|
|
|
While searching with a warrant can law enforcement question you about
items they are looking for and then use the info against you? Can they
ask questions without Miranda and have you help them find items that may
incriminate you? Thank you for the help.
--
-
|
| |
| |
While searching with a warrant can law enforcement question you about
items they are looking for and then use the info against you? Can they
ask questions without Miranda and have you help them find items that may
incriminate you? Thank you for the help.
Miranda is only for when you are arrested and they intend to question you.
--
-
|
| |
| |
While searching with a warrant can law enforcement question you about
items they are looking for and then use the info against you?
Unless there are more facts about the persons and events in question
than stated above that would make considering whether additional
qualifications apply, the ordinarily only prohibition against police
and other law enforcement officers questioning an individual applies
when they know or, maybe, but depending on some additional facts you
also do not state, have very good reason to know that the person being
questioned is represented by an attorney who had not very clearly
consented to their questioning the lawyer's client.
Can they ask questions without Miranda and have you help
them find items that may incriminate you?
The rules established by the Miranda case as later expanded and also
qualified by the courts do not forbid police questioning. Instead,
they spell out the kinds of circumstances when police and prosecutors
may or may not later use the information they obtain from questioning
as evidence in court. Also in this connection, the facts as stated
above do not contain any information about whether Miranda is even
relevant to the questioning to which you refer since, among other
things, you do not say whether the person being questioned is only a
witness compared with being a target of a pending or proposed
prosecution or, even if she is a defendant or probable such, whether
she was in police custody when being questioned compared with being
free if she wished just to leave and not speak with the police.
|
| |
| |
billysardell@nomail.com wrote:
While searching with a warrant can law enforcement question you about
items they are looking for and then use the info against you?
Yes, if you haven't been arrested yet, or held in custody, and you're foolish
enough
to answer police interrogation.
Can they ask questions without Miranda and have you help them find items that
may incriminate you?
They can ask anything they want, if you're pig-ignorant enough to
answer them.
|
| |
| |
Homuh Psympson wrote:
While searching with a warrant can law enforcement question you about
items they are looking for and then use the info against you?
Unless there are more facts about the persons and events in question
than stated above that would make considering whether additional
qualifications apply, the ordinarily only prohibition against police
and other law enforcement officers questioning an individual applies
when they know or, maybe, but depending on some additional facts you
also do not state, have very good reason to know that the person being
questioned is represented by an attorney who had not very clearly
consented to their questioning the lawyer's client.
WTF? Is this your immitation of that obtuse bombastic jackass ISP ?
|
| |
| |
On 31 Mar 2008 09:59:22 GMT, billysardell@nomail.com wrote:
While searching with a warrant can law enforcement question you about
items they are looking for and then use the info against you? Can they
ask questions without Miranda and have you help them find items that may
incriminate you? Thank you for the help.
They can ask all the questions they want. There is no law that says
that you MUST answer those questions truthfully.
It is not necessary for cops to issue Miranda warnings before
questioning during a search. You already have those rights. No matter
how the info was obtained, that info can be used against you in a
court of law.
The one thing I have never liked about the Miranda warnings is the
part where we hear, "Anything you say can and will be used against
you".
Excuse me? A cop asks "What is your name?". How is that going to be
"used against me"?
Those two words, "WILL BE" means that any word you speak is not in
your favor. So 'tis best to keep your frickin mouth shut.
|
| |
| |
In article <47f10520$0$1087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"GeekBoy" <nospam@spamcop.net> wrote:
Miranda is only for when you are arrested and they intend to question you.
Not exactly. Miranda applies when you are facing a "custodial
interrogration." You have to be in police custody, which is broader
than being under arrest, and you have to be interrogated, which means
the police intend to elicit incriminating information from you.
Note that Miranda is only "needed" for the answers to be admissible
against you in court. They're irrelevant if the police don't intend on
arresting/charging you, are getting information about a third person, or
simply won't use anything you say against you.
|
| |
| |
In article <ucr2v39f7a06mqbba5bh1sosvud8nluq8l@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2008 09:59:22 GMT, billysardell@nomail.com wrote:
They can ask all the questions they want. There is no law that says
that you MUST answer those questions truthfully.
Actually there is, Richard. It's what Martha Stewart went to prison
for, and what Roger Clemens and Miguel Tejada are being investigated for.
You don't have to answer the questions, but if you do you must do so
truthfully. The federal law is known as "section 1001" and many states
have similar laws.
It is not necessary for cops to issue Miranda warnings before
questioning during a search. You already have those rights. No matter
how the info was obtained, that info can be used against you in a
court of law.
The one thing I have never liked about the Miranda warnings is the
part where we hear, "Anything you say can and will be used against
you".
Excuse me? A cop asks "What is your name?". How is that going to be
"used against me"?
Depending on the circumstances, it can be highly incriminating. Or not.
Those two words, "WILL BE" means that any word you speak is not in
your favor. So 'tis best to keep your frickin mouth shut.
You do know there is no exact words that the police must use, Richard?
They must clearly inform the suspect of certain rights. But there's no
script - that's only on the TV shows you base your legal knowledge on.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:45:46 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <ucr2v39f7a06mqbba5bh1sosvud8nluq8l@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
Actually there is, Richard. It's what Martha Stewart went to prison
for, and what Roger Clemens and Miguel Tejada are being investigated for.
You don't have to answer the questions, but if you do you must do so
truthfully. The federal law is known as "section 1001" and many states
have similar laws.
Depending on the circumstances, it can be highly incriminating. Or not.
You do know there is no exact words that the police must use, Richard?
They must clearly inform the suspect of certain rights. But there's no
script - that's only on the TV shows you base your legal knowledge on.
This section 1001 may have been included in the numerous charges filed
against Stewart but was not the primary case.
Ok let's take a look at this law you cite.
title 18 Part 1 Chpater 47 section 1001.
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully
Notice something peculiar here? this law specifically defines the
areas in which it can be applied. IMNSHO, this means that this law
does NOT get applied to the general populace.
IOW, this law gets applied to members of Congress, or the immediate
people directly connected with the 3 main branches of the US
government within their official duties thereof. It can not be applied
to persons who refuse to answer simple questions asked by the average
cop on the beat.
After all, I am guaranteed "the right to keep silent".
|
| |
| |
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote in
news:5s53v3dqnjleifumds9mi2t31sq2gbursr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:45:46 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
This section 1001 may have been included in the numerous charges filed
against Stewart but was not the primary case.
Ok let's take a look at this law you cite.
title 18 Part 1 Chpater 47 section 1001.
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully
Notice something peculiar here? this law specifically defines the
areas in which it can be applied. IMNSHO, this means that this law
does NOT get applied to the general populace.
Whoever coined the adage, "Too bad that ignorance isn't painful." must
have been thinking of you. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the
time?
IOW, this law gets applied to members of Congress, or the immediate
people directly connected with the 3 main branches of the US
government within their official duties thereof. It can not be applied
to persons who refuse to answer simple questions asked by the average
cop on the beat.
It applies to anyone making statements on matters "within the
jurisdiction" of any branch of the federal government, i.e., anyone to
whom federal law applies. That's just about everybody in the US, so it's
fair to say that it applies to the "general populace."
Of course, the "average cop on the beat" won't be asking questions on
federal matters.
It's against the law to lie to an FBI agent or an investigator for the
SEC (the executive branch), to a federal magistrate (the judicial
branch), or to a Congressional committee (legislative branch).
After all, I am guaranteed "the right to keep silent".
So you are. Why don't you avail yourself of that right and stop making a
fool of yourself?
(Title 18 in no way abrogates your right not to talk to federal
authorities. If you decide to waive that right, just be sure to tell the
truth.)
|
| |
| |
In article <5s53v3dqnjleifumds9mi2t31sq2gbursr@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:45:46 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
This section 1001 may have been included in the numerous charges filed
against Stewart but was not the primary case.
Ok let's take a look at this law you cite.
title 18 Part 1 Chpater 47 section 1001.
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully
Notice something peculiar here? this law specifically defines the
areas in which it can be applied. IMNSHO, this means that this law
does NOT get applied to the general populace.
