Donald Sterling Banned From NBA Games For Life

I had a lawyer.

edit: which funny enough apparently in VA you're not entitled to one of those either, unless they're seeking jail time.

Fair enough

I don't know of any state that would provide you a lawyer for a civil case.

Criminal, however, are required, and usually you get the bottom of the barrel lawyers too.

criminal, and while bottom of the barrel still: nope.

shocked the hell out of me too

Well, in Texas at the very least, you will receive a lawyer for a criminal trial, and it would be taxpayer paid (local, not state/federal).

You have to elect out of having a lawyer represent you in criminal court.

That's only during trial. The attachment of the 6th amendment to the state courts is during any "critical phase". Police interrogations have been determined to be "critical phase" as anything said can be used as evidence against you. The police officers themselves could stand as witness's to what you said, something that video I posted explains in detail.

You never ever have to say anything to the police. Also police officers don't have intent, they can't make deals and nothing they say during an interrogation holds any weight in court. They could promise you that they aren't going to seek charges against you and it wouldn't mean a damn thing. Only the prosecuting attorney can do that stuff. That is why 5th amendment protections are always assumed to be in effect.

The two magic questions are,
#1 Am I being detained or am I free to go?

This forces the police investigator to either detain you, and therefor acknowledge your 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights or acknowledge that you are free to leave. There is no in-between, no "you can leave after X", you either are free to go or you are being detained for questioning.

#2 I wish to have an attorney present and will not speak with you otherwise.

That forces them to acknowledge your 6th amendment rights and provide you with one or cease questioning you and acknowledge your 4th and 5th amendment rights.

I know all this because I have an attorney on speed dial. I was taught early on to treat legal representation like insurance. Whenever I have any dealings with any law enforcement official when I'm back in the states, the first thing I do is pull out the cell phone and immediately call my legal office (company contracts out legal services for it's employees). Police will say all sorts of ***to get you to not have an attorney present as that makes their job 100 times harder.

Chances are your misunderstanding the 6th amendment. It only guarantees you a lawyer if you can't afford one. Then you get a state lawyer who's usually fresh out of school and has an obscene case load. They deliberately run those guys ragged so that they can't provide adequate defenses. That BTW is why you see harsher jail sentences and higher conviction rates for poorer defendants. Having a lawyer with you from the very beginning can and will save you a ton of hassle.

The part I'm arguing for is that you have a right to have your legal representative present during police interrogation. That part where they bring you into the police building and put you in that room with the microphones in the ceilings.

Was told I wasn't offerend one because they weren't seeking jail time, by the judge. I've had one before, they didn't even do the part of filling out the paperwork to see if I could afford one.

Hence why I went to the thing unprepared as I was planning to be filling out paperwork and having another appointment.

I couldn't afford a lawyer for appeal either.

I wasn't talking about the interrogation room, hence why I said you were confusing yourself.

You were saying this


Which is you talking about the interrogation part.

Sounds like the police pulled one over on you cause you didn't know those two magic statements I provided.

As for the trial lawyer, that depends on state. If it's a misdemeanor they might not require one unless you plead innocent and therefor require an actual trial. This is in contract to an offense which isn't typically considered a crime. Traffic tickets, citations, drunk and disorderly conduct and other things offenses.

The difference is that offenses are limited monetary fines while felonies and misdemeanors are punishable with jail time. Felonies always require legal consul, misdemeanors depend on the jurisdiction.

I was talking about all interrogations, not just in their special little room.

I used the phrase "before the lawyer shows up" to cover before you lawyer up all in one phrase.

The police haven't pulled a fast one on me, but nice guessing.

I'm just saying: if you're out in the general public and if the police ask you a question, you need to plead the 5th, you cannot just not answer them.

Stunx you need to cut that ***out playa, what's wrong is wrong ... whats right is right... If you don't like a group of ppl are you gonna hang with them? nope. So if he doesn't like a group of ppl why have them work for you? last I checked that happened when salves was legal no? come on man... this isn't one of those "opinion type deals" where your gonna cop-out that way... if so am I okay to say that hitler was a great man for what he did and believed in?

Right and Wrong are two sides of the same coin.

beliefs and actions are two different things. Hitler acted on his beliefs in an extreme way.

