Thursday, September 27, 2007

Woman Arrested for Reading 1st Ammendment at Pro-War Rally



No Miranda rights, nor stated reason for arrest. Welcome to the police state.

7 comments:

Jason said...

Cops are not and never will be required to immediately read a person their Miranda rights upon their arrest. Neither are they required to immediately state a reason for arrest. Both can legally and rightly be provided when the person reaches the station.

Methinks you've been watching too many fictional police dramas.

Jason said...

Oh, and you need to look up what a real police state is like.

Jason said...

Here's a basic primer on the confusion that so many leftists like yourself have regarding Miranda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights#Confusion_regarding_use

Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. In the 2000 Dickerson decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture." Dickerson v. United States 530 U.S. 428 (2000). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given.

No police state. No violation of the person's rights.

Mildly Brilliant said...

While you may be right about the Miranda Rights, I disagree with your dismissal of a police state. There are varying degrees of a police state. I define a police state as one that denies the right of Habeas Corpus, spies on its citizenry, engages in torture, and suppresses free speech: all of which is happening under this administration. I also disagree on your assessment that there was no violation of this woman's rights. Why were they arresting this person? For reading the Constitution? That is stifling of dissent, no matter how you slice it.

Furthermore I am not a leftist per-say, because that can be anyone from Stalin to Mahatma Ghandi. More accurately, I am a social libertarian and I oppose all forms of authoritarianism whether it be from the left or the right.

Also, I appreciate your comments this time because it wasn't just a slap in my face. You presented your facts and did so in a civilized manner... As for your comment on what I witnessed the other nigh... Well that was uncalled for.

Jason said...

all of which is happening under this administration

And it all happened under the previous administration, too.

Habeas corpus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus#AEDPA

Spying on American citizens:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/01/under_clinton_ny_times_called.html

Approval of torture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Usage_by_the_Clinton_Administration

Clinton's "no protest" zone at WTO in 1999:
http://edition.cnn.com/1999/US/12/02/wto.02/index.html

And not to mention the many peaceful anti-abortion protesters who were arrested by the police during the Clinton Administration.

Ah, but it's only wrong with a Republican president does it, right?

The reason being bantered about for this woman's arrest - "She was just reading the Constitution!" - is based on incomplete information. This video didn't start until after the woman was arrested and everyone is basing their opinions on what she's ranting about.

I oppose all forms of authoritarianism

Then you will be very, very unhappy in this country (or almost any other country) for the rest of your life.

Mildly Brilliant said...

No it was wrong when Clinton did it as well. I am not a blind partisan and while we are at it I didn't like his approval of NAFTA or what happened in Waco under his watch either. As for Clinton spying on Americans, at least he did that with the oversight of the FISA court, Bush did away with judicial oversite.

As far as I know Clinton didn't involve his administration in Extraordinary Rendition but it wouldn't suprise me if he did. I am not as naive to believe that the current push towards fascism in this country started with this administration. What I can say is that the push towards fascism has greatly accellerated under this administration and I want them out. I suppose I could dwell ono the shortcommings of Clinton and presidents past but that would be a waste of time seeing that they are no longer in power.

I may not be happy with what is going on in my country, but I am not going to leave it, and I sure as hell will not pretend that it isn't going on.

Jason said...

I'm sure you probably think this woman should've been left alone:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/04/airport.death/index.html

Just more of that "police state," right? She wasn't doing anything wrong, right? She was just screaming "I'm not a terrorist" at the top of her lungs, right? What's the harm in that?