Suspects must speak to protect their rights, Supreme Court says

Supreme Court ruled recently that people must clearly speak their intent about remaining silent during an integration or the police will be allowed to presume that they can proceed. This seems like a sensible decision.


In a case out of Michigan, Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08-1470, Van Chester Thompkins was arrested as a suspect of a murder in Southfield in 2000. After being advised of his rights to remain silent under the court’s rules of the Miranda Warning, the police asked him if he understood his rights. They also asked Thompkins to sign a statement that clearly stated that he understood his rights. Since Thompkins did not say he wished to remain silent nor did he sign the statement, the police continued with their questioning. After almost three hours of integration Thompkins was asked three questions that he answered. He said “Yes”, to one of the questions, which was, “Does he pray to God that he will forgive him for the killing”.

That statement was used in court against him. He was convicted of the murder and sentenced to life in prison. He later argued that he intended to remain silent, therefore, the police should have stopped the questioning. Thompkins argues, therefore, that the answer to the question if he wanted God to forgive him for the murder should not have been used in his trial. (This assumes, of course, that it was the most incriminating evidence against him and that all other evidence was inconclusive without this statement.)

The Miranda Warning does have many variants. The Supreme Court didn’t suggest a specific wording. But it did say, as of interest to this case, “prior to interrogation, [the suspect must] be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent”, and “the person must be clearly informed”. The defense didn’t contest that he wasn’t informed before the integration nor that he wasn’t clearly informed, only that he remained silent. Just because he didn’t say anything, didn’t mean the officers were to interpret it as meaning he wanted to remain silent. As a matter of fact, when he answered the questions, it was clear that he wanted to talk.

In this situation, suspects must clearly state their intentions. This is a sensible decision that should be supported by the community.

Of course, there are exceptions that hopefully will be worked out in practice. Police and others can’t assume that someone understands English enough to comprehend what is required of them. The suspects also can’t be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, recreational or prescription. Also, if the suspect is from another country or if his lawyer gives him bad advice about speaking to police, the suspect must be given the benefit of doubt about his understanding of the protections in the United States.

The United States has a very well regulated police force that rarely gets out of control. They also have well established legal rights that every individual is aware of if they have spent a reasonable amount of time in country. The police have a tough job to do and should be granted some room to do that job.

Given this situation, individuals must take responsibility for acting on these rights when confronted by authorities.

-----

Thank you, Clorox

How many corporations are helping make America safe by changing the way they do business? Clorox is by eliminating the use of chlorine gas in all seven of its production plants in the United States. This announcement was made by Greenpeace a few months ago and didn’t receive much media coverage. But, this is a positive move on Clorox’s part in supporting the community.


The change will make the community a much safer place by, first, eliminating the risk of chlorine gas poisoning for over 13 million Americans that live downwind of the seven plants. (Remember Union Carbide’s Bhopal chemical gas release in 1984.) It will also eliminate the risk that is posed by transporting 90 ton rail cars across the country. Finally, it will take Clorox's plants off lists that are targeted by terrorist because of the danger they present.

This makes good business sense as well. By converting to more cost effective and safer chemicals Clorox will operate in a less restrictive regulatory environment. Regulation of chemicals like Chlorine were developed and implemented because of the risk it presents to people and the environment. These regulations were not needed before the chemicals were developed. With most corporations operating in secrecy and using newly developed chemicals that all the dangers they present may not be known, the community has every right to know about their use. This enables individuals to make decisions about where to live and what products to use. These regulations empower the responsible individual.

When this conversion is completed, it will be a safer world from the manufacturing of the products, and the decrease threat of terrorist attack. These are real community solutions to real community concerns.

Thank you, Clorox.

Bhopal gas leak - http://www.bhopal.com/

Greenpeace press release - http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/clorox-to-eliminate-chlorine-d

BP Oil Spill - Gulf Leak Meter

The oil gushing from a well head a mile under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico may take until August to stop. The latest plan that has been concocted by BP could make it worse. Is everyone watching this?

Since BP’s well head in the Gulf of Mexico went up in flames April 20, 2010, a mind boggling amount of petroleum has been released into the environment. Every day 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil are still leaking. (1) Much of it has come to the surface and floating to the Gulf coast of the United States. It is destroying tourism, fisheries, coastal micro environments and taking a huge toll on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that earn an income from these industries.

Our obsession with petroleum powered automobiles and power plants has placed us in this situation. Since we reached peak oil (2) many years ago, supply has not kept up with demand. This isn’t just be
cause of our usage alone, the entire world is becoming more industrialized and relying on the same resources we have for over a hundred years now.

