Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft How important is it that the miranda rights be read before questioning

[BabyDoll]

My son's court appointed attorney is aware...

That the police question him AFTER they arrested him and told him that if he didn't answer, he would get 5-10 years in prison.
They read his rights to him the next day.

Yet, she is not pressing them on this. She only wants to make a deal with prosecution because she feels that if it goes to court, she might lose the case, seeing that she has only been practicing law for 2 years. My son is charged with armed robbery, but he was only with 2 guys who themselves were robbing the lady. He was a victim in that they forced him at gunpoint to be with them. Unfortunately, the lady who they robbed is claiming that my son pointed a gun at her and said he would kill her. They could not find the gun used, in his car, so they have placed "another gun".

The first court appointed attorney did not visit my son at all for three months and then he lost the case to the current court appointed attorney. I've said all of that to say this, this court system is so messed up and unorganized here. Yet, we don't have the money for a private lawyer. One private attorney has offered to take the case for only $5,000 when he would normally charge $15,000. However, all we have been able to come up with is $2,000 and his court date is April 1st.

The attorney says that she can't do anything about the particulars because the fact of the matter is, the VICTIM has said that my son pointed a gun at her. And because she is the victim and my son is the accused, the jurors will automatically believe the victim and find my son guilty. Therefore, she wants my son to plead guilty so that he is just get ten years instead of 30. The problem is, my son does not want to plead guilty to something he did not do and he says it shouldn't be this easy to send someone to prison for 30 years, just because the victim says...He pointed a gun at me.

I told the attorney that she should work to get the case thrown out because of the conflicting police reports, his rights were not read to him before he was questioned and the strange gun that the police say was used. She says if they said that that was the gun, why would they lie?


But I say, why would they knowingly let the other two guys run around town, free for more than a month, before they arrest them. They even questioned one of them to get a police report on my son, then let him go. I know this for a fact because the man called my house, bragging about how they questioned him about my son's part in the crime, then let him go.


I was angry...very angry. That's when I called the investigator who questioned this guy and started complaining. Then and only then did they arrest the two men who actually did the crime, but they are only charged as a principle to the crime, even though they both have long criminal histories that date back to when they were 14 and they are now adults. My son has never been in trouble before and is a hard working man. It was clear that they intended to let my son carry the whole load of the crime by himself. I am not one to pull the race card but I had to face the fact that since the 2 men that were involved were white, it was possible.

Can anyone advise me as to the importance of the miranda rights being read to you before questioning??? I apologize for going so long...forgive me.

 

[NYClex]

wow. Well, first, the Miranda rights are important, but they won't solve your son's problems. The best that can happen is that everything he said to the police will be thrown out, that is, cannot be used in court. A jury will never hear it.

BUT, that would leave the most damaging part of the testimony still in place. The most damaging part here is the statement of the victim. Try to put yourself in the jury box: what do you believe: the victim who says: "this guy pointed a gun at me" or the accused who says, no no, it was really the other way round, I was the victim here.

I am not saying that this isn't the truth, but think like a juror.

As you can see, the state could easily go for a trial even if they would lose whatever your son said to the police when they questioned him. They would go to trial even if he had never opened his mouth and even if they would have read the rights. The victim's testimony is their trump.

So, in a way the attorney is right, you would have to have a very good story to convince a jury that things are not as they appear to be.

On the other hand, 10 years is a very long time. May be it is worth fighting for it. That I cannot judge, since I don't know the circumstances of the case. If your son is not willing to make a deal, there won't be a deal. But there could be 30 years in the end.

The Miranda thing, as well founded it might be, would not save him in this case.

 

[BabyDoll]

I Thought...

I thought that my son was innocent until PROVEN guilty. Why is it that he is having to prove he is innocent, if the burden of proof is on the prosecution. A victim should not be able to send a person to prison for 30 years, just because THEY say someone pointed a gun at them. This is serious because in Florida we have the 10-20-LIFE law. The prosecution should be able to prove this and taking into consideration the fact that the police has "substituted" a gun because they could not find the gun that the other two men had, it is just not right. The woman has obviously been "coached" by prosecution AND police as to what to say concerning the appearance of the gun. Lord, only knows what else they may have told her to embellish her story with in order to make sure their case is strong.

This simply is not right. They should have PROVE their allegations beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is why I am no longer a proponent of the death penalty here in Florida. A simple exaggeration by a witness can send someone to the electric chair.

