What should I do to my roommate, the narc?

[Debaser]

its all your fault pothead. your roommate is a swell fella.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Affect
We aren't talking about words here, moron. This isn't a what if. We are talking about what Sweeney said.

Read the first post once again, you might understand then. (Truth be known, you probably won't)

what the fuck are you talking about? i think you're the person who doesn't understand. i just said the fifth amendment may actually apply to sweeney's encounter with the police IF they asked him if he was smoking pot and IF he refused to answer. and then mpp says no it in fact IS the fourth and the fifth only applies to criminal trials. to which i replied i think the fourth amendment only applies to to (why am i repeating myself? you could just read the post over) concrete property (i THINK) i was asking a question. and i'm pretty sure the fifth amendment more applies to words (ie you don't have to answer any questions). i mean that's basically encompassed in the miranda warnings right? and the miranda warnings are just notifying a defendent of his rights, namely the 'fifth amendment rights' (although the 6th amendment is in there too) and the main fifth amendment right they notify the person of is 'the right to remain silent'. or course the miranda warning is only said after a person is arrested, but i'm pretty sure it applies to the beforehand too.

[mpp]

Originally posted by Samsa


but doesn't the fourth only apply to physical property, not words?

and umm...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury"

?

1. explain your 1st statement

2. first of all, that's not the self-incrimination clause of the 5th amendment which i'm sure you were referring to; second of all, you've got to be kidding me if you think smoking pot is an "infamous" crime in the eyes of the courts (Ex Parte Wilson, i think); third, your misinterpretation is phenomenal...unless you've been indicted by a grand jury (or an information by the state...another matter altogether) then you aren't compelled to "answer"...ie, go to trial

as always, he had the right to remain silent; Miranda v. Arizona

[mpp]

Originally posted by Samsa


the main fifth amendment right they notify the person of is 'the right to remain silent'. or course the miranda warning is only said after a person is arrested, but i'm pretty sure it applies to the beforehand too.

no.

it applies only after they read you your rights.

if he wanted to get arrested and go downtown then that's fine

as long as the police have "probably cause" it doesn't matter what's going on in their heads; for example (and i may not be totally correct about these facts) but a policeman stopped a guy he knew to be a drug dealer for speeding and excessive tinting of his windows...he saw a roofing tool in the seat and arrested him for having a weapon just b/c he wanted to search his car for drugs; he found drugs and the supreme ct said that search is reasonable; the subjective motive of the police officer were of no importance (Arkansas v. Sullivan, 2000)

anyway, what i mean is that he had an expectation of privacy in his home just like the respondent had in his car in the Sullivan case; if the police had probable cause to think that our netphorian was acting suspiciouly (ie, not refusing to answer any questions, eyes darting, pupils dilating, quick breathing, smell of pot in the house) then they could arrest him on the spot

[Samsa]

Originally posted by mpp
[b]

1. explain your 1st statement

the fourth amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. does that only apply to physical property or does it also apply to the extraction of information from a person?

2. first of all, that's not the self-incrimination clause of the 5th amendment which i'm sure you were referring to;

i know it's not. i didn't really know what it meant and i was curious about what it meant. thanks for telling me what it means!

second of all, you've got to be kidding me if you think smoking pot is an "infamous" crime in the eyes of the courts (Ex Parte Wilson, i think);

i don't know how i can think anything if i don't know what they mean by 'infamous' crime. well i do know but i don't see the relevance.

third, your misinterpretation is phenomenal...unless you've been indicted by a grand jury (or an information by the state...another matter altogether) then you aren't compelled to "answer"...ie, go to trial

exactly?

as always, he had the right to remain silent; Miranda v. Arizona

exactly. and miranda v arizona wasn't a constitutional amendment, it was just a court decision saying you have to notify someone of their constitutional rights, namely their fifth amendment rights, such as the law against self-incrimination. and what i'm asking is of course they only say this after the person is arrested, but does that make it irrelevant before the person is arrested? that's what i'm asking and you seem to be answering me (and disproving your whole argument) by saying 'as always brendan sweeney had the right to remain silent'. exactly. the court took that phrase from the fifth amendment right? and it DOESN'T only apply to people who have been arrested?

