A little legal unknown

Dancing_Queen said:
The biggest mistake the innocent make is to talk without legal representation. No one should talk without representation and no one should represent himself.
Click to expand...
Guess I am fortunate never having been in that position. But it does raise a question, as an innocent person who just wants to help the police find the guilty why not talk and tell them everything?

If you are not 100% innocent I can see the logic, but if you are why not talk? I am obviously not a lawyer...
 

Alligatorob said:
Guess I am fortunate never having been in that position. But it does raise a question, as an innocent person who just wants to help the police find the guilty why not talk and tell them everything?

If you are not 100% innocent I can see the logic, but if you are why not talk? I am obviously not a lawyer...
Click to expand...
Because, if you're a suspect, things can be twisted. If you're a bystander, that's a completely different issue.
 
Last edited:
The privilege to not be arrested,
perhaps only applies to the time during which they are at, or going to or from, the specific places of work or worship???

They could be arrested, before or after those specific exception times/actions?
 
Kaila said:
The privilege to not be arrested,
perhaps only applies to the time during which they are at, or going to or from, the specific places of work or worship???

They could be arrested, before or after those specific exception times/actions?
Click to expand...
No, the catch is-- it only applies to arrest on the "Civil process", like U.S. congressman being priviliged from arrest going to and coming back from a Session, as civil arrest (a form of debtors prison) was common back then. It does not apply to a criminal arrest. The statute is basically obsolete and has no practical application in today's times.

This OSC case from 1959 explains it.

https://casetext.com/case/akron-v-mingo
 
I love watching sovereign citizens plead their ideas in courts. After they are done babbling their case the judge simply replies, "Guilty, pay the clerk."
 
ohioboy said:
No, the catch is-- it only applies to arrest on the "Civil process", like U.S. congressman being priviliged from arrest going to and coming back from a Session, as civil arrest (a form of debtors prison) was common back then. It does not apply to a criminal arrest. The statute is basically obsolete and has no practical application in today's times.

This OSC case from 1959 explains it.

https://casetext.com/case/akron-v-mingo
Click to expand...
Love it!
 
ohioboy said:
No, the catch is-- it only applies to arrest on the "Civil process", like U.S. congressman being priviliged from arrest going to and coming back from a Session, as civil arrest (a form of debtors prison) was common back then. It does not apply to a criminal arrest. The statute is basically obsolete and has no practical application in today's times.
Click to expand...
I think it was a trick question, then, OhioBoy.....:giggle::geek::eek::sneaky:
As it is nowadays, obsolete.
Otherwise, we would have known it for sure! :LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
Dancing_Queen said:
I learned about this clause when I was in school, but I didn't learn about its being applicable only in civil cases. Thank you!!
Click to expand...
When Civics/history was taught in high school I can't recall any mention of the Bill of Rights only applying/binding to the federal government, and nothing taught about Selective Incorpration to the States. The 3rd and the 7th are the only 2 Amendments not incorporated, per the Supreme Court that is.
 
ohioboy said:
When Civics/history was taught in high school I can't recall any mention of the Bill of Rights only applying/binding to the federal government, and nothing taught about Selective Incorpration to the States. The 3rd and the 7th are the only 2 Amendments not incorporated, per the Supreme Court that is.
Click to expand...
Neither are the ninth and tenth while the fifth and sixth are partially incorporated:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

I never learned anything about incorporation in school. I take many MOOC's (Massive Open Online Courses) and learned about it recently on one of them.
 
ohioboy said:
The 9th and 10th however need no incorporation status as they are not part of the "Specific" Bill of Rights, as one Supreme Court Justice termed it.
Click to expand...
I was trying to remember the "specific" (ha) case I took that from, although mentioned in other Incorporation rulings, it was from a seminal 4th AM case which incorporated the 4th Amendment to the states, (the Exclusionary Rule in 1961).

.....Unlike the specific requirements and restrictions placed by the Bill of Rights, Amendments I to VIII, upon the administration of criminal justice by federal authority, the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the States to specific limitations....

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/338/25.html
 
Last edited:
A little known legal fact:

Only a Judge or Magistrate can sign a Search Warrant, but depending on a State's law, certain others authorized can sign Arrest Warrants for violations of Municipal Ordinances.
 
And yet, when my children were raised by two attorneys with the information to be silent and to request an attorney, my daughter was Chatty Cathy when the police questioned her. This information was frequently repeated when they were in high school.

No harm done, as she was a high school student who reported one of her friends for threatening to bring a gun to school and shoot people. She had texts from him to prove her allegations. Still, I would have liked to have been there to represent her. Even that scenario could have gone sideways.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top