 

[NYClex]

I understand that you are vigorously taking the side of your son, but try to see it with the eyes of someone neutral, like a juror.

It is not that your son must prove his innocence. The state has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But if you would be sitting on a jury and the state brings an eywitness/victim who says: "THIS GUY POINTED A GUN AT ME WHILE HIS BUDDIES ROBBED ME", what do you expect anyone with common sense thinks?: That he is guilty. By bringing that witness the state will prove his guilt.

If your attorney would see a point in going against that testimony, for example because it was dead at night in an unlit alley and the victim is blind anyway, then she probably would do it and try to discredit the testimony. But in normal circumstances you only turn the jury against you if you try to discredit the victim. That is not unfair but that is common sense.

Sorry to say that, but if your son was there, had a gun in his hand, pointed at that lady while she was being robbed... it is really not sensible to expect anyone not to believe that he didn't do it.

You say: the other two guys forced him at gun point. The witness says, no, HE held the gun and pointed it at me. That is a pretty different story.

Your son hang out with the wrong people and probably has to pay for it now. He should have thought about that before. If I were him, knowing only the facts you told me so far, I would take the deal the prosecutor is offering.

 

[BabyDoll]

Question

Sorry to say that, but if your son was there, had a gun in his hand, pointed at that lady while she was being robbed... it is really not sensible to expect anyone not to believe that he didn't do it.

He was there, but he didn't have a gun in his hand and of course since he didn't have a gun in his hand, he could not have pointed one at her. That's why I am upset that the victim is so bent on sending them all to prison...all three. Maybe, she think that my son will come back and get her for sending the other two to prison, therefore, she is doing all she can to make sure my son goes to prison for a long time also.

I understand what you are saying though. I had warned my son about those 2 guys. Parents just have a 6th sense when it comes to things like that. I also understand what you are saying concerning the jurors. This is what his "court appointed" attorney basically told him. However, she is on the side of the prosecution and that's what I expect from her. She is helping prosecution undermine my son's case because she doesn't want to take it to court. She told me that she has only being practicing law for 2 years and has only gone to trial once...she lost. She said all of her other cases plead out and that's what she wants my son to do.

My son is not wanting to be "bullied" into a plea. He is willing to go to trial and fight this. Here's my question to you.

Can a court appointed attorney have police statements struck from the depositions taken?

The reason I am asking is, that to further build their case, one of the policemen ran a check on my computer and printer that was in my car and in the deposition, he said when he called it in, it proved to be stolen merchandise. That computer and printer he was referring to happens to be MY computer and MY printer. When my son pointed this out to his attorney, she only got mad and told him that that was a "typo" and that she was having it removed from the deposition. How can she do that???

He also pointed out another "straight out" lie by another policeman and she said she was having that removed too. How can she do that and yet be my son's lawyer???

See, the reason my son is fighting this so hard is that, the victim and the police have collaborated a story that is a complete lie, being presented as the truth.

Furthermore, my son wrote her (the attorney) a letter last week and in it, he said that it is a risk for us to take this to court, but I may have to. She saw him Friday and brought the letter with her. Guess what, she is wanting to file a charge against my son. Why??? Because she believes that when my son wrote that, he was actually making a threat against her life if she didn't win the case...I am serious.

So do you see what I am dealing with. Sir, this is so bizarre. It is scary, the extent they are going in making sure my son goes to prison. My son told her that he thought that they were working on the case together and that's why he said, "we". However, she told him that going to court was no risk for her, because if she loses the case, she is not going to prison and her life goes on as usual. She smirked at him and then began making negative comments about us, his parents. These past months have been so unbelieveable that even as I write this, I have to wonder if you don't believe I'm some kind of nut case. However, this is real.

The prosecution was suppose to supply the "motion for discovery" material within 30 of the attorney demanding it. Do you know that it was over 60 days before they released it, yet the attorney says there is not wrong with them taking so long and there is no penalty for going beyond 30 days.

We are doing all we can to come up with the money for our own attorney so that my son has a good chance of getting probation or complete freedom. We have $2,000 more to go, yet his trial is scheduled for April 1st.

The victim is an officer's wife and he lives in Korea. He has been stationed there for 2 years. The judge specifically appointed this attorney because he wanted someone who would help he secure his case against my son. The police as I said earlier, could not find the gun used by the other two men so they planted a "semi automatic" which in Florida brings a minimum of 15 years. This is exactly what the judge told my son's attorney that he would give him if he pleads guilty. However, as I said before, he is not wanting to plead guilty to something he did not do. My son is a fighter and he wants to fight, but he is in a predicament because his "court appointed" attorney is ready to get on with her other cases.

Oh Lord, I've gone long again. It's just that I am hurting, because I am helpless to help my son. If you can answer the question up above, I appreciate it sir.

Thank you for having a listening ear.

 

[NYClex]

hm, it is really difficult to advise when you don't really know the circumstances of the case. That's what the appointed lawyer is for.

But from what I read I wonder how the relationship between your son and his lawyer is. There is a possibility of having this lawyer "fired." This, of course, is a decision to be pondered wisely.

He can file a "Marsden motion" to have his court appointed attorney replaced by another one. Now, the court is by no way obliged to grant this motion, there is no constitutional or other right to that per se. The defendant has to prove that to continue having this attorney represent him would prevent him from having adequate representation.

The whole business with her considering filing charges against him etc. surely points into this direction. Like I said, the defendant has to prove in court that there are facts enough to make continued representation impossible.

There are dangers in this: if the court does not grant this motion his attorney nevertheless won't be really happy. Also, depending on the system in your county, a co-worker of hers might be appointed who might be wary because of this.

On the other hand, if your son really feels he cannot trust his attorney he might go for the motion. May be she is even more than happy to get out of the case and will assist gladly.

The other questions, it depends on what really happened there. First of all, the depositions are not that important anyway, since in a trial the police officers involved would have to testify in person, so that the jury most probably would never hear about what was in the depositions. If there are contradictions it can be good to expose them or bad, that depends on the situation and that should be up to the attorney's judgment.

I am also not quite sure how the business about the computer pertains to the facts of the case in question, it could very well be inadmissible anyway.

Like I said before, from what I read, the breaking point of the case is the eywitness testimony of the victim. Of course it also would be interesting to know what the other two defendants have to say. Will they implicate your son or not. Nobody knows before trial.

But the attorney is surely right in one thing: it probably will be hard to find anything to impeach the witness' statement.

It is a tricky situation and from far away on the internet nobody can really give you much valid advice. This needs to be handled by an attorney who has your son's trust.

 

[BabyDoll]

Thank You...You Advice HAD to be taken.

As time went on it became very, very obvious that this court appointed attorney was in fact working against my son.

After he had shown her in the deposition where a policeman straightout lied in order to make charges stick more so, she became angry and told him that she would go back to him and have it stricken from the deposition. At the time she said this, I was waiting for my copy of the deposition. However, she did not give it to me until she had the policeman amend his testimony. Thus, he did just that and said he never said that John had stolen merchandise in his possesion.

She was very angry with him because he would not take the ten years. I always thought that this decision was up to the client. Anyway, she came down to the jail about 2 weeks ago with a piece of paper which was supposedly a statment. According to this statment, I (his mother) had demanded that he take the ten years. NYclex, I never said no such thing. I have never seen such a thing as this before...except maybe in a movie.

I knew that if my son was going to trial, he didn't need to go with to trial with her. I wish that there was something we could do about her, because she even "bragged" to me that she always get her clients to plea out. She's only be to court one time in her practice and she lost that case.

My sister borrowed the money to get another lawyer. It's been two weeks and he has not even gone to see him. He keeps telling me that he's gonna get around to it. I feel we may have hired someone who doesn't have time to work the case, even though he took the money he was charging. I have done all I know to do. The rest is in God's hand.

In the deposition, the victim's story is different than the initial report the police took on the very night of the alleged crime. My son's attorney had to "throw hints" to get the victim to remember that she had said my son pointed a gun at her at a particular point. She also kept saying the gun was silver. However, the gun was not silver, it was black. One of the other two men had the gun. Neither of them ever pointed it at her and that's why she can not give an accurate description of it. They told her they had a gun, but they never showed it to her. However, she assumed it was silver and incorporated that story into her testimony.

It will take a miracle because she will be believed anyway.

 

[freebird]

I'm sorry to hear about your son and hope that things go better for him... but he is in a heap of trouble and some things don't add up to me and maybe you can explain.

Miranda warnings only concern statements made by your son being used against him. They do not concern other facts of the case that may be used against him. If he admitted to having a gun to the officers before Miranda was read to him, that admission might be able to be thrown out of court.

