home

Tucson Tragedy Suspect Loughner Invokes Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:23:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While Jared Lee Loughner's mental stability is reported to be in question, there are limits to the alleged insanity. Unlike many a "smart" suspect, Loughner has invoked his right to remain silent:

Mr. Loughner, who was in custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Saturday night, refused to cooperate with investigators and had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, the sheriff’s office said.

Which reminds me, Loughner is merely a suspect, and indeed, to my knowledge, has not been charged. He deserves the presumption of innocence and has a right to such presumption in a court of law.

Speaking for me only

< Arizona Gun Laws And The Tucson Tragedy | Gun Control Laws Are Not The Answer >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tucson Tragedy Suspect Loughner Invokes Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    There is an unfortunate and misleading use (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    of the term "cooperate" in the phrase, "refused to cooperate with investigators and had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights," to the extent it implies that actually making use of one's constitutional rights in just the way they were meant to be used is a form of failure "to cooperate" with those in authority who are exercising their power against you.  If Loughner identified himself and didn't fight against those who arrested him, he is "cooperating" all that he has to ... and there is room for disagreement whether an arrested person even has to identify himself.

    True (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    But of course a suspect should NEVER cooperate with authorities trying to incriminate them.

    Your point makes sense in that not "cooperating" with someone trying to incriminate you is somehow viewed as something awful.

    Parent

    I have to keep reading this (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 04:24:38 PM EST
    over and over again on this site hoping that it will sink in.  I still can't seem to shake my overall trust of law enforcement, just tell them the truth and it will set you free.  It helps to read about many people wrongfully accused and wrongfully imprisoned for huge chunks of their life....but still, can I trust myself?  Can I get myself trained to simply say, "I need an attorney NOW!"  Can I get myself to truly understand that given a certain set of circumstances there is only the job to do, and that they will take me down in a heartbeat if it gets their job done for the day and sends them home happy with a hot dinner on their table?

    Parent
    Whether or not you trust law enforcement, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 04:44:54 PM EST
    invoke your Miranda rights ASAP.  It is perfectly legal for law enforcement to ask questions.  And it is perfectly legal for you to refuse to answer.  

    Parent
    Oh, and don't text, e-mail, social (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 04:55:03 PM EST
    network, call and/or tweet.

    Parent
    Wonder if the Republicans ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:37:50 PM EST
    ... will call for him to be waterboarded or called an enemy combatant.

    Of course not (none / 0) (#2)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    And they won't call him a terrorist either. His skin is too white to earn him that label.

    Parent
    BTD, thank you. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    The vortex of insanity goes both ways.  Can you please call the Progressives off the ledge?

    Intelligence and insanity (none / 0) (#4)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    are not mutually exclusive, as well we know.  I read somewhere in the deluge of coverage yesterday that Loughner may have been diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome, also called the "little professor syndrome" as most who have Asperger's are highly intelligent but low in social skills (it also increasingly is considered to possibly be at the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum).

    Much more will become known, possibly later today, as the FBI director just said that Loughner is to be charged by tonight.  But far more will become known, I suspect, as inevitable leaks come from his past educational institutions.  Why he had to leave high school, why he was expelled from college, etc. -- not just that he was, but specifics of incidents.  Some smart people saw cause for concerns, and that may have spared us another V-Tech, but that was not enough to spare others yesterday.  More also has to be discussed about what institutions are to do with the firewalls of privacy that are necessary for protection at one point but may work against prevention at another point.

    Asperger's (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:50:34 PM EST
    is not a mental illness, for heaven's sake.  Please provide a citation for somebody with Asperger's ever having committed mass murder.  Thank you.

    Parent
    Of course, it's not (none / 0) (#15)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 12:27:24 AM EST
    and I'm sorry that was inferred; it was not my intention to imply it.  Actually, what I am suggesting is that he may not be insane.  

    However, as you must know since you sound familiar with the syndrome, there sadly are many cases of murderers with Asperger's (including a multiple murder in Sweden last year) -- although there are many cases of murderers with hypertension or diabetes or whatever, too, of course.  The studies are not comparative to show prevalence; the group is not sufficient.  And some of those with Asperger's also were adjudged insane, obviously an indication that one is not the other.

    It can be a sad condition when extreme, and the first thing I think of when hearing the typical description, "loner."  However, when not extreme -- as in all of those I know and certainly almost all other cases -- and especially when combined with the typical high intelligence, it only results in what our ancestors used to call charming eccentricity.

    Parent

    Evidence question (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    Are his supposed MySpace statements testimonial hearsay?

    Admissions against interest, if (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    foundation is established, IMO.  

    Parent
    Admissions of a party are admissible (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 06:08:37 PM EST
    even when those statements, if made by someone else, would be considered "hearsay," once the statement is "authenticated" (that is, reliably attributed to him/her), when offered against him/her in court by the adverse party (here, statements of the accused offered by the prosecution).  "Against interest" is not part of this rule (Federal Evidence Rule 801(d)(2)(A)).

    Parent
    And in the restyling (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 06:24:27 PM EST
    801D2 is titled "An Opposing Party's Statement" instead of "Admission by party-opponent" to reduce confusion. The restyling is supposed to take effect by December IIRC.

    I think the reason there's no confrontation issue here, even though he arguably made some of these statements primarily for the benefit of the police, is that the "accuser" is the defendant. If the statements were made be his agent, that could arguably be a different story.

    Parent

    Tucson Tragedy Suspect Loughner Invokes Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment