FBI violated my son's ADA rights

posts from hell said:
in your other post it says 10 yr old.

just a fyi.
Click to expand...

Yea I saw that. I didn't care enough to correct. In theory, the answer should be the same for 10 and 13 year old..... or is it...? Who knows what goes on in Duray's mind?
 
rolling7 said:
Has anyone given consideration to a deaf person who can neither read nor write English and has no terp.? How then is that deaf person's Miranda rights given? Also, there is a problem with the search warrant being "good" if the person can not read it.
Click to expand...


If someone cannot read or write English/Spanish/any language and is deaf, then the officers clearly won't be able to get a confession out of him, so he can't really perjure himself, can he?

Unless someone is significantly cognitively impaired, it is fair to assume that they would understand what was going on. If the officers showed due process, an terp can always be found after he is taken into custody. If no one is in immediate danger and no one is expected to flee, you could always argue that the officers could've waited for accommodations. But if someone can read, that's an accommodation.

If someone IS cognitively impaired, then it would be up to the judge to see if he was competent to stand trial and in what form. Still, cognitive impairments do not excuse you from the law. If you were dhh on top of it, then it would be up to law enforcement to make sure you weren't discriminated against (ie, they shouldn't have an easier case against you because you are dhh) but the law is there to protect due process, not be your attorney.
 
TheOracle said:
If someone cannot read or write English/Spanish/any language and is deaf, then the officers clearly won't be able to get a confession out of him, so he can't really perjure himself, can he?

Unless someone is significantly cognitively impaired, it is fair to assume that they would understand what was going on. If the officers showed due process, an terp can always be found after he is taken into custody. If no one is in immediate danger and no one is expected to flee, you could always argue that the officers could've waited for accommodations. But if someone can read, that's an accommodation.

If someone IS cognitively impaired, then it would be up to the judge to see if he was competent to stand trial and in what form. Still, cognitive impairments do not excuse you from the law. If you were dhh on top of it, then it would be up to law enforcement to make sure you weren't discriminated against (ie, they shouldn't have an easier case against you because you are dhh) but the law is there to protect due process, not be your attorney.
Click to expand...

No, No....
 
PS You have to be told your "Miranda" rights before you are INTERROGATED by the police. So after someone is taken into custody (ie, they can't just walk off), they should be notified of these rights AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. So just because you're under arrest, doesn't mean I have to read you those rights immediately. It can be done after you're booked.
 
Um, yes. When I said "going on", I meant the conscious thought of, "This is an officer. These are handcuffs. I am in custody."

That does NOT mean, "I understand everything an officer is saying."

No smart officer is going to interrogate a person who is deaf or get any statements without an interpreter or finding that person's primary mode of communication.
 
TheOracle said:
Um, yes. When I said "going on", I meant the conscious thought of, "This is an officer. These are handcuffs. I am in custody."

That does NOT mean, "I understand everything an officer is saying."

No smart officer is going to interrogate a person who is deaf or get any statements without an interpreter or finding that person's primary mode of communication.
Click to expand...

I think I get what you mean...


If a deaf person has no cognitive issues but struggles with English due to not mastering it, then that person is competent to stand trial.

However, if a deaf person has cognitive difficulties especially with processing language whether it is ASL or English, that person probably wouldnt be competent to stand trial.
 
TheOracle said:
If someone cannot read or write English/Spanish/any language and is deaf, then the officers clearly won't be able to get a confession out of him, so he can't really perjure himself, can he?
Click to expand...
The Miranda Rights protect against self incrimination, not perjury.

Some police departments have pre-recorded versions of Miranda that people can view but that's not the ideal way to do it. It's best to wait for the terp to show up.

... But if someone can read, that's an accommodation.
Click to expand...
That's a big IF.
 
Right. Perjury is essentially lying under oath. But if I give one story to a police officer and change my story later, I "perjured" myself.

However, if I can't communicate with the officer and the officer can't communicate with me, then I can't perjure myself!

:)

Yes, it is always best to use a terp. But if there is a situation in which the person in suspect must be arrested (say, he has a weapon or he may flee), then the officers can arrest him. Concerning Miranda rights, those should be given after he is taken into custody and before his is interrogated. The purpose of Miranda is to let the suspect know he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, basically. And part of Miranda is making sure the person in custody understands it. So you won't give someone their Miranda rights in a language they don't understand. If it is given in writing first and repeated by terp later (provided ASL is preferred method of communication) and this all occurs before interrogation, the police department should be safe.

You can't just let someone sit in a cell for a few days before a terp comes, though. Basically, as long as a dhh and a hearing person are afforded the same potential outcome, it isn't violating the law.
 
shel90 said:
I think I get what you mean...


If a deaf person has no cognitive issues but struggles with English due to not mastering it, then that person is competent to stand trial.

However, if a deaf person has cognitive difficulties especially with processing language whether it is ASL or English, that person probably wouldn't be competent to stand trial.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Incompetence doesn't mean you can't be arrested. It means that you don't have the competence to 1) understand the proceedings and possible outcomes 2) defend yourself & aid your attorney. Generally, this means from a mental health standpoint, but if someone can't understand their Miranda rights (in ANY language) they can't understand the legal system and probably won't be able to grasp the "cause and effect" system we have in the States.
 
Last edited:
TheOracle said:
Right. Perjury is essentially lying under oath. But if I give one story to a police officer and change my story later, I "perjured" myself.

However, if I can't communicate with the officer and the officer can't communicate with me, then I can't perjure myself!

