Suspect Was Not Read Miranda Rights

[HenryWallace]

No one deserves their rights when FEAR and the American media can just be our judge and jury!

 

[CarmelHP]

Oh, stop the hand wringing. It's a very, very limited exception that arises only while a threat is still imminent, like asking "if we move you to take you to the hospital, will we all blow up." See, NY v Quarles (1984). Once the exigent circumstances have passed, the exception evaporates. You're only making yourselves look more foolish than usual.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You're only making yourselves look more foolish than usual.

Sir, need I remind you that THIS . . . IS . . . INGO!

There is a worn track around the conference room table.

 

[88GT]

It's NOT great news! It clearly shows that "rights" are more and more subjective and can be disregarded as long as there is a "good" reason.

They claim they are invoking a "public safety" exception. Ok, so what if YOU are suddenly deemed a public safety problem because you are a suspected gun owner?

As terrible as the ALLEGED criminal acts this young man is SUSPECTED of committing, he's an American citizen and entitled to be treated in accordance with the rights he has under US and MA law.

So regardless of how much everyone "knows" he's guilty, the due process is still DUE.

Earlier this week we saw an all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment by those who say with emotional tears in their eyes, "nobody needs an assault weapon." We saw the POTUS calling the Senate's actions "shameful" and "cowardly" because some there decided that the 2A was MORE important than public opinion.

Yet now some would agree this man doesn't deserve his rights because of what he did.

I'm sorry, that's the "liberal" way where you bend the law to suit your own twisted world-view. As disturbing as this young man's actions have been, I am now HORRIFIED that our government would dispose of his rights so flippantly.

If it can happen to him today, it WILL happen to any of us TOMORROW!

I urge you to write your lawmakers and raise this issue!

Correction: they claim they are invoking the public safety exception. On the face, that means, necessarily, that the exception already exists as "law" whether by court ruling or some other acceptable means of establishing legal precedent.

Caveats: I am not saying such an exception actually exists. Nor am I saying that this is an acceptable use of such an exception if it does exist. But you are mischaracterizing their words and deeds. So unless you know definitively that such an exception is entirely fabricated, hold off on 'the sky is falling' until there's reason to say the sky is falling.

Lets see, a government order for people to be confined to their homes until further notice, warrantless searches with no justification beyond being within a certain area (which turned out not to have contained the suspect, not that it would have been any more justified anyway), searching people at random (read searching anyone the police caught out from behind a locked door) which has significant likelihood of morphing into a NYC 'stop and frisk' for some time yet to come, all done as crowds cheer the police driving armored vehicles down the streets as soon as they were *allowed* to come outside. Sounds like a police state to me. Just because we have seen only the trailer and the movie hasn't started yet, that does not imply that it isn't coming.

I'm going to ask it again: do you have any proof that these "orders" were backed by threats of prosecution, that the compliance was not voluntary, or that the searches were done without consent.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have absolutely no understanding of a right or the concept of principle. A right, by definition, is not subject to modification, revocation, or conditions, either permanently or temporarily, as opposed to a privilege which is subject to all of the above.

But they can be VOLUNTARILY abdicated/surrendered by the individual. Have you the evidence yet to show that this isn't what was taking place?

How would YOU have coordinated the search. Don't tell me what you wouldn't do. I've read enough of that the last 3 days.

 

[Car Ramrod]

I heard a reporter say he was "innocent until presumed guilty."

 

[IndyDave1776]

Correction: they claim they are invoking the public safety exception. On the face, that means, necessarily, that the exception already exists as "law" whether by court ruling or some other acceptable means of establishing legal precedent.

Caveats: I am not saying such an exception actually exists. Nor am I saying that this is an acceptable use of such an exception if it does exist. But you are mischaracterizing their words and deeds. So unless you know definitively that such an exception is entirely fabricated, hold off on 'the sky is falling' until there's reason to say the sky is falling.



I'm going to ask it again: do you have any proof that these "orders" were backed by threats of prosecution, that the compliance was not voluntary, or that the searches were done without consent.


What would I have done with the search? First, fire everyone involved in the decision-making process. If they can't get it right when paid very well to do so, they don't need to be employed. As for doing the job, we have been apprehending murderers in this country practically since the first colonists landed at Jamestown, Virginia. The apprehension of the suspect would have been carried out just exactly as it was with a citizen reporting the presence of the suspect on his property without the police state shenanigans. I advise all those approving this action to turn in their citizen cards and replace them with subject cards as such person have demonstrated that they are much more suited to being subjects of an authoritarian government.



But they can be VOLUNTARILY abdicated/surrendered by the individual. Have you the evidence yet to show that this isn't what was taking place?

How would YOU have coordinated the search. Don't tell me what you wouldn't do. I've read enough of that the last 3 days.

Although this is a forced evacuation of one's own home rather than an order to remain inside, the same people are engaging in presumably the same spirit of 'voluntary compliance'. Does this look voluntary to you? A man being herded out of his home at gunpoint with his hands in the air?

By the way, this image came from that bastion of right-wing extremism the Boston Herald.

As for the threat of prosecution, that is totally irrelevant when one is being given orders either directly or with the actual or implied threat of having them applied and enforced at gunpoint.

What would I have done different? First, I would fire everyone involved in the decision-making process. They have demonstrated ineptitude, flagrant disregard for the rights of the citizens, or both--in spite of being very well paid for their apparent lack of ability. We have been successfully apprehending murders since the first colonists landed at Jamestown in 1607. There is no satisfactory argument for deviating from standard methods which have historically worked WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS as was flagrantly done in this case. The suspect would have been successfully apprehended after having his location reported by a citizen without resorting to such police state shenanigans. All those who support the methods employed in this case might as well turn in their citizen cards and request new subject cards as they have demonstrated themselves much more suited to being subjects of an authoritarian government than citizens of a free republic.

 

[NathanJefferson]

So if I'm getting this right they sort of gave him immunity from self incrimination by using this tact to be able to question him immediately about other aspects of the case such as if there are others involved or if he has knowledge of any more danger to the general public.

Worst case scenario they will discard any testimony or information he gave before being informed of his rights or provided an attorney. Everything after that is fair game, and most likely not being read his rights won't matter at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

What a difference 238 years makes.

Boston, April 19, 1775: "Come and take them"

Boston, April 19, 2013: "They can give me a cavity search right now"

 

[HoughMade]

I never agreed with Miranda to begin with. You have the right to remain silent and to counsel....Miranda only means you have to be told about it. Miranda is for people who don't bother to know their rights and invoke them. You can always remain silent and insist on counsel.....if you care enough about your rights to know you have them. All you strict constructionists (of which I am one), where does the Constitution say that you have to be advised of rights?

Miranda is for the sheeple.

 

[Sharpie]

Oh, you are absolutely right. Constitutional rights should be negotiable and malleable as needed on account of circumstances. By the same token, we should not opposed reasonable, common sense gun regulations. After all, no one should be able to gun down dozens of people in seconds.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have absolutely no understanding of a right or the concept of principle. A right, by definition, is not subject to modification, revocation, or conditions, either permanently or temporarily, as opposed to a privilege which is subject to all of the above. The other critical distinction is that a matter of principle applies under all circumstances in all times independent of outside influences. A prime example is that the Second Amendment was intended to keep the balance of power in favor of the people and the 'but they didn't have [insert modern weapon of your choice back then]' argument is complete horses**t. Likewise, the existence of a particularly troubling bogeyman does not magically cancel the rights of the citizens, again, including and especially the Fourth Amendment and freedom of movement. So far as I am concerned, the police can request compliance with conditions that they consider to assist them in apprehending dangerous persons. I will not belittle those who choose to comply provided that they do so completely by choice and not by receiving an overt order or an order packaged to sound like a request (like when parents present their sons with 'please take out the trash' which is really an order with punishment to follow if they don't). General detention and warrantless searches of property and persons are not acceptable. Period. I don't care who is at large.

I think that you are speaking of abstract concepts in a perfect world. I am talking about reality. We don't live in a vacuum, and there are no absolutes. If rights were violated during the search for this terrorist, citizens have remedies in court for relief. At any rate, the intrusion would have been minimal when compared to the legitimate concern for public safety in this extraordinary circumstance.

There are several exceptions to the 4th amendment requirement for a warrant already firmly rooted in law. This may very well fit into the "exigent circumstances" exception. The court does have precedent for deciding in favor of public safety vs. individual rights, whether you agree with it or not. I appreciate your argument in favor of individual rights, but I will not agree that they are absolute in all circumstances and under any conditions. I would tend to lean towards the government's legitimate interest in protecting the public in extraordinary circumstances such as this.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that you are speaking of abstract concepts in a perfect world. I am talking about reality. We don't live in a vacuum, and there are no absolutes. If rights were violated during the search for this terrorist, citizens have remedies in court for relief. At any rate, the intrusion would have been minimal when compared to the legitimate concern for public safety in this extraordinary circumstance.

There are several exceptions to the 4th amendment requirement for a warrant already firmly rooted in law. This may very well fit into the "exigent circumstances" exception. The court does have precedent for deciding in favor of public safety vs. individual rights, whether you agree with it or not. I appreciate your argument in favor of individual rights, but I will not agree that they are absolute in all circumstances and under any conditions. I would tend to lean towards the government's legitimate interest in protecting the public in extraordinary circumstances such as this.

Necessity is the argument of tyrants and creed of slaves.

 

[Sharpie]

Necessity is the argument of tyrants and creed of slaves.

In a perfect world, this sound bite would be accurate. Reality calls for a more objective view.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In a perfect world, this sound bite would be accurate. Reality calls for a more objective view.

