Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stop your fucking lying.Dude I'm an ex cop shut the fuck up.
Yes, there is a reason you are an ex LEO, but I don't remember it being a cop: doesn't matter.
So, yes, your source reinforces mine.
Mind your language.
I know better than you about giving the Miranda rights
How does my source reference yours when you said it's incorrect?bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true.
Regardless, if a person is not mirandized what they say cannot be used against then in court.
I DISAGREEThe bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.
Actually after obama signed the NDAA 2012 into law he lost the right to a lawyer.
Once the accused asked for an attorney the questioning would have to stop. The bomber would have to be read his rights and be charged.
Further, you better tell these guys, "Federal public defenders have agreed to represent the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. Miriam Conrad, the federal defender for Massachusetts, says her office expects to represent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after he is charged.
Public defenders will represent Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - Washington Times
Stop your fucking lying.Yes, there is a reason you are an ex LEO, but I don't remember it being a cop: doesn't matter.
So, yes, your source reinforces mine.
Mind your language.
I know better than you about giving the Miranda rights
How does my source reference yours when you said it's incorrect?bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true.
Regardless, if a person is not mirandized what they say cannot be used against then in court.
Good heavens. I did not say it was incorrect. I did not use the word "reference". I said the same thing that you did. Your source reinforces mine. This is hard for you, I know, but we are in agreement on this.
The question is "why" they are not mirandizing him if they can't use the information in court?
bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true.
Stop your fucking lying.
I know better than you about giving the Miranda rights
How does my source reference yours when you said it's incorrect?
Regardless, if a person is not mirandized what they say cannot be used against then in court.
Good heavens. I did not say it was incorrect. I did not use the word "reference". I said the same thing that you did. Your source reinforces mine. This is hard for you, I know, but we are in agreement on this.
The question is "why" they are not mirandizing him if they can't use the information in court?
I'm sorry you said it was Not true
bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true.
The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.
I don't give a flying frack about the bomber. I'll even confess to a darker side of me finding the idea that his older brother might still be alive but for the possible fact that little bro ran over him to be a hilarious cosmic joke that the universe played on him during an otherwise tragic string of days.
The problem is the government using the bombers actions to expand it's powers bit by little bit over the rest of us who cherish our rights.
Should you find yourself falling within the "public safety" exception I hope you are subjected to the same type of questioning. The moral is do not become a threat to public safety and your "rights" will be intact.
...Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights. The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule. Additionally, every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times...
bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial."
The point is not the police can't do what they are doing with the second bomber and his interrogation.
The only point is that should they be doing it that way.
The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.
I don't give a flying frack about the bomber. I'll even confess to a darker side of me finding the idea that his older brother might still be alive but for the possible fact that little bro ran over him to be a hilarious cosmic joke that the universe played on him during an otherwise tragic string of days.
The problem is the government using the bombers actions to expand it's powers bit by little bit over the rest of us who cherish our rights.
Should you find yourself falling within the "public safety" exception I hope you are subjected to the same type of questioning. The moral is do not become a threat to public safety and your "rights" will be intact.
The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.
Actually after obama signed the NDAA 2012 into law he lost the right to a lawyer.
Once the accused asked for an attorney the questioning would have to stop. The bomber would have to be read his rights and be charged.
Further, you better tell these guys, "Federal public defenders have agreed to represent the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. Miriam Conrad, the federal defender for Massachusetts, says her office expects to represent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after he is charged.
Public defenders will represent Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - Washington Times
Good heavens. I did not say it was incorrect. I did not use the word "reference". I said the same thing that you did. Your source reinforces mine. This is hard for you, I know, but we are in agreement on this.
The question is "why" they are not mirandizing him if they can't use the information in court?
I'm sorry you said it was Not true
bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true.
I said it was "Not true" because an accused cannot escape punishment simply because they were not read their Miranda warning.
You, bigrebnc, and I are saying the exact same thing.
Quit denying it.
That you were a cop is meaningless in terms of the definition of the law.
I said it was "Not true" because an accused cannot escape punishment simply because they were not read their Miranda warning.
if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
You are now changing the interpretation.
Yes, we said and meant the same thing.
End of story, bigreb.
Anymore argument and you will be trolling. Let it go.
The accused, who can't speak right now because of a wound, can ask for an attorney. If that access is denied to him and yet he "speaks", nothing can be held against him in court.
I'm sorry you said it was Not true
I said it was "Not true" because an accused cannot escape punishment simply because they were not read their Miranda warning.
Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.
I said it was "Not true" because an accused cannot escape punishment simply because they were not read their Miranda warning.
Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.
Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.
WHOSE CHANGING THE INTERPRETATION NOW?You are now changing the interpretation.
Yes, we said and meant the same thing.
End of story, bigreb.
Anymore argument and you will be trolling. Let it go.
If the accused can't speak how can he ask for a lawyer?The accused, who can't speak right now because of a wound, can ask for an attorney. If that access is denied to him and yet he "speaks", nothing can be held against him in court.
Not in North Carolina I spent two years as a police officer in that state. I know the law especially during that period of time.I said it was "Not true" because an accused cannot escape punishment simply because they were not read their Miranda warning.
Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.
Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.
