http://www.law.cornell.edu/ny/ctap/079_0474.htm
CLick above ReALLLY long read. But it is SCARY!
//still reading it.... ugh
CLick above ReALLLY long read. But it is SCARY!
//still reading it.... ugh
Scary Read this! Some Personal Property NOT protected against Warrentless searches
- Thread starter Dead
- Start date
Oh No, the eeeevil marijuana. I know my .gov rented property should be open to fed.gov.cop.atf.dea.fbi.irs.dod.cia.nsa.fdle inspection 24-7 just on the off chance they can find that horrifying substance. Man, what can I say, good link, sickining subject. I will never see freedom in my lifetime, what a shame.
It seems the lawyers and politicians will stop at nothing. In CO there is a 17 year old kid who worked at Vail ski resorts. Some of you may have seen the dateline NBC special that had the case on it last night. He was convicted on negligent homicide.
Was he skiing to fast, out of control? probably. He did have some beer and ganja in a backback, but none found in his bloodstream. He may get up to 3 years for killing another skier because of his speed.
The problem is, he was found guilty, based on what I consider evidence gathered illegally. A police officer visited him in the hospital, he had a diagnosed concussion and was secretly taped. The jury conviced based on the tape. No parents or lawyer were present and the kid was not read any rights. He was tried 3 times. The first two were dismissed. So much for double jeopardy.
Now, we wonder why children don't respect cops! He felt a need to tell the cop what happened to the best of his memory at the time and it was used against him. You should all tell your kids, not to give a cop the time of day unless your parents and/or lawyer are present. How was he to know, especially if brought up to respect the LEO's and answer their questions.
And they said he was going to fast! What is to fast? Really? How many of you have done fool things on ski's, with guns, cars, bikes, etc. Know your rights and tell your kids.
Was he skiing to fast, out of control? probably. He did have some beer and ganja in a backback, but none found in his bloodstream. He may get up to 3 years for killing another skier because of his speed.
The problem is, he was found guilty, based on what I consider evidence gathered illegally. A police officer visited him in the hospital, he had a diagnosed concussion and was secretly taped. The jury conviced based on the tape. No parents or lawyer were present and the kid was not read any rights. He was tried 3 times. The first two were dismissed. So much for double jeopardy.
Now, we wonder why children don't respect cops! He felt a need to tell the cop what happened to the best of his memory at the time and it was used against him. You should all tell your kids, not to give a cop the time of day unless your parents and/or lawyer are present. How was he to know, especially if brought up to respect the LEO's and answer their questions.
And they said he was going to fast! What is to fast? Really? How many of you have done fool things on ski's, with guns, cars, bikes, etc. Know your rights and tell your kids.
The Death of Motive
I live here in Colorado and this case has made headlines for some time now.
This case is a prime example of how the tenets of jurisprudence have changed over the past few years. I call it "The Death of Motive".
In these days of political correctness, there are no longer any accidents. All errants must be punished for all wrongs regardless of motive -- or the lack of it. We have garnered a "someone must pay" mentality and the prosecutors have jumped on this as a political opportunity.
The law was previously based on three tenets for a conviction under the law. Those were means (or method), motive (or intent), and opportunity. While this kid had the means -- speed and lack of control -- and the opportunity -- people in the vicinity -- he had no motive -- "I'll crash into the first guy who crosses my path".
Many of those who post here find themselves in the same situation. By this I mean concealed carry.
When we carry a concealed weapon, we break the law if we don't have the government's permission to do so. Certainly, a person who is carrying a firearm has the means -- the firearm -- and the opportunity -- crowds through which he/she may pass. What that person lacks is the motive to do great harm; and that can be proven in the absence of their having done so.
If we carry illegally, we are dragged before the bar with the sole purpose of conviction. The tenets under which we will be convicted will be two -- and only two -- means and opportunity. The motive by which the weapon was carried will be of no consequence and inadmissible. But what is the true motive?
The motive of those who carry a firearm for protection is FEAR. Fear and nothing more. Fear of harm. Fear of robbery. Fear of crime in general. Basically, the crime of those who carry a firearm is the crime of fear; and the crime of fear must not go unpunished.
There are many more examples of the "Death of Motive" that could be cited here -- school zero tolerance being the biggest -- with regulatory processes coming a close second such as EPA, BLM, etc. regs which usually catch their victims unaware.
So when you see an article in the press for which you can detect no motive, think back to the days when motive was a factor in a conviction and wonder which tenet will be the next to die -- means or opportunity.
I live here in Colorado and this case has made headlines for some time now.
This case is a prime example of how the tenets of jurisprudence have changed over the past few years. I call it "The Death of Motive".
In these days of political correctness, there are no longer any accidents. All errants must be punished for all wrongs regardless of motive -- or the lack of it. We have garnered a "someone must pay" mentality and the prosecutors have jumped on this as a political opportunity.
