Where on earth is Miranda going?

[United Kingdom of Poland]

I've been arrested twice (in my youth, for foolish things), and I was no threat to public safety, but I was not read my rights. Had I been able to afford the cost of a trial, I would have fought both charges on the grounds that I was not mirandized, and I would have won, but I was not particularly rolling in money at the time, and so I had to submit to the punishments. This is not justice for all. It is justice for those who can afford it.

you sound like the kids at my school who claimed they got tickets because the cops needed to hit their quota's, so tell me how badly did you screw up.

[Ifreann]

That official and a second person briefed on the investigation says 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be questioned by a special interrogation team for high-value suspects.

I just want everyone to be clear, when they say this they mean "tortured."

Exactly what rights are Tsarnyev being denied? The right to remain silent? No. The right to an attorney? No. The right to have a public defender appointed to him if he can't afford his own attorney? No. The right to be read those rights? No such right exists.

Wrong.

One isn't read one's Miranda rights because one is entitled to be.

Wrong.

Please, go on.

---

I presume you're citing my source for me?

Really? Because it says right there that the cops can interrogate you without reading you your rights, they just can't use anything you say in court. That sounds like what I was saying.

---

One isn't read one's Miranda rights because one is entitled to be.

Actually yeah that is the reason...

...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that they have the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if they are indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent them.

See above.

---

Exactly what rights are Tsarnyev being denied? The right to remain silent? No. The right to an attorney? No. The right to have a public defender appointed to him if he can't afford his own attorney? No. The right to be read those rights? No such right exists.

One isn't read one's Miranda rights because one is entitled to be. One is read one's Miranda rights so anything one says thereafter can be admitted as evidence in a court of law. That is what the public safety exception is. Anything Tsarnyev says while there is a threat to public safety can be used against him in court, even if he isn't Mirandized.

At least, such is my understanding. I await correction if someone else knows better.

Which shouldn't be allowed as a matter of policy (I don't necessarily say "shouldn't" on a legal basis, but merely an ethical one).

Here's the case that basically created Miranda rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

Due to the coercive nature of interrogation, no suspect should be subjected to one without getting their rights read to them for those reasons. Many people do not understand the law, may not be in the frame of mind to have recalled and have capacity to exercise them. Providing a Miranda warning is a crucial element to the suspect's defense. He needs to know the rules.

I can entirely get law enforcement wanting to question a suspect without reminding them of their rights in the hopes of them forgetting and spilling some immediately important information(yay alliteration!). I don't really get why that would then be admissible as evidence. If the cops think there could be more bombs out there, fine, ask first, Miranda later, and they don't get to use the answer in court. Seems fair enough to me. *shrug* Maybe I'm missing something.

[The Rich Port]

PATRIOT Act = New Constitution

Until we get rid of it, we won't have our country back.

[The Steel Magnolia]

PATRIOT Act = New Constitution

Until we get rid of it, we won't have our country back.

Oh fer christ's sake.

They're Miranda rights. It just means they can't use his testimony against him in court, this isn't illegal wiretapping or unlawful search and seizure.

[Democratic Koyro]

Where they need to go = away.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh fer christ's sake.

They're Miranda rights. It just means they can't use his testimony against him in court, this isn't illegal wiretapping or unlawful search and seizure.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

You're making Uncle Sam cry.

[Coccygia]

They haven't read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights because he's flying high on sedatives right now and breathing via a tube, so even if he was conscious, he wouldn't be able to acknowledge that he understood his rights.

They do not intend to read him his rights when he does wake up. BTW he's already been arraigned and charged today, still without Miranda. Yet they say his still has his Miranda rights: he can refuse to talk, and have a lawyer present (who, unless he's just a government stooge, will advise this client to shut up). Which, it seems to me, makes not Mirandizing him not all that useful.

BTW you people who object to the way they shut down Watertown to catch a terrorist who had guns and possibly grenades and bombs...get real.

[Gauthier]

BTW you people who object to the way they shut down Watertown to catch a terrorist who had guns and possibly grenades and bombs...get real.

Clearly they would have caught him faster if the people of Watertown weren't bleeding-heart liberals who refuse to touch guns, grenades and bombs themselves. [/sarcasm]

[Coccygia]

BTW you people who object to the way they shut down Watertown to catch a terrorist who had guns and possibly grenades and bombs...get real.

Clearly they would have caught him faster if the people of Watertown weren't bleeding-heart liberals who refuse to touch guns, grenades and bombs themselves. [/sarcasm]

I'm sure the NRA is saying that already...

[Coccygia]

Then what on earth is the point of NOT Mirandizing him? His attorney will tell him to keep his mouth shut. And as I said I am OK with this guy being deprived of his precious rights a little.

Oh, and BTW, the ACLU are a bunch of total knee-jerk PC absolutist morons.

With you right up until the last two sentences.

I kinda expected that reaction...understand I am not against the stated aims of the ACLU but they way they go about it drives me crazy. They've gotten to be like trolls who try to find the worst people possible to stick up for. Yeah, I know, "Defend all of us by defending the worst blah blah." Only I don't agree with that so much, because what they actually accomplish is to denigrate the whole idea of constitutional rights. Meanwhile, while they're defending Nazis marching through Jewish neighborhoods, all kinds of other crap goes down and they don't seem to care...and what was so awful about municipal creches anyway? I mean whose birthday is it, Santa Claus's?

[Sauritican]

Any terrorist doesn't deserve American rights, even if he's white, black, mexican, chinese, muslim, a jew, christian, or anything else, if he/she does an act of terrorism, he/she doesn't deserve any rights.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Any terrorist doesn't deserve American rights, even if he's white, black, mexican, chinese, muslim, a jew, christian, or anything else, if he/she does an act of terrorism, he/she doesn't deserve any rights.

I wasn't aware criminals weren't human now.

[Samuraikoku]

Any terrorist doesn't deserve American rights, even if he's white, black, mexican, chinese, muslim, a jew, christian, or anything else, if he/she does an act of terrorism, he/she doesn't deserve any rights.

I wasn't aware criminals weren't human now.

Xenos of course.

[Sauritican]

As you can see, I'm very against terrorists, of course I'm only 15 so what do I know

[Elmo Logic]

Is shooting loads of people with an assault rifle an act of terrorism?

[Galloism]

Is shooting loads of people with an assault rifle an act of terrorism?

I think explosions are required.

Pretty sure that's in the rules.

[Samuraikoku]

As you can see, I'm very against terrorists, of course I'm only 15 so what do I know

Don't laugh at me
Don't look away
You'll follow me back
With the sun in your eyes
And on your own
Bedshaped
And legs of stone
You'll knock on my door
And up we'll go
In white light
I don't think so
But what do I know?
What do I know?

[Galloism]

So my boss said we should torture the kid extensively for what he's done.

My speech about the importance of law, order, and due process wasn't met with approval.

[The Black Forrest]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/21/legal-wrangling-begins-with-lone-surviving-boston-bombing-suspect/

Apparently he may never speak again, so no issue with anything he says being used against him.

As I understood it; he was shot in the neck and barely lucid. Isn't miranda a waste of time at that point?

[Elmo Logic]

Is shooting loads of people with an assault rifle an act of terrorism?

I think explosions are required.

Pretty sure that's in the rules.

OK, thanks for clearing that up

[The Steel Magnolia]

As you can see, I'm very against terrorists, of course I'm only 15 so what do I know

I'm so surprised.

[Elmo Logic]

Another question.

What's the minimum amount of people you have to kill for it to be considered a mass? Is it three? two? one? or is just a bit of maiming enough?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So my boss said we should torture the kid extensively for what he's done.

My speech about the importance of law, order, and due process wasn't met with approval.

Next time you spout a bunch of that liberal drivel, you'll be without a job, ya hear me?!

[Galloism]

So my boss said we should torture the kid extensively for what he's done.

My speech about the importance of law, order, and due process wasn't met with approval.

Next time you spout a bunch of that liberal drivel, you'll be without a job, ya hear me?!

No shit.

[Norstal]

With you right up until the last two sentences.

I kinda expected that reaction...understand I am not against the stated aims of the ACLU but they way they go about it drives me crazy. They've gotten to be like trolls who try to find the worst people possible to stick up for. Yeah, I know, "Defend all of us by defending the worst blah blah." Only I don't agree with that so much, because what they actually accomplish is to denigrate the whole idea of constitutional rights. Meanwhile, while they're defending Nazis marching through Jewish neighborhoods, all kinds of other crap goes down and they don't seem to care...and what was so awful about municipal creches anyway? I mean whose birthday is it, Santa Claus's?

So we shouldn't defend criminals in court when they can't afford a counsel?

Pretty sure that's in the Constitution and the ACLU is just extending this.