From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Diner99 :   
      
   >>"In those days in the early '70s, I think a lot of people wanted to   
   >>take a stick to Nixon and all those Watergate guys," Baker said in an   
   >>interview from the mid-1990s. His movie "touched a vigilante nerve in   
   >>everybody who would like to do in the bad guys but don't have the   
   >>power and would get in trouble if [they] did. But Buford was able to   
   >>pull it off."   
      
   >I was a kid back then, but I did live through this time and I think   
   >this is a weirdly ahistorical view.   
      
   >Yeah, people were annoyed and outraged by top-level political   
   >corruption, but in the wake of the Warren Court's pro-criminal   
   >decisions[1], there arose a mythology of America as a haven for crime   
   >generally, and an impossibility of successfully prosecuting criminals   
   >within the system. This was an exaggeration, but it was hammered home   
   >by media over and over and over again:  the obviously guilty criminal   
   >who "walks" because of some "technicality." (The Dirty Harry pictures   
   >were one early and very effective promoter of this view.) Pictures   
   >about the fed-up individual who takes matters into his own hands and   
   >prevails   
      
   >[1] An unfair characterization? I don't think so. Prohibiting the   
   >    police from coercing confessions? Absolutely. Requiring the police   
   >    to give criminal suspects unpaid legal advice (Miranda et sq.)?   
   >    Seriously?   
      
   Yeah, seriously. Police are allowed to make shit up about the law in   
   "advising" the person under investigation to speak against interest.   
   Police are allowed to flat out lie during interrogation, but if the   
   person under interrogation lies, that's a criminal offense. Police make   
   stops using pretext in order to conduct possibly unconstitutional search   
   and seizure. Where do I find Terry stops in the Constitution?   
      
   btw Terry v. Ohio was a Warren court decision so kindly knock off the   
   "pro criminal" libel of the Warren court.   
      
   There is no law regulating investigations. Police can follow unpromising   
   leads without being required to follow more promising leads, and may   
   make the facts fit the theory. People can be questioned under extreme   
   emotional distress or when their blood sugar is low or after   
   interrogations lasting hours. Imperfect memories, even when no lie has   
   been told, are used to confuse the person being questioned or to impeach   
   testimony in court, and if someone has a lapse in memory, police may ask   
   if it's possible they simply don't remember having hit the victim in the   
   back of the head with the blunt instrument.   
      
   What if the person being question might have an excellent argument for   
   self defense? This doesn't stop police from treating them like   
   criminals. They certainly do get prosecuted. Use a gun in self defense?   
   Do police ever believe that?   
      
   What about guilty property and criminal asset forfeiture? There's no   
   need to prove an underlying crime.   
      
   What if in pursuit of a criminal there is major damage to property caused   
   by police? Gosh, that's just eminent domain. It's a rare judge who will   
   find qualified immunity doesn't apply and it was a taking. The homeowner   
   or property owner is almost never made anywhere close to whole.   
      
   Where do I find qualified immunity in the Constitution?   
      
   If the government wants someone arrested without probable cause, just say   
   the magic phrase "in the interest of national security". Poor Mr.   
   Schenck, the guy who was merely leafletting in opposition to the WWI   
   draft. Poor Mr. Korematsu.   
      
   All the power is on one side. You would begrudge a requirement that the   
   person being questioned be advised of rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th   
   amendments?   
      
   Miranda has been narrowed over the decades. In some jurisdictions, there   
   are technical distinctions made about whether the person is "seized" --   
   in custody -- and rights at arrest do apply, or he's not free to leave   
   but rights at arrest don't apply? Those distinctions appear to be   
   unconstitutional under federal law but some states make such   
   distinctions. You expect anyone who isn't a criminal attorney to   
   understand semantics like that?   
      
   My favorite is the current need to ASSERT the right to remain silent, as   
   a police officer is allowed to testify in court that the defendant   
   failed to make a series of statement in support of himself, which   
   therefore strongly suggests guilt. Unless the person asserts his right   
   to remain silent, his silence can be used against him.   
      
   Miranda is in tatters these days.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)