Fifth Avenue Forum

Great legacy, RBG. You looked cool on those t-shirts tho.

But hey, you get to keep jerking it to your guns, so I guess you win.

I read the Miranda thing as closing a loophole that would get criminals off because of a technicality, but I didn't thoroughly read it so I could be wrong

That's only a small part, as the dismantling of it no longer protects those who are actually innocent, either (think coerced confessions without a lawyer present because they weren't read their rights).

I read the Miranda thing as closing a loophole that would get criminals off because of a technicality, but I didn't thoroughly read it so I could be wrong

It's all about keeping cops from getting sued civilly, no?

This only hurts the people who are truly innocent of the crimes charged against them, and prevents any recourse in the event that a court later finds their imprisonment to be unjust.

I guess it just beats in the whole "don't talk to cops" thing.

Right, you can't pursue damages in civil court based on a 5th amendment violation. The evidence can still be ruled inadmissible, or be used as grounds for an appeal, so your guilt/innocence shouldn't be effected in trial.
You still have your 5th amendment "Miranda" rights, you just can't get compensated for not being informed of them.

Yeah, it's just more protection for asshat cops.

And the cop in this case was backed by the Biden admin.

Entertaining hearing today.

Gaetz, Biggs, Perry, and a few others asked for pardons.

Did any of those Canaans say they didn't ask for one?

Oh Jim Jordan asked for one too. The usual clowns.

Greene and Gohmert too.

Shyster, I don't expect you to understand the disagreement with what happened today, yesterday, or tomorrow because you are too far gone with your weird obsession.

Get out of here with that "weird obsession" stuff. Gun ownership is normal. According to Pew surveys, 30% of Americans personally own a gun, and 40% of US households contain at least one gun. Thirty percent is a hair over 100 million Americans. Thirty-nine percent of men personally own a gun, and nearly half (48%) of white men own a gun. Roughly three-quarters of Americans who currently own a gun (73%) say they can’t see themselves ever not owning one, and the single most common reason for owning a gun (cited by 67% of gun owners) is self-defense. Only 38% say hunting is a major reason they own a gun. About 2/3 of gun owners own more than one, with about a third owning five or more (which are still totally rookie numbers, IMO).

I own guns primarily for self-defense. That puts me in the company of literally tens of millions of Americans. I'm not in any way an outlier.

I also note that today's SCOTUS decision will have little effect on 43 of the 50 states because 43 states already have (at a minimum) shall-issue concealed-carry regimes. Half of the states now have permitless "constitutional" carry. The states that will now shortly have shall-issue concealed carry represent a minority of states and a minority of the US population. The normal condition across the United States is shall-issue concealed carry at a minimum.

Finally, I understand and appreciate the disagreement with today's decision. I also think that disagreement is unreasonable and stupid. The SCOTUS not only just reaffirmed that people have the fundamental right to defend themselves, it clarified that states cannot limit that right to the home. Everyone in this country just had their natural rights strengthened and protected. That people are complaining about that is, IMO, ludicrous.

To be fair, I don't think it was any statistical or demographic breakdown of gun ownership he was identifying as weird or outlier. But eduardo can answer for himself.

Right, you can't pursue damages in civil court based on a 5th amendment violation. The evidence can still be ruled inadmissible, or be used as grounds for an appeal, so your guilt/innocence shouldn't be effected in trial.
You still have your 5th amendment "Miranda" rights, you just can't get compensated for not being informed of them.

I don't agree with this decision, because I'm all in favor of police being sued for anything and everything they do. But I would note that it has never been the case that failing to read Miranda rights was actionable under § 1983. The remedy for a Miranda violation has always been the exclusionary rule—the government cannot use any testimony obtained in violation of Miranda against you. So this wasn't a case where for years and years you could sue the cops for civil damages for Miranda violations and the SCOTUS just came in and took that away. Rather, it was a novel case presenting the question "Is there a § 1983 cause of action for civil damages for not being read your Miranda rights?" and the SCOTUS said "no."

So the SCOTUS (unfortunately) declined to expand the ways that police can be held personally liable for rights violations. But the Court didn't take away any means of relief that people already had.

Tif is correct. I have no problem with guns ownership. I have no problems labeling it normal. Hell, I've owned guns the majority of my life, but it's **** weird (and that's being generous) when you side with guns over protecting children.

I don't side with guns. I side with self-defense. Guns are involved because they are generally the most effective means of self-defense, but certainly not the only means. And I do not believe that disarming people already inclined to follow the law will prevent harms committed by people disinclined to follow the law, especially when removing guns from the country is functionally impossible, which means that people disinclined to follow the law will still be able to obtain them illegally (as they already do).

I don't side with guns. I side with self-defense. Guns are involved because they are generally the most effective means of self-defense, but certainly not the only means. And I do not believe that disarming people already inclined to follow the law will prevent harms committed by people disinclined to follow the law, especially when removing guns from the country is functionally impossible, which means that people disinclined to follow the law will still be able to obtain them illegally (as they already do).

Lots of instances of a gun being used in self defense out there. Surely more than mass shooting, single shootings, or criminal violence.

We get it, you love guns. They’re fun toys, let’s not act like they’re necessary though.

But these guys that lived and died before electricity said they were

There will always be guns in the wild no matter what. And therefore those inclined to follow the law shouldn't be unable to own and/or carry one to protect themselves from those disinclined to follow the law who would obtain one regardless of laws. Pretty simple

Well, one of them was the progenitor of our modern understanding of electricity, so..........

I had a long post all typed out, but I think I'll just revert to the summary and call it a day: I do not believe for a second that today's SCOTUS ruling will result in an increase in gun crime, never mind result in mass hysteria or turn American city streets into Tombstone writ large.

Well, one of them was the progenitor of our modern understanding of electricity, so..........

Did he **** in the dark or not? I rest my case.