Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Big Should the hole in Miranda Rights be?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#16 gospodin shuttlesworth

gospodin shuttlesworth

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:31 AM

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

#17 LongTriad

LongTriad

    Missunderstood

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,607 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:20 PM

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

#18 LongTriad

LongTriad

    Missunderstood

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,607 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:23 PM

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.

#19 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,433 posts
  • LocationAlmost where I want to be...

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:54 PM

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?

#20 LongTriad

LongTriad

    Missunderstood

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,607 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:19 PM

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.



#21 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,968 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:43 PM

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. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.