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.
I don't read your stupid links. If you can ever form a real argument. I'll look at it. I know you're a liberal zombie who accepts any explanation from your lord.
Well, supported facts trump your made-up bullshit. The government is on legal footing.
How does this website KNOW whether or not the kid was read his rights?
I see nothing in this article that supports the notion that they KNOW what happened.Despite initial reports to the contrary, FBI agents did not read Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights immediately after he was taken into custody.
I don't read your stupid links. If you can ever form a real argument. I'll look at it. I know you're a liberal zombie who accepts any explanation from your lord.
Well, supported facts trump your made-up bullshit. The government is on legal footing.
They would and that site has some good information in it but I dont think that it definitively shows that they are on good legal footing here and does not even address the underlying question in the OP as to whether or not this is a good thing.
If you respect the constitution, you have to find the idea that people are not read their Miranda rights as pretty damn suspect. The court case that is cited in the link provided makes sense, the cop was locating an immediate threat while apprehending the suspect. I see nothing wrong with that and agree with the SCOTUS. What I find hard to swallow is that terror suspects are now somehow exempt for long periods of time without and clear immediate danger and just allowing this because the government says that it needs to in order to keep us safe. How long has he been in custody without those rights being read? How long before they decide that he actually does have the right to a lawyer and the right to be silent? Because he is a suspect in a terror case he waves all his rights now?
That line of thought is terrible and very dangerous to our rights. It is also not the same thing that the SCOTUS ruling that is mentioned. It is the concept taken to extreme measures to the point that it does not resemble the same thing.
Umm cause the cops said they didn't.
Derp..
It does NOT say that in the link, lad.
That link contradicts itself.
WHO SAID the cops did not read him his rights?
The author does not tell us.
He asserts the fact but does not tell us who told him that fact.
Typical of propaganda...
The FBI spokesperson at the press conference last night said he was not read his Miranda rights and also said under federal law, because he was a terrorist, he was not entitled to that right.
There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.
Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.
Yep. And then he can be deemed an enemy combatant and never be read his rights at all.There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.
Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.
Thank you president Dubya and all his supporters.
Yep. And then he can be deemed an enemy combatant and never be read his rights at all.There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.
Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.
Thank you president Dubya and all his supporters.
The law that Bush signed expired, you cannot blame him for the fact that the Democratic controlled Congress passed a new version of it, or for the fact that Obama actually signed it.
and here they are pretending Obama and the FBI are doing something illegal for poltical reasons.
they have no shame and will lie about anything straight into the face of cold hard facts.
How did the republican party become so very very stupid and sociopathic?
Think for a second. We as Americans are losing rights left and right, pun. Lol
The guy is citizen. He has constitutional rights.
And the whole search every home without a warrant was a violation as well. Not to mention making people stay inside.
Searching and feeling up children at airports.
All of these are clear infringements on our personal freedoms.
The phone tapping, again another infringement on our privacy.
Chip chip chip. And we are letting it happen out of fear. We've let these terrorists take away our freedoms.
I understand they want info from this guy but Obama wanted to give rights to actually non citizen terrorists yet he is waiving those with this guy?
It's a valid point.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=police%20authority%20law%20in%20emergencies%20&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mass.gov%2Feohhs%2Fdocs%2Fdph%2Fcdc%2Freporting%2Fiq-community-caretaking-function.rtf&ei=QcxyUaeWB4qprQGjrIGQBg&usg=AFQjCNFvbivXCvI_OFskF2uQ1S6SbY1avA&bvm=bv.45512109,d.aWM&cad=rja
If this were a Republican administration Lakhota would be screaming bloody murder and TGG would be defending........ Ya can't make this shit up folks!!
Thank you Mister Minister of Propaganda. At no point have I defended this guy outright. I've stated that he has rights under our Constitution. Do you have a problem with that concept or are you too busy trying to diminish me to care?
Damn dud, you really are blinded by stupidity.