What I don't understand is how your son found himself at the scene of a robbery supposedly holding a gun and robbing the victim. I've looked at your other posts and will address them in kind. What doesn't make sense is that your statement that the alleged real criminals are on the loose because they would be coconspirators. Why would the victim lie about your son? Most people I know are mad as heck at everyone who rob them.

We also need more details. Did they find stolen merchandise on your son that belonged to the victim? How was he arrested? We need more facts to make some more sense of this story and also what evidence they have against him -- did he know these other two guys? Are they total strangers? What was he doing at the scene of the crime? It seems that there are many circumstances that need to be explained and, if they aren't done with satisfactory answers, a jury won't believe them.

I hope you are right about your son. However, if he did something really stupid in a weak moment, you might not be the first mother whose son will have told a fib because of embarassment. I don't know any of the facts and maybe you are right. But these answers are important and can easily have a large effect on a jury and may also explain why he is being prosecuted. I find that most prosecutors don't do so for no good reason. Something is driving them and it is usually more than just weak evidence in a case they likely cannot win or which will be challenged and scrutinized.

Originally posted by BabyDoll
My son's court appointed attorney is aware...

That the police question him AFTER they arrested him and told him that if he didn't answer, he would get 5-10 years in prison.
They read his rights to him the next day.

Yet, she is not pressing them on this. She only wants to make a deal with prosecution because she feels that if it goes to court, she might lose the case, seeing that she has only been practicing law for 2 years. My son is charged with armed robbery, but he was only with 2 guys who themselves were robbing the lady. He was a victim in that they forced him at gunpoint to be with them. Unfortunately, the lady who they robbed is claiming that my son pointed a gun at her and said he would kill her. They could not find the gun used, in his car, so they have placed "another gun".

The first court appointed attorney did not visit my son at all for three months and then he lost the case to the current court appointed attorney. I've said all of that to say this, this court system is so messed up and unorganized here. Yet, we don't have the money for a private lawyer. One private attorney has offered to take the case for only $5,000 when he would normally charge $15,000. However, all we have been able to come up with is $2,000 and his court date is April 1st.

The attorney says that she can't do anything about the particulars because the fact of the matter is, the VICTIM has said that my son pointed a gun at her. And because she is the victim and my son is the accused, the jurors will automatically believe the victim and find my son guilty. Therefore, she wants my son to plead guilty so that he is just get ten years instead of 30. The problem is, my son does not want to plead guilty to something he did not do and he says it shouldn't be this easy to send someone to prison for 30 years, just because the victim says...He pointed a gun at me.

I told the attorney that she should work to get the case thrown out because of the conflicting police reports, his rights were not read to him before he was questioned and the strange gun that the police say was used. She says if they said that that was the gun, why would they lie?


But I say, why would they knowingly let the other two guys run around town, free for more than a month, before they arrest them. They even questioned one of them to get a police report on my son, then let him go. I know this for a fact because the man called my house, bragging about how they questioned him about my son's part in the crime, then let him go.


I was angry...very angry. That's when I called the investigator who questioned this guy and started complaining. Then and only then did they arrest the two men who actually did the crime, but they are only charged as a principle to the crime, even though they both have long criminal histories that date back to when they were 14 and they are now adults. My son has never been in trouble before and is a hard working man. It was clear that they intended to let my son carry the whole load of the crime by himself. I am not one to pull the race card but I had to face the fact that since the 2 men that were involved were white, it was possible.

Can anyone advise me as to the importance of the miranda rights being read to you before questioning??? I apologize for going so long...forgive me.

 

[freebird]

Re: Question

Originally posted by BabyDoll
I understand what you are saying though. I had warned my son about those 2 guys. Parents just have a 6th sense when it comes to things like that. I also understand what you are saying concerning the jurors. This is what his "court appointed" attorney basically told him. However, she is on the side of the prosecution and that's what I expect from her. She is helping prosecution undermine my son's case because she doesn't want to take it to court. She told me that she has only being practicing law for 2 years and has only gone to trial once...she lost. She said all of her other cases plead out and that's what she wants my son to do.

OK, so here is the problem. Your son knew these two other guys. That isn't good because he can go to jail as a participant in the crime. It doesn't matter that he wasn't holding a gun. I don't know what the potential sentences are but this is now complicated. NYClex has given some good advice about replacing the attorney.

