Archived

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

mav1234

How Big Should the hole in Miranda Rights be?

21 posts in this topic

Anything that is said before the rights are read cannot be used in court.

Other than that, they can take as long as they want to read them to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize Miranda has to be read to every suspect, but how is it possible that any person could be here for a few months and not know what their rights are? Is the kid the only person in America not to have watched a single episode of Law and Order? If I were he, I would not say a word without a lawyer present, regardless of whether or not the miranda thing had been read.

That being said, they should have read the thing to him by now, the public safety exception should be a moot point by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

No rights should be allowed to foreigner, or aliens that come into our country and harm or kill any property or people. 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.

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

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

Pussy!

Ha. J/K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A you are saying the government or the bill of rights grants us our rights?

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

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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