The law was previously based on three tenets for a conviction under the law. Those were means (or method), motive (or intent), and opportunity. While this kid had the means -- speed and lack of control -- and the opportunity -- people in the vicinity -- he had no motive -- "I'll crash into the first guy who crosses my path".
Many of those who post here find themselves in the same situation. By this I mean concealed carry.
When we carry a concealed weapon, we break the law if we don't have the government's permission to do so. Certainly, a person who is carrying a firearm has the means -- the firearm -- and the opportunity -- crowds through which he/she may pass. What that person lacks is the motive to do great harm; and that can be proven in the absence of their having done so.
If we carry illegally, we are dragged before the bar with the sole purpose of conviction. The tenets under which we will be convicted will be two -- and only two -- means and opportunity. The motive by which the weapon was carried will be of no consequence and inadmissible. But what is the true motive?
The motive of those who carry a firearm for protection is FEAR. Fear and nothing more. Fear of harm. Fear of robbery. Fear of crime in general. Basically, the crime of those who carry a firearm is the crime of fear; and the crime of fear must not go unpunished.
There are many more examples of the "Death of Motive" that could be cited here -- school zero tolerance being the biggest -- with regulatory processes coming a close second such as EPA, BLM, etc. regs which usually catch their victims unaware.
So when you see an article in the press for which you can detect no motive, think back to the days when motive was a factor in a conviction and wonder which tenet will be the next to die -- means or opportunity.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Someone must pay mentality..."
And therein lies the rub...
How can someone pay if we've been moving towards a liberal concept of "it's not your fault you (insert crime here)"?
And therein lies the rub...
How can someone pay if we've been moving towards a liberal concept of "it's not your fault you (insert crime here)"?
I see his lawyer is appealing it on the latest news cast at CH 9. I sure hope so. I have a real problem with illegally obtained evidence as mentioned above. Yea, he probably was guilty, but how many of us skiiers have went to fast, out of control. He just happened to kill someone down slope. Of course, they don't say if the guy below him stopped in an obscure area, came out of the tree or somthing helping to cause his own demise.
Your pass says, ski at your own risk. Of course, the same type of lawyers are the ones going after the gun industry because they knowingly build a "dangerous" device.
Your pass says, ski at your own risk. Of course, the same type of lawyers are the ones going after the gun industry because they knowingly build a "dangerous" device.
IamNOTaNUT
New member
RobertR -
I am not familiar with this case, and I don't watch Dateline because they present everything with such a left wing, anti-gun bias. You mentioned twice that the statement the police took from the skier was illegal. I am not following you here, in what way?
I am not familiar with this case, and I don't watch Dateline because they present everything with such a left wing, anti-gun bias. You mentioned twice that the statement the police took from the skier was illegal. I am not following you here, in what way?
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Have you ever had a concussion? I've had three. After one, I had total amnesia for over twenty four hours-didn't know my name, my parents or anything else. After another one, I was walking and talking normally and discussing the event that caused my injury-an hour later I had no memory of the event or later discussing it and have no memory of this to this day thirty four years later. I would think that any reasonable judge would disallow any statement obtained from a person who was diagnosed as concussed.
IamNOTaNUT
New member
Fortunately I have never been knocked on my melon hard enough to cause a concussion. So I guess I wouldn't know from personal experience wether that would affect my memory.
The standard procedure used when a copper talks to a suspect in the hospital is to talk to the doctor first to ascertaain whether or not the suspect is capable of giving a knowing, voluntary statement. The doctor is capable of determining whether the person is under the influence of medication or if an injury is severe enough to hinder the person.
If the conviction was based on the confession, any reasonable defense attorney would have filed a motion to supress it, and the judge would hold a hearing settle the matter.
As there are different degrees of injury, there would also be different degrees of coherence, and simply because someone is in the hospital does not mean that they cannot talk to the police.
No Miranda warnings were required if the guy wasn't in custody.
Police can tape any conversation they participate in whether the suspect is aware of it or not. That is really a moot point anyway since the cop was probably writing down everything the guy said, in essence "recording" his statement.
Police can take a statement from a person without a lawyer present, unless of course a person asks for one. And parent need not be present during the interview.
None of this has anything to do with the guy's actual innocence or guilt since I still don't know the particulars of this case, but I fail to see anything thus far that would cause the confession to be thrown out.
With regards to the statement that he may be guilty, but how many of us have gone too fast and out of control . . . Many of us may have, but that would be reckless, and when a person's recklessness causes a death it becomes a criminal offense.
