Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read a comment by a medic on another forum who said that it was a King airway they were inserting into him and that is never a good sign.
Anyone here in the medical field care to comment ?
I know nothing about medical devices myself.
If he were in that bad of shape then I can see why they didn't do it.
There are judges, lawyers, investigators, detectives, experts on terrorism, and a host of other professionals on C-D. I'm sure there are a number of surgeons as well.
You: Oh for gods sakes, he was just arrested yesterday.
Has he been questioned yet? If not, he doesnt need to be mirandized..
And even if he was questioned, if the information isnt going to be used to prosecute, i.e. just obtain information about other actions taking place, then he still doesnt need to be mirandized..
Doesnt anyone here know the law?
and,
He's a US Citizen, on US soil, and miranda warnings are still not required..
PERIOD..
These two statements insinuate the the government or law enforcement is not required to inform a suspect of his rights, but that is absolutely wrong. They are required to do so upon arrest ... not before arrest however. Prior to arrest, they must inform you that you are not compelled to answer any questions and are free to leave. After being placed under arrest, they are required to issue the miranda warning. Failing to do so is a violation of your constitutional rights, as stipulated by the Supreme Court in 1966, Miranda vs The State of Arizona.
The remedy for violating Miranda warnings is the exclusionary rule. As such Miranda rights aren't terribly important to the state if they don't care about statements.
They are talking about whether treating him as a enemy combatant. That is what I'm referring to. I guess you got lost in your know it all nothing banter about the actual debate being had by folks like Lindsey Grahmnesty.
They are talking about whether treating him as a enemy combatant. That is what I'm referring to. I guess you got lost in your know it all nothing banter about the actual debate being had by folks like Lindsey Grahmnesty.
No one is discussing him being treated as an enemy combatant. That's not the topic at hand, and that is not the reason he is not being read his rights.
No, you were referring to Miranda Rights specifically. All of the post you've replied to mention Miranda rights specifically. Your quote below responded to Miranda Rights specifically.
Quote:
His right to remain silent is not stripped by not mirandizing him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
His Constitutional right is. Something many don't seem to care about anymore. They are all equal in my eyes. You trample one you trample em all.
They are not required to read you your rights upon an arrest.. And the Supreme Court ruling Miranda Vs The State of Arizona actually validates that to be true.
That case was because they used the informatino PROVIDED to convict him.. He was still retried and convicted based upon OTHER evidence, without his miranda warnings ever being read to him.
You are flat out WRONG..
No, you are flat out wrong. The miranda warning is not about whether they can or can not use information obtained .... the miranda warning is about the protection of one's constitutional rights ... specifically the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the government from forcing a person to provide information that might incriminate them in a crime.
The reality is:
1) Not all arrests necessarily result in prosecution, but that is ALWAYS the intention when arresting people. Law Enforcement does not arrest people for whom they do not intend to prosecute, else they could be liable for false imprisonment, which itself is a serious crime.
2) Arrests which do lead to prosecution need to observe the miranda warning because, a) any information provided in absence of the miranda warning will be information illegally obtained, and cannot be used in the subsequent prosecution, and b) if such information obtained illegally was used to obtain additional evidence (such as the location of additional explosive devices) that information or evidence would thusly not be admissible either ... and c) it would be next to impossible for the prosecution to prove that the discovery of any evidence obtained after the arrest was not aided by the illegally obtained information, which is why entire cases have been dismissed because no miranda warning was issued.
Technically, you are correct in that law enforcement need not EVER issue a miranda warning, because the constitution doesn't require it ... it only declares that citizens cannot be compelled to provide testimony against themselves. So they can obtain any information they care to without issuing a miranda warning ... but they will be seriously jeopardizing any hope of successful prosecution if they do ... which is contrary to the entire purpose of the arrest and questioning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.