I made it very clear I didnt agree with the dude's opinion. but at the same time it didnt phase me much either. my reaction: "and? another old dude with an old way of thinking" it will all die out with time.

Yes and no. Earlier I was referring to a court room or interrogation with you not being required to say a single word. If it's a patrol officer (not a detective or investigator) walking up to you asking you something, you can just say you don't wish to talk to them and that's it. They can't force you to say anything after that. Technically you have your 5th amendment protections anytime they are questioning you regardless. There exists a small loophole in that a street police officer can always claim he wasn't questioning you as a suspect and thus you were never placed in jeopardy. You, as a citizen, would never know if he was or was not treating you as a suspect and thus should always assume he is. Which is why you always ask that first question I provided, it forces them to chose a side and stick with it.

Again you got one pulled over on you.

There is another magic statement everyone should know. If an officer ever asks to "check around" your house or look into your car you just reply "Officer I do not consent to any search's of my private belongings". They can do jack sh!t at this point in time, because if they persist your next question is going to be #1 from above. They can't search nor detain you without probably cause and if they had that they wouldn't be asking in the first place.

Hell if all this confuses anyone print this out and carry it with you.

http://www.assertrights.com/

Police are not your friends and it's never advisable to deal with them without legal representation. They have dug themselves into this grave by being overly militant and railroading too many people.

Man you're one confused puppy and just wish to keep parading over people and too arrogant to understand that I'm saying the exact same thing, short of you being contradictory.

Nope just you trying to buffalo and bluster some more. I called you on your BS because I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've provided the information so people know exactly what to do and how to handle police interactions in a way that maximizes their safety. You screwed up and ended up having a police officer pull a fast one on you.

It's ok to admit it, everyone screws up sometimes.

And as much as I'm entertained by your attempts to save face, it's not worth my time so your going the way of kenshynofshiva.

with what you just said in that quote, what does it say about donald sterling (in your opinion) who apparently didnt like the ppl he would in FACT hang out with some black people (his black ex girlfriend for example) and a whole team and front office with many black people working for him?

so ask yourself your own question "So if he doesn't like a group of ppl why have them work for you?" to my understanding of your logic his actions would suggest he he does like them.

Im not supporting Donald Sterling by pointing this out, I'm just confused by the points you failed to make.

Simple answer. They can make him money. You dont have to like the people you work for or with lol.

Oh i understand that fine, which was most likely the reality of Donald Sterling's situation. The question was for the dude I quoted, I didnt understand the point he was trying to make.

To be fair, people often hang out with people they don't like, or completely despise all the time, in order to benefit themselves in some way. They often also badmouth these same people behind their backs to another person, or group of people, assuming anything they said was private.

Note to the unwise, any time you open your mouth, you will remove all doubt as to whether or not others see you as a fool.

I never liked that saying. Leaves too much to interoretation and opinion. That and people can be pretty convincing at times lol

looooooooool

If you're arguing about the application of constitutional law to this situation, you're astoundingly ignorant.



The method in which the tapes were obtained, illegal or otherwise, has no bearing on the consequences suffered by Sterling from a private organization. As reasoned multiple times before, they are separate matters.

Belief is what motivate action No? Just sayin... lets stop trying to be devils advocate and put yourself in those peoples shoes . it's *** up plain and simple. I just love it how people try to make it okay in some way or fashion... lets reflect back to Paula Dean "But But... She was raised in that era she should be excused" really?

You are correct. I don't think anyone was arguing what the NBA did to Sterling.

I believe the argument is "Did TMZ break the law by releasing said information in the first place, and will/should they be held accountable."

If you read (and understood) what people wrote, you wouldn't be trying to create an argument nobody was arguing with you about.

Here's the best way to get you to understand... Let someone disrespect you and your family in a demeaning way and see if you feel the same way.. talk this talk you rapping bout now.

I didn't misunderstand anything. The current excuse for Sterling is that his conversation was private or somehow constitutionally protected. Neither of those matter to his current situation. No need to carry water for every rich white guy that gets in trouble.

Freedom of the press

It was private.

The Constitution was earlier misrepresented by myself, which have been corrected by me, but if you bothered to even read it before inserting your foot in your mouth, you would have seen that. It has since been corrected, and even shown that there would not even be a defense for TMZ to hide behind.

Why are you playing the race card? Or is that the only way you know to backpedal out of your own mistake?