Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him

[Crackerjaxon]

And, Freewill, if I were a county sheriff, and you were holed up in a dugout up the holler, I would use drone hell fire missiles and burn you out rather than risk my deputies.

Why? Do you think he's going to stay holed up in that holler forever? Do you lack the balls to knock on the door and serve the warrant? Are you afraid he'll secede from the union and re-institute slavery?

If your deputies lack the fortitude to do their jobs, fire them.

Or you could just wait him out. Seems to me the deputies would be happy to get the overtime pay.

Why do lefties like murdering people so much?

 

[Freewill]

In the real world he got immediate surgery not immediate questioning.

I wonder if his brother will be buried at sea before tomorrow. There are already pictures of his body on the INTERNET. Not so much for another famous Muslim.

I really don't give a shit if he's ground up and mixed with hog feed before being sent to a local pig farm.

That's what I would have already done with everyone at gitmo and that bin laden assclown.

I don't either, I was making the point about how quickly they hid OBL's body, and the pictures. They said they were respecting Muslim beliefs, well this fellow is a Muslim.

 

[Freewill]

Pete, you are a reactionary dumbshit, and I will give that the reflection it deserves: none.

Reactionary nonsense from the far right will destroy this country if you folks will ever gets power, but that is as likely as you being the Easter Bunny.

Go **** yourself bed wetter, you're just another liberal tool that's been exposed as a pseudo "republican" that supports the moonbat messiah. You and your ilk have already destroyed this country, and you're desperate to make sure your opponents don't reverse that trend.

Faker Jake, the great pretender.

 

[Freewill]

And, Freewill, if I were a county sheriff, and you were holed up in a dugout up the holler, I would use drone hell fire missiles and burn you out rather than risk my deputies.

Why? Do you think he's going to stay holed up in that holler forever? Do you lack the balls to knock on the door and serve the warrant? Are you afraid he'll secede from the union and re-institute slavery?

If your deputies lack the fortitude to do their jobs, fire them.

Or you could just wait him out. Seems to me the deputies would be happy to get the overtime pay.

Why do lefties like murdering people so much?

Jake the fake is one of those companionate chicken shit liberals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Ignorant nonsense.

There are no Miranda ‘rights,’ there is the Miranda Warning.

And Dzhokar Tsaranev still retains his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate; he can keep his mouth shut and not say a word to investigators from the outset.

If he should say anything, however, it will still be admissible in court, absent the Warning.

This is a good discussion, you say something wrong on top of your high horse and I get to knock you off. Yes, the warning is a Miranda warning, but the warning is telling the person their rights under Miranda. You should be able to find the difference with a simple google. Might save you some embarrassment if you did it BEFORE you posted.

You might not embarass yourself if you googled before you posted.

There is a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement that was established by the SCOTUS in 1984 in New York v. Quarles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Incorrect.

The Constitution refers to due process only, that could be judicial or administrative. See: Davidson v. City of New Orleans (1878), Public Clearing House v. Coyne (1904). The Administration affords terrorist suspects administrative due process. You also failed to cite a Federal court case that determined the practice was either illegal or un-Constitutional, as your opinion is both subjective and irrelevant.

 

[The Professor]

The Miranda warning is the law of the land; however, the public safety exception is also the law of the land (so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court).

"The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of "public safety". This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.

“The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

In the Quarles case, the question about the location of the gun was asked before any Miranda warning was given; however, the Supreme Court carved out a “public safety” exception to the Miranda rule and the gun was allowed into evidence. Here is a link which does a good job of explaining the public safety exception:

FBI ? The ?Public Safety? Exception to Miranda

Under the law, a suspect may be questioned without being Mirandized in order to neutralize an imminent danger to the public. Whether the questioning of the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing falls within the exception will be a matter for the courts to decide.

It is my understanding that the questioning would have to be limited solely to prevent further harm to the public and NOT to gather evidence for the purpose of convicting the person. I suspect the questioning will be very limited in scope until such time as the Miranda warning is given. One thing is for certain: no one wants to jeopardize the prosecution of this case and they are not about to commit an obvious violation of the law. If they do heads will roll.

 

[Political Junky]

His Miranda rights will be read to him eventually. He will be tried in court, probably in Boston.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Ignorant nonsense.

There are no Miranda ‘rights,’ there is the Miranda Warning.

And Dzhokar Tsaranev still retains his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate; he can keep his mouth shut and not say a word to investigators from the outset.

If he should say anything, however, it will still be admissible in court, absent the Warning.

This is a good discussion, you say something wrong on top of your high horse and I get to knock you off. Yes, the warning is a Miranda warning, but the warning is telling the person their rights under Miranda. You should be able to find the difference with a simple google. Might save you some embarrassment if you did it BEFORE you posted.

This makes no sense.

Again, there are no ‘rights under Miranda,’ Miranda does not ‘create new rights,’ nor is it a ‘right’ in of itself.

Prior to Miranda criminal suspects had the right to remain silent, to not self incriminate per the 5th Amendment. And prior to Miranda criminal suspects also had the 6th Amendment right to counsel*. Those rights were in existence long before Miranda.

Upon arrest Miranda required a warning to ensure criminal suspects not unknowingly self-incriminate, and failure to issue this warning by law enforcement might render any statements inadmissible.

Suspending Miranda, therefore, neither undermines nor mitigates a suspect’s 5th or 6th Amendment rights; these rights are in full effect when a terrorist suspect is arrested, and he may avail himself of them when he is initially taken into custody.



*In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Supreme Court incorporated to the states the 6th Amendment right to counsel if a criminal suspect was unable to afford representation.

