View Poll Results: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's fine, and warranted

    7 14.89%
  • It's BS, and shouldn't ever be done

    32 68.09%
  • I'm somewhere in the middle on this one

    6 12.77%
  • Other (please explain)

    2 4.26%
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 105

Thread: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mak2 View Post
    How so? Reading him his rights is not his rights. They dont change.
    His rights don't change, but his awareness of his rights and his willingness to invoke them might change. That's the entire premise of the public safety exception.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Like I said before, I'm ambivalent about whether or not this "safety exception" is a good idea. However, for you to say that reading him his rights will "hurt no one" as if that is a certainty is, at best, presumptuous and, at worst, inaccurate.
    How could reading a man his rights harm someone? I cannot fathom how that could possibly be true.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  3. #93
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - ABC News

    I'm feeling pretty confident that we got the right guy. But, as someone who believes that the integrity of the overall system is more important than any single incident and/or suspect, I have issues with not reading the guy his Miranda warning. One, as he is in custody, I'm failing to see any scenario where he continues to pose any threat to public safety that would trigger this, and two, it smacks of yet another end-run around the Constitution using fear and emotion as the rationalization.
    I think they should have read him his rights or if the government didn't want to do that, shipped him off to Gitmo and declare him an enemy combatant.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    His rights don't change, but his awareness of his rights and his willingness to invoke them might change. That's the entire premise of the public safety exception.
    Are you really ok with police and feds violating a person's rights if a person doesn't know they have them? Or using their discretion to decide when a person should know about them?
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  5. #95
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,041

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Where does your link show that SCOTUS ruled on not Mirandizing people? You know, what the thread's about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schutzengel View Post
    Right, so why didnt they Mirandize him... he IS a US citizen... unless someone told them not to so that he could walk on a technicality
    Scotus ruled that you can hold off on reading the miranda rights in the even that there is a danger to the public. Meaning that they'd be able to ask him quickly "are there any explosives on you, have you planted anything any where" etc... but after that, they do have to read it to him.

    If they still haven't read him his rights then I think they are going about this in an incredibly stupid way.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  6. #96
    Sage
    mak2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    07-08-16 @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    His rights will not be violated. I must be missing something. if the judge allows evidnce gathterd from him before he was read his rights, in court, then yes his rights would be violated. IF the judge does not allow that evidence in court then he rights were preserved.

    The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.[Note 1] Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kreton View Post
    Are you really ok with police and feds violating a person's rights if a person doesn't know they have them? Or using their discretion to decide when a person should know about them?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
    God Bless the Marine Corps.

  7. #97
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    It removes all consequences from anything he may testify to, and possibly for any discoveries that any such questions may lead to. Perhaps amnesty is the wrong word, it's more of a unlimited immunity.

    I have no problem with the public saftey exception when its warrented, but unless there's something that we don't know, it's not warrented here. What makes this 19 year old different from every other criminal or murderer in the US? Is suspicion that he may have been sympathetic to Islamic Extremists reason to treat him differently?
    It's actually a very limited immunity. It only removes consequences between two specific time periods, from the time they began questioning/interrogating him pertaining to the bombings until the point where they do read him his rights and ensure he understands them.

    The feds feel it is warranted in order to ask him about more bombs or other people involved (although questions toward this end should be very limited prior to reading him his rights). It won't have that big of an effect at all on what can be used against him unless he completely confesses and starts naming names before his rights are read to him and then clams up after.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #98
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Thomas Jefferson isn't the one who will be hearing the case or the appeals, so according to the law as it exists now.
    Could you provide me with a citation, please? If there are several, one or two examples would be fine.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    They want to be able to question him about any other explosives out there (public safety exception) and a terrorist does not have the same rights as a normal criminal so Miranda really is irrelevant.
    All humans have the same rights, terrorist or not.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #100
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 10:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It's actually a very limited immunity. It only removes consequences between two specific time periods, from the time they began questioning/interrogating him pertaining to the bombings until the point where they do read him his rights and ensure he understands them.

    The feds feel it is warranted in order to ask him about more bombs or other people involved (although questions toward this end should be very limited prior to reading him his rights). It won't have that big of an effect at all on what can be used against him unless he completely confesses and starts naming names before his rights are read to him and then clams up after.
    Exactly! It's limited to whatever he tells authorities between now and when they read him his rights that they didn't know before. And that's kind of unlimited.

    Say he gives them a location that they didn't know about before, they can't use that or anything they find there in a trial. If we had reason to believe that he could bring down a bigger fish or group, then sure. But we have absolutely no evidence to support that.

    I don't see people acting in the interest of the public good. I see politicians making political decisions. The only reason he's not being read his rights is because someones afraid to face an add accusing them of "sympathizing" with terrorists.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •