers and bad lawyers and good/bad Soldiers etc... You know, in every walk of life, religion, race, creed, nationality, there are good and bad people.

This argument has nothing to do with OSU/Steelers/Browns/Football. Maybe you can't separate your teams from outside arguments...if that's the case, then I feel for you.

I am making simple logical statements. While the cops can lie and threaten all day long, still, the choice is available. Once you say, I won't talk without a lawyer, it's on you to ensure that is the case.

You have yet to refute the fact that the "questioned individual" makes a choice to talk/not talk. Just like a criminal makes a choice to break the law, so does the detainee make a choice to talk/not talk. (Notice, I'm not saying everyone questioned by cops are guilty, I'm not so gullible/naive as to believe such.)

When you're ready to get past the teams that I support and continue this, by all means, let me know.
__________________
If you take the "U" out of "STUD", you get STD. I'm just saying.
xfl2001fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 11:21 PM   #22
SteelersinCA
Team Owner
Supporter
 
SteelersinCA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,537
Gender: Male
Member Number: 9302
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

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?
SteelersinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 11:34 PM   #23
xfl2001fan
Living Legend
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 3,641
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
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?
__________________
If you take the "U" out of "STUD", you get STD. I'm just saying.
xfl2001fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 12:11 AM   #24
SteelersinCA
Team Owner
Supporter
 
SteelersinCA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,537
Gender: Male
Member Number: 9302
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

It is fun. Video tape brings up a whole different challenge. You have to realize, I'm sure you do, you are much more proactive with respect to educating yourself than the average person.

I have 2 articles for you, one that clearly states you can criticize Obama as you wish on this site, I'm sure you are happy now!

The second, I got especially for you from an OH lawyer's website!! The USC, not Trojans, Constitution, does not say once you invoke your right to counsel the cops have to stop questioning you, but The Supreme Court through case law has said that is what they must do. It starts with Miranda, then goes through a litany of other cases.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/P...utumn/kiel.pdf
http://www.ohiocriminalappealslawyer...o-counsel.html

By the way, don't bother with the Penal Code, it's huge and different for every state. My point was simply that laws can be cumbersome and difficult to decipher. If we didn't make it so difficult, who would need lawyers? Sort of a self perpetuating ideology!!

Last edited by SteelersinCA; 05-01-2009 at 12:14 AM. Reason: forgot to attach links
SteelersinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 12:29 AM   #25
xfl2001fan
Living Legend
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 3,641
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
It is fun. Video tape brings up a whole different challenge. You have to realize, I'm sure you do, you are much more proactive with respect to educating yourself than the average person.

I have 2 articles for you, one that clearly states you can criticize Obama as you wish on this site, I'm sure you are happy now!

The second, I got especially for you from an OH lawyer's website!! The USC, not Trojans, Constitution, does not say once you invoke your right to counsel the cops have to stop questioning you, but The Supreme Court through case law has said that is what they must do. It starts with Miranda, then goes through a litany of other cases.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/P...utumn/kiel.pdf
http://www.ohiocriminalappealslawyer...o-counsel.html
From the first website, I gather you are referring to this specific verbage:

Quote:
The government may not charge expressions
of opinion made during the course of a private conversation or adverse
criticism of a protected official or legislature if it was not personally
contemptuous and was done during the course of a political discussion
By the way, don't bother with the Penal Code, it's huge and different for every state. My point was simply that laws can be cumbersome and difficult to decipher. If we didn't make it so difficult, who would need lawyers? Sort of a self perpetuating ideology!![/QUOTE]

For the second website, I knew that the constitution didn't state...and the only reason why I asked is because you brought up my job in it's (USC) defense.

As for being happy that I "can" criticize Obama...I actually don't want to criticize him. I want him to be the best President in the History of the States. I just don't think he is that guy. He promised the world to a great many and diverse population...and won't be able to back a great majority of it up. Unfortunately, it feels like that is just par for the course.

BTW, nice finds on such short notice.

As for video, unfortunately, no system is remotely perfect. Most of them won't even be close. So long as there are crooked people (whether they be "criminals", cops, lawyers, Soldiers, etc...) there will be issues to be concerned with.

Unfortunately, such is life.
__________________
If you take the "U" out of "STUD", you get STD. I'm just saying.
xfl2001fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 12:39 AM   #26
SteelersinCA
Team Owner
Supporter
 
SteelersinCA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,537
Gender: Male
Member Number: 9302
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

Quote:
Originally Posted by xfl2001fan View Post
For the second website, I knew that the constitution didn't state...and the only reason why I asked is because you brought up my job in it's (USC) defense.
I was actually speaking more about the right to counsel in general.

As for the first site I was thinking this:

"Although the directives are primarily consulted for the list of activities
that they prohibit, they also openly encourage servicemembers to participate
in a number of political activities. These activities include voting,
contributing money to partisan campaigns and causes, attending rallies,
meetings, and conventions as a spectator, joining a political club, and expressing
personal opinions on candidates and political issues." - speaking of the 2 DoD directives, 1325.6 and 1344.10.
SteelersinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 12:52 AM   #27
xfl2001fan
Living Legend
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 3,641
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
I was actually speaking more about the right to counsel in general.

As for the first site I was thinking this:

"Although the directives are primarily consulted for the list of activities
that they prohibit, they also openly encourage servicemembers to participate
in a number of political activities. These activities include voting,
contributing money to partisan campaigns and causes, attending rallies,
meetings, and conventions as a spectator, joining a political club, and expressing
personal opinions on candidates and political issues." - speaking of the 2 DoD directives, 1325.6 and 1344.10.
Right to counsel is fine. I don't object that anybody should have a right to counsel. However, throwing out a statement because it wasn't made in front of a lawyer...that's a bit far IMO. A choice was made...that was my base argument.

For the second issue, I skimmed over that part...to see if I could find something with a little more meat.

While saying you encourage an opinion on candidate/political issue...there was still a small concern that you could still be prosecuted for giving such an opinion...due to insubordination or conduct unbecoming. Not that I'd know about that verbage personally or anything.
__________________
If you take the "U" out of "STUD", you get STD. I'm just saying.
xfl2001fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 02:13 AM   #28
SteelersinCA
Team Owner
Supporter
 
SteelersinCA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,537
Gender: Male
Member Number: 9302
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

Nah, it's only if you are in uniform or in a situation where it could be considered an official capacity. You're a browns fan on here so that pretty much throws anything resembling official out the window!
SteelersinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 08:08 AM   #29
Vincent
Team President
Supporter
 
Vincent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of North Carolina
Posts: 2,485
Member Number: 10927
Thanks: 13
Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited



Why are "liberals" called liberals? Seriously.
__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln
Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 08:24 AM   #30
HometownGal
Living Legend
 
HometownGal's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Burgh
Posts: 21,479
Gender: Female
Member Number: 2413
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
Why are "liberals" called liberals? Seriously.
Because it's more polite and PC than calling them "baby killing, tax loving, hypocritical spendthrifts"?
__________________


The Anti-Wahoo
HometownGal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts