Gun control in the USA

MadsL wrote: »

You mean it requires additional evidence, which I would not dispute. If other evidence links me with the crime of theft then by all means charge me.

However, if no such evidence exists and you have a silent me, with a gold chain in my pocket, and no reports of a stolen gold chain, should I be arrested "just in case"?

I hardly think you would be one for advocating the removal of the right to silence?

Of course one should not with a crime for merely possessing something harmless without evidence of wrongdoing.

As for right to silence, I am all for it though it has already been somewhat eroded here in the UK.

MrP

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You wont be arrested for brandishing your firearm if you do so for self defence. Hence it is the intent of the act that gets you arrested.

No, it is a defence to the act. You may still be arrested until it can be shown that it was in self-defence.

You didn't really answer my question. I''l change two words to make it simpler: Could due process not be served by asking what the knife is for?

Again you clearly do not understand "due process" - perhaps I should try with the words "natural justice" or "process of law".

And speaking of questions you see where I said "YOU give me an example of a crime of intent that can be prosecuted without an act being committed." - well, still waiting for an example other than the Bieber one (which is pretty lame to be honest, is that really your best example, conspiracy?)

Transpire is the wrong word here (it means "Prove to be the case"). You mean "was declared". By explaining himself the man could have vindicated his innocence. By staying silent he looks like he is trying to hide something that he is guilty of. Guilt can be inferred from silence.

Why would someone need to explain why they found their wife dead in an apparant suicide. "Explanation" make you look guiltier if anything. And your last sentence is deeply troubling. What guilt can be inferred from silence if there is no other evidence to convict. Police 'hunches' mean you did it even though no other evidence is present. Wow.

Scientific laws =/= legislative laws.

Slow hand clap.
Constitutional rights =/= optional extras

No-one else has commented on how boring it is for you to not explain yourself.

I do not have to explain IP addressing, nor the English language, nor the binary system when discussing a topic on boards, these things are self-evident and an accepted part of the way this community If you waitnt to claim that we should use semaphore, Ancient Greek or morse code to communicate then I suggest it is YOU that needs to explain and justify that proposal to the wider community.

I'm not interested in having a thread on the right to silence, I'm not interested in other peoples opinion of it. I just want to know your opinion of it.

That, frankly, is beginning to sound creepy.

If you are proposing an alternative, let's hear it, and your reasoning. If you are doing it simply to provoke a reaction, well you might not get the one you expect. If you simply don't believe what you are saying, and are saying it simply to get my reaction, then I think you will find that doesn't sit well with the charter of this forum.

If in fact you are not interested in the topic of the right to silence, but rather MY particular opinion and why I formed that opinion, well frankly, get stuffed, what the hell has it to do with you? Far too personal for this type of discussion. If ever there was a strawman, that is the real doosie you are setting up there.

If your opinion is just that its unquestionable because its in the constitution then admit that and we can move on. What is tiring is you constantly responding with incredulity and argumentum ad constitution.

Jesus, how much support do I need to give to the concept of the right to silence before you believe that I believe it to be a fundamental human right? Do I have to justify other human rights to you as well before this thread is out? Perhaps I should start outlining all the reasons why I believe in the right to a jury trial in case it comes up? My incredulity is that you have got this far without once explaining WHY you think the right to silence should be removed, a position far removed from the overwhelming majority of legal systems and yet are demanding I write some kind of thesis on my support of a thoroughly accepted part of the legal system for centuries.

Here's my position. The right to silence is exactly that, a right.

Now explain why it isn't or shut up and move on.

In both those examples you gave you said its a bad idea to talk because you could give away your guilt in something else.

Read what I said again.

MadsL wrote: »

They could be slightly intoxicated and not wish to say anything that might incriminate them. They could be high on mushrooms (legal if picked fresh).

Impaired judgement is one very sound reason for staying silent. Hell, high enough on srooms I'd probably admit to the JFK assassination, bombing of Dresden and indecent purple with a button. Best course of action is to shut my tripping mouth to save a whole ton of explaining later, wouldn't you agree? However, my innocence remains.

Which means they are good reasons for why guilty people should stay silent. I am talking about a innocent person staying silent.

So was I. In fact ask any duty solicitor what you should say when stopped and interrogated by police, any of them will recommend something along the lines of say "I do not want to say anything until I have spoken with my solicitor"

Why should an innocent person stay silent?

Ask Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four, who was told that his mother would be shot by the RUC unless he confessed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Didn't I hear a story recently where two guys were arrested because they had some crazy plan to murder and castrate Justin Bieber or something?
Here it is. Two guys, paid by another to go murder and castrate Justin Bieber. They were arrested before they could do it, obviously. Are you honestly saying that because they weren't caught, Bieber scrotum in hand, that the prosecution doesn't have a case against them?

The punishment for conspiracy to commit a crime may be different to the punishment for actually committing the crime, but there is still a punishment.

What were they tried for? Conspiracy not murder.

Conspiracy is an act of well, conspiring. Not the intent to do murder. If it were prosecuted the same as the intent (murder) then the punishment would be the same.

As you admit, the punishment is different ergo the act (of conspiracy) is what is prosecuted, not the intent (murder) -

but do keep trying.

MadsL wrote: »

No, it is a defence to the act. You may still be arrested until it can be shown that it was in self-defence.

Exactly. The defence of the act is based on its intent.

MadsL wrote: »

Again you clearly do not understand "due process" - perhaps I should try with the words "natural justice" or "process of law".

My question would be the same regardless of what terminology you like to use.

MadsL wrote: »

Why would someone need to explain why they found their wife dead in an apparant suicide.

To remove them as suspects, or just to build up a time line of events. Just because something superficially looks like suicide doesn't mean it actually is.

MadsL wrote: »

What guilt can be inferred from silence if there is no other evidence to convict.

If there is no other evidence to convict, then why would an innocent person stay silent? What are they afraid fo talking about?

MadsL wrote: »

Constitutional rights =/= optional extras
...
these things are self-evident and an accepted part of the way this community

Constitutional rights are not their own justification.
If they were so self evident then it should be easy to explain them from first principles, without reference to the fact why they are already in law.

MadsL wrote: »

That, frankly, is beginning to sound creepy.

Why? You made the claim in relation to the right to silence and I have repeatedly asked you to justify it.

MadsL wrote: »

If in fact you are not interested in the topic of the right to silence, but rather MY particular opinion and why I formed that opinion, well frankly, get stuffed, what the hell has it to do with you? Far too personal for this type of discussion. If ever there was a strawman, that is the real doosie you are setting up there.

I think you'll find that telling some-one to get stuffed when they ask you to justify your position on something is what doesn't sit well with the charter.

Its very telling, you know, that you are completely unable to justify something which you claim is self evident and accepted by the community.

MadsL wrote: »

Here's my position. The right to silence is exactly that, a right.

Now explain why it isn't or shut up and move on.

I am asking to you to explain why it is a right. You have made it very clear that you support that it is right, but you have, at no point, explained why. Whataboutery, disbelief that I would even ask the question, and repeatedly asking me for alternatives does not count as explaining your point.

MadsL wrote: »

Read what I said again.

I did, my point stands.

MadsL wrote: »

Impaired judgement is one very sound reason for staying silent. Hell, high enough on srooms I'd probably admit to the JFK assassination, bombing of Dresden and indecent purple with a button. Best course of action is to shut my tripping mouth to save a whole ton of explaining later, wouldn't you agree? However, my innocence remains.

Could impaired judgement not be covered by other legislation? If someone is drunk or high, then the police would recognise this and take statements with the caveat that they are compromised by the authors state of mind, and then wait for the author to sober up and corroborate them?

MadsL wrote: »

So was I. In fact ask any duty solicitor what you should say when stopped and interrogated by police, any of them will recommend something along the lines of say "I do not want to say anything until I have spoken with my solicitor"

And you look guilty as hell doing that.

MadsL wrote: »

Ask Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four, who was told that his mother would be shot by the RUC unless he confessed.

I already said that the police shouldn't beat or threaten a statement out of someone (it would be inherently compromised in such cases).

MadsL wrote: »

What were they tried for? Conspiracy not murder.

Conspiracy is an act of well, conspiring. Not the intent to do murder. If it were prosecuted the same as the intent (murder) then the punishment would be the same.

As you admit, the punishment is different ergo the act (of conspiracy) is what is prosecuted, not the intent (murder) -

but do keep trying.

And why is conspiracy punished? Because of the intent.
The courts for some reason weigh punishment partially based on the actual ability to commit the crime (hence murder gets more punishment than attempted murder) but the crime of intent is still part of what's punished.

This is getting childish at this stage. Stop contradicting for the sake of contradicting.

MrPudding wrote: »

That said, I still think impossible attempts (another inchoate offence) is the one that kills your argument. Consider the following. A man wants to kill another man. He goes out and purchases a rifle off a shady character. He sets himself up in a building opposite his victim and waits. The moment arrives and he lines up his shot. Everything is ready and he takes the shot. Unfortunately for him the firing pin on the rifle has been removed and the rifle does not fire. it would not have been possible for him to shot the man. What can he be charged with?

Going by what you have said previously I expect you to say he can be charged with very little. He has the mens rea, he intended to kill. However, as his weapon was faulty he could not commit the actus reus of the crime of murder. So, what does he get charged with?

MrP

Attempted murder.

He made an attempt did he not - assuming we have evidence.
His mens rea was clear (ie he has not defence of self-defence, insanity etc) and he acted to carry out his intent. The act is prosecuted not his state of mind.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I suppose seeing as you are only responding to the point about the right to silence that you concede the rest of my last post?

You would suppose wrong. You are just getting boring. Besides a few posts back you were complaining about responding to every single point!!!

Questioning someone about a crime is not the same thing as accusing or prosecuting for that crime. Therefore if you did decide to answer a guards question this would not alter the application of "innocent until proven guilty".
If you are innocent then the prosecution can get no proof through questioning you.

And you think that guard would not later relate everything that was said in court. Were you born yesterday?

This is one of the dumbest things you've said in this whole thread :rolleyes:. You choose to remain silent, you don't choose to be black.

What a convenient way to avoid answering. I see you don't need to remain silent, you just find a way to avoid answering the question put to you.

If someone remains silent then they are hindering a police investigation. Why would an innocent person do that?

Because they don't trust the police perhaps? In the case of Gerry Conlon, an innocent man, would he not have been infinitely better off to have remained silent?

Basically you want someone else to defend your point for you.

I'm waiting for you to actually make yours. All you do is attack my view, because it is my view, without making any assertions of your own.

Again. And this is my last point, because I am throughly sick of you dodging the questions put to you, lets go back to my last post and see where you utterly failed to answer the questions put to you.

You want to argue against a major tenet of the justice system, yet absolutely refuse to give any reason for the removal of the right to silence.

No reasons given Mark, where are they?

If you want an argument from first principles it necessarily flows from "innocent until proven guilty" - The right to silence exists as necessarily follows from the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt and that no defendant is required to prove his or her innocence.

Now show me, intelligently, how this is wrong.

You gave no answer to this, just a neat little sidetrack into some erroneous belief that police questioning is somehow different to police interrogation, but absolutely no attempt to answer the question put to you.

If your want a starting point, try this for size. You said in response to invoking the right to silence that "And you look guilty as hell doing that." How do you feel if I say that if you are young and black, you look even guiltier. Should the jury be allowed to also infer that you are guilty from your race as well as your silence?
Well you half answered it, you are correct - assessing someone's race as an indicator of guilt is absurd. As absurd as inferring their guilt from their faith in the lack of evidence against them.

I'm interested to hear how the appearance of guilt is presented by the prosecution.
This was a question. Will I rephrase it? How exactly does the prosecution stand up in court and describe how guilty a person "looks" because they didn't say something when questioned?

Oh, and if you really want to discuss this, I'll happily start a thread in Legal Discussion where more legally trained minds than mine can have at it. I think we have taken this way off topic and you have derailed this thread enough.
There's a challenge there. I'm guessing since you willfully refuse to back up your argument with anything of substance that you do not actually believe what you say. The question really is whether you are prepared to actually discuss it? Or are you just being contrarian for the sake of taking an opposing position?

Then again I have noticed that those who take a pacifist postion can be awfully reactionary when it comes to the rule of law.

So again and finally, you propose removal of the right of silence. Why? What is your justification?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't want the posts to be dragged out, but I also don't 90% of my posts to be ignored.

The way you ignored the questions put to you above. Seems it is fine for you to omit answering awkward questions, but you object when I condense my response.

I don't understand what this means in response to what I said.

Perhaps you should re-read it then?

I didn't avoid your question, I said "You choose to remain silent, you don't choose to be black".

And choosing to be silent and treated equally is a right under the constitution, just as there is a right to be treated equally as a fact of your skin colour, the point I was very transparently making.

There have been numerous cases of people co-operating fully with police who later turn out to be guilty. Assuming innocence through co-operation is the dumbest thing you have proposed in this thread.

Gerry Conlon, the guy who you said was threatened by the police?
If the police are going to fabricate a case against you, then they can do that almost as easy if you remain silent.

Can they? The confession of Conlon was key in sticking the crimes on him.

There is also the issue of false confession under interrogation. A cop who "knows he did it, just gotta get him to confess" is a poor interrogator and apt to produce a false confession. An academic study of 125 cases where DNA evidence cleared the confessing party shows that;

Contrary to current practice, interrogation trainers (and training manuals) must stop perpetuating the main myth of psychological interrogation: interrogators need to be taught that their psychological interrogation techniques can and do cause innocent suspects (who are cognitively normal) to falsely confess.

http://www.aals.org/am2005/saturdaypapers/130drizin.pdf

At least, if you make a statement and stick to it, you can point out that you always proclaimed your innocence.