I don't think that the defense attorney is on the prosecution's side although she may be annoyed for other reasons. What is your son's version? I'm wondering what the point of fighting is because I'm hearing two different versions from you. One is that he knew these guys, who were no good, and another that he was held there at gunpoint. We don't know what happened. Maybe he did or didn't know that there was a robbery or a gun involved but we don't know the story. Most of all, will a jury believe his story. Perhaps but right now it doesn't sound so compelling and regardless it seems that he will be going to jail for some time.

Originally posted by BabyDoll
The reason I am asking is, that to further build their case, one of the policemen ran a check on my computer and printer that was in my car and in the deposition, he said when he called it in, it proved to be stolen merchandise. That computer and printer he was referring to happens to be MY computer and MY printer. When my son pointed this out to his attorney, she only got mad and told him that that was a "typo" and that she was having it removed from the deposition. How can she do that???

He also pointed out another "straight out" lie by another policeman and she said she was having that removed too. How can she do that and yet be my son's lawyer???

See, the reason my son is fighting this so hard is that, the victim and the police have collaborated a story that is a complete lie, being presented as the truth.

You are now alleging that the lawyer, the police officer and the prosecutor are all together in this trying to frame your son and let two white boys off. I'm not saying that this is not the case but it is highly improbable that all 3 would do this. What county and state are you in? You should make a copy of the deposition but I have never heard of items being removed from depositions. Perhaps there is something lost in the translation or there actually was a typo that is being corrected. It may also mean that portions may not be admissible in court. Still, this is a minor part of the case and in my opinion doesn't seem to change the fact that your son was in the wrong place at the wrong time with guys whom he knew were trouble. What is happening with those guys? Have they put out a bulletin for their arrest?

The victim is an officer's wife and he lives in Korea. He has been stationed there for 2 years. The judge specifically appointed this attorney because he wanted someone who would help he secure his case against my son. The police as I said earlier, could not find the gun used by the other two men so they planted a "semi automatic" which in Florida brings a minimum of 15 years. This is exactly what the judge told my son's attorney that he would give him if he pleads guilty. However, as I said before, he is not wanting to plead guilty to something he did not do. My son is a fighter and he wants to fight, but he is in a predicament because his "court appointed" attorney is ready to get on with her other cases.

What do you mean they planted the gun? Are the serial numbers rubbed off? Can the gun be traced to your son? The facts here are very important. How did the police find the gun?

I'm curious by what you mean an officer's wife and he lives in Korea. Are you talking about someone in the armed forces?

I'm very very sorry to hear about your son's pain but before you start taking your son's side as the absolute truth, the first thing you have to do is start making sense of his story. If it is the truth then you'll have some ammo to indicate how ludicrous the supposed evidence is.

Honestly, I think you may know your case very well but are having a difficult time explaining it to us so that we can understand. You'll probably have to back up and let us know what happened. I hope that you are right for you and your son's sake.

 

[BabyDoll]

This Is Strange...I Know...But

You are now alleging that the lawyer, the police officer and the

prosecutor are all together in this trying to frame your son and let two

white boys off. I'm not saying that this is not the case but it is highly

improbable that all 3 would do this.

My son was arrested September 3, 2003.
I am alleging that they resulted to wrongful tactics in securing a solid case against my son because of their lack of solid evidence. Remember the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the state.

What is happening with those guys? Have they put out a bulletin for their arrest? "


No they are not letting the two white boys off. They were facing tons of

years in prison, just as my son is. However, they were able to go to court

ahead of my son even though they weren't arrested until a month later

after my son was arrested. The way they were able to do this is that my

son sat in jail for three months, without the 1st visit from his FIRST

"appointed" public defender. During this time the other two had attorneys

who were working on their behalf. They took a lesser sentence in (back in Feb. of 2004)exchange for testifying against my son. The ringleader got 6 years and the

other guy only 4 years. Of course, they will placing all the blame on my son as is expected. They will testifying against him in about 8 weeks. So with them testifying against him, plus the victims word and the policemen's words, they will be able to build a solid case and secure a win...easily. I know it is hard to believe that many people are in prison who shouldn't be, just by tactics such as these.

Finally, my son's first appointed attorney said that

he could not represent my son because (later we found out that this was

not true) someone in HIS office had been representing one of the other

boys. So the Judge appointed "another" lawyer who this time was a private

lawyer. We were very pleased that my son had a "better" lawyer, because

she was a private lawyer. However, she proved to be very deceitful in the

end, thankfully, 2 weeks ago, someone after looking at our situation was

alarmed and gave us the money to get a good lawyer.