Apply the same logic to guns. Well I was dry-firing and didn't check to make sure the gun was unloaded first because I always unload my guns, and I was pointing the gun through my window at a tree accross the street, and pulled the trigger expecting it to go click, but it went bang instead and somebody driving by was shot and killed. What's the big deal? So I violated a couple of basic safety rules, who hasn't? I shouldn't be charged just because the guy died, after all, you drive a car at your own risk.
Uh, no.
The standard procedure used when a copper talks to a suspect in the hospital is to talk to the doctor first to ascertaain whether or not the suspect is capable of giving a knowing, voluntary statement. The doctor is capable of determining whether the person is under the influence of medication or if an injury is severe enough to hinder the person.
If the conviction was based on the confession, any reasonable defense attorney would have filed a motion to supress it, and the judge would hold a hearing settle the matter.
As there are different degrees of injury, there would also be different degrees of coherence, and simply because someone is in the hospital does not mean that they cannot talk to the police.
No Miranda warnings were required if the guy wasn't in custody.
Police can tape any conversation they participate in whether the suspect is aware of it or not. That is really a moot point anyway since the cop was probably writing down everything the guy said, in essence "recording" his statement.
Police can take a statement from a person without a lawyer present, unless of course a person asks for one. And parent need not be present during the interview.
None of this has anything to do with the guy's actual innocence or guilt since I still don't know the particulars of this case, but I fail to see anything thus far that would cause the confession to be thrown out.
With regards to the statement that he may be guilty, but how many of us have gone too fast and out of control . . . Many of us may have, but that would be reckless, and when a person's recklessness causes a death it becomes a criminal offense.
Apply the same logic to guns. Well I was dry-firing and didn't check to make sure the gun was unloaded first because I always unload my guns, and I was pointing the gun through my window at a tree accross the street, and pulled the trigger expecting it to go click, but it went bang instead and somebody driving by was shot and killed. What's the big deal? So I violated a couple of basic safety rules, who hasn't? I shouldn't be charged just because the guy died, after all, you drive a car at your own risk.
Uh, no.
Dennis Olson
New member
He just happened to kill someone down slope...
Yeah, such a *minor* little thing. Why, he should've been awarded a MEDAL, right?
NONE of you armchair QB's have mentioned the TIIIINY little fact that MULTIPLE witnesses testified that they SAW the kid skiing WAY TOO FAST. (I guess it's JUST the tape that counts, right?)
Geez, what is wrong with some of you guys?
Criminally Negligent Homicide: Acting in a manner of reckless disregard for the safety of others, when such action causes a death.
This kid CLEARLY fit that standard. An "accident" would've been if he'd been skiing in a manner consistent with consitions, but hit something that caused him to go out of control. This was NOT the case. He was going too fast, on snow that was hard and icy. He hit a knoll and went airborne, and came down on an innocent man, killing him.
End of story. Crime - and punishement. 90 days? He should get 6 - 12 months IMHO...
Yeah, such a *minor* little thing. Why, he should've been awarded a MEDAL, right?
NONE of you armchair QB's have mentioned the TIIIINY little fact that MULTIPLE witnesses testified that they SAW the kid skiing WAY TOO FAST. (I guess it's JUST the tape that counts, right?)
Geez, what is wrong with some of you guys?
Criminally Negligent Homicide: Acting in a manner of reckless disregard for the safety of others, when such action causes a death.
This kid CLEARLY fit that standard. An "accident" would've been if he'd been skiing in a manner consistent with consitions, but hit something that caused him to go out of control. This was NOT the case. He was going too fast, on snow that was hard and icy. He hit a knoll and went airborne, and came down on an innocent man, killing him.
End of story. Crime - and punishement. 90 days? He should get 6 - 12 months IMHO...
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
I agree with you, Dennis, I have no problems with anything but obtaining a statement from a concussed individual.
As far as police obtaining information on a patient's ability to give a statement, I work as an emergency nurse and I have yet to see it. Furthermore, I would challenge the ability of the best neurologist on Earth to give an accurate description of a patient's level of functioning following a concussion even with CT's and MRI's. Asking the patient questions about himself and the world will not help.
Often patients are fully oriented to self, date, place, and others and seem to know exactly what has happened-go back a couple of hours later and they're asking,"What happened? How'd I get here?"
Tell you what, try an experiment. Ask five different physicians about the competency of any particular concussed patient. I'll lay odds that you get five different opinions.
As far as police obtaining information on a patient's ability to give a statement, I work as an emergency nurse and I have yet to see it. Furthermore, I would challenge the ability of the best neurologist on Earth to give an accurate description of a patient's level of functioning following a concussion even with CT's and MRI's. Asking the patient questions about himself and the world will not help.
Often patients are fully oriented to self, date, place, and others and seem to know exactly what has happened-go back a couple of hours later and they're asking,"What happened? How'd I get here?"
Tell you what, try an experiment. Ask five different physicians about the competency of any particular concussed patient. I'll lay odds that you get five different opinions.