With the tremendous growth in demand, comes greater risk taking in finding more of the fuel. Once it was relatively safe, cheap and easy to find new sources of oil, now we have to go places that apparently, we don’t know how to bridle if things get out of control. All the plans that were made to prevent and repair this oil leak haven’t worked. The problem with this one well could be small compared to the thousands (3,860 to be precise) we have in the Gulf if they get out of control. What if another one blows up?

It is bad enough that we are destroying our own coast lines. Think if the oil had gone into Mexico or Central America. Not only would this have been an environmental problem it would have been an international problem.

Now, reports are coming to the attention of the media about many of the wells in the Gulf not having the permits needed to actually do the drilling. The government has been very lax on oversight of the exploration. Also, regulators are relying on the expertise of oil company engineers instead of hiring their own experts or seeking third party examination of the company plans. (3) This is happening because both, reports illustrate that there is a much too close relationship between the regulators and the industry and the agencies in charge of the oversight are not funded well enough to be able to afford the staff they need to do the job properly.

What to do?

Tax the entire industry for these problems. This will force other companies to help pay for the problems of anyone of them. Will it raise the cost of gas at the pump? Yes. And maybe that is what we need to help us pay attention to all of this. Nothing focuses attention like paying for a problem.

Fund the agencies that are in charge of oversight appropriately so they can hire their own experts. This will allow the needed critical analyses of the plans to make sure they are going to work in a secure and safe manner.

Stop allowing the close relationship between the regulators and the industry they monitor. No gifts or entertainment with industry people and regulators. Also, make the agency people partially responsible for the problems that their lack of oversight causes.

Make stock holders of the companies that cause the problem pay some of the damages. If you hold stock in the company at the time of the problem, you pay a fine on each share. This will help keep money from being invested in companies that take undue risks and bribe regulators.

Instead of executives of the companies that cause these problems just paying for clean up and a fine from the funds of the companies they run, give them a personal fine and jail time for their poor behavior.

Finally, as a country (and the world for that matter) move away from resources that aren’t renewable. When we depend on a limited resource like oil, it will peak. When it does, risks will be taken that shouldn’t be taken.

Are these tough things to do? Yes. But ask the people on the gulf coast that depend on the fisheries or tourism what they think. If your income was cut off because of this problem, how would you feel? As a community we must work at protecting everyone and preventing this from happening again.

1 How many gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil? - http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm

2 Peak Oil - http://peakoil.com/what-is-peak-oil/

3 BP was doing what was expected - http://responsiblecommunity.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-was-doing-what-was-expected.html

Date - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/bp-offshore-oil-rig-explosion

-----

They All Fought for All of Us

It is Memorial Day, the day we are to remember those that fought and died for America. It is interesting that the holiday has its roots in the Civil War. On the first Memorial Day (it was called Decoration Day then), May 30, 1868, the graves of soldiers that died in the War Between the States were decorated, in both the North and the South.

The Civil War was fought between families, friends and neighbors. Those that enlisted made a decision based on fighting for their country, on both sides. The people that would benefit from their sacrifice were not always just like them. Yet, everyone was honored, no matter their side.

Today, we have an all volunteer military. So those in the military enlisted because they felt the calling to do so. They, like the fallen during the Civil War, came from many different backgrounds. Poor, rich, educated or not. Men and Woman, of many different nationalities and cultural backgrounds. They are Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindu and many other religions or none at all. They are straight, gay, married or single. Most are citizens, a few are not.

They didn’t enlist to fight just for their own point of view. They didn’t enlist to protect the conservatives or liberals. They don’t fight for one religion or another. It wasn’t for the south, the north or western states. Like those that enlisted during the Civil War, they joined to fight for their country, setting aside their own personal stories and feelings.

This is where the honor we bestow on them should rest, that no matter their own background or personal point of view, they took up arms willing to sacrifice their own lives if necessary for America and its freedoms.

The next time we think that this country is home to just one religion, or political point of view, think of the men and women of the military. All of them fighting for all of us. Their backgrounds are as diverse as ours. If we think that this great land is just for one political view point, religion, or lifestyle, and denying a single right to anyone, we might as well be denying that right to anyone of them.

From all of us in America, we pledge to honor all of you, the men and women of the military for all you have fought for and will continue to fight for.

Thank you.

-----

Expanding Visitation Rights to Gays and Others

The headline reads “Obama orders most hospitals to grant gays visitation rights”.


But read on, the article later reads that this would also allow visitation by un-married heterosexual couples, people of religious orders that may not allow marriage, elderly people with deceased spouses and others.

President Obama issued a memo to the Health and Human Services agency ordering the secretary to ensure that all hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid money to honor all patient’s directives about visitation privileges. This means that the patient can list people he or she would like to have visitation privileges without regard to family status.

A senior fellow at the conservative Family Research Council, Peter Sprigg, insists that, “The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage and furthers big government takeover” of the health care system.

It is difficult to find a compelling reason why government or hospitals should allow visitation rights to only family members when the patient requests non-family members visitation rights. Government should only act when there is a risk to the secure and safe environment. Then, it should act in the least intrusive way. No valid argument can be made that proves this is a takeover of the health care system or undermining the definition of marriage. Just the opposite. First, this is getting government and policy out of the health care system. Second, if a patient requests someone to have visitation rights, why should those rights be denied?

This is a big step for gay couples who in the past have not been able to see their loved one because of outdated hospital rules and cultural norms. But, it is important to understand something even more fundamental. When one person has less rights, all do. These same outdated rules excluded plenty of other people.

People in ill health need the support of people they share an emotional bond with. This move helps assure that they will be around when needed.

-----

Kilpatrick Received Equal Justice Under Law

“Equal justice under law”, which is written over the entrance to the Supreme Court building, means that all will be held accountable to the same law, it doesn’t mean that all will receive the same sentence. It has never been that way and should never be that way.

The words “Equal justice under law” were used yesterday by Kwame Kilpatrick’s New York City-based spokesperson Mike Paul. He didn’t think that the former mayor received a fair sentence yesterday in a Detroit court for violating his probation.

Kilpatrick, who admitted to lying under oath to a grand jury and other charges, spent 120 days in jail before being released on probation. He still had to make restitution to the City of Detroit of a $1,000,000. Then, Kilpatrick moved to Dallas, Texas and lived a very comfortable life style to say the least. For a few months he kept up with his restitution payments but then began to default. After a long legal battle, Judge David Groner sentenced Kilpatrick to one and a half to five years in prison. After the sentencing, Paul said that the Ex-Mayor was, “Clearly not treated equal to all citizens under the law. As a result, treating him differently is unconstitutional.”

Kilpatrick was held accountable to the same law as everyone else. This wasn’t any special law that was created just for his case. He even admitted to the crime and accepted a punishment that saved him from jail time other than the 120 days.

The Judge Groner may have indeed sentenced him to more time than the average for violating his parole, but judges have wide discretion on most cases, as it should be. As a community, we would like everyone to be held accountable to the same law. But, if there are circumstances that lead a judge to believe that they are not fully responsible or the accused has fully accepted his responsibility, then sentencing should be lighter. On the other side, if the judge believes a stronger punishment is due, then it should be done.

A politician that violates the trust placed in him by the voters should be held accountable to a higher standard. As an example to other people in the same position, harsher treatment of Kilpatrick was justified.

-----

Pontiac Man Challenges City on Right to Carry Handgun

Ben Shattuck of Pontiac carries his side arm with him in open view. He carried it with him when he made a statement about Pontiac’s gun law to the city council. It certainly is his right, but not necessary.


In a Responsible Community we did not give up the right to own weapons. But, if the community has a compelling reason to restrict gun possession and use, then it has the responsibility to act in a reasonable and limited manner to protect the community. This means, with some exceptions, it can act unilaterally from any higher governmental body. It could require a permit to even carry the weapon in the open as Shattuck does, or make it illegal to carry a weapon anywhere in public.

This is where the responsible community parts with the constitution. But since we live in a community that has an excellent constitution, we must stand by its standards. That doesn’t mean that the understanding of the document can be clear at all times or that we can all agree with that understanding. We must search for middle ground.

The Second Amendment has wide interpretation across the political spectrum. One viewpoint says that individuals have the right to bear arms in a limited way because of the statement about a well regulated militia. Others believe in a more open understanding, that individuals have the right to bear arms regardless of their membership in a well regulated militia. In either extreme, it is clear that individuals have at least some right to own and bear arms. So Ben Shattuck does have the right to own firearms in his home and on his person with reasonable restrictions.

But, no right is absolute even in an open interpretation. The Constitution never meant to guarantee any right beyond the point of safety. Government, with compelling reasons, can and should restrict ownership and use of firearms. Some examples might be requiring training on use and safety, surrendering the weapon when requested by a police officer or proper holstering.

The current interpretation of the Constitution does allow Mr. Shattuck to own a weapon and carry his weapon around with him. The City of Pontiac can’t stop him from owning but it should be able to restrict its use for compelling reasons.