If you want to be a damned serf, you are welcome to it, but leave me out of it. Rights are not negotiable regardless of the malfeasance of the spate of activist judges we have suffered in the post-Roosevelt era. The reality is that the trend away from a free republic requires people to organize the shift (which are hard at work), the first layer of enablers who directly support those people, and the second layer of enablers, people like you, who decide that constitutional government is not 'reality' and tacitly support the demolition of our rights in tandem with flagrant disregard of the Constitution.

 

[jbombelli]

In a perfect world, this sound bite would be accurate. Reality calls for a more objective view.

The less perfect the world, the more accurate that phrase is shown to be.

 

[Smokepole]

He's probably in no condition to be "mirandized" OR questioned right now. And under the Patriot Act laws, I don't think he has to be read his rights in order to be questioned or prosecuted. Not saying the Patriot Act is good, but this IS what it was designed to do.

This will quite possibly be the litmus for NDAA, the loss of habeus corpus, and the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, representation or trial.

I wonder how many people who decried all of this will now suddenly be okay with it because "OH MY GOD A TERRORIST!"

Most will not understand the significance but it is HUGE. This allows the piece of **** to be tried by a military tribunal as an enemy combatant and NOT in our domestic court system. It also allows for interrogation tactics that would not have been possible had be been Mirandacized. I'm amazed that Barack Hussein allowed this.

This is great news for all of us.

I'm trying to imagine how this is great news for all of us.

Me too, because they could do this to any of us

This is what most people are missing about the entire chain of events, with these 'suspects', the ex-military cop out west, and others. This is scary, but not as scary as the mentality of 'kill em first, try em later' that is so pervasive in govt. law enforcement of late.

I have been amazed at the number of people who are ordinarily level-headed who have gone off the rails accepting the police-state nonsense that has happened. Perhaps there are even fewer people than I thought who can see the larger issue and refuse to abandon the rule of law within the Constitution when confronted with a demonized subset of the population. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are next, and that battle is already underway.

All great points and when you consider that based on position papers and reports that have come out of the Dept of Justice (just us), ATF, FBI and other departments, our Government has effectively labeled roughly half of the Country as "domestic terrorists". Which could mean, shoot on sight, no Miranda, what would otherwise be "unlawful detention", etc.

Whoever said we are next may not be very far off of the mark. They are manipulating everything to their advantage. Patriot Act doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore does it? It is the mechanism that makes all of the other stuff work.

 

[Llamaguy]

I never agreed with Miranda to begin with. You have the right to remain silent and to counsel....Miranda only means you have to be told about it. Miranda is for people who don't bother to know their rights and invoke them. You can always remain silent and insist on counsel.....if you care enough about your rights to know you have them. All you strict constructionists (of which I am one), where does the Constitution say that you have to be advised of rights?

Miranda is for the sheeple.

Yes, correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't given any rights by being "Mirandaized', you always have the rights. Miranda was about not being aware of said rights. Unless he was captured by the military (which I don't remember that being legal in the U.S.) he was arrested and has every right to an attorney and a jury trial.

 

[Sharpie]

The less perfect the world, the more accurate that phrase is shown to be.

I disagree. Necessity is a legitimate argument at times. The word can be abused, but that does not invalidate the concept of necessity.

 

[Smokepole]

I think that you are speaking of abstract concepts in a perfect world. I am talking about reality. We don't live in a vacuum, and there are no absolutes. If rights were violated during the search for this terrorist, citizens have remedies in court for relief. At any rate, the intrusion would have been minimal when compared to the legitimate concern for public safety in this extraordinary circumstance.

There are several exceptions to the 4th amendment requirement for a warrant already firmly rooted in law. This may very well fit into the "exigent circumstances" exception. The court does have precedent for deciding in favor of public safety vs. individual rights, whether you agree with it or not. I appreciate your argument in favor of individual rights, but I will not agree that they are absolute in all circumstances and under any conditions. I would tend to lean towards the government's legitimate interest in protecting the public in extraordinary circumstances such as this.

No different from "it's for the children" and just as specious.

 

[Sharpie]

No different from "it's for the children" and just as specious.

Nope. "It's for the children" is not a legitimate argument. There are legitimate exceptions to the 4th amendment warrant requirement. See the word "unreasonable" in the amendment itself. There is a reason that the word "unreasonable" is in the 4th amendment. The founding fathers were brilliant men, and I believe that they understood that the governing of a society is not a zero sum game.

 

[jbombelli]

I disagree. Necessity is a legitimate argument at times. The word can be abused, but that does not invalidate the concept of necessity.

The argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves.

You can call it legitimate if you want. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

[Sharpie]

The argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves.

You can call it legitimate if you want. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

My only point is, the fact that a tyrant uses an argument does not necessarily invalidate the legitimacy of the argument in other, non-tyrannical circumstances. I can see the point of that little sound bite if you think that everyone in government is a tyrant. I take a less radical view.