2nd amendment

[Clevfan4life]

I guess then the next time some protesters are being "actually" disruptive outside an abortion clinic......weapons free?

[OldBrownsFan]

I guess then the next time some protesters are being "actually" disruptive outside an abortion clinic......weapons free?

 

Protestors outside of an abortion clinic have to play by the rules. If not they get arrested. If they are disruptive or try and prevent a woman from entering an abortion clinic or protesting in an area they are prohibited that is fair enough for me and I am pro life. What is not fair is something like what happened to a friend of mine who got arrested protesting at an abortion clinic (he was protesting in an area that was prohibited). The arrest itself was a minor offense and a minor charge but later he gets threatening letters from the Justice Dept about possibly being prosecuted under the RICO act and threatening to take his house in legal action. That seemed extreme for a simple protest.

[Clevfan4life]

RICO? may i ask the gymnastics they went through to apply RICO to ur abortion protester buddy?

[OldBrownsFan]

RICO? may i ask the gymnastics they went through to apply RICO to ur abortion protester buddy?

 

He showed me the letter and I can't remember the specifics of it. This was back in the late 90's and the letter was from the DOJ and Janet Reno. He was real concerned about losing his house. No prosecution ever came of it just the threatening letter from the Justice Dept and that he could be prosecuted under the RICO statue and lose his home. He was arrested for protesting in an area that was prohibited.

 

Pro-Life RICO Prosecutions Raise Free Speech Worries

By Robert B. Bluey | July 7, 2008 | 8:04 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - Abortion supporters and opponents will be keeping a close eye on the U.S. Supreme Court next week when it hears a case that some law scholars say could severely restrict the free-speech rights of protesters.

 

At issue in the case is a nationwide injunction that prevents the Pro-Life Action League from protesting outside abortion clinics. The National Organization for Women (NOW) sued the group's president, Joseph Scheidler, and other pro-life protesters under a federal racketeering law, commonly known as RICO.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pro-life-rico-prosecutions-raise-free-speech-worries

[Legacy Fan]

Why don't we go in order?

 

Ban the 1st amendment 1st.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Why don't we go in order?

 

Ban the 1st amendment 1st.

Dems like to jump around in order. They hate the fifth and fourteenth as well. They hate Due Process.

[Legacy Fan]

Matt Walsh of the Blaze and other outlets wrote a pretty good piece on the 2a a couple of days back.

 

He gets flamed pretty hard but he's honest and accurate here. (I happen to think he gets too wound up over abortion but at least he doesn't back down from his beliefs when challenged).

[Westside Steve]

Dems like to jump around in order. They hate the fifth and fourteenth as well. They hate Due Process.

Frankly in many cases so do I. If due process and the 5th Amendment allow people who have committed real crimes to weasel out of prosecution then I don't see what we have gained.

 

WSS

[LogicIsForSquares]

Frankly in many cases so do I. If due process and the 5th Amendment allow people who have committed real crimes to weasel out of prosecution then I don't see what we have gained.

 

WSS

But if you are the person they are trying to railroad, you would like to have due process. In a potential future where hurting feelings could be considered a crime, I would like to have as many steps in between.

[Westside Steve]

But if you are the person they are trying to railroad, you would like to have due process. In a potential future where hurting feelings could be considered a crime, I would like to have as many steps in between.

Sure logic. If I commit a crime I'm happy to have any means possible to avoid being punished for it.

On the other hand if I'm a victim of that crime... The thing is we're not talking about railroading anyone or manufacturing evidence. We're talking about someone who actually committed a crime and escaping prosecution on a technicality. Sorry that doesn't appeal to me.

 

WSS

[LogicIsForSquares]

Sure logic. If I commit a crime I'm happy to have any means possible to avoid being punished for it.

On the other hand if I'm a victim of that crime... The thing is we're not talking about railroading anyone or manufacturing evidence. We're talking about someone who actually committed a crime and escaping prosecution on a technicality. Sorry that doesn't appeal to me.

 

WSS

Those technicalities are few and far between. I prefer to not let the exceptions determine the rules.

[Westside Steve]

Those technicalities are few and far between. I prefer to not let the exceptions determine the rules.

Fair enough. I don't agree.

Tell me how not having to incriminate yourself if you have committed a crime is good for society?

 

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

self-incrimination

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
Related to self-incrimination: Self-Incrimination Clause

Self-Incrimination

Giving testimony in a trial or other legal proceeding that could subject one to criminal prosecution.

The right against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling any person to give testimonial evidence thatwould likely incriminate him during a subsequent criminal case. This right enables a defendant to refuse to testify at acriminal trial and "privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formalor informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings" (Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 [1973]).