You're a buffoon. A criminal investigation is within the jurisdiction
of the executive branch, as the FBI has jurisdiction to investigate.
The law does apply to the "general population" as long as they lie to a
government official over something the official has jurisdiction to
investigate.
IOW, this law gets applied to members of Congress, or the immediate
people directly connected with the 3 main branches of the US
government within their official duties thereof. It can not be applied
to persons who refuse to answer simple questions asked by the average
cop on the beat.
You're clearly wrong, Richard. It's what Martha Stewart was charged
with, and she is not in any way affiliated with the government.
After all, I am guaranteed "the right to keep silent".
Yes, you can keep silent - and YOU should, Richard. But if you choose
to speak, you can't lie. It's that simple.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:10:38 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <5s53v3dqnjleifumds9mi2t31sq2gbursr@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
You're a buffoon. A criminal investigation is within the jurisdiction
of the executive branch, as the FBI has jurisdiction to investigate.
The law does apply to the "general population" as long as they lie to a
government official over something the official has jurisdiction to
investigate.
You're clearly wrong, Richard. It's what Martha Stewart was charged
with, and she is not in any way affiliated with the government.
Yes, you can keep silent - and YOU should, Richard. But if you choose
to speak, you can't lie. It's that simple.
Martha Stewart was busted for insider trading.
Now let's get back to the topic. In the course of an officer serving a
search warrant, is that officer allowed to ask questions without the
advice of an attorney or having been "Mirandized"?
The answer is yes the officer can ask questions. Do you have to be
truthfull at this point in time? As I see it, NO. Do recall mister
attorney, that the search warrant is merely a tool to discover
evidence and seize that evidence. If the officer knows you are lieing
to him, then why is he asking the question? Just to hear your
response? Maybe.
I have the legal right not to incriminate myself. If I truthfully
answer a particular question, that response could put me in jail. So
personally, I would invoke the 5th amendment as a response whether or
not the officer likes it.
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their
case against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
|
| |
| |
In article <tbk3v392534ss0cuu6e65cjsuuon04os11@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:10:38 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Martha Stewart was busted for insider trading.
She was found guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to
investigators, violations of section 1001. See, for example,
<http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/>.
She was not charged with, much less convicted of, anything relating to
insider trading. In fact, it was precisely because she obstructed
justice and lied to investigators that she couldn't be charged with
those crimes.
Now let's get back to the topic. In the course of an officer serving a
search warrant, is that officer allowed to ask questions without the
advice of an attorney or having been "Mirandized"?
The answer is yes the officer can ask questions.
Of course the officer can ask. But the question is whether the answers
can be used in court against the person giving them. For that, the
answer is "it depends."
Do you have to be
truthfull at this point in time? As I see it, NO.
Of course you see it that way, but you're wrong, as usual. Executing a
search warrant is within the jurisdiction of the executive branch - the
FBI. So if in the course of executing a search warrant, an FBI agent
questions you and you lie to them, you are violating section 1001.
Do recall mister
attorney, that the search warrant is merely a tool to discover
evidence and seize that evidence. If the officer knows you are lieing
to him, then why is he asking the question? Just to hear your
response? Maybe.
The officer won't know at the time you are lying to him. FOr example,
suppose he asks if you have any drugs or illegal guns in the house and
you say "no." Well, he won't take your word for it and will execute the
search warrant. If a gun is found in your dresser, that's pretty good
evidence you lied to him. If you said you didn't live there, but then
he finds your driver's license with that address listed on it, that's
pretty good evidence you lied to him. And so on.
I have the legal right not to incriminate myself. If I truthfully
answer a particular question, that response could put me in jail. So
personally, I would invoke the 5th amendment as a response whether or
not the officer likes it.
That's fine. You don't have to answer any questions. You've been told
this several posts ago, Richard. But if you do answer, you must tell
the truth.
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their
case against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
Who is talking about court? You were talking about search warrants a
minute ago.
|
| |
| |
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote in
news:tbk3v392534ss0cuu6e65cjsuuon04os11@4ax.com:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:10:38 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Martha Stewart was busted for insider trading.
