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.
When will construction begin for the new Muslim Mosque near the Boston Marathon start-finish line? And does anyone know if Boston taxpayers help fund it?
[edit] Do you think the Obama administration help fund it?
How many times are you going to ask that question? Did it occur to you that it didn't get any attention the first time because......................it's a stupid question?
When will construction begin for the new Muslim Mosque near the Boston Marathon start-finish line? And does anyone know if Boston taxpayers help fund it?
[edit] Do you think the Obama administration help fund it?
This post will probably get deleted, but it needs to be said. You're an idiot.
How many times are you going to ask that question? Did it occur to you that it didn't get any attention the first time because......................it's a stupid question?
I guess he keeps asking that b/c he thinks we missed it the last 20 times! Hint, hc, we're ignoring you.
Well, that's part of Miranda as well as 5th amendment protections about self incrimination so no, she doesn't have to say a word.
If you are not under arrest, you will not be read the Miranda Warning, and police can still talk to you!
Until police have begun custodial interrogation, your Miranda Rights have not attached.For example,if the police knock on your door and wish to talk to you about some event or person, you do not have the right to remain silent unless you are in police custody. Or, if you are walking down the street and police stop you to ask you if you know anything about a crime that has just happened, police do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. The test is, if you are free to leave, then you are not in custody and police do not have ot read you your Miranda Rights. The exception to this is that if you feel that speaking about a person or event would incriminate YOU, you may politely decline to answer the questions.
If you have received a request from police to go to the station and answer questions, you have the right to politely decline to go. But, if the police really want to talk to you, they will likely find probable cause to obtain a search warrant, or to arrest you - at which point they will have to read you the Miranda Warning and you may assert your rights. You can request to speak with an attorney before you meet with police, though.
So it appears that if and when the police want to question her and we can assume that they will, if she wants the right to remain silent, she will have to be arrested. So, just as I thought, she is preparing for her chat with law enforcement with her attorney, who we can safely assume, is not advising her client to get arrested in order to remain silent.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 04-27-2013 at 10:00 AM..
???????????????? What "evidence" pray tell, has been "presented" (that I've obviously missed) that shows they are right?
Any patsy can be forced any number of ways (and has numerous times in the past) into "admitting" something FYI.
You seem to have ignored the poster that asked why you should be privy to all evidence at this point in time...are you the defendants attorney? Law enforcemet is knee deep in trash at a landfill in Boston searching for little brother's lap top, so I'm sure that they will call you as soon as they find it.
I've gotten real tired of the "lefty/righty labels being tossed around like this is some kind of grade school playground, almost like a epithet or slur. I would venture to say most people are moderate and lean one way or another depending on the issue at hand. I do have to say that there's groups of people out there that would back their party and tout the party line even if the head of the party ordered the jailing of everyone in CA.
So sad that some are completely blinded by "the party" dogma that they'd follow 'em right off a cliff and say it's the right thing to do on the way to the bottom.
The sympathy for the brothers is coming from way,way liberal minded people (notice I didn't say left or right as it's not exclusive to either) probably with the idea that anyone can be redeemed. Interesting thing is, I wonder how much sympathy they'd exhibit if it was there close relative that got blown up?
Actually, I agree with the whole fraud of this left-right false argument ... but then you promote it with this idea that this "sympathy" for the brothers is coming from the "way, way liberal minded people".
First, what you characterize as "sympathy" for the brothers is a gross distortion of reality, when the real issue has nothing to do with them personally ... but is the defense of the rule of law that protects ALL OF US, while abandoning those principles of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, decided by your peers, with evidence rather than emotion as the guiding light, being a major threat to ALL OF US.
And I personally could not be any further removed from the liberal ideology than I am. I am a conservative, traditionalist, and constitutional constructionist, and reject these semantical and intellectual games which consider the possibility that we can accept a "little bit" of restriction in civil liberties when there is really no such thing a "good reason" to allow it. The truth is, there can be no "good reason" to do that, because to allow a "little" sets the stage for a lot more. As the old axiom suggests, a Million dollars here, and a Million there, and the next thing you know, you're talking about some real money".
No issue in modern times illustrates this principle more than the fight over the 2nd Amendment. The founders made it very clear ... the right to keep and bear arms (translated: the right to own and carry openly) shall not be infringed ... with "infringe" defined as an act to limit or restrict. The reason for this language in the 2nd Amendment was that the drafters understood this age old reality of incrementalism ... just like the other very well known axiom, "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile".
The supposed "hard core" uncompromising 2nd Amendment folks understand that a little restriction leads to a lot .. and it's not like the intention of the gun grabbers hasn't been made perfectly clear. They want to ban private ownership of guns .. and this is openly admitted by some, while some others who may be less than totally honest wish to downplay that intention, and move toward that goal more slowly, by stealth, in smaller, incremental steps as to hide the ultimate goal.
Pro 2nd amendment people don't want psychopaths and violent criminals to have guns anymore than the liberal gun grabbers do ... we just possess the basic common sense to understand that criminals don't obey laws, so more gun laws will do nothing to prevent them from committing gun violence, while it will restrict the access of law abiding citizens to such firearms they have a right to have for their own self defense or recreational enjoyment. We also understand fully, that aside any protestations to the contrary, the ultimate goal of these "common sense gun control" measures are a deliberate fraud to incrementally move toward abolishment of the 2nd Amendment right altogether.
This same principle is at the heart of allowing the government to simply declare through the media, absolute guilt of these "bombers", allowing them to be gunned down in the street, with cheers from the crowd of drooling imbeciles that don't see this advance toward total tyranny unfold in front of their closed eyes.
We have no desire to protect criminals from justice .... the point is to protect the innocent from gross injustice, such as is personified and made possible by accepting any claim made by the authorities and media.
You must understand that to defend the government's actions in Boston is grossly short sighted. Keep in mind that to allow this behavior will also allow the possibility that a picture of you could be put up on CNN this afternoon, claiming that you committed some horrific crime .... and your fellow vigilante authoritarian Americans would help hunt you down, and cheer enthusiastically as the police shot you dead in the street.
This is what you people are defending ..... you all have just allowed yourselves to be psychologically manipulated, playing upon a mindset that is short on wisdom and long on emotion and the appetite for revenge, much to the danger of your own personal best interests.
That's why we cannot tolerate such idiocy based on the silly idea that there are "good reasons" to allow it.
What's up with the father going into hiding all of a sudden?
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/us/boston-attack/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&u tm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29]Boston bombing suspects' family leaves Dagestan home, not for U.S. - CNN.com[/url]
Fear perhaps? You wouldn't want to go into hiding after your children were accused of being terrorists? Do you remember when a retired couple, totally unrelated to Zimmerman, received hate mail after the Trayvon Martin shooting because their address was tweeted?
Then there's another reason. Maybe he knows too much.
It's anyone's guess, but we're all just speculating.
If you are not under arrest, you will not be read the Miranda Warning, and police can still talk to you!
Until police have begun custodial interrogation, your Miranda Rights have not attached.For example,if the police knock on your door and wish to talk to you about some event or person, you do not have the right to remain silent unless you are in police custody. Or, if you are walking down the street and police stop you to ask you if you know anything about a crime that has just happened, police do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. The test is, if you are free to leave, then you are not in custody and police do not have ot read you your Miranda Rights. The exception to this is that if you feel that speaking about a person or event would incriminate YOU, you may politely decline to answer the questions.
If you have received a request from police to go to the station and answer questions, you have the right to politely decline to go. But, if the police really want to talk to you, they will likely find probable cause to obtain a search warrant, or to arrest you - at which point they will have to read you the Miranda Warning and you may assert your rights. You can request to speak with an attorney before you meet with police, though.
So it appears that if and when the police want to question her and we can assume that they will, if she wants the right to remain silent, she will have to be arrested. So, just as I thought, she is preparing for her chat with law enforcement with her attorney, who we can safely assume, is not advising her client to get arrested in order to remain silent.
Nobody has to talk to police if they have not been arrested. Most people think that you do have to answer questions, but that's not true. As your post says, they can absolutely "politely" decline and the police cannot force them to talk to them. One is required to answer questions only if one has been arrested; even then, the 5th can be used to not answer self-incriminating questions.
In this case, it seems that with an outstanding warrant it would have been quite easy to arrest her for that shoplifting offense. However, in order to question her about this incident, I think they would have to arrest her on something relating to this bombing. That may be pretty hard to find probable cause that she participated in this event.
Her attorney will be with her if authorities want to question her and he/she can and will advise her at the time of specific questions not to answer self-incriminating questions and the basis for not answering such questions. This kind of interview is extremely different from an interview in which the witness just agrees to talk to the police without an attorney and without being arrested.
Nobody has to talk to police if they have not been arrested. Most people think that you do have to answer questions, but that's not true. As your post says, they can absolutely "politely" decline and the police cannot force them to talk to them. One is required to answer questions only if one has been arrested; even then, the 5th can be used to not answer self-incriminating questions.
In this case, it seems that with an outstanding warrant it would have been quite easy to arrest her for that shoplifting offense. However, in order to question her about this incident, I think they would have to arrest her on something relating to this bombing. That may be pretty hard to find probable cause that she participated in this event.
Her attorney will be with her if authorities want to question her and he/she can and will advise her at the time of specific questions not to answer self-incriminating questions and the basis for not answering such questions. This kind of interview is extremely different from an interview in which the witness just agrees to talk to the police without an attorney and without being arrested.
The truth is, you don't have to answer any questions at all, ever, except who you are. Whether arrested or not, you cannot be compelled to answer any questions.
Nobody has to talk to police if they have not been arrested. Most people think that you do have to answer questions, but that's not true. As your post says, they can absolutely "politely" decline and the police cannot force them to talk to them. One is required to answer questions only if one has been arrested; even then, the 5th can be used to not answer self-incriminating questions.
In this case, it seems that with an outstanding warrant it would have been quite easy to arrest her for that shoplifting offense. However, in order to question her about this incident, I think they would have to arrest her on something relating to this bombing. That may be pretty hard to find probable cause that she participated in this event.
Her attorney will be with her if authorities want to question her and he/she can and will advise her at the time of specific questions not to answer self-incriminating questions and the basis for not answering such questions. This kind of interview is extremely different from an interview in which the witness just agrees to talk to the police without an attorney and without being arrested.
I've never assumed otherwise. As for her being questioned, in your opinion, there is a chance that she will not be questioned? I have a difficult time believing that law enforcement will not pursue that aveneue.
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.
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.