Confessions, admissions, and other statements taken from a defendant in violation of this right are inadmissible against himduring a criminal prosecution. Convictions based on statements taken in violation of the right against self-incriminationnormally are overturned on appeal, unless there is enough admissible evidence to support the verdict. The right of self-incrimination may only be asserted by persons and does not protect artificial entities such as corporations (Doe v. UnitedStates, 487 U.S. 201, 108 S. Ct. 2341, 101 L. Ed. 2d 184 [1988]).

This testimonial privilege derives from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Most state constitutions recognize asimilar testimonial privilege. However, the term self-incrimination is not actually used in the Fifth Amendment. It providesthat "[n]o person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Although the language of the Fifth Amendment suggests that the right against self-incrimination applies only during criminalcases, the Supreme Court has ruled that it may be asserted during civil, administrative, and legislative proceedings as well.The right applies during nearly every phase of legal proceedings, including Grand Jury hearings, preliminary investigations,pretrial motions, discovery, and the trials themselves. However, the right may not be asserted after conviction when theverdict is final because the constitutional protection against Double Jeopardy protects defendants from a secondprosecution for the same offense. Nor may the privilege be asserted when an individual has been granted Immunity fromprosecution to testify about certain conduct that would otherwise be subject to criminal punishment.

At the same time, the right against self-incrimination is also narrower than the Fifth Amendment suggests. The FifthAmendment allows the government to force a person to be a witness against herself or himself when the subject matter ofthe testimony is not likely to incriminate the person at a future criminal proceeding. Testimony that would be relevant to acivil suit, for example, is not protected by the right against self-incrimination if it does not relate to something that iscriminally inculpatory. By the same token, testimony that only subjects a witness to embarrassment, disgrace, oropprobrium is not protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The right against self-incrimination is sometimes referred to as the right to remain silent. The Self-Incrimination Clauseaffords defendants the right not to answer particular questions during a criminal trial or to refuse to take the witness standaltogether. When the accused declines to testify during a criminal trial, the government may not comment to the jury abouthis or her silence. However, the prosecution may assert during closing argument that its case is "unrefuted" or"uncontradicted" when the defendant refuses to testify (Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973[1978]). However, before the jurors retire for deliberations, the court must instruct them that the defendant's silence is notevidence of guilt and that no adverse inferences may be drawn from the failure to testify.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court extended the right toremain silent to pretrial custodial interrogations. The Court said that before a suspect is questioned, the police must apprisehim of his right to remain silent and that if he gives up this right, any statements may be used against him in a subsequentcriminal prosecution. Under Miranda, suspects also have a Fifth Amendment right to consult with an attorney before theysubmit to questioning. Miranda applies to any situation in which a person is both held in "custody" by the police, whichmeans that he is not free to leave, and is being "interrogated," which means he is being asked questions that are designedto elicit an incriminating response. A person need not be arrested or formally charged for Miranda to apply.

In Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999), the Supreme Court held that a personwho pleads guilty to a crime does not waive the self-incrimination privilege at sentencing. The Court acknowledged that it iswell established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke thePrivilege against Self-Incrimination when questioned about the details. However, the Court found a significant differencebetween the waiver of the right against self-incrimination in a trial and in a sentencing hearing. The concerns, which justifythe cross-examination when the defendant testifies, are absent at a plea hearing. Treating a guilty plea as a waiver of theself-incrimination clause would allow prosecutors to indict a person without specifying the quantity of drugs at issue, obtaina guilty plea, and then put the defendant on the witness stand to tell the court the quantity. Such a scenario would make thedefendant "an instrument of his or her own condemnation." This would undermine constitutional Criminal Procedure,turning an adversarial system into an inquisition.

In Miranda the Supreme Court examined a number of police manuals outlining a variety of psychological ploys andstratagems that they employed to overcome the resistance of defiant and stubborn defendants. Such interrogationpractices, the Court said, harken back to the litany of coercive techniques used by the English government during theseventeenth century.

The Founding Fathers drafted the Fifth Amendment to forestall the use of torture and other means of coercion to secureconfessions. The founders believed that coerced confessions not only violate the rights of the individual being interrogatedbut also render the confession untrustworthy. Once a confession has been coerced, it becomes difficult for a judge or jury todistinguish between those defendants who confess because they are guilty and those who confess because they are tooweak to withstand the coercion.

Defendants may waive their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. However, the government must demonstrate to thesatisfaction of the court that any such waiver was freely and intelligently made. The Supreme Court ruled that a confessionthat was obtained after the suspect had been informed that his wife was about to be brought in for questioning was not theproduct of a free and rational choice (Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 81 S. Ct. 735, 5 L. Ed. 2d 760 [1961]). It also heldthat a statement was not freely and intelligently made when a defendant confessed after being given a drug that had theproperties of a truth serum (Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770 [1963]).