No, she wasn't. In fact, that's the reason for the sympathy for her
unsympathetic self. She was never indicted for selling her ImClone stock
based on a tip from the owner that the stock would take a hit on bad news
from the FDA. She was convicted for lying about receiving the tip.
Now let's get back to the topic. In the course of an officer serving a
search warrant, is that officer allowed to ask questions without the
advice of an attorney or having been "Mirandized"?
The answer is yes the officer can ask questions. Do you have to be
truthfull at this point in time? As I see it, NO. Do recall mister
attorney, that the search warrant is merely a tool to discover
evidence and seize that evidence. If the officer knows you are lieing
to him, then why is he asking the question? Just to hear your
response? Maybe.
I have the legal right not to incriminate myself. If I truthfully
answer a particular question, that response could put me in jail. So
personally, I would invoke the 5th amendment as a response whether or
not the officer likes it.
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their
case against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
Some people are students of the obvious; you are a master.
None of these points is under dispute by anyone in this thread.
Have you figured out yet that 18USC1001 applies to you even though you're
not a member of Congress?
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:24:09 -0700, richard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:10:38 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Martha Stewart was busted for insider trading.
Now let's get back to the topic. In the course of an officer serving a
search warrant, is that officer allowed to ask questions without the
advice of an attorney or having been "Mirandized"?
The answer is yes the officer can ask questions. Do you have to be
truthfull at this point in time? As I see it, NO. Do recall mister
attorney, that the search warrant is merely a tool to discover
evidence and seize that evidence. If the officer knows you are lieing
to him, then why is he asking the question? Just to hear your
response? Maybe.
I have the legal right not to incriminate myself. If I truthfully
answer a particular question, that response could put me in jail. So
personally, I would invoke the 5th amendment as a response whether or
not the officer likes it.
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their
case against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
Lieing to the officer is known as hindering an investigation. You are dumb
as ever.
Top
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
She was found guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to
investigators, violations of section 1001. See, for example,
<http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/>.
She was not charged with, much less convicted of, anything relating to
insider trading. In fact, it was precisely because she obstructed
justice and lied to investigators that she couldn't be charged with
those crimes.
Of course the officer can ask. But the question is whether the
answers can be used in court against the person giving them. For
that, the answer is "it depends."
Of course you see it that way, but you're wrong, as usual. Executing
a search warrant is within the jurisdiction of the executive branch -
the FBI. So if in the course of executing a search warrant, an FBI
agent questions you and you lie to them, you are violating section
1001.
Yet the FBI, Executive, and Law Enforcement can, and do, lie to
the citizens with impunity.
The officer won't know at the time you are lying to him. FOr example,
suppose he asks if you have any drugs or illegal guns in the house and
you say "no." Well, he won't take your word for it and will execute
the search warrant. If a gun is found in your dresser, that's pretty
good evidence you lied to him. If you said you didn't live there,
but then he finds your driver's license with that address listed on
it, that's pretty good evidence you lied to him. And so on.
Perhaps he simply "misremembered" ...
That's fine. You don't have to answer any questions.
BULLSHIT.
Wrong again, Larry.
In fact you even wasted a significant quantity of bandwidth arguing
the opposite a year or so ago.
You've been
told this several posts ago, Richard. But if you do answer, you must
tell the truth.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and
east, west, south and north somewhat."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
when asked about weapons of mass destruction
in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
--President GW Bush,
discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson,
after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people
for the reality of war casualties
|
| |
| |
In article <47f10520$0$1087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"GeekBoy" <nospam@spamcop.net> wrote:
Not exactly. Miranda applies when you are facing a "custodial
interrogration." You have to be in police custody, which is broader
than being under arrest, and you have to be interrogated, which means
the police intend to elicit incriminating information from you.
Note that Miranda is only "needed" for the answers to be admissible
against you in court. They're irrelevant if the police don't intend on
arresting/charging you, are getting information about a third person, or
simply won't use anything you say against you.