:)

Yes, it is always best to use a terp. But if there is a situation in which the person in suspect must be arrested (say, he has a weapon or he may flee), then the officers can arrest him. Concerning Miranda rights, those should be given after he is taken into custody and before his is interrogated. The purpose of Miranda is to let the suspect know he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, basically. And part of Miranda is making sure the person in custody understands it. So you won't give someone their Miranda rights in a language they don't understand. If it is given in writing first and repeated by terp later (provided ASL is preferred method of communication) and this all occurs before interrogation, the police department should be safe.

You can't just let someone sit in a cell for a few days before a terp comes, though. Basically, as long as a dhh and a hearing person are afforded the same potential outcome, it isn't violating the law.
Click to expand...

Perjury? Maybe you should consult a dictionary.
 
TheOracle said:
Yeah. Incompetence doesn't mean you can't be arrested. It means that if you don't have the competence to 1) understand the proceedings and possible outcomes 2) defend yourself & aid your attorney. Generally, this means from a mental health standpoint, but if someone can't understand their Miranda rights (in ANY language) they can't understand the legal system and probably won't be able to grasp the "cause and effect" system we have in the States.
Click to expand...

Oh, for God's sake.
 
So...do you want to dispute what competence means or 'to perjure yourself'?

Basically, it means to get caught in the act of a lie. So I may lie to the officer at the time of arrest or lie on the stand, but if the prosecution shows that I made an incriminating statement that counters a previous statement, and both statements were made after knowing my rights, then I just perjured myself.

Basically, Miranda rights are telling you that you have the right to keep your fn mouth shut. Anything you say can become evidence. If I'm being arrested for something, why would I give the police evidence that I did the crime?
 
Daredevelopment7,
no it is illegal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old, girl or boy. that is rape according to the legal definition.
but in some deaf schools, that is normal for dorm staffs to rape/have sex with innocent deaf kids.

Daredevel7 said:
Duray, you did not answer my question: what do you call a 40 year old man who has sex with a 13 year old? Is this normal to you?
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer, how come you have not written that it is wrong? Do you advocated sex with young kids??? What exactly is your anger?


Steinhauer said:
Duray,

Lets get something "straight" here. A pedophile is a pedophile. A homosexual is a homosexual. Homosexual does not mean pedophile. Pedophile does not mean homosexual. The two different terms do not have any connection whatsoever.

The homosexual community has nothing to do with NAMBLA - the homosexual community wants NOTHING to do with pedophiles. Pedophiles are a nasty scourge on our society. Homosexuals are not.

Homosexuality exists between two consenting mature adults. Pedophilia does not. Whether or not you agree with homosexuality is not an issue - you are making a non issue an issue when it isn't an issue at all.

What exactly are your issues? Where are your sources?
Click to expand...
 
DURAY said:
Daredevelopment7,
no it is illegal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old, girl or boy. that is rape according to the legal definition.
but in some deaf schools, that is normal for dorm staffs to rape/have sex with innocent deaf kids.
Click to expand...
Normal? Where are your sources? And what is with the "it is illegal" comment, but not "it is wrong" above, yet you demand just that in the Steinhauer rebuttal below?

DURAY said:
Originally Posted by Steinhauer
Duray,

Lets get something "straight" here. A pedophile is a pedophile. A homosexual is a homosexual. Homosexual does not mean pedophile. Pedophile does not mean homosexual. The two different terms do not have any connection whatsoever.

The homosexual community has nothing to do with NAMBLA - the homosexual community wants NOTHING to do with pedophiles. Pedophiles are a nasty scourge on our society. Homosexuals are not.

Homosexuality exists between two consenting mature adults. Pedophilia does not. Whether or not you agree with homosexuality is not an issue - you are making a non issue an issue when it isn't an issue at all.

What exactly are your issues? Where are your sources?
Click to expand...
Steinhauer, how come you have not written that it is wrong? Do you advocated sex with young kids??? What exactly is your anger?
Click to expand...
See, to most of the educated people of the world, pedophilia is a word that stands alone and means WRONG. No need to embellish it with adjectives. You chose not to above, but expected Steinhauer to write it is his reply, which was plenty long in comparison to yours.
What exactly is YOUR problem? Are you one of those secret extremist right wing militia members hiding out in the foothills of Montana? "Kill the Liberalist pigs, we must advance our agenda as martyrs for tax freedom!"
 
It's horrible what this thread has turned into. We went from a mother with simple ADA questions, to accusing homosexuals of being sexual predators...

I myself am a lesbian, and I work with exceptional needs special education students and a Christian- a Quaker. I would rather CUT OFF MY OWN LEGS with a hand saw then ever hurt any of these children in any way, let alone in -that- way. I am a homosexual, I am not a pedophile, and I find it offensive to make the comparison. Pedophilia is wrong, and if ever found out one of my children had been hurt that way, I very well may have a very hard time not killing the fucker who did it.

You Duray, are ignorant, and I do truly hope that one day your views will change. But I'm not holding my breath.
 
DURAY said:
Daredevelopment7,
no it is illegal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old, girl or boy. that is rape according to the legal definition.
but in some deaf schools, that is normal for dorm staffs to rape/have sex with innocent deaf kids.
Click to expand...
Nothing normal about that.
 
plasticdinosaur said:
It's horrible what this thread has turned into. We went from a mother with simple ADA questions, to accusing homosexuals of being sexual predators...

I myself am a lesbian, and I work with exceptional needs special education students and a Christian- a Quaker. I would rather CUT OFF MY OWN LEGS with a hand saw then ever hurt any of these children in any way, let alone in -that- way. I am a homosexual, I am not a pedophile, and I find it offensive to make the comparison. Pedophilia is wrong, and if ever found out one of my children had been hurt that way, I very well may have a very hard time not killing the fucker who did it.

You Duray, are ignorant, and I do truly hope that one day your views will change. But I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

I sure hope not. I believe 19 minutes is the world record.
 
Back
Top