Congressional anger at the Miranda decision led to the passage in 1968 of a law, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501 (1985), that restoredvoluntariness as the test for admitting confessions in federal court. As long as a court could conclude that the defendant'sstatements were voluntary, the confession was admissible. The Justice Department refused to employ the law, believingthe law was unconstitutional. However, in the late 1990s the law was briefly revived when the Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals ruled that Congress had the authority to invalidate Miranda. The Supreme Court, in Dickerson v. United States, 30U.S. 428, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000), overturned this ruling. The Court reaffirmed that it had announced aconstitutional rule in Miranda. Therefore, Congress could not revoke the decision by statute; the only option for Congresswas a constitutional amendment.

The right against self-incrimination is not absolute. A person may not refuse to file an income tax return on Fifth Amendmentgrounds or fail to report a hit-and-run accident. The government may compel defendants to provide fingerprints, voiceexemplars, and writing samples without violating the right against self-incrimination because such evidence is used for thepurposes of identification and is not testimonial in nature (United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949 [10th Cir. 1994]). Despitethe dubious grounds for the distinction between testimonial and non-testimonial evidence, courts have permitted the use ofvideotaped field sobriety tests over Fifth Amendment objections.

[Westside Steve]

Which begs the question, okay so fucking what?

 

WSS

[LogicIsForSquares]

Tell me how not having to incriminate yourself if you have committed a crime is good for society?

 

WSS

It goes both ways. Likewise, why should someone be forced to potentially incriminate themselves if they have not committed a crime? I can live with the exceptions if it means that I, a law abiding citizen, won't potentially end up in front of a kangaroo court.

[Westside Steve]

If you have committed no crime how could testifying truthfully convicthe you of a crime? Seriously?

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

circumstantial evidence.

[LogicIsForSquares]

If you have committed no crime how could testifying truthfully convicthe you of a crime? Seriously?

 

WSS

Because you are facing a jury of your peers handpicked by someone who is trying their best to put you away. So saying nothing means that there is nothing to be misinterpreted or twisted up by a prosecutor.

[Westside Steve]

Because you are facing a jury of your peers handpicked by someone who is trying their best to put you away. So saying nothing means that there is nothing to be misinterpreted or twisted up by a prosecutor.

But you weren't talking about a fair and impartial trial. You're talking about a rogue prosecutor, basically a criminal who is trying to convicted an innocent man on bullshit evidence.

I'm talking about what a court of law should be, a process designed to find the truth had to take a criminal off the street for the safety of the public.

 

WSS

[LogicIsForSquares]

But you weren't talking about a fair and impartial trial. You're talking about a rogue prosecutor, basically a criminal who is trying to convicted an innocent man on bullshit evidence.

I'm talking about what a court of law should be, a process designed to find the truth had to take a criminal off the street for the safety of the public.

 

WSS

It doesn't have to be a rogue prosecutor. They only do their job as they are hired to do. If you are in front of them, there job is to win. So they pick a jury that will better their chances of winning. Their job isn't to determine guilt or innocence but to beat the defense. They only know that you were arrested and charged with a crime.

[Westside Steve]

It doesn't have to be a rogue prosecutor. They only do their job as they are hired to do. If you are in front of them, there job is to win. So they pick a jury that will better their chances of winning. Their job isn't to determine guilt or innocence but to beat the defense. They only know that you were arrested and charged with a crime.

If his job is to win, meaning convict an innocent man, which also means that the real criminal goes free and further endanger Society then I say it's fucked up. I could give a rat's ass about the law or the gingerbread the legal profession wants to put on it. Pure and simple.

 

WSS

[bbedward]

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Do as I say, not as I do....

[LogicIsForSquares]

If his job is to win, meaning convict an innocent man, which also means that the real criminal goes free and further endanger Society then I say it's fucked up. I could give a rat's ass about the law or the gingerbread the legal profession wants to put on it. Pure and simple.

 

WSS

Fair enough. People don't have to agree on everything.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Rangel is garbage.

[Axe]

[calfoxwc]

dumb. they were going to protest if they couldn't get the votes on the

bills they wanted...

 

 

they got their votes, and the bills didnt' pass, so now they are stupidassedly protesting

that their bills didn't pass...

 

dimwitted. How did they get into the senate?

[jbluhm86]

Ben Carson: "What is the reason for the Second Amendment?"

[MLD Woody]

Look at Ben making sense.

[StinkHole]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What I find interesting in this is that the NRA does not acknowledge the first sentence at it's headquarters.

 

Stuart

 

That's silly.

The NRA didn't write that amendment, nor are they in the business of overseeing militias...so how do you know they don't acknowledge a well regulated militia?

 

The lefts argument that the Founders did not envision todays sophisticated weaponry is irrelevant and moot.

Citizens have the right, or option if you will, to die fighting a tyrannical govt. if they do so choose. I don't care how much the odds are stacked against them. Nor do they.

That's the bottom line.