Thanks for the clarification
|
| |
| |
In article <65f1svF2fmflrU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Larry wrote:
Yet the FBI, Executive, and Law Enforcement can, and do, lie to
the citizens with impunity.
Perhaps he simply "misremembered" ...
You think no one's ever argued this before?
I have the legal right not to incriminate myself. If I truthfully
answer a particular question, that response could put me in jail. So
personally, I would invoke the 5th amendment as a response whether or
not the officer likes it.
That's fine. You don't have to answer any questions.
BULLSHIT.
Wrong again, Larry.
In fact you even wasted a significant quantity of bandwidth arguing
the opposite a year or so ago.
That was in a different context. In some situations, you are required
to answer certain questions. But when the police come to your house to
execute a search warrant is not one of them.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 31, 3:59=A0am, billysard...@nomail.com wrote:
While searching with a warrant can law enforcement question you about
items they are looking for
While Suck-Ass Pigs are free To Ask ANY Question of ANYbody, at ANY
Time, Under ANY Circumstances, AND Ask that Question In a Manner
"Calculated to get an Answer", The Rub & Rune to Your Question is:
Suck-Ass Pigs _CANNOT,_ at ANY Time, Under ANY Circumstances, In ANY
Calculating Manner, *COMPEL* An Answer to ANY Question... - AND - IF
you are So Cowed, Compliant, AND Stupid to Answer ANY Suck-Ass Pig
Question, then Yes, they CAN use that "info" Against You...
and then use the info against you? Can they
ask questions without Miranda
See Above...
and have you help them find items that may
incriminate you?
See Above...
Thank you for the help.
The BEST Way To *Respond* To SAP Questions is to ENDLESSLY Opine:
"I DON'T Answer Questions"...
**NEVER Lie... [You Don't Have To, IF You Follow my "IDAQ" Advice]
I'd Bet a $100 that it's a CRIME to Lie to Your Local SAPs, No Matter
what Jurisdiction yer in OR Flavor of SAP involved...
Naughtius "The Greatest Story NEVER Told" Maximus
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
In article <65f1svF2fmflrU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
You think no one's ever argued this before?
I have the legal right not to incriminate myself. If I truthfully
answer a particular question, that response could put me in jail.
So personally, I would invoke the 5th amendment as a response
whether or not the officer likes it.
That's fine. You don't have to answer any questions.
That was in a different context. In some situations, you are required
to answer certain questions.
So you admit that you were wrong once again.
But when the police come to your house
to execute a search warrant is not one of them.
|
| |
| |
In article <x-C9A387.12220401042008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <65f1svF2fmflrU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Perhaps he simply "misremembered" ...
You think no one's ever argued this before?
Of course they have. Hillary Clinton argues it just last week.
|
| |
| |
In article <atropos-D1177F.19134601042008@news.giganews.com>,
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <x-C9A387.12220401042008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Perhaps he simply "misremembered" ...
Of course they have. Hillary Clinton argues it just last week.
And she did it just about as convincingly as most defendants.
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
In article <atropos-D1177F.19134601042008@news.giganews.com>, Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote: And she did it just about as convincingly as most defendants.
|
| |
| |
Deadrat wrote:
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote in
news:5s53v3dqnjleifumds9mi2t31sq2gbursr@4ax.com:
Whoever coined the adage, "Too bad that ignorance isn't painful." must
have been thinking of you. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the
time?
It applies to anyone making statements on matters "within the
jurisdiction" of any branch of the federal government, i.e., anyone to
whom federal law applies. That's just about everybody in the US, so
it's fair to say that it applies to the "general populace."
Of course, the "average cop on the beat" won't be asking questions on
federal matters.
It's against the law to lie to an FBI agent or an investigator for the
SEC (the executive branch), to a federal magistrate (the judicial
branch), or to a Congressional committee (legislative branch).
Yet it's *not* against the law for those same Gov't agents to lie
to the citizen.
Sauce ... Goose ... HYPOCRICY.
|
| |
| |
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:65i12lF2g2r2lU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
Yet it's *not* against the law for those same Gov't agents to lie
to the citizen.
Sauce ... Goose ... HYPOCRICY.
Isn't that "Sause, Gooce, HYROCRICY"?
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:14:45 -0400, Top <Top@retired.neo.rr.com>
wrote:
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their
case against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
Lieing to the officer is known as hindering an investigation. You are dumb
as ever.
Top
How does the officer know when I have lied? He asks, do you have a gun
in the house? I say no. He finds one in the house. Have I lied? Not
necessarily. His job now is to determine if I knew before that
question was asked, if a gun was in the house or not. He will know for
a fact that I lied when he finds out the gun is registered to me and I
purchased it. But, if it is properly owned by my brother and I did not
know my brother had a gun, am I lieing or not? There's no way for
anyone but me to know that.
|
| |
| |
In article <pig8v3tu4unrean0q1dpnnjsi7m89bfv8l@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:14:45 -0400, Top <Top@retired.neo.rr.com>
wrote:
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their
case against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
How does the officer know when I have lied? He asks, do you have a gun
in the house? I say no. He finds one in the house. Have I lied? Not
necessarily. His job now is to determine if I knew before that
question was asked, if a gun was in the house or not. He will know for
a fact that I lied when he finds out the gun is registered to me and I
purchased it. But, if it is properly owned by my brother and I did not
know my brother had a gun, am I lieing or not? There's no way for
anyone but me to know that.
Richard, first of all it is spelled "lying," not "lieing." Second, its
for a jury to decide, depending on all of the facts and evidence. Maybe
you're lying, maybe you're not. Maybe you'd get away with it, maybe you
wouldn't. But that doesn't mean it is legal to do, which is what you
initially claimed.
|
| |
| |
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:65i12lF2g2r2lU1
@mid.individual.net:
Isn't that "Sause, Gooce, HYROCRICY"?
Did you start drinking again ?
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
In article <pig8v3tu4unrean0q1dpnnjsi7m89bfv8l@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
Richard, first of all it is spelled "lying," not "lieing." Second,
its for a jury to decide, depending on all of the facts and evidence.
Maybe you're lying, maybe you're not. Maybe you'd get away with it,
maybe you wouldn't. But that doesn't mean it is legal to do, which
is what you initially claimed.
So how is 6.25 TENTHS of a gram "far more than a gram", eh lying Larry ?
|
| |
| |
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote in
news:pig8v3tu4unrean0q1dpnnjsi7m89bfv8l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:14:45 -0400, Top <Top@retired.neo.rr.com>
wrote:
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their
case against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
How does the officer know when I have lied? He asks, do you have a gun
in the house? I say no. He finds one in the house. Have I lied? Not
necessarily. His job now is to determine if I knew before that
question was asked, if a gun was in the house or not. He will know for
a fact that I lied when he finds out the gun is registered to me and I
purchased it. But, if it is properly owned by my brother and I did not
know my brother had a gun, am I lieing or not? There's no way for
anyone but me to know that.
Most of the time *you* don't even know what you're talking about.
|
| |
| |
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:65ischF2fgo51U1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
Did you start drinking again ?
Even when I'm drunk, I can spell hypocrisy. It's philosophers' names that
give me trouble.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:41:35 -0700, richard wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:14:45 -0400, Top <Top@retired.neo.rr.com> wrote:
As I see it, it is up to the DA and law enforcement to prove their case
against me. In court, all I must do, is show up.
How does the officer know when I have lied? He asks, do you have a gun in
the house? I say no. He finds one in the house. Have I lied? Not
necessarily. His job now is to determine if I knew before that question
was asked, if a gun was in the house or not. He will know for a fact that
I lied when he finds out the gun is registered to me and I purchased it.
But, if it is properly owned by my brother and I did not know my brother
had a gun, am I lieing or not? There's no way for anyone but me to know
that.
If you lie about having that gun in your pocket he'll know.
Top
|
| |
| |
Top <Top@retired.neo.rr.com> wrote in
news:pan.2008.04.03.15.42.53.555000@retired.neo.rr.com:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:41:35 -0700, richard wrote:
If you lie about having that gun in your pocket he'll know.
Top
What if you're just happy to see him?
|
| |
| |
| | |
