Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him

[Sarah G]

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Nonsense. The Quarles case was heard in 1984. Obama was too young to be president. Here are the relevant parts of the case, "there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted [467 U.S. 649, 650] into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." Cases and Codes

There is no erosion of rights here. Should the bomber have the wherewithal to ask for an attorney then the questioning stops and he will be read his rights. Nevertheless, the authorities have every good reason to exercise their rights under the public safety exception. This lunatic was throwing bombs outside the window of the car they stole during the chase there may be more bombs planted elsewhere, therein lies the public safety exception.

That's what I've been hearing. I've also heard they may offer him immunity to the death penalty just to get him talking.

The entire story is more important to the world than just this one kid. I so hope nobody kills him.

 

[Connery]

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Incorrect.

The Constitution refers to due process only, that could be judicial or administrative. See: Davidson v. City of New Orleans (1878), Public Clearing House v. Coyne (1904). The Administration affords terrorist suspects administrative due process. You also failed to cite a Federal court case that determined the practice was either illegal or un-Constitutional, as your opinion is both subjective and irrelevant.

From the following site:

Government takes many actions that may deprive people of life, liberty, or property. In each case, some form of due process is required. For example, a state might fire someone from a government job, send defendant to prison, revoke a prisoner's parole, or cut someone's social security payments or other welfare benefits. Due process does not prohibit these actions, but it does require that certain procedures be followed before any action is taken.

Right to Due Process

Considering we are talking about Americans what is the problem with at LEAST getting a grand jury indictment? Other then it is a Consitiutional requirement meant to prevent the government for killing 16 year old Americans I do not see a problem.

The fifth amendment:

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation.

Killing 16 year old Americans without due process is a perversion of the Constitution of the United States, no matter where the young man may be at the time. And please, don't tell me he was a terrorist no court, grand jury, ever made that determination and neither did the administration. If you like the road we are heading down then we all will get what we deserve.

Kindly read the material that has been presented to you. The bomber can ask for an attorney at any time and the questioning will stop, the authorities can exercise the public safety exception without Mirandizing this person.

 

[Freewill]

Once again I will have to say I disagree with Obama and his DOJ

American Citizen arrested on American soil. Miranda should be in play.

Just more evidence that Obama doesn't care about your rights or the Constitution.

The nature of serial killing (bomb set off to kill more people than it actually killed, while upward of 200 were injured with 50 amputations for grossly being blown off) requires stringent measures to prevent further murders by close associates. Public safety of hundreds is worth more than the civil rights of known criminals and mass assassins.

I do understand both citizenship rights and blatant treason. Cops are forced to draw a line under fire. The Boston cops and the FBI went more than the second mile with this particular serial murderer who hid behind his medical studies for cover of his true ends--the killing of American citizens from what he thought was his safety zone of omuerta silence of the true intentions of his heart against the country that went out on a limb to save his family from cruel oppression in Chechnya. We didn't know they hated us enough to do what was done on April 15.

We're smarter now. We learned a lesson. That lesson is the writing on the wall that it's time to stop immigration of people with a hidden agenda, whether it's La Raza's desire to steal property on borderlands because they can or to invite radical muslims over here to create publicity at our expense.

You wouldn't be wanting us to be fooled again, would you, Shroom? I really don't think that, I'm just saying the obvious--national security is constitutional, and the President is relegated that task "to provide for the common defense" which is done now at the discretion of Homeland Security.

If reports are true the FBI did screening of the older brother and cleared him. The younger brother came to the country at age 9. The point being is no matter what we apparently do a determined person will get through. What we don't want to do is become them. We don't want to give up civil liberties under the allusion of safety.

I am really interested in knowing the motivation for this crime. I don't care if we waterboard the bastard to find out (not really). What he and his brother did to that 8 year old and the 170 others earns him the a place in Hell along side Hitler. Is it because of perceive offenses against Muslims? Is it because his brother had no American friends and turned to radical publications? I am thinking that instead of sending hellfires to kill 16 year old boys we send them to silence the publishers of the hate filled material the older brother was allegedly reading.

Apparently now the government will solve this situation with a "pressure cooker" background check.

We also need to know if there are others out their that helped these two. I am thinking they are not or they were not very helpful in supplying a get away. Why didn't the two just flee the city? Why does it seem they had absolutely no plan for after the bombings? Were they planning on dying in the blast then chickened out?

 

[Freewill]

Incorrect.

