dChan
Anonymous ID: 9bede6 July 27, 2022, 5:26 p.m. No.16867036   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>1133 >>3845

>>16866694

Not even a little. Stories heard of having a picnic lunch at the gravesite, our ancestors did regularly. They kept honoring their/our dead. Then the descendants moved great distances and the tradition was lost along the way.

 

>>16866625

Anon lost family (everyone close) and somehow the weight just fell off. Anon weighs about the same as back in high school now. I think a lot of it was I never get fast food and haven't for about 2.5 years. Anon isn't the healthiest cook but anon will break out a pan now and then.

 

I think I'm spending more on food for NOT.MY.CAT than for myself. NOT.MY.CAT is here currently. So bizarre… still do not speak cat. Still need a doggo.

Anonymous ID: 9bede6 July 27, 2022, 5:28 p.m. No.16867389   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>8193 >>8693

Supreme Court Issues Ruling, Gutting Miranda Rights And Threatening The Fifth Amendment

 

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Vega V Tekoh, a case involving the administration of Miranda rights, with the court ruling that a suspect’s words or statements can be used in court regardless of their Miranda rights.

 

For background, these are the facts of the case in question:

 

Terence Tekoh worked as a patient transporter in a hospital in Los Angeles. After a patient accused him of sexual assault, hospital staff reported the allegation to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Deputy Carlos Vega went to the hospital to ask Tekoh questions and take Tekoh’s statement. Although the parties described vastly different accounts of the nature of the interaction between Tekoh and Vega, it is undisputed that Vega did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights before questioning him or taking his statement.

 

Tekoh was arrested and charged in California state court, but a jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Following the acquittal on the criminal charge, Tekoh sued Vega, alleging that Vega violated Tekoh’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by taking his statement without first advising him of his Miranda rights.

 

Justice Samuel Alito issued his ruling, a count of 6-3, deciding that using such statements outside of Miranda rights is not a violation of a defendant’s rights and does not give them the right to sue the court for such use.

 

Miranda prescribed a specific and protective set of warnings to ensure that criminally accused suspects were made aware of the Fifth Amendment’s decree that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

 

Miranda is also one of the court’s most culturally famous decisions. Americans know Miranda. More accurately: Americans know their Miranda warnings. Even if they cannot recite the lyrics to the national anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, they likely can recite Miranda’s warnings:

 

You have the right to remain silent;

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law;

You have the right to a lawyer;

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.

 

Generally, if the police obtain a suspect’s statement violating Miranda, the government cannot use that statement against the defendant in court.

 

But can the defendant later sue the police for violating the defendant’s constitutional rights?

 

The Supreme Court now says, No.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/supreme-court-issues-ruling-gutting-miranda-rights-threatening-fifth-amendment/