By the way we might be able to get the left half of your body reattached....... If you want to that is......... The hard part will be removing the red blinders that have fused with what little brain you have left but I think it's doable.
The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.
Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.
First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a police stopped a man they suspected of a crime, and found an empty shoulder holster, and asked him where the gun was. The thinking was a clear example of the imminent danger to the public outweighed the requirement for a warning. Since these guys actually set of bimbs, and even threw some during the pursuit, there is a clear danger to the public, which actually falls into precedent.
Besides, he can still refuse to answer.
New York v. Quarles | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Second, unless they are actually interrogating him with the intent to use what he says at trial there is nothing anywhere that requires a Miranda warning. They can sit back and question him as much as they want, and even question him while he is under the influence of drugs and cannot legally waive his rights, as long as they do not use it in court.
If you want to gripe about rights you should at least know what you are talking about. Personally, being a guy that wants to make it as hard as possible for the government to prosecute someone, I have absolutely no problem with either proceedure. If there is a genuine possibility of danger to others the government should be able to question a suspect without telling him he can shut up, and use anything he says against him. They should also be able to ask him questions if they do not intend to use anything he says against him, even if he invokes his right to remain silent and asks for a lawyer.
A day of sanity from QW. Well done.
There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.
Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.
Wrong.
He can demand a lawyer at any point, despite your absurd understanding of the law. He can also refuse to say anything, and the government cannot do a damn thing about it.
The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.
Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.
First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a police stopped a man they suspected of a crime, and found an empty shoulder holster, and asked him where the gun was. The thinking was a clear example of the imminent danger to the public outweighed the requirement for a warning. Since these guys actually set of bimbs, and even threw some during the pursuit, there is a clear danger to the public, which actually falls into precedent.
Besides, he can still refuse to answer.
New York v. Quarles | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Second, unless they are actually interrogating him with the intent to use what he says at trial there is nothing anywhere that requires a Miranda warning. They can sit back and question him as much as they want, and even question him while he is under the influence of drugs and cannot legally waive his rights, as long as they do not use it in court.
If you want to gripe about rights you should at least know what you are talking about. Personally, being a guy that wants to make it as hard as possible for the government to prosecute someone, I have absolutely no problem with either proceedure. If there is a genuine possibility of danger to others the government should be able to question a suspect without telling him he can shut up, and use anything he says against him. They should also be able to ask him questions if they do not intend to use anything he says against him, even if he invokes his right to remain silent and asks for a lawyer.
Is this really true though? I know that he can remain silent because that is a natural ability but if he lawyers up do they actually have to provide one before they continue? It seems to me that he has no right of counsel until they actually put this to court and that during this time period they would not have to observe the demand.Wrong.There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.
Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.
He can demand a lawyer at any point, despite your absurd understanding of the law. He can also refuse to say anything, and the government cannot do a damn thing about it.
Obama can give the order to murder an American on American soil who is not an imminent threat to anyone with a drone.
The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.
Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.
First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a police stopped a man they suspected of a crime, and found an empty shoulder holster, and asked him where the gun was. The thinking was a clear example of the imminent danger to the public outweighed the requirement for a warning. Since these guys actually set of bimbs, and even threw some during the pursuit, there is a clear danger to the public, which actually falls into precedent.
Besides, he can still refuse to answer.
New York v. Quarles | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Second, unless they are actually interrogating him with the intent to use what he says at trial there is nothing anywhere that requires a Miranda warning. They can sit back and question him as much as they want, and even question him while he is under the influence of drugs and cannot legally waive his rights, as long as they do not use it in court.
If you want to gripe about rights you should at least know what you are talking about. Personally, being a guy that wants to make it as hard as possible for the government to prosecute someone, I have absolutely no problem with either proceedure. If there is a genuine possibility of danger to others the government should be able to question a suspect without telling him he can shut up, and use anything he says against him. They should also be able to ask him questions if they do not intend to use anything he says against him, even if he invokes his right to remain silent and asks for a lawyer.