[Samsa]

Originally posted by mpp


no.

it applies only after they read you your rights.

if he wanted to get arrested and go downtown then that's fine

as long as the police have "probably cause" it doesn't matter what's going on in their heads; for example (and i may not be totally correct about these facts) but a policeman stopped a guy he knew to be a drug dealer for speeding and excessive tinting of his windows...he saw a roofing tool in the seat and arrested him for having a weapon just b/c he wanted to search his car for drugs; he found drugs and the supreme ct said that search is reasonable; the subjective motive of the police officer were of no importance (Arkansas v. Sullivan, 2000)

anyway, what i mean is that he had an expectation of privacy in his home just like the respondent had in his car in the Sullivan case; if the police had probable cause to think that our netphorian was acting suspiciouly (ie, not refusing to answer any questions, eyes darting, pupils dilating, quick breathing, smell of pot in the house) then they could arrest him on the spot

i know that. i'm not saying the fifth amendment applies to searches. i'm saying exactly where it says that brendan sweeney doesn't have to answer any fucking questions if he doesn't want to. i don't think that's implied by the fourth amendment, it seems to be more of a fifth amendment thing, but if i'm wrong i'd like to simply know if the fourth amendment even covers figurative property such as alibis or something.

[Debaser]

wow this thread has taken a nice typical netphorian crash and burn off the track...

[twice]

...can't say you weren't expecting it.

[kypper]

you could always smear the walls in his room in shit and then report a funny smell.

[mpp]

not talking and invoking your fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination are totally different things

i mean, they can't put on a mind control device and compel him to speak to them

the fifth amendment applies only after you're arrested, sometimes during police interrogations (read Miranda v. AZ), before a court and during criminal proceedings

saying that just by remaining silent, mr sweeney was invoking his fifth amendment right to remain silent is like saying that by fucking a woman i'm invoking my right to freedom of association

[lucky_13]

if my roommate smoked pot alot i'd probably be annoyed. not annoyed enough to call the cops but annoyed. however, i'm an anti-drug freak.

[Samsa]

U.S. Supreme Court
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
384 U.S. 436
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
No. 759.
Argued February 28 - March 1, 1966.
Decided June 13, 1966. *


(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 436, 437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.

****

when they say 'other official investigations' are they basically referring to the questioning of a suspect before he's arrested?


????

[Samsa]

Originally posted by mpp


saying that just by remaining silent, mr sweeney was invoking his fifth amendment right to remain silent is like saying that by fucking a woman i'm invoking my right to freedom of association

umm. but he was allowed to remain silent and wasn't arrested for being uncooperative. isn't that proof of his invocation of a fifth amendment right? and i'd say that you're invoking your right to freedom of association by fucking a woman too. exactly.

[mpp]

Originally posted by Samsa

when they say 'other official investigations' are they basically referring to the questioning of a suspect before he's arrested?

no. they're talking about investigations afterward

when a person is arrested w/o a warrant, the police think they've violated a crime and then they are made to advise the person of their rights AFTER arrest

[mpp]

Originally posted by Samsa


umm. but he was allowed to remain silent and wasn't arrested for being uncooperative. isn't that proof of his invocation of a fifth amendment right? and i'd say that you're invoking your right to freedom of association by fucking a woman too. exactly.

i really don't know what to say about that.

[BlueFish]

Your roommate is weak. Plain and simple.

What to do? I wouldn't pussyfoot around with pranks when they can get you into as much trouble as brutally fucking his shit up.. I say light the dude's room onfire. Just take yout lighter to the power cord on his TV/computer/alarmclock while he is gone and then let all of his shit get burned before you put it out. He won't be able to prove you started the fire because it will look like it came from a wire, the most common thing to light housefires besides smoking.

