Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

How Big Should the hole in Miranda Rights be?

21 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Being mirandized does not give you your rights, only informs you of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Reading the latest articles, he is still in serious but stable condition, and they are unable to interrogate him. There really isn't much point in mirandizing him if he is in and out of conciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They have started to interrogate him since he is awake and though he can't talk he is passing notes supposedly, at least according to [url="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-badly-wounded-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-responding-to-questions?lite"]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-badly-wounded-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-responding-to-questions?lite[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='longtriad' timestamp='1366550129' post='2201386']
No rights should be allowed to foreigner, or aliens that come into our country and harm or kill any [b]property or people[/b]. It should be Gitmo or execution for any such person. The Bill of Rights or any rights, should not apply at all and should not even be considered.
[/quote]

uh without even wading into the whether or not we should kill people who kill people (except of course the people who kill people who kill people for whatever reason) im p sure destruction of property alone shouldn't be enough to warrant indefinite detention or execution i mean seriously what the fug is wrong with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='gospodin shuttlesworth' timestamp='1366623082' post='2202484']
uh without even wading into the whether or not we should kill people who kill people (except of course the people who kill people who kill people for whatever reason) im p sure destruction of property alone shouldn't be enough to warrant indefinite detention or execution i mean seriously what the fug is wrong with you
[/quote]
Pussy!






Ha. J/K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='CatofWar' timestamp='1366550987' post='2201405']
A you are saying the government or the bill of rights grants us our rights?
[/quote]
Depends on who "us" is. If us is people from other countries that travel here to kill inocent 8 YO chilrdren they should have no rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Talk about slippery slopes....

First of all, the kid is a citizen, so let's just forget any argument that includes "foreigners" and "aliens" as neither apply to this.
Second, let's think for a minute. Why do laws exist? They exist to "protect people from evil," "because without them no one would be safe" are but a couple of the comments I've read.

The Supreme Court's ruling regarding not Mirandizing a suspect or person of interest is based upon this premise: "...reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents.”

Simple question- can anyone give me an instance of breaking a law that results in an arrest and subsequent custody that would [i]not[/i] fall under that category?

John Doe was arrested for shoplifting and the local police invoked the 'public safety' clause and opted not to read him his rights before questioning began. John Doe is accused of shoplifting a $9.95 generic brand TV remote control, which authorities claim can be altered to set off an explosive device from several yards away.

Where is the line drawn and who does the drawing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Talk about slippery slopes....

First of all, the kid is a citizen, so let's just forget any argument that includes "foreigners" and "aliens" as neither apply to this.
Second, let's think for a minute. Why do laws exist? They exist to "protect people from evil," "because without them no one would be safe" are but a couple of the comments I've read.

The Supreme Court's ruling regarding not Mirandizing a suspect or person of interest is based upon this premise: "...reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents.”

Simple question- can anyone give me an instance of breaking a law that results in an arrest and subsequent custody that would not fall under that category?

John Doe was arrested for shoplifting and the local police invoked the 'public safety' clause and opted not to read him his rights before questioning began. John Doe is accused of shoplifting a $9.95 generic brand TV remote control, which authorities claim can be altered to set off an explosive device from several yards away.

Where is the line drawn and who does the drawing?

 

He was a nturalized citizen,  He then broke his oath of allegiance. Should be in gitmo already, getting a little water board action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Talk about slippery slopes....

First of all, the kid is a citizen, so let's just forget any argument that includes "foreigners" and "aliens" as neither apply to this.
Second, let's think for a minute. Why do laws exist? They exist to "protect people from evil," "because without them no one would be safe" are but a couple of the comments I've read.

The Supreme Court's ruling regarding not Mirandizing a suspect or person of interest is based upon this premise: "...reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents.”

Simple question- can anyone give me an instance of breaking a law that results in an arrest and subsequent custody that would not fall under that category?

John Doe was arrested for shoplifting and the local police invoked the 'public safety' clause and opted not to read him his rights before questioning began. John Doe is accused of shoplifting a $9.95 generic brand TV remote control, which authorities claim can be altered to set off an explosive device from several yards away.

Where is the line drawn and who does the drawing?

 

 

Can you name one instance in which a accussed shoplifter was not mirandized out of concern for public safety?   This exception has been in place for a while, and is used very rarely, and I imagine that in this case, plenty of lawyers were consulted prior to using it this time.   And from what I understand, it would be very difficult to use information obtained prior to being mirandized in a court of law. 

 

Fwiw though, I don't agree with sending them to Gitmo either.  Treat them as common criminals, don't make them special in anyway.  Should be an open and shut case so this guy is looking at life in prison where he is going to make the acquaintance of some hardened criminals.  At some point, he is probably going to wish he was in Gitmo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites