- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:29 pm to tigerbacon
Tiger bacon, IVF is not affected by todays decision.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:30 pm to anc
In Louisiana no, i believe in Oklahoma, Kansas and some others it is going to be illegal soon
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:32 pm to tigerbacon
Where in the constitution does it say someone must read you your rights?
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:35 pm to SixthAndBarone
Link for Miranda rights Miranda right link
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:35 pm to tigerbacon
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/26/22 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:39 pm to TigerIron
Dissenting opinion:
“Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy.”
The dissent has it exactly right. While the court’s decision does not as a formal matter reduce the police officer’s obligation to issue Miranda warnings — or what individuals in police custody should do or say (or not do and not say) — it cuts off a critical means by which people whose rights have been violated can actually vindicate the promise of those rights. In that sense, it’s a sad day for Miranda, the Bill of Rights, and the most basic conception of accountability.
“Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy.”
The dissent has it exactly right. While the court’s decision does not as a formal matter reduce the police officer’s obligation to issue Miranda warnings — or what individuals in police custody should do or say (or not do and not say) — it cuts off a critical means by which people whose rights have been violated can actually vindicate the promise of those rights. In that sense, it’s a sad day for Miranda, the Bill of Rights, and the most basic conception of accountability.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:45 pm to tigerbacon
Absolutely false. You're either retarded for thinking that or a flat out liar for posting something you know isn't true.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:46 pm to tigerbacon
This thread is unintentionally hilarious because it’s so dumb. 
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:47 pm to tigerbacon
quote:
tigerbacon
Slept at a holiday inn last night but is not a lawyer
Posted on 6/24/22 at 9:49 pm to tigerbacon
quote:
fertilized egg is consider a baby
For Eagles and Sea Turtles they are. Go ahead and destroy an Eagle egg or have you porch lights on in Florida when Sea Turtles are nesting.
I admit I am not sure how the law would for IVF. I hope the legalese in any bill would address this.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:54 pm to tigerbacon
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/26/22 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 6/25/22 at 6:57 am to anc
A long history of false information and yet our MSM / Establishment wants to paint Trump as the sole source of 'fake news'.
This is why they want to take him out. THEY want to control the narrative. Make people believe what they want them to believe. Trump is an obstacle to all that.
This is why they want to take him out. THEY want to control the narrative. Make people believe what they want them to believe. Trump is an obstacle to all that.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:12 am to tigerbacon
quote:
In Louisiana no, i believe in Oklahoma, Kansas and some others it is going to be illegal soon
Are we talking about Miranda rights, or the abortion ruling? You seem worked up.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:17 am to tigerbacon
quote:
Also what about ivf. If a fertilized egg is consider a baby and Louisiana decides you can’t about fertilized eggs, what happens to all the fertilized eggs not needed since the parents already had 1-2 kids through ivf?
You’re trying too hard.,
Posted on 6/25/22 at 7:42 am to tigerbacon
That has always been somewhat the case
Posted on 6/25/22 at 8:05 am to tigerbacon
quote:
They took away the need for police to say the Miranda rights.
No they did not.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News