• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But he said the administration needs to consider at least modifying the public safety exception for reading a suspect his rights to ensure law enforcement can act with flexibility and within constitutional bounds.

Wow, if I was some happy go lucky idiot I would be shocked but Im not. So who can say with a straight face that the Democrats actually give a damm about civil liberties?

Holder wants new look at Miranda rights | recordonline.com
 
They must have heard the howls of criticism from conservatives when they offered the failed Times Square bomber his miranda rights. Now they can't do right for doing wrong....
 
They must have heard the howls of criticism from conservatives when they offered the failed Times Square bomber his miranda rights. Now they can't do right for doing wrong....

Hell even Beck believed that the guy was entitled to his Miranda rights as US citizen! This is sick road we're taking and its only getting worse.
 
Being required to read someone their rights is retarded in the first place.

Of course, I rarely if ever read rights to an arrested suspect now, so I guess it doesn't make a difference to me.
 
I do not see the point in having police read maranda rights.Is the Gun store clerk required to read me the 2nd amendment before allowing me in the store or to purchase a gun?Is a local militia required to read me the 2nd amendment before I join? Is a priest at a church,clerk at a newstands or some other related store required to read the first amendment to me? Why should the police be required to read 5th and 6th amendment rights(Which is what Miranda warning is) to those they arrest when we do not require others read out constitutional rights for other things? If that person screws up and testifies against himself or what ever without a lawyer present then that is that individual's fault. All constitutional rights are important and therefore should be taught in school, their literal meaning(not some stupid lib bastardized interpretation) and why they were created should be taught as well so that kids can understand the purpose and meaning of those rights.
 
Last edited:
Being required to read someone their rights is retarded in the first place.

Of course, I rarely if ever read rights to an arrested suspect now, so I guess it doesn't make a difference to me.

I am pretty sure there is no legal obligation to actually "read" anything to anyone as the wording in the Miranda case makes no mention of that. (As I recall)
 
The Miranda warning is only necessary if you are taken into custody to be interrogated; it's not required to be read if you're just being arrested.
 
Last edited:
The Miranda warning is only necessary if you are going to be interrogated; it's not required to be read if you're just being arrested.

Shouldn't you have already learn about rights from school? Why should the police have any obligation to remind you?
 
Well they don't have an obligation, but if they don't read it then anything that you say in interrogation is inadmissable as evidence.
 
Well they don't have an obligation, but if they don't read it then anything that you say in interrogation is inadmissable as evidence.

Why should it be inadmissible, that person arrest should have already learned about the constitution in school? We don't force gun store clerks to remind customers that they have the right to keep and bear arms. Nor for we force churches and religious bookstores to remind their congregation and customers of their right to freedom of religion. If you failed to exercise your constitutional rights then that is your fault, not the police.
 
Why should it be inadmissible, that person arrest should have already learned about the constitution in school? We don't force gun store clerks to remind customers that they have the right to keep and bear arms. Nor for we force churches and religious bookstores to remind their congregation and customers of their right to freedom of religion.

If someone is unknowledgeable about their rights then they don't have the ability to knowingly waive them. It isn't about what your rights are but rather about your ability to voluntarily waive them.
 
If someone is unknowledgeable about their rights then they don't have the ability to knowingly waive them. It isn't about what your rights are but rather about your ability to voluntarily waive them.
Then that is the fault and responsibility of the individual, not the police.Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights. If anything should be mandated it should be school classes on constitutional rights, not forcing cops to remind people.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Then that is the fault and responsibility of the individual, not the police.Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights.

Your comparison is invalid because the Miranda warning is not about simply informing people of their rights. It is about informing people about their ability to voluntarily waive them or to refuse to do so.

I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference between the two.

And the reasoning behind it is that if one is not aware of one's rights then any information obtained through interrogation is based on coercion.
 
Last edited:
Your comparison is invalid because the Miranda warning is not about simply informing people of their rights. It is about informing people about their ability to voluntarily waive them or to refuse to do so.

I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference between the two.

Isn't a constitutional right something that the government can not force you to do or take away? For example you as an American citizen has the right to buy a firearm but the government can not infringe on that right but at the same time they can not force you to have a gun.


And the reasoning behind it is that if one is not aware of one's rights then any information obtained through interrogation is based on coercion.
And Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
And Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights.

And once again that is because this is not about the reading of rights but about the informing people of their ability to choose whether or not they wish to voluntarily waive those rights.

"They should have known" is not an argument, because of the fact that if someone is unaware of their fifth amendment rights then any information obtained through interrogation was based on coercion.
 
And once again that is because this is not about the reading of rights but about the informing people of their ability to choose whether or not they wish to voluntarily waive those rights.

You have the right to not exercise any right, which is one of the things that makes it a right in the first since it is not forced. Its impossible to to call something a right if your forced to exercise it.

"They should have known" is not an argument, because of the fact that if someone is unaware of their fifth amendment rights then any information obtained through interrogation was based on coercion.

If someone allows the police to coerce them then that is their fault. It is not the constitutional responsibility of anyone to remind you of your rights.
 
Being required to read someone their rights is retarded in the first place.

Of course, I rarely if ever read rights to an arrested suspect now, so I guess it doesn't make a difference to me.

By law, as set forth in the landmark Miranda case, law enforcement is only require to read a suspect his rights before they question him.

A failure to do so renders anything said suspect says "fruit of the posionous tree" (makes it in admissable in court).
 
Hell even Beck believed that the guy was entitled to his Miranda rights as US citizen! This is sick road we're taking and its only getting worse.
Thats Hope and Change for you...
 
Thats Hope and Change for you...

As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.

Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.
 
As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.

Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.

Perspective... Democrats are in total control of the House, Senate, and the White House. Republicans have no way to push their legislative ideas without Democrats.

A Democratic Attorney General is talking about reviewing this issue, and you make an attempt to bring it back as "Republicans taking your rights away."
 
As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.
Aw... you don't get it, do you?

See, I didnt complain about it in the slightest - I was pointing out that things like this are exactly what your Messiah ran againt.

Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.
So you agree that The Obama is as guilty at removing everyone's rights as GWB. Gotcha.
 
As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.

Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.

BS..... if a person isn't in this country legally they shouldn't have the protections of our constitution.
 
By law, as set forth in the landmark Miranda case, law enforcement is only require to read a suspect his rights before they question him.

A failure to do so renders anything said suspect says "fruit of the posionous tree" (makes it in admissable in court).

Im fully aware of this.

And there is a reason why I said I don't advise people of their rights.

Because I don't interrogate people.

I let them interrogate themselves by asking me questions and then I answer them and then they start trying to explain themselves :)

Nowhere does it state I am not allowed to answer their questions and have a conversation that does not involve questioning them on the subject. I end all my sentences in periods, not question marks.
 
Back
Top Bottom