Miranda Rights! (Page 2): I just re-read Quarles v. NY, which is where this doctrine of "public safety exemption" comes from. It appears I may have been in error. Under the standards...

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

I just re-read Quarles v. NY, which is where this doctrine of "public safety exemption" comes from. It appears I may have been in error. Under the standards listed in Quarles, the police may coerce a confession, and it may be used against an un-mirandized suspect, provided there is some legitimate concern for public safety.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Kombiguy wrote:

I just re-read Quarles v. NY, which is where this doctrine of "public safety exemption" comes from. It appears I may have been in error. Under the standards listed in Quarles, the police may coerce a confession, and it may be used against an un-mirandized suspect, provided there is some legitimate concern for public safety.

Then it makes my original question more interesting.... I do believe that I heard that information that they may get from him will not be admissible in court, but you just read a ruling that said it is.... It does not seem to me that we can have double standards for domestic crime no matter what the crime may be.... it is very unclear to me that these kids were anything other than religious zealots caught up in the Islamist hatred of so called infidels... I am not buying that they were somehow caught up in Al Qaeda... I think that they are nothing more than the lone wolf that we have been fearing would at some point succeed... which makes this criminal in a class with Timothy McVeigh, and would not lend itself to the classification of enemy combatant.

pbearperry Loc: Massachusetts

No point in giving Mirandas at this point.The turd is probably too injured to even be questioned.In fact if a person was arrested and not questioned about the crime,mirandas are not needed,unless the turd blurted something out on his own accord.Then he would be advised.

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

pbearperry wrote:

No point in giving Mirandas at this point.The turd is probably too injured to even be questioned.In fact if a person was arrested and not questioned about the crime,mirandas are not needed,unless the turd blurted something out on his own accord.Then he would be advised.

If he volunteers information, of his own accord, then there is no coercion, and such a statement is admissible regardless of miranda warnings.

pbearperry Loc: Massachusetts

Kombiguy wrote:

If he volunteers information, of his own accord, then there is no coercion, and such a statement is admissible regardless of miranda warnings.

That is true,but at that point I believe Mirandas would be given ,at least in my home State.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

pbearperry wrote:

That is true,but at that point I believe Mirandas would be given ,at least in my home State.

They are handling things at the federal level right now. So the laws are as they want them to be.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

Every thing I have read and heard have stated the same thing - public safety - this fellow and his brother did this terrible thing full knowing what they were doing - no need to give him his Miranda rights or question him at all - just put him on trial and imprison him for the rest of his life - NO DEATH PENALTY as THERE IS NO PAIN AFTER DEATH he needs to suffer just as his victims are suffering.

Frank T wrote:

There's been an exception to Miranda for more than... (show quote)

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

If I understand the circumstance.
Miranda is a right secured for criminals.
Terrorists by virtue of conducting acts of war, separate themselves from mere Crime.
They are enemy combatants, domestic or foreign, when an individual perpetrates acts of war on America, they afe no longer recognized as criminals.
Thus Miranda does not apply, any more than to a soldier conducting war.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Bruce with a Canon wrote:

If I understand the circumstance.
Miranda is a right secured for criminals.
Terrorists by virtue of conducting acts of war, separate themselves from mere Crime.
They are enemy combatants, domestic or foreign, when an individual perpetrates acts of war on America, they afe no longer recognized as criminals.
Thus Miranda does not apply, any more than to a soldier conducting war.

But as a citizen, his rights are still binding. That is the dilemma.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

The fine folks at GITMO would be happy to interview the lad and extract such information as desired.
'Following that a military tribunal and appropriate sentencing.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

I understood that they have enough evidence and proof to convict without any further information. They're not concerned with being able to use anything this puke has to say in court they're trying to find out if this is a part of a larger plot or group and therefore invoked the act that allows delaying Miranda.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

Bruce with a Canon wrote:

If I understand the circumstance.
Miranda is a right secured for criminals.
Terrorists by virtue of conducting acts of war, separate themselves from mere Crime.
They are enemy combatants, domestic or foreign, when an individual perpetrates acts of war on America, they afe no longer recognized as criminals.
Thus Miranda does not apply, any more than to a soldier conducting war.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Blurryeyed wrote:

I am very interested in the fact that Miranda righ... (show quote)

The point may be moot, Blurry. My guess is that there is enough evidence against him to prosecute him without anything that he may say. What they ARE interested in is getting information about any cell they may have been involved in or any further bombing plans.

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

Let the CIA do the interview. It is about finding out about other people who may have been involved and are still out there, as well as whether any other devices are out there. The information is not used at trial as the prosecution is secondary to the security concern. This safeguards both interests, since the information gained is not used in the prosecution.

Don't think that "subtle" means of enhanced interogaton are not already being used. (Withholding pain relief medication, and then pressing for answers.) My expectation is that he and his brother are lone wolves, but that has to be ascertained. I am sure he has ascess to the best CIA doctors in a soundproof private hospital room.

jjwright71 Loc: Lubbock,Tx

my question ,what part of their rights wasnt read to the people killed hurt or tramatised by the bomb ??the victoms have no rights !!just poof and it is all over and nobody cares!!