And if your statement is twisted, as you are very much apt to do with mine?

Why are you under the impression that I, on a discussion forum, cannot attack your point of view?

You may, I never disputed nor said that. However as you stated

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not interested in having a thread on the right to silence, I'm not interested in other peoples opinion of it. I just want to know your opinion of it.

This all sounds pretty personal - wonder what your obsession about my viewpoint is all about?

Why are you under the impression that I need to propose an alternative in order to question your point?

Because every time you have been asked to justify your own viewpoint, which contradicts that of society's and the legal sytem in Ireland, you dodge the question. Repeatedly. You even cannot give an example where you feel it should be applied. I find your response so far sad and pathetic to be honest - you vigorously attack my position, just because it is my position as you admit, and then either do not believe in the alternative and are using it simply as a stick to beat me with, or you do not have the courage to put a justification out there and have a real discussion. I have repeatedly given you examples, reasons and logical extenstions of the existence of the right to silence from the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"

I never proposed the removal of the right of silence, I questioned it being there in the first place.

Utter semantics, another blatent attempt to avoid answering the question put to you over and over. "So again and finally, you propose removal of the right of silence. Why? What is your justification?"
If I have to rephrase it to avoid you dodging it every time, this is going to get old very fast.

So why don't you show how mature you are and how well you understand this right by justifying it without reference to the constitution, without strawmen and without calling for someone to explain it for you.

Did you miss the part where I have, repeatedly, for the last x number of pages? And where you haven't given even a simple response as to the reasons for your own position against the right to silence. As I posted my jstification earlier - did you 'forget' what I posted?

Here is my position (without reference to the Constitution) that you refused to engage with earlier (and the question put to you that you dodged)

MadsL wrote: »

If you want an argument from first principles it necessarily flows from "innocent until proven guilty" - The right to silence exists as it necessarily follows from the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt and that no defendant is required to prove his or her innocence.

Now show me, intelligently, how this is wrong.

Now, having made my case, I'll rest it and respond "no comment" as appropriate. I'm guessing you will now respond with semantics to avoid that question once more.

jank wrote: »

If you are questioning it then isnt that another way to argue against it. Seems like you have backed yourself in a corner and are trying depserately (but failing) to wiggle your way out of it. Perhaps we should question all other inate rights as well?

The act of questioning something is only seen as arguing by the insecure. A child questioning why the sky is blue is not an argument against it.
And yes, question all "inate" rights. If they are inate then what is the worst that can happen? We all understand why they are inate?

jank wrote: »

+1 million. All I hear from Mark is "But why, but why, but why..." I actually have no idea what point you are making.

I am not making a point as such, more questioning MadsL's points.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already countered this question, at least twice. Here is my response again:

There is still the right to silence in the example you are giving, being questioned by a guard. I do not have answer any question put to me by a guard other than my provide my name and address. Any questioning by a guard may be responded to by "I do not wish to answer, am I free to go?" My choice to answer questions may be revoked at any time - if a guard dislikes me asking if I am free to go and want to detain me further, he may arrest me, but he had better show why I have been arrested in court.

As to the reason for this; it is a right flows from the fact that it is the duty of the prosecution to show evidence of guilt, and the duty of the police to show enough evidence to warrant my arrest.

Now, if you do not like the fact that I have the same rights under 'informal' questioning as under 'formal' questioning when I am detained, then please make the case for compelling me to answer and detaining me if I am not under arrest?

Or are you also in favour of removing the individual's right to answer as he/she sees fit when questioned by a guard? We do not have the space in this thread to discuss every possible mindset and every possible scenario that determines if some decides to co-operate with police or not.

Drop the childishness and engage in the debate MadsL.

I have been, I have provided you with several examples of why the right to silence exists, including an academic study showing where false confessions were made as a result of police questioning techniques (not coercion) in 125 cases. Did you bother to read it?

No more strawmen,

Like peer-reviewed examples?

no more whataboutery,

If it came up that I believed the sky was blue, the way you have debating you would have me justify it.

no more trying to get someone else to defend your arguments.

I proposed that if you were genuinely interested in this as a topic of debate, we should open another thread in a more appropriate forum (we are off-topic for this thread gun control, remember...we haven't mentioned guns in about 50 posts at this stage, ffs!!) and you said your only interest in the topic was my justification. I'm baffled as to why you find me so interesting, but there are other people posting here...

The null hypothesis for this point is not the rights we currently bestow are valid and must be argued against, the null hypothesis is that we have no inherently valid rights, all rights must be justified. Justify the right to silence. Justify the right to carry a weapon for self defence. If these rights are so self evident, then justifying them should not the problem you are making it seem.

Oh ffs! Now you want to start a debate on the right to life? Should we derail this thread into abortion perhaps? Or the right for the sexes to be treated equally under the law?

Look, I have stated my case very, very clearly...now for the fifth time here's what I said. Just answer the question before one of us dies of exhaustion...

MadsL wrote: »

If you want an argument from first principles it necessarily flows from "innocent until proven guilty" - The right to silence exists as necessarily follows from the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt and that no defendant is required to prove his or her innocence.

Now show me, intelligently, how this is wrong.

MadsL wrote: »

As to the reason for this; it is a right flows from the fact that it is the duty of the prosecution to show evidence of guilt, and the duty of the police to show enough evidence to warrant my arrest.

Non sequitor. Asking a question =/= making an accusation. Currently, the right to silence applies to all, both non-suspect and suspect, so it cannot follow from "innocent until proven guilty".

MadsL wrote: »

I have been, I have provided you with several examples of why the right to silence exists, including an academic study showing where false confessions were made as a result of police questioning techniques (not coercion) in 125 cases. Did you bother to read it?

I dont need to read it. Because I dont disagree with it. I have said many times now that I do not propose or support coercion (physical or threatening) as the alternative to the right to silence. You would know this if you read my posts.
I grew tired of debating you previously (when we discussed the number of gun deaths in the US vs UK, early in this thread) because it became clear that you were incapable of reading clear English. I am becoming tired of debating with you again.

MadsL wrote: »

Like peer-reviewed examples?

If it came up that I believed the sky was blue, the way you have debating you would have me justify it.

I proposed that if you were genuinely interested
...
but there are other people posting here...

This is the same whinging you've done before. You made the claim, so you have to defend it.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh ffs! Now you want to start a debate on the right to life? Should we derail this thread into abortion perhaps? Or the right for the sexes to be treated equally under the law?

:rolleyes: You know full well we are only talking about the right to silence and the right to carry a weapon for self defence, implying I'm trying to derail the discussion is one of the more openly dishonest tactics I've seen you use.

The longer it takes you to answer me, and the more fallacies and side tracking you attempt, the worse you come off.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not. MadsL's points on the right to silence lead back to his argument for the right to carry a weapon. If MadsL can't justify right to silence in general, then he cannot justify his right to silence in relation to carrying a weapon without explaining the weapon.

Mark, I have, over and over. It's is quite simple. Right to silence derives from the assumption of innocence, which means that carrying a weapon is innocent until it can be proven that a criminal act has been committed.

Now justify your view that the right to silence should not be a right. Because you have still not answered the question I have put to you five times...I dare you. I fupping double dare you!!

C'mon, you have kept us waiting this long. What is wrong with the right to silence?

Incidentally your choice of the word 'weapon' is pejorative - an item only becomes a weapon when it is used a such. Until such time as it is used against another person in a criminal way it is a firearm, a knife, a potato peeler or even our old friend the potato.

Gbear wrote: »

I made the mistake of going to fu*kbabies.com under the mistaken impression that it was the website that hosted the pictures.

You may have also posted in the wrong thread.



Turn off the computer, go to bed.

jank wrote: »

Why should he have to justify it in the first place? Its given by convention. A logical axiom if you will. Its a recognised human right by the ECHR and the USSC. We are here to discuss Gun control, not rewrite Magna Carta.

If you are so interested in the why's I am sure there are plenty of books and court documents to show why its justified. Simple google brings up the stuff below.

http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/bram-v-united-states-20060675

http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/Bill_of_Rights/Privilege_Against_Self-Incrimination.html

As already mentioned maybe a discussion in legal may be the best course if you are so inclined. Otherwise move on for god's sake.

You would assume it being a logical axiom, a recognised human right, and with all those books and conventions, that it should be easy for MadsL to justify it.

jank wrote: »

He can't. Because if he admits that there is a right to silence then the whole house of cards that he has built up falls down.

So instead he will just fob of the question by "Why is there a right to silence"?

What house of cards?
I want MadsL to justify carrying a weapon. He says he doesn't need to, because of his right to silence. I want him to justify his right to silence with respect to explaining to a guard why he is carrying a weapon. If he cant explain the right to silence in general, never mind with respect to carrying a weapon, then its his argument that falls apart, not mine.