 

[auditor0007]

The Miranda warning is the law of the land; however, the public safety exception is also the law of the land (so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court).

"The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of "public safety". This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.

“The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

In the Quarles case, the question about the location of the gun was asked before any Miranda warning was given; however, the Supreme Court carved out a “public safety” exception to the Miranda rule and the gun was allowed into evidence. Here is a link which does a good job of explaining the public safety exception:

FBI ? The ?Public Safety? Exception to Miranda

Under the law, a suspect may be questioned without being Mirandized in order to neutralize an imminent danger to the public. Whether the questioning of the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing falls within the exception will be a matter for the courts to decide.

It is my understanding that the questioning would have to be limited solely to prevent further harm to the public and NOT to gather evidence for the purpose of convicting the person. I suspect the questioning will be very limited in scope until such time as the Miranda warning is given. One thing is for certain: no one wants to jeopardize the prosecution of this case and they are not about to commit an obvious violation of the law. If they do heads will roll.

There is so much evidence in this case that they don't need to worry about it. This kid will spend the rest of his life in Supermax or be given the death penalty.

 

[Freewill]

The reason they don't arrest people in the hospital, but wait until they are released is because if they didn't wait, they would be responsible for the medical bills.

My understanding of being arrested is if a person can't leave on their own free will. That is different then being charged with a crime. So in my opinion he is under arrest he just hasn't been charged with a crime. That is the big deal with gitmo. Many of those in gitmo were arrested and put their but have never been charged or brought to trial. Which makes the argument does the Constitutional rights extend to non-Americans. I don't know if that question was ever tested in court.

So yes, in my opinion, this young man is certainly under arrest.

 

[Freewill]

Ignorant nonsense.

There are no Miranda ‘rights,’ there is the Miranda Warning.

And Dzhokar Tsaranev still retains his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate; he can keep his mouth shut and not say a word to investigators from the outset.

If he should say anything, however, it will still be admissible in court, absent the Warning.

This is a good discussion, you say something wrong on top of your high horse and I get to knock you off. Yes, the warning is a Miranda warning, but the warning is telling the person their rights under Miranda. You should be able to find the difference with a simple google. Might save you some embarrassment if you did it BEFORE you posted.

You might not embarass yourself if you googled before you posted.

There is a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement that was established by the SCOTUS in 1984 in New York v. Quarles.

Yippee another liberal on his high horse. As is usual for liberals you answer a question not asked and you do it so sanctimoniously. The OP is all about the exception that was the point of the discussion. I never once made the claim their wasn't an exception nor did I say I totally disagreed. But the Miranda warning does spell out for the person their rights which is what Jake said didn't exist. BTW I did google it to make sure I was right as I almost always do.

Knocking two liberals off their high horse in one day, life is gooooooooooooooooooooood.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Once again I will have to say I disagree with Obama and his DOJ

American Citizen arrested on American soil. Miranda should be in play.

Just more evidence that Obama doesn't care about your rights or the Constitution.

the SC ruled they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained

but may not use that persons statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial

however i agree with you after all the fuss obama has raised on the issue

he should live by the words he promised

 

[Sunshine]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

ALL law in the US is subject to regulation and there are exceptions to many of them. There is no issue with invoking an exception to this one. Besides, if he has ever turned on an American TV, he knows his rights.

 

[Rozman]

I'm really not spending too much time right now worrying about this young mans feelings.
Thinking about the people who will leave the hospitals over the next week or so without arms and legs.
And how about the family who lost a loved one and will forever have to deal with that.

 

[Sunshine]

Once again I will have to say I disagree with Obama and his DOJ

American Citizen arrested on American soil. Miranda should be in play.

Just more evidence that Obama doesn't care about your rights or the Constitution.

This is not an American citizen. He is here on a green card.

 

[Indofred]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

If this is true, it stinks.
There is absolutely no reason to suspend his rights before trial.
OK, he's a bastard but either you have law or you do not.

 

[Connery]

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Nonsense. The Quarles case was heard in 1984. Obama was too young to be president. Here are the relevant parts of the case, "there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted [467 U.S. 649, 650] into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." Cases and Codes

There is no erosion of rights here. Should the bomber have the wherewithal to ask for an attorney then the questioning stops and he will be read his rights. Nevertheless, the authorities have every good reason to exercise their rights under the public safety exception. This lunatic was throwing bombs outside the window of the car they stole during the chase there may be more bombs planted elsewhere, therein lies the public safety exception.

 

[freedombecki]

Once again I will have to say I disagree with Obama and his DOJ

American Citizen arrested on American soil. Miranda should be in play.

Just more evidence that Obama doesn't care about your rights or the Constitution.

The nature of serial killing (bomb set off to kill more people than it actually killed, while upward of 200 were injured with 50 amputations for grossly being blown off) requires stringent measures to prevent further murders by close associates. Public safety of hundreds is worth more than the civil rights of known criminals and mass assassins.

I do understand both citizenship rights and blatant treason. Cops are forced to draw a line under fire. The Boston cops and the FBI went more than the second mile with this particular serial murderer who hid behind his medical studies for cover of his true ends--the killing of American citizens from what he thought was his safety zone of omuerta silence of the true intentions of his heart against the country that went out on a limb to save his family from cruel oppression in Chechnya. We didn't know they hated us enough to do what was done on April 15.

We're smarter now. We learned a lesson. That lesson is the writing on the wall that it's time to stop immigration of people with a hidden agenda, whether it's La Raza's desire to steal property on borderlands