The Constitution refers to due process only, that could be judicial or administrative. See: Davidson v. City of New Orleans (1878), Public Clearing House v. Coyne (1904). The Administration affords terrorist suspects administrative due process. You also failed to cite a Federal court case that determined the practice was either illegal or un-Constitutional, as your opinion is both subjective and irrelevant.

From the following site:

Government takes many actions that may deprive people of life, liberty, or property. In each case, some form of due process is required. For example, a state might fire someone from a government job, send defendant to prison, revoke a prisoner's parole, or cut someone's social security payments or other welfare benefits. Due process does not prohibit these actions, but it does require that certain procedures be followed before any action is taken.

Right to Due Process

Considering we are talking about Americans what is the problem with at LEAST getting a grand jury indictment? Other then it is a Consitiutional requirement meant to prevent the government for killing 16 year old Americans I do not see a problem.

The fifth amendment:

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation.

Killing 16 year old Americans without due process is a perversion of the Constitution of the United States, no matter where the young man may be at the time. And please, don't tell me he was a terrorist no court, grand jury, ever made that determination and neither did the administration. If you like the road we are heading down then we all will get what we deserve.

Kindly read the material that has been presented to you. The bomber can ask for an attorney at any time and the questioning will stop, the authorities can exercise the public safety exception without Mirandizing this person.

I did read the material, did you? The bomber doesn't need a lawyer for him not to talk to the authorities. What Miranda does is protect the prosecution not the criminal. They can talk to anyone they want all day without Mirandizing them but if they try and use what the person said then that will be, or should be, thrown out of court. I have yet to read what the exception changes in regards to what the person tells the police. Miranda came about to stop police tactics that caused innocent men to admit to crimes they did not commit. It was started to stop police from acting against a person's right to representation.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article covering this very subject.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Miranda Rights: The public safety exception and terrorism cases. - Slate Magazine

From the article:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night. He will have to remember on his own that he has a right to a lawyer, and that anything he says can be used against him in court, because the government won’t tell him. This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.”

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe this will explain it better.

FBI ? The ?Public Safety? Exception to Miranda

 

[Wolfmoon]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 has been desinated an enemy combatant and a terrorist in the eyes of the federal law. The laws are different for those people. They don’t have Constitutional Rights such as Miranda Warning, habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. The Federal Government can make him disappear in a cell with only straw for a bed for the rest of his life if they want to and it's LEGAL.

enemy combatant legal definition of enemy combatant. enemy combatant synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

.

 

[Freewill]

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Nonsense. The Quarles case was heard in 1984. Obama was too young to be president. Here are the relevant parts of the case, "there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted [467 U.S. 649, 650] into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." Cases and Codes

There is no erosion of rights here. Should the bomber have the wherewithal to ask for an attorney then the questioning stops and he will be read his rights. Nevertheless, the authorities have every good reason to exercise their rights under the public safety exception. This lunatic was throwing bombs outside the window of the car they stole during the chase there may be more bombs planted elsewhere, therein lies the public safety exception.

No, you are incorrect as the links I provided show. The exception they are using was written by Holder to the FBI. It never met a judicial review and needs challenged before the court. What you are talking about is if the police are in the process of arresting someone and realize that a person had a gun but they don't see and ask where it is. Thus an immediate public safety concern. What is happening in this case is not that exception. The kid is a scum bag talked into doing awful things but that is why we have laws so these scum bags don't get off on technicalities as did Bill Ayers many years ago.

 

[Freewill]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 has been desinated an enemy combatant and a terrorist in the eyes of the federal law. The laws are different for those people. They don’t have Constitutional Rights such as Miranda Warning, habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. The Federal Government can make him disappear in a cell with only straw for a bed for the rest of his life if they want to and it's LEGAL.

enemy combatant legal definition of enemy combatant. enemy combatant synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

.

Now all the government has to do is declare that someone is a terrorist or enemy combatant then their civil rights go out the window. Interesting. I am not sure why we need courts anymore. I guess to tell war vets they can't fly their flags in their own yard.

 

[Sallow]

(1) The president has every right to use drones in the war against terror. It is simply a weapon system. Remember weapons don't kill people. Presidents kill people, and when in light of his cic power, yes, he can do it constitutionally.

(2) Nothing can be used against him without the warning. The folks are talking to him in case he dies and they can't talk to him.

Think, people.

OK then Bush thought Iraq was a terrorist threat and considering the behavior of Saddam he was right. I am glad you now agree with the actions Bush took after Congress gave him the go ahead.

Obama took out a 16 year old boy, his cousins and those at a diner, do you REALLY want to give that power to a Republican? Not that a Republican ever did such a thing but I assume you don't like Republicans much. It is interesting how the left has fallen in love with the patriot act and the powers it gave the president. Except of course when Bush was in office.

So what do you say, ok to kill 16 year old American boys?

What behavior?

 

[Freewill]

Maybe this will explain it better.

FBI ? The ?Public Safety? Exception to Miranda

The exception they are talking about, do you feel it is being applied in this case?

The exception they are using is the one Holder gave to the FBI without judicial review. If Bush's administration had done the same the ACLU would be howling up a storm. I am thinking that for the last 5 years the ACLU must have gone out of business.

 

[Sallow]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 has been desinated an enemy combatant and a terrorist in the eyes of the federal law. The laws are different for those people. They don’t have Constitutional Rights such as Miranda Warning, habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. The Federal Government can make him disappear in a cell with only straw for a bed for the rest of his life if they want to and it's LEGAL.

enemy combatant legal definition of enemy combatant. enemy combatant synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

.

When did that happen?

 

[Freewill]

(1) The president has every right to use drones in the war against terror. It is simply a weapon system. Remember weapons don't kill people. Presidents kill people, and when in light of his cic power, yes, he can do it constitutionally.

(2) Nothing can be used against him without the warning. The folks are talking to him in case he dies and they can't talk to him.

Think, people.

OK then Bush thought Iraq was a terrorist threat and considering the behavior of Saddam he was right. I am glad you now agree with the actions Bush took after Congress gave him the go ahead.

Obama took out a 16 year old boy, his cousins and those at a diner, do you REALLY want to give that power to a Republican? Not that a Republican ever did such a thing but I assume you don't like Republicans much. It is interesting how the left has fallen in love with the patriot act and the powers it gave the president. Except of course when Bush was in office.

So what do you say, ok to kill 16 year old American boys?

What behavior?

Remember now, it was the free Iraqi people who executed Saddam.

Crimes of Saddam Hussein

On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again. Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured. After a year or more in prison, many were exiled to a southern desert camp. The town itself was destroyed; houses were bulldozed and orchards were demolished.

Though Saddam's reprisal against Dujail is considered one of his lesser-known crimes, it has been chosen as the first for which he will be tried.

2.Anfal Campaign
Officially from February 23 to September 6, 1988 (but often thought to extend from March 1987 to May 1989), Saddam Hussein's regime carried out the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign against the large Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The purpose of the campaign was ostensibly to reassert Iraqi control over the area; however, the real goal was to permanently eliminate the Kurdish problem.

The campaign consisted of eight stages of assault, where up to 200,000 Iraqi troops attacked the area, rounded up civilians, and razed villages. Once rounded up, the civilians were divided into two groups: men from ages of about 13 to 70 and women, children, and elderly men. The men were then shot and buried in mass graves. The women, children, and elderly were taken to relocation camps where conditions were deplorable. In a few areas, especially areas that put up even a little resistance, everyone was killed.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the area, yet it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign. Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide.

3.Chemical Weapons Against Kurds
As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."

4.Invasion of Kuwait
On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded the country of Kuwait. The invasion was induced by oil and a large war debt that Iraq owed Kuwait. The six-week, Persian Gulf War pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991. As the Iraqi troops retreated, they were ordered to light oil wells on fire. Over 700 oil wells were lit, burning over one billion barrels of oil and releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Oil pipelines were also opened, releasing 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf and tainting many water sources. The fires and the oil spill created a huge environmental disaster.

5.Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs
At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.

As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. The Marsh Arabs had lived for thousands of years in the marshlands located in southern Iraq until Iraq built a network of canals, dykes, and dams to divert water away from the marshes. The Marsh Arabs were forced to flee the area, their way of life decimated.

 

[Freewill]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 has been desinated an enemy combatant and a terrorist in the eyes of the federal law. The laws are different for those people. They don’t have Constitutional Rights such as Miranda Warning, habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. The Federal Government can make him disappear in a cell with only straw for a bed for the rest of his life if they want to and it's LEGAL.

enemy combatant legal definition of enemy combatant. enemy combatant synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

.

When did that happen?

Good question.

 

[Wolfmoon]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 has been desinated an enemy combatant and a terrorist in the eyes of the federal law. The laws are different for those people. They don’t have Constitutional Rights such as Miranda Warning, habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. The Federal Government can make him disappear in a cell with only straw for a bed for the rest of his life if they want to and it's LEGAL.

enemy combatant legal definition of enemy combatant. enemy combatant synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

.

