CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #42

[Eileen730]

He knows hes going to get away with it!

 

[SuperMom1995]

The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.

An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.

The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known. Thus, a defendant's presence at a police station by consent does not become an arrest solely by virtue of an officer's subjective view that the defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating an intention to take the defendant into custody

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+custody

"The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go." That is the BOTTOM LINE.

 

[asyousay]

About the coat thing . I am sure if it was a issue than Dylan could of said something before he left home . At the airport he was in shorts and a tee-shirt so a coat does not seem like a big deal IMO

 

[NC Analyzer]

Police usually tell subjects that anything they say can be used against them in court when they don't have to? That would tend to make people uncooperative in my opinion.

Well, LE kinda has a way of telling something in a way they understand but it is manipulative...kinda like "we know you're here to help us out, and we're on your side. Can't tell you how much we appreciate the time you took to come down and talk to us, but we do have to tell you that anything you say can be used in court. Now that we got that out of the way, let's talk about Joe Blow because we're here to find out/want to know what a bad guy he is...we heard he caused you some problems...."
See how easy that is?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

When the Miranda Warning Is Required

It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read them their Miranda rights if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial.

If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html

BBM
That's why I think that police will usually say that the subject is not under arrest and free to go at the beginning of questioning. It makes it clear for the record that the subject is not in custody and the Miranda warning is not required. MOO.

 

[Kimster]

We need an attorney in here. :dunno: I think they are all in the Arias thread. :sigh:

 

[NC Analyzer]

When the Miranda Warning Is Required

It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read them their Miranda rights if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial.

If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html

Thanks Kimster. This is the SAME quote and source I provided earlier to prove my point, but there are still issues for some as they are choosing to disregard the law in favor of personal beliefs. It is what it is. I cannot agree to disagree because I didn't write the Constitution. :floorlaugh:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Well, LE kinda has a way of telling something in a way they understand but it is manipulative...kinda like "we know you're here to help us out, and we're on your side. Can't tell you how much we appreciate the time you took to come down and talk to us, but we do have to tell you that anything you say can be used in court. Now that we got that out of the way, let's talk about Joe Blow because we're here to find out/want to know what a bad guy he is...we heard he caused you some problems...."
See how easy that is?

Sorry, I still don't understand why police would say something that would tend to discourage a subject from talking to them when they didn't have to. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Kimster]

Thanks Kimster. This is the SAME quote and source I provided earlier to prove my point, but there are still issues for some as they are choosing to disregard the law in favor of personal beliefs. It is what it is. I cannot agree to disagree because I didn't write the Constitution. :floorlaugh:

Well, an attorney would probably be the best one to make the final call. We'll just leave the topic alone until someone has a chance to come in and clear it up for everyone. :kimsterwink:

 

[NC Analyzer]

BBM
That's why I think that police will usually say that the subject is not under arrest and free to go at the beginning of questioning. It makes it clear for the record that the subject is not in custody and the Miranda warning is not required. MOO.

They are not "required" to tell them, but more often than not they do. Although they don't always tell them they are free to go. Just something they play be "ear" so to speak. Each jurisdiction, cop and situation is different. Know your own rights and you will have no questions wrt this subject.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Well, an attorney would probably be the best one to make the final call. We'll just leave the topic alone until someone has a chance to come in and clear it up for everyone. :kimsterwink:

Sounds like I'm back to lurking then.

 

[NC Analyzer]

Sorry, I still don't understand why police would say something that would tend to discourage a subject from talking to them when they didn't have to. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Nevermind. I will defer to Kimster's suggestion and wait for an attorney. It becomes exhausting to argue Constitutional Law...which is why I didn't finish law school.

 

[Kimster]

Sounds like I back to lurking then.

No more topics out there to discuss?

Sure wish we could find Dylan! :tears: Is the search still ongoing?

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

You are free to make statements even WHEN LE is questioning you. You can make statements at ANY TIME and they will hold up in court, UNLESS or UNTIL you are in CUSTODY, DETAINED or OTHERWISE prevented from leaving!

You can be a POI or a SUSPECT and still be questioned by LE without Miranda!

You have the right to refuse questioning and leave the area, but if LE stops you, they have to read Miranda!

Thank you Thank you Thank you!

This is absolutely correct and about as clear as can be.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

...hmm not sure, but I think he would still be required to pay support. If so it might be a reason, who knows. :waitasec:

If support had anything at all to do with a motive then it would be in MR's best interest for Dylan to be found so that support would end. I believe while Dylan is missing he is still required to pay support.

So perhaps it was a calculated move rather than a stupid one?

 

[absentia]

I go back and forth between premeditation and spontaneous myself. I can see this both ways.

I definitely agree with all the time MR had waiting on Dylan's arrival...wondering why he didn't get the mundane things taken care of. I also recall MR giving conflicting statements about the food shopping. Wonder what that was all about. One he said he had to pick up a week's worth of groceries, another he said a couple of days worth, then it was followed by his claim to text Dylan about what he might need to pick up to eat on Monday when he was out and about. (not exact quotes, just paraphrasing). Seems like he spent an awful lot of time thinking about groceries after Dylan arrived, but not so much prior to Dylan's arrival. Very weird, IMO.

I really do think it was premeditated. I think that's why he's holding on so tight to his story. If it was purely an act of rage, I think he'd break down easier. The circumstances make me think premeditated as does his demeanor since, but I really think he decided to do this and felt completely justified, entitled, to do this. Therefore, he still does. If it were an accident, he wouldn't hold that position so strongly. he'd waver more easily. He did this to serve a purpose, and he feels justified in that purpose. it is serving its purpose and so he believes he did what he had to do for himself. I also think the actual murder was an act of rage, with alcohol. How else could you do something so horrific? But it was planned. I feel sure that he followed his plan to the Tee from the moment DR arrived. I've always thought that he did it the first night as to avoid feeling a bond with DR over a couple of days of hanging out together. He could depersonalize DR easier the faster and sooner he did it.
and I think the "praying" to DR is b/c MR believes DR had to be a sacrifice for his own agenda. he's probably sorry that he had to be a sacrifice, and he's probably says he's sorry in these prayers to DR, and asks for forgiveness, but not b/c he's remorseful. He just wants DR to understand why he had to be a sacrifice for MR's agenda, which MR still holds as the most important thing.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No more topics out there to discuss?

Sure wish we could find Dylan! :tears: Is the search still ongoing?

There's nothing for me to discuss that hasn't been gone over a bunch of times already. I don't think that the search is still ongoing.

 

[Eileen730]

Watch the First 48!
LOL

 

[absentia]

If support had anything at all to do with a motive then it would be in MR's best interest for Dylan to be found so that support would end. I believe while Dylan is missing he is still required to pay support.

So perhaps it was a calculated move rather than a stupid one?

I think DR was supposed to have been found in Nov.

 

[Kimster]

There's nothing for me to discuss that hasn't been gone over a bunch of times already. I don't think that the search is still ongoing.

I'll take the tag off the thread then. I sure do hope and pray Dylan is found soon!

Do you guys think it will help the case if Elaine goes on Tricia's True Crime radio show?