My son is only 21. Yes, I know that my son is guilty to some degree and

not completely innocent. However, he still deserves fair representation.

He does not deserve to be lied on by police in order to build a stronger

case, nor does he need to be represented by a lawyer who is not truly

representing him, but getting "brownie points"...from the Judge. The Judge

knew how serious my son's case was, yet he diliberately appointed a

lawyer who had no experience in these type of cases. Only 2 years and has

been to trial only 1 time. She boasted that she always get them to "plea

out". This is why she is so irrate with my son...he won't plea out.

We knew we could not go to court with this lady. She actually went back

to the policeman and showed him where he lied under oath and told him

to tell the truth. So he changed what he said and also wrote that he never

said what the lady typed he said about my son having stolen merchandise.

This was attached to the back of his deposition. Only THEN would she

(my son's lawyer) allow me to have a copy of my son's deposition. When I

saw what she had done, I was shocked and so is the lawyer that is now

representing my son. I even called that person who typed the deposition

and she reaffirmed that she did not make a mistake as the policeman

alleged. He did say what he said in reporting that my computer and

printer was stolen property. She also reaffirmed the other lies that the

other two police told under oath.

You probably wonder why he lied...well. I believe this is why (even

though I don't know for sure)...my son was "overcharged". What this

means is that the felony charges against him are an overkill. Hopefully,

the present lawyer will be able to get them reduced. One of the

overcharges is the charge of "Armed Robbery". Thus, in order to build a

case for this charge there must be proof. So the policeman put himself in

the position of lying to show that my son was a thief. However, he did not

know the lady (the victim) would change her story during deposition and

say that my son stole nothing from her. The only lie she is sticking to is

that my son pointed a gun at her. She said it was silver. However, the gun

that police found in my car was a black gun. But they wrote in their report

that it was silver so that it would match the victim's description. At first, I

thought they had planted a silver gun in my car, but no they did not. They

only wrote in their report that the gun they found was silver and like I said

earlier, this was only for the purpose of matching the description of the

victim. That was a dumb move I thought. They had to know that the

truth would be found out. My car was driven by the "ringleader" and my

son was not in it when they found the gun. None of us own guns. Police

admitted that the gun was not reported stolen. What they do not focus is

that my son's fingerprints are not on it. Thus, a case HAD to be built

deceitfully in order to make sure the charges stick.


Still, this is a minor part of the case and in my opinion doesn't seem to

change the fact that your son was in the wrong place at the wrong time

with guys whom he knew were trouble.

Unfortunately, as you said, the bottomline is...my son was in the wrong

place with the wrong people and therefore he is accountable. He put himself in this position and now he is paying a dear price for it. Isn't it sad

that when you get yourself in a position like this, you can be buried deeper

than you should by what we call justice.


I am in Florida. In Florida, we have the toughest gun laws in America.

This is good and then again it's not. In Florida, if I rob a person, they can

say I had a gun. Even though the police never finds the gun, you will still

get a mandatory 10 years if the jurors believe the victim's claim. And this

is the situation that my son is facing. One of the other two had the gun,

but neither of them (according to what my son says) ever pointed the gun

at her, it was just in their possession, but she never saw it. It was not used

in the robbery on her. It was only used to threaten my son once.

We only want fair treatment. He is not a criminal. He was just stupid at the time. No child should spend 45 years in prison because of "overcharges" or bad representation. He should only be held accountable for what he did and even then if no harm was done to the victim and he has never been in trouble before, some mercy should be shown...not 45 years or more. They have these charges against him...9th degree kidnapping, armed robbery, grand larceny and kidnapping with a gun. The prosecutor has recently changed the "kidnapping with a gun to 9th degree kidnapping without a gun. I don't know what that means because the victim is still lying about my son pointing a gun at her.


The victim was not physically harmed or even touched, but she is mad and thus it is in her power to do with my son as she wishes by the simple words..."He pointed a gun at me." We have done all that we know to do in fighting for our son. It is now in God's hands.


What do you mean they planted the gun? Are the serial numbers rubbed off? Can the gun be traced to your son? The facts here are very important. How did the police find the gun?


I was mistaken about them haven't planted a gun. I thought they found a silver gun in my car. My son had told me that the gun that the boys left in the car was an old black rusty gun. Later, I found out that this was indeed the gun that police discovered, however, they changed the description of the gun to match the victim's description. Dumb, I know but this is how it was written up in the arresting police officer's report. That's why there was no picture of it in the file for motion for discovery.

