Miranda Rights!
Apr 21, 2013 07:53:24 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
I am very interested in the fact that Miranda righ... (show quote)
The last I heard was that he had not been charged of anything. Until he is charged, the Miranda Rights are not required.
Apr 21, 2013 08:01:26 #
Why does this calm rational Constitutional Logic not extend to the Second amendment? Just a thought?
Apr 21, 2013 08:02:25 #
jjwright71 wrote:
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!!
It's the bad guys that don't care. They don't care about rights or laws. That's why they're called bad guys.
The legal system doesn't activate until the suspect is taken into custody.
Apr 21, 2013 08:04:24 #
Apr 21, 2013 08:04:58 #
Fat Gregory wrote:
Why does this calm rational Constitutional Logic not extend to the Second amendment? Just a thought?
The liberals don't like guns for anyone. So they change the definition of choice words to fit their agenda.
Apr 21, 2013 08:19:51 #
Wes wrote:
The last I heard was that he had not been charged of anything. Until he is charged, the Miranda Rights are not required.
Not quite correct. Miranda rights are usually read at arrest, which can be up to 48 hours before being charged in most jurisdictions.
Apr 21, 2013 08:31:45 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
IMO no matter what he says nor when he says it he will get a fair trial and then be hung.
Apr 21, 2013 08:48:47 #
ole sarg wrote:
IMO no matter what he says nor when he says it he will get a fair trial and then be hung.
Not unless he's charged with a federal capital offense.
Apr 21, 2013 08:50:03 #
Do we try him first and then hang him, or the other way round. Hmmm... could experiment ... hang him a little, then try him a little, then hang him a little more.
Apr 21, 2013 08:54:53 #
Zero_Equals_Infinity wrote:
Do we try him first and then hang him, or the other way round. Hmmm... could experiment ... hang him a little, then try him a little, then hang him a little more.
Massachusetts is an enlightened state. They'll give him life.
Apr 21, 2013 09:10:34 #
Radioman
Loc: Ontario Canada
Falcon wrote:
An attorney can give us better guidance here, but Miranda refers to the fact that anything a suspect says before he has been advised of his rights cannot be used against him in court. Thus it becomes the prosecutor's concern about when to Mirandize a suspect. Determining if there are additional IED's laying around seems more important than being able to prosecute him for them after they explode--even if that information cannot be used later.
********
Hmmm
Miranda refers to the fact that anything a suspect says before he has been advised of his rights cannot be used against him in court.
I am no USA Lawyer - but I understand that this only applies when a person is arrested, while what they say publicly before being arrested can.
The other point is that Miranda has nothing to do with getting information needed to save the lives or safety of others. It only applies to using the verbal information gained from them, against them in court.
Apr 21, 2013 09:22:39 #
Radioman wrote:
******** br br Hmmm br br Miranda refers to the ... (show quote)
Miranda rights speak to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to our constitution, the right to not incriminate yourself and your right to counsel.... Any public speaking or information is not covered by Miranda, but once the police take a person into custody those rights certainly do apply, I am a little fuzzy on questioning prior to arrest or forced custody, but I don't think that Miranda rights are read until the person of interest becomes a suspect and is detained, although a person can at anytime request that an attorney be present even though they may not be a suspect or that they have not been detained.... But I am sure that the police have millions of conversations with potential witnesses without Mirandizing and through those conversations some of those witnesses are eventually arrested, and the information gained in those conversations is still admissible unless it can be shown that law enforcement knew or should have known that they were acting in bad faith by not advising his Miranda rights.
I could be way off on this as I am certainly not a lawyer or a cop.
Apr 21, 2013 09:37:13 #
SteveR wrote:
Massachusetts is an enlightened state. They'll give him life.
My comment was tongue in cheek.
Massachusetts may not, but I am wondering if he will be charged under federal law and jurisdiction.
Apr 21, 2013 09:51:10 #
BigBear wrote:
But as a citizen, his rights are still binding. That is the dilemma.
He was not acting as a citizen. By declaring this an act of terrorism and the "suspect" a terrorist the whole episode is moved under the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act has an extremely broad definition of what is considered to be a domestic terrorist. Miranda is only applicable if they are going to have a trial. Under the Patriot Act they can ship him down to Gitmo for the next 100 years without a trial.
The guy they held hostage briefly after hijacking his car said, in an interview, that the brothers were bragging about setting the bombs. From my point of view, these guys confessed and forfeited their rights as a citizen at that point. Again, we have the liberals concerned with the rights of the criminal and ignoring the victims rights. Didnt the victims have a right to live their lives? Who will speak for them?
Apr 21, 2013 09:55:21 #
SteveR wrote:
Massachusetts is an enlightened state. They'll give him life.
LOL I hear on the news that the good people of Massachusetts have twice voted to reinstate the death penalty but that the state government would not abide by the will of the people and that is the only reason that the state has no death penalty.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.