Morning Reads for Thursday, June 13, 2013

On this day in 1966, Miranda rights were established in Miranda v. Arizona. These days, we’re just skimming right over those ‘rights’.

If you don’t know “Blurred Lines” yet, please learn it. I’d put the link on here, but Charlie runs a pretty tight ship. Until then, it plays daily on the Facebook Thread of Destiny.

Peaches

Jimmy Carter

Sweet Tea

And because life is hard and we all need a laugh.

40 comments

  1. Ed says:

    Not a fan of The Clash but because Jerk Jessica brought it up (and failed to include music #fail) here is “Know Your Rights.”

    • Jessica S. says:

      Around the state, but especially where I work, so many officers are untrained and uneducated on what standard protocol is. They don’t even fully understand the law and often times don’t Mirandize citizens when and how they should. Hundreds of cases are thrown out every year– and that’s just one county.

      • Napoleon says:

        Miranda rights were established in 1791. Forcing police to read them to people who should have known them anyway was established in 1966 and named for the idiot who got off on it (he was retried without his confession and still found guilty and served 5 years of a 30 year sentence) and was later killed in a bar fight.

        Jessica has a point. I would disagree over her characterization that those rights are being skimmed over. The problem is, when does a police investigation turn into an arrest that requires Miranda warnings? It’s become a cat and mouse game between defense attorneys and prosecutors/police as to when, how, and where the warnings need to be read. Also, since now most people know what Miranda warning are and know their rights thanks to that decision and pop culture (tv and movies), they also try to game the system.

        The Miranda decision, like most liberal decisions, seems like a good idea on its face – remind people of what their rights are before they unknowingly waive them – but the application has turned out to create confusion and resulted in criminals being let go on technicalities that I doubt the Court ever intended.

        • Ellynn says:

          In my early twenties, I witness a crime. I was in a situation where from the point of view of the responding officers I looked like the main suspect. They asked me basic questions but then they started using my answers against me in follow up question. At that point I stated I was not talking any more with out a lawyer. I was told by the officer in charge at the scene I couldn’t call a lawyer since they had not read me my rights yet. I pointed out I had a right to call a lawyer any time I wished which got me handcuffed. Since this was the pre-cell phone era, when I asked to use a phone I was told I could use one after I finished answering his questions. It was not until the shift commader got to the scene and the officer told him I was not talking, and I told him why, did he contact my lawyer. A few hours later I cleared as a suspect. The officer who refused to let me talk to my lawyer was never written up or even talked to about allowing access or rights. He’s now the local sherriff.

          • Napoleon says:

            Ellynn: Your story illustrates my point exactly. Because he hadn’t technically arrested you, he didn’t have to read you your rights. Gaming the system.

            The rest sounds like a bunch of BS on his part. Once you are handcuffed, you DEFINITELY don’t have to say another word.

            Also, I believe the term is, in fact, “dudette.”

            • Ellynn says:

              I was not concerned over him reading my rights or not. It was the point the officer didn’t know I could have a lawyer at any time -before, or after right reading – that got me. He truely did not know. Everytime he asked a question, I said “Lawyer” He kept ask and when iI finally replied, ” You DO know what a lawyer is right?” – that is what got me in the cuffs. That and not ending my sentences in ‘Sir’. He lectured me on that one. The shift commander did know the law. He had me uncuffed, and told dispatch to call the lawyer (my landlord’s son) for me. The officer was a bit annoyed that he was overuled and told the commander I was not a ‘local’ and if I was already lawyer up, they should look into getting warrents. Love small rural towns. Always entertaining.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          Let me interject here and say this shouldn’t be a liberal/conservative issue. It’s about the protection of natural rights which exist regardless and do not hinge on political affiliation. One reason our Bill of Rights is in such jeopardy as it is today is due to the fact that both sides have picked and chosen which rights their side wants to defend and ultimately we’re ending up with nothing left once the game of tug-o-war is over.

          We as a nation really need to go back and re-evaluate some of the old ideas that made our justice system unique. Like, Blackstone’s Law, which states it is better for 10 guilty persons to go free than for one innocent to be condemned. That’s not a liberal idea. It’s English common law. It’s been around much longer than terms like liberal and conservative. And before someone starts saying that I want thugs to go free, let me remind you that the 10-1 ratio isn’t about protecting the guilty, it is about protecting the innocent. Yet ultimately to protect the innocent, sometimes you have to put up with a few idiots that go free who probably shouldn’t have.

  2. John Vestal says:

    From the day-late-many dollars-short department……

    Yesterday marked the 46th anniversary of the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia 388 US 1 (1967). The ruling invalidated all remaining racial restrictions on marriage in the United States. At the time, 16 states still had some form of racial prohibitions, including Georgia.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Should the fact that the Alabama House blocked legislation to repeal it’s law in 1998 and didn’t repeal it’s law until 2000, by what I’d suggest was an unexpectedly close 59%-41% referendum, have any bearing on the Shelby County VRA case before the Supreme Court?

      • John Vestal says:

        Germane?….nah (as the ^&%$ Germans got nuthin’ to do with it!)….anecdotal?…sure.

        A somewhat-slanted poll of “likely GOP voters” in Mississippi back in 2011 reported that ~46% of that sample still thought interracial marriage should be illegal. Of course, the first inclination is to say, “Well, that’s Mississippi…”, but….

      • sockpuppet says:

        Opinions on intermarriage have nothing to do with a jurisdiction’s ability to hold fair elections. Also, you must remember that the original intent of the practices that made the VRA necessary was to preserve Jim Crow and keep blacks economically, politically and socially isolated. Well that cat is out of the bag and there is no turning the clock back. Everyone in Mississippi, Alabama etc. knows that we aren’t going back to the 1920s, and that goes everywhere from having a black president on down to the need for black running backs at Ole Miss and Alabama to beat Mississippi State and Auburn.

        Honestly, the only reason to continue to fight over the VRA is that by defending it, Democrats get to play the civil rights game on the cheap by investing no political capital and expending no risk. Given the choice between defending the now irrelevant VRA (did voter ID laws keep Obama from getting re-elected? nope!!!) and expending real political capital by proposing jobs programs for inner cities and the black belt (for example) they choose the easy way. It is a real shame, and black voters who support the Democratic Party with 95% of their votes and get little of practical value in return (who wants to bet that ObamaCare will help white women much more than blacks, just like pretty much every other large federal program does … ObamaCare is actually HillaryCare/PelosiCare) deserve better.

        • Dave Bearse says:

          I suggest that GOP not indicate that law prohibiting racial intermarriage has nothing to do with a jurisdiction’s ability to hold fair elections when seeking to attract blacks to the GOP.

  3. John Konop says:

    GOP should take note of the numbers…….ie policy like immigration reform……

    …….Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043

    The latest census numbers show:

    • The population younger than 5 stood at 49.9 percent minority in 2012.
    • For the first time in more than a century, the number of deaths now exceeds births among white Americans. This “natural decrease” occurred several years before the government’s original projection, a sign of the white population decline soon to arrive. For now, the white population is still increasing slightly, due to immigration from Europe.
    • As a whole, the nonwhite population increased by 1.9 percent to 116 million, or 37 percent of the U.S. The fastest percentage growth is among multiracial Americans, followed by Asians and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent of the U.S.; Hispanics, 17 percent; blacks, 12.3 percent; Asians, 5 percent; and multiracial Americans, 2.4 percent.
    • About 353 of the nation’s 3,143 counties, or 11 percent, are now “majority-minority.” Six of those counties tipped to that status last year: Mecklenburg, N.C.; Cherokee, Okla.; Texas, Okla.; Bell, Texas; Hockley, Texas; and Terrell, Texas.
    • In 2012, 13 states and the District of Columbia had an under-5 age population that was “majority-minority,” up from five states in 2000. In 25 states and the District of Columbia, minorities now make up more than 40 percent of the under-5 group.
    • Among the under-5 age group, 22 percent live in poverty, typically in more rural states such as Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana. Black toddlers were most likely to be poor, at 41 percent, followed by Hispanics at 32 percent and whites at 13 percent. Asian toddlers had a poverty rate of 11 percent…

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043

    • Ellynn says:

      From a historical point of view, the classiciation of minority has changed dramitically since the early decades of the 20th century. In the 1910 Census, non-whites included Albainians, Serbians, Urkinian, Greeks, Roma and other southeastern Europian counties and were classified as OT or other in the No. 6 “color” question.

  4. jyarber says:

    I’m amused that “Blurred Lines” got a shout out today. Look at PP getting all young and hip!

Comments are closed.