Or just kick the shit out of him. Twice.

[Samsa]

mpp, i've been doing a lot of research on this in th epast 15 minutes and basically what it is is you're looking at it from a 100% constructionalist point of view. recent courts have basically extended the right against self-incrimination to ALL criminal proceedings (with a few exceptions- you can issue a warrant to make a person stand in a line-up but without a warrant a person doesn't have to) etc etc etc. basically if a police stops you on the street and starts questioning you, you are in no way obligated to answer his questions. now i know you know this but you seem to keep insisting that these rights somehow came into existence out of thin air, well they didn't; that's the fifth amendment talking.

[Affect]

Suze, you are talking out of your ass. You've been straight punked in this thread. Just give it up.

[Affect]

The police have zero authority over you unless you are under arrest. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Affect
Suze, you are talking out of your ass. You've been straight punked in this thread. Just give it up.

umm i wasn't straight-punked. mpp asserted that the fifth amendment only applies to trials, well the supreme court seems to think differently. that's all there is to it.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/a...4F35007F022B40

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Samsa


umm i wasn't straight-punked. mpp asserted that the fifth amendment only applies to trials, well the supreme court seems to think differently. that's all there is to it.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/a...4F35007F022B40

and yeah, to answer my original question about the miranda rights, the police simply don't have to notify a non-arrested person of their miranda rights, but this in no way means they don't exist. a non-arrested person still has the 'right to remain silent'.

[Affect]

Thank you for that obvious statement.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Affect
Thank you for that obvious statement.

it's obviously not an obvious statement to mpp who has been refuting that someone who hasn't been arrested still has the right to remain silent

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Samsa


it's obviously not an obvious statement to mpp who has been refuting that someone who hasn't been arrested still has the right to remain silent

or rather he's been refuting that this right has a constitutional basis. well i asked him if the basis was the fourth amendment and he never answered. maybe the fourth amendment plays into it as far as blood tests or fingerprints

[Samsa]

actually the fifth amendment mentions the unfair seizure of property too. that's probably where it comes in.

[mpp]

Originally posted by Samsa
actually the fifth amendment mentions the unfair seizure of property too. that's probably where it comes in.

holy fucking christ

are you talking abotu the due process clause of the 5th amendment where it says you can't take someone's pty w/o due process of law? that's congress and the feds, NOT THE POLICE

jesus

the 5th amendment's due process clause does not apply to the local police



now, what questions do you have left? i'll try to answer them succintly

[mpp]

the next time a cop shows up at your house and you've been smoking pot and say to him "i invoke my 5th amendment privilege" he's gonna laugh in your face, say that's reasonable suspicion and cart you off to get booked

i have the right to drink a glass of milk right now, i'd better assert my right to freedom of speech

Originally posted by twice
...can't say you weren't expecting it.

I didn't expect he'd be a bitch and rat on me. All he had to say was "If you ever smoke pot in this apartment again, I'll call the cops." Instead, he just hides behind the police like the weenie he is.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by mpp
the next time a cop shows up at your house and you've been smoking pot and say to him "i invoke my 5th amendment privilege" he's gonna laugh in your face, say that's reasonable suspicion and cart you off to get booked

i have the right to drink a glass of milk right now, i'd better assert my right to freedom of speech

so that's what your argument has now boiled down to? "just because it's there doesn't mean it's gonna happen" . i'm not talking about procedure. and we never were talking about procedure. it's just now that you've basically realized that you were WRONG you have to belittle these rights that are guaranteed by the constitution and the supreme court. whether or not you think they're important, they still exist in policy and for the most part in procedure too. did brendan sweeney get hauled off to get booked? no.

[mpp]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


I didn't expect he'd be a bitch and rat on me. All he had to say was "If you ever smoke pot in this apartment again, I'll call the cops." Instead, he just hides behind the police like the weenie he is.

that is serious bullshit

what did you did exactly when the cops came?