Isaiah Winkley had gotten stuck in the mud near a church in Hancock County and went looking for help when sheriff’s deputies were called to the scene, the lawsuit says. He never made it home.
I take it you’re aware of the Miranda warning which notifies a person of their first amendment right? Well there’s a bit in there that’s implied that I don’t think the general public really knows:
“Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” but what they don’t say is it will never be used in your defense. If they can avoid giving video during discovery they won’t, in many states they’re not even public.
Yes they do, no technically about it. Scotus simply said if an officer doesn’t miranda and then statements made are entered against the person in court (which is still a 5th amendment civil rights violation) the person cannot sue the officer about it because the person knew or should have known their Miranda rights.
It’s kinda amusing because the warning only exists because people don’t know their rights at all.
Yes you’re right. I should have used the word effectively rather than technically. Like so many erosions of our rights that may be on the books but in reality are ignored. SCOTUS didn’t codify the willful disregard of established law. They simply made it impossible to seek retribution against those sworn to uphold it. Fascists used to take over with small subtle steps and no one cared. Now they take over with obvious giant steps and no one even hears about it.
I take it you’re aware of the Miranda warning which notifies a person of their first amendment right? Well there’s a bit in there that’s implied that I don’t think the general public really knows:
“Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” but what they don’t say is it will never be used in your defense. If they can avoid giving video during discovery they won’t, in many states they’re not even public.
They don’t have to say the Miranda anymore. Technically they are supposed to but scotus ruled it not constitutionally protected in June 2022.
Yes they do, no technically about it. Scotus simply said if an officer doesn’t miranda and then statements made are entered against the person in court (which is still a 5th amendment civil rights violation) the person cannot sue the officer about it because the person knew or should have known their Miranda rights.
It’s kinda amusing because the warning only exists because people don’t know their rights at all.
Yes you’re right. I should have used the word effectively rather than technically. Like so many erosions of our rights that may be on the books but in reality are ignored. SCOTUS didn’t codify the willful disregard of established law. They simply made it impossible to seek retribution against those sworn to uphold it. Fascists used to take over with small subtle steps and no one cared. Now they take over with obvious giant steps and no one even hears about it.