When did that happen?

After 911 Link Link

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

In the real world he got immediate surgery not immediate questioning.

I wonder if his brother will be buried at sea before tomorrow. There are already pictures of his body on the INTERNET. Not so much for another famous Muslim.

You mean the one whose body was kept on ice for years so that Obama could look as if he captured him? Lol! I still cannot get over that one. Benazir Bhutto on youtube video still there after all these years.......telling David Frost that Osama Bin Laden was murdered by Sheik Omar and that now her life was being threatened? About 2 months after that interview they did murder her yet no one responded to her matter of fact statement that Bin Laden had already been dead for over a year at that point!

Funny story. I met a Pakistani whose entire family lived in Karachi. He told his mother said, why are they looking for a man who is already dead? ( bin laden ) It was common news in Pakistan that bin laden had been dead for years. They must think the American people are the biggest idiots on earth! Seriously! Wouldn't you? The entire Muslim world knows bin laden has been dead for years and Obama is busy having movies in hollywood portraying him as the man of the hour. Just too funny. You can't make it up, folks!

- Jeri

 

[Freewill]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

ALL law in the US is subject to regulation and there are exceptions to many of them. There is no issue with invoking an exception to this one. Besides, if he has ever turned on an American TV, he knows his rights.

If it is his right then why not Mirandize him? I don't get it, giving up rights for the allusion of safety. The only thing the government is doing is keeping the boy from getting representation. He is a scum bag for sure but rights are rights.

I am starting to think that the war on terrorism that the liberal left used to say never existed is now a war with everyone and anyone. What army does this boy belong to? What organized people that we are at war with does he represent?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is a good discussion, you say something wrong on top of your high horse and I get to knock you off. Yes, the warning is a Miranda warning, but the warning is telling the person their rights under Miranda. You should be able to find the difference with a simple google. Might save you some embarrassment if you did it BEFORE you posted.

You might not embarass yourself if you googled before you posted.

There is a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement that was established by the SCOTUS in 1984 in New York v. Quarles.

Yippee another liberal on his high horse. As is usual for liberals you answer a question not asked and you do it so sanctimoniously. The OP is all about the exception that was the point of the discussion. I never once made the claim their wasn't an exception nor did I say I totally disagreed. But the Miranda warning does spell out for the person their rights which is what Jake said didn't exist. BTW I did google it to make sure I was right as I almost always do.

Knocking two liberals off their high horse in one day, life is gooooooooooooooooooooood.

Oh, so someone else using your account said this?

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Stop being an asshole. Stop lying about what you said when it's there in black and white a few posts earlier.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

ALL law in the US is subject to regulation and there are exceptions to many of them. There is no issue with invoking an exception to this one. Besides, if he has ever turned on an American TV, he knows his rights.

If it is his right then why not Mirandize him? I don't get it, giving up rights for the allusion of safety. The only thing the government is doing is keeping the boy from getting representation. He is a scum bag for sure but rights are rights.

I am stating to think that the war on terrorism that the liberal left used to say never existed is now a war with everyone and anyone. What army does this boy belong to? What organized people that we are at war with does he represent?

See what's going here, people?

Another deranged Obama hater who obviously in the past accused 'liberals' of not treating the war on terror as a war,

now complaining that the 'liberals' ARE treating the war on terror as a war.

Pathetic.

 

[Connery]

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Nonsense. The Quarles case was heard in 1984. Obama was too young to be president. Here are the relevant parts of the case, "there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted [467 U.S. 649, 650] into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." Cases and Codes

There is no erosion of rights here. Should the bomber have the wherewithal to ask for an attorney then the questioning stops and he will be read his rights. Nevertheless, the authorities have every good reason to exercise their rights under the public safety exception. This lunatic was throwing bombs outside the window of the car they stole during the chase there may be more bombs planted elsewhere, therein lies the public safety exception.

No, you are incorrect as the links I provided show. The exception they are using was written by Holder to the FBI. It never met a judicial review and needs challenged before the court. What you are talking about is if the police are in the process of arresting someone and realize that a person had a gun but they don't see and ask where it is. Thus an immediate public safety concern. What is happening in this case is not that exception. The kid is a scum bag talked into doing awful things but that is why we have laws so these scum bags don't get off on technicalities as did Bill Ayers many years ago.

Nope not here this will stand.