Rights

[jezr74]

At what point do you give up your rights.

eg. I'm breaking into a house, do I give up my rights when entering?

Or, of you are in an exchange of fire with the law, have you given up your rights since you are now a criminal?

Or doesn't it work that way?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tgace]

It doesn't work that way...I think...depends on what you mean by "rights".

 

[DennisBreene]

It doesn't work that way...I think...depends on what you mean by "rights".

Even constitutionally protected rights were not intended to be all inclusive, as pointed out on many occasions in multiple threads on MT. The old adage "my rights end where yours begin" is somewhat valid. You don't have the right to defy the police in the performance of their duty. The intent obviously being to permit some level of safety in interaction with police officers for both the citizen and the police officer. Your right then reasserts itself in the events after interacting with the police. I percieve it as a balance of conflicting rights or interests with the default laying with the least restriction on the choices of individuals possible given the need for everyone to have comparable security and exertion of their "rights". If that is overly brief and overly simplified I plead fatigue and a desire not to get dragged into 300 postings of examples of how one example of infringement on rights is differant from another.

 

[Tgace]

Even constitutionally protected rights were not intended to be all inclusive, as pointed out on many occasions in multiple threads on MT. The old adage "my rights end where yours begin" is somewhat valid. You don't have the right to defy the police in the performance of their duty. The intent obviously being to permit some level of safety in interaction with police officers for both the citizen and the police officer. Your right then reasserts itself in the events after interacting with the police. I percieve it as a balance of conflicting rights or interests with the default laying with the least restriction on the choices of individuals possible given the need for everyone to have comparable security and exertion of their "rights". If that is overly brief and overly simplified I plead fatigue and a desire not to get dragged into 300 postings of examples of how one example of infringement on rights is differant from another.

What "rights" are we talking about?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[arnisador]

Even constitutionally protected rights were not intended to be all inclusive, as pointed out on many occasions in multiple threads on MT

...excepting the gun lovers in the gun threads, were the 2nd Amendment gets special treatment.

 

[jezr74]

My question is actually from seeing some social media status's, stating the the guy responsible for the recent events will not get a fair trial. As he has already been trialed by the media. And the other didn't get a chance for a fair trial.

Along with the comments rubbing me the wrong way, It did get me wondering what are the technicalities of apprehending a suspect. And what being a suspect actually is compared to a "normal" citizen.

For example, in an exchange of gun fire between criminals and police (saying criminals, because once you shoot at police, I'm assuming that is exactly what you have become). Have they temporarily given up their rights as a law abiding citizens? And then once in custody, their Miranda rights are in play. The later was not denied anything in my opinion, he had importunity to turn himself in and\or lay down his arms. Is there a term or word for that process?

I think Dennis was touching on it, but I'm not sure how to describe it.

I'm

 

[ballen0351]

I think the kid captured alive should get a trail as fair as he can get. He is a US Citizen and deserves that right regardless of the crime he committed. His brother fought it out with the police who have the right to use force to seize you and arrest you. Deadly forced is viewed as a seizure with regards to the 4th Amendment. If the force ends In your death well you prob should have not thrown bombs and bullets at the police.

 

[Carol]

I do not disagree that the responding officers were justified in there attempts to use lethal force when a perp is trying to shoot them and bomb them. However, it is important to note that a significant reason why the older brother will not get a trial is lying under heavy guard at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital.

The older brother wounded but still alive when he was firing at police. When a nearby Watertown PD officer concluded the older brother was out of ammo, the officer lunged toward him to tackle and cuff him. Two other officers try to aid in the apprehension while the younger brother tries to get away in the carjacked Mercedes. The younger brother drives towards the pile, someone at the side hollers for a heads up. The officers are able to dive out of the way, the older brother is not, the younger brother ends up running his older brother over with the carjacked SUV.

 

[Touch Of Death]

At what point do you give up your rights.

eg. I'm breaking into a house, do I give up my rights when entering?

Or, of you are in an exchange of fire with the law, have you given up your rights since you are now a criminal?

Or doesn't it work that way?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Why shouldn't we take their rights on conviction like we always do?

 

[jezr74]

Why shouldn't we take their rights on conviction like we always do?

Not saying they shouldn't, I understand the whole, innocent until proven guilty. I'm just curious as to what it is lawfully when detained, and what rights are active or not active between apprehension and the trial.

Are all their rights available to them, since they cannot just simply go home. I don't know what the terms are or the intricacies here so thought I'd ask.

These are just questions on process, I'm not passing judgement in this thread or saying what I think should happen.