Oregon man commits no crime, but has been in jail for 900 days

a reply to: WeSbO

The 5th Amendment is invoked to prevent self incrimination, not to keep from testifying against another person. Legally you can be compelled to testify, or face penalty, if its not self incriminating or is not one of a few privileged exceptions, like the accused is your spouse.

Meanwhile at the ranch, illegal aliens should be locked up anyway so it all worked out.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Shamrock6


Miranda Warnings aren't given to witnesses. But I'm sure you knew that.

How very "free" of you

Providing education to correct ignorance, for free?

It really is "free," isn't it?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Shamrock6


Miranda Warnings aren't given to witnesses. But I'm sure you knew that.

How very "free" of you

Providing education to correct ignorance, for free?

It really is "free," isn't it?

Really? You will twist my words to avoid my point?

Jailing witnesses for WHATEVER reason is not right and the USA can not call itself the "land of the free" when it is clearly NOT.

a reply to: crazyewok

That has actually been changed to "land of the fee, home of the slave" so were good

Thanks for nothing "oath keepers"!!!

a reply to: crazyewok

You made a point? I'm sorry, I didn't see it. Yes, it is "free" to not give witnesses a Miranda warning, because the Miranda warning pertains to the right of not incriminating one's self.

I assure you, there was no intentional twisting of your words. Your comment was vague and really didnt seem to be anything other than snarky.

The law has its uses. But it's also ripe for abuse, which is pretty clearly evident. Then again, we're also the "home of the brave" but I guess since we have some ninnies that live here, we shouldn't call ourselves that either.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Shamrock6
He's pled not guilty to the murder, and as far as I can tell no body has ever been found. Since he pled not guilty, and the state thinks he did it, a trial is kind of necessary.

But even in that case, the judge has decided the testimony of these men has no value. To be perfectly honest, the judge is likely correct. Any testimony at this point could be considered coerced due to the time in prison, and considering their behavior towards a video taped deposition I don't think they're mentally competent to retell the facts as they believe them to be.

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe
Why not get a witness statement, sworn statement, affidavit, whatever it's called, from him? It's where the prosecutor and the witness and his attorney and others sit down and and questions are asked and answered. It holds up in court because it is a sworn statement witnessed by the persons involved. That sure as heck beats sitting in jail for years. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

They tried, all the man did is say he did nothing wrong and ask why he was being held in jail. From all accounts it seems like the man doesn't understand our justice system and has no intent in learning it. Even with his lawyer explaining what was going on the man wasn't cooperating.

I'm betting dad is an illegal who doesn't understand our system, or is scared of police and our system. Depending on where he originated from, certain cultures are afraid of police, and if that is the case, big IF, locking him up is not helping.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

You made a point? I'm sorry, I didn't see it. Yes, it is "free" to not give witnesses a Miranda warning, because the Miranda warning pertains to the right of not incriminating one's self.

so in your eyes its perfectly acceptable to take the freedom of a witness away to force them to testify?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
"home of the brave" but I guess since we have some ninnies that live here, we shouldn't call ourselves that either.

Hiding behind propaganda slogans does nothing but blind one to the corruptions of there government.

a reply to: crazyewok

If you witness a murder and give the impression that you're going to skip town to avoid testifying, yea I think it's okay to detain you until a statement or testimony can be taken.

If you witness somebody steal a pack of eggs, no.

If you witness somebody jaywalking, no.

If you may or may not know somebody wjo may or may not be a terrorist, no.

Depriving you of your freedom for 3 years to secure your testimony, no.

A true patriot sees their country for what it is, good and bad. Just because I sing the national anthem doesn't mean I think my country is perfect. It doesn't mean that I'm blind to corruption within the government. All it means is that I don't feel compelled to wear my loathing and contempt for those aspects on my sleeve so everybody thinks I'm cool

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: crazyewok

If you witness a murder and give the impression that you're going to skip town to avoid testifying, yea I think it's okay to detain you until a statement or testimony can be taken.

If you witness somebody steal a pack of eggs, no.

If you witness somebody jaywalking, no.

If you may or may not know somebody wjo may or may not be a terrorist, no.

Depriving you of your freedom for 3 years to secure your testimony, no.

A true patriot sees their country for what it is, good and bad. Just because I sing the national anthem doesn't mean I think my country is perfect. It doesn't mean that I'm blind to corruption within the government. All it means is that I don't feel compelled to wear my loathing and contempt for those aspects on my sleeve so everybody thinks I'm cool

But locking a person up until they say what the state wants them to say is a coerced testimony. What's the difference between what the state is doing here, and the state locking your neighbor up until they confess that you're running a kiddie sex dungeon out of your basement, like they think you're doing?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: crazyewok

If you witness a murder and give the impression that you're going to skip town to avoid testifying, yea I think it's okay to detain you until a statement or testimony can be taken.

If you witness somebody steal a pack of eggs, no.

If you witness somebody jaywalking, no.

If you may or may not know somebody wjo may or may not be a terrorist, no.

Depriving you of your freedom for 3 years to secure your testimony, no.

A true patriot sees their country for what it is, good and bad. Just because I sing the national anthem doesn't mean I think my country is perfect. It doesn't mean that I'm blind to corruption within the government. All it means is that I don't feel compelled to wear my loathing and contempt for those aspects on my sleeve so everybody thinks I'm cool

But locking a person up until they say what the state wants them to say is a coerced testimony. What's the difference between what the state is doing here, and the state locking your neighbor up until they confess that you're running a kiddie sex dungeon out of your basement, like they think you're doing?

The state wants him to testify about a statement he made to detectives. What's coerced about talking about something you said?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Had they filmed him when taking this statement? If not, why not? If they have, why can't that be presented to the court if his testimony is so important it has to be heard? There are cases dealt with in the absence of the defendant; surely they can carry one out without the physical presence of a witness who doesn't want to say anything?

a reply to: IvanAstikov

Dunno. Call the DA and ask? I'm not privy to the interrogation, as I wasn't there and am not on the case. I'm going off the news articles, same as anybody else.

Finishing a larceny case when the defendant fails to appear is a wee bit different than finishing a murder trial with no physical remains.

it sounds like he will not say what THEY want him to say.