2nd bomber not Mirandized......government once again stomping on the constitution. (O.J., revolution)
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.
If he is a citizen he has the full rights of a citizen. You can't take a citizens rights away because you do not like them. How can this be any different than the Aurora Colorado shootings? Any act that results in fear - apprehension or terror - are all terrorist acts. A common mugging where a punk threatens to beat and old lady unless she hands over her money is a terrorist act. Soon as they toss the word TERRORIST into the air...all of a sudden all laws - all rights vanish?
As I am typing I just heard a Boston cop say..."we are happy to have closure and JUSTICE" - what the hell is that about? - a court of law doles out justice - a proper trial.
It just goes to show you that some cops seem to think that they are the law and they dispense justice...No- if rule of law is to prevail - due process must take place.
this part. They can use anything he says at any time...whether mirandized or not.
You may also want to check into the Central Park Five case.
The original statement was made in response to someone believing that if the guy wasn't Mirandized the case could be thrown out. The point was it wouldn't get it thrown out. How was what I said contrary to that?
If he is a citizen he has the full rights of a citizen.
Agreed, but once again, even us citizens arent required to be mriandized unless
A) They are being interrogated
AND
B) That information will be used to prosecute him, and not just obtain information for other reasons.
To explain this,
People can be arrested, and thrown in jail, and never questioned.. (lots of people are)
or
People can be questioned about other activities you might know about, and provided these other activities arent used to prosecute you, then you still dont have to be mirandized, if its only to obtain information.
The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination
If the information is NOT going to be used against him, then the miranda warnings dont need read to him.
they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
This isnt tv folks.
"Its been that way forever" is not a statute.
The 5th amendment right only give a person the right not to force to testify against himself "...[n]o person may be compelled to testify against himself ..."
There is no provision in the constitution or federal statue that says what you say proir or after informed of miranda rights can not be used against you.
The 5th amendment right only give a person the right not to force to testify against himself "...[n]o person may be compelled to testify against himself ..."
There is no provision in the constitution or federal statue that says what you say proir or after informed of miranda rights can not be used against you.
Oh for gods sakes, learn how our laws are written. They arent written to give people permission, the Constitution is a charter of NEGATIVE liberties..
What your saying is similar to "Show me where the law allows you to cut your grass"..
p.s. the link also provided Supreme Court rulings on the matter. Go argue with the Supreme Court if you know more about the law than they do.
Miranda v. Arizona
Westover v. United States,
Vignera v. New York,
California v. Stewart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda," or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.
The original statement was made in response to someone believing that if the guy wasn't Mirandized the case could be thrown out. The point was it wouldn't get it thrown out. How was what I said contrary to that?
I made the clarification plain. If you do not accept the clairfication of your words...move on.
And you have no right to devoid him of his rights. I agree, but just like any other citizen, he has the right to due process. If we start taking away the rights of the worst, what is to stop them from taking away the rights of all the rest of us whenever they choose, using it to arrest/convict "enemies of the state'' I know how you feel, and I more than anyone would have liked to have seen him hung from the highest tree, but we have to keep emotions out of it as to protect the rights of all of us. They once asked Robert Shapiro if he thought O.J. was guilty, he paused and said, "Sometimes the guilty have to go free to protect the innocent" I understood what he meant, it was about protecting all of our rights.
He IS an American citizen and has the same rights as ALL American citizens.
If he were NOT a citizen, I couldn't care less what they do with him.
The constitution giveth and the constitution taketh away.
Can you actually explain someones "Miranda Rights?"
By the way, Miranda applies to ANYONE arrested in the United States. Legal, illegal, US Citizen, Canadian, or from Mars. The simple fact, you have no clue what it is you are talking about, is telling in and of itself.
Can you actually explain someones "Miranda Rights?"
By the way, Miranda applies to ANYONE arrested in the United States. Legal, illegal, US Citizen, Canadian, or from Mars. The simple fact, you have no clue what it is you are talking about, is telling in and of itself.
The other poster didnt say they dont apply, he said he didnt care.
Oh for gods sakes, learn how our laws are written. They arent written to give people permission, the Constitution is a charter of NEGATIVE liberties..
What your saying is similar to "Show me where the law allows you to cut your grass"..
p.s. the link also provided Supreme Court rulings on the matter. Go argue with the Supreme Court if you know more about the law than they do.
this is not grass cutting. this is being able to use what a person says durring interrogation agasint him.
If you dont know the perticular statute, thats OK...but act as if you understand what I asking.
Cutting grass and use of one's testimony durring interogation against them are not equal.
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.