 

[BabyDoll]

This Is More Common Than We Realize...

Everyone wants to believe that the police always tell the truth, that the victim always tell the truth. That's why we have to be careful in how we treasure our freedom and not take it for granted...because your life can be changed within a matter of seconds. Just as Stacey's life
was whose mother has a resentment against Miami police in her heart. She shouldn't but she does...why? Because her son was pulled over for a minor traffic violation...driving with his headlights off. Though his license and registration checked out okay, he was asked to step out of the car for a general search. Stacey got irate with the policeman and refused to get out. Instead, he took off. The policeman grabbed the door of the car somehow and held on. Stacey was not driving off very fast and this allowed the police to get his revolver out and shoot him seven times, killing him. He said he had to do it to stop him for he felt HIS life was in danger. There were no drugs or weapon found in the car, because he happened to be a decent african american citizen who didn't feel like being "bullied" by the police that day. The mother is upset because if he really wanted to stop him, he could have just shot the tires instead. I would never had believe this story myself had I not seen it on TV on the policeman's own video camera which sits on his dashboard. He was so angry with Stacey that he forgot he was video, yet he was still able to convince a grand jury that he was justified in shooting an (age 32) unarmed Stacey 7 times. Please note the policeman's attorney's exact words after he was able to get the police officer off, according to the newspaper:



On April 25 in Stuart, Florida, 100 miles north of Miami, a grand jury cleared police officer George McLain of any wrongdoing in the shooting death of 32-year-old Stacey Scales. McLain shot Scales seven times April 14 after stopping him for allegedly driving his car with the lights off. The grand jury accepted the cop's story that Scales tried to flee, dragging the police officer on the side of the car, and that McLain felt his life was in jeopardy after the car stopped.
McLain's attorney, David Golden, had earlier justified the shooting of the unarmed Scales, saying, "You have to pull the trigger and continue to pull the trigger until the threat is over."


For reasons like these, many African Americans have an unhealthy fear of policemen. My own husband is one of them. He wears seatbelts mainly because of his fear of being pulled over by the police. And now that he see our son going through what he is going through, it has only heightened his fears. He is 45 years old and we both have been through several unnecessary "dramas" with police in the past, thus his unhealthy fear of police. Had I not personally had the opportunity of working with policeman for a year, I would have an unhealthy distrust of "all" police too. But I have several of them who are good friends. Yet, my husband only view them as being "two faced" and not real.

This is unreasonable thinking to you, but you would have to have walked in his shoes and experienced what he has experienced living in the south as a black man. Not all blacks feel this way about police, but here in the south, a great many of them feel as my husband does. I have all strived to teach my children not to have an unhealthy attitude about policemen, however I have failed. Yet, it is not my fault, but the fault of a few stupid policemen who have mistreated them in the past...unnecessarily and always when we (parents) were not around.

Once our house was forced into by police. They had our 3 kids get down on the floor and accused them of hiding a criminal in the house. My children were terrified and denied that they were hiding a runaway criminal in the house. My oldest boy was 18 at the time and my youngest daughter was 14. My youngest son was 16. They were treated like dirt as police proceeded to search our house for the escaped criminal. After they finally left, my youngest son happen to see a man crawling down from a tree across the street from our house. He called the police and they were able to capture him. Do you think they called and apologize? No. They couldn't admit to wrongful tactics because they would put them in jeopardy of a lawsuit. Of course, they didn't know we wouldn't have bothered anyway. After all, what jury would believe my children??? The police always tell the truth. I went down to the police department and complained to the Chief about it, but he never got back in contact with me just as I suspected he never would. You see, he and one of the policemen that forced their way into the house are good friends. My youngest son has seen them eating lunch together on several occasions at the restaurant where he use to work.


So trust me when I say, that a lot of unnecessary crooked stuff goes on in our justice department...really. That's why my husband lives so fearfully careful. Me? I do not let them intimidate me or push me around, though on 2 occasions they've tried. However, I know my rights and live within them. My son, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, was not as careful as I've been and he will pay for it dearly if we lose in court. The hole has been dugged very deeply so that it will be a sure thing that he doesn't get out. Thus, we pray for a miracle.

 

[graysea]

Some time has past since your last post. How did your son's trial come out? Were his prints ever found on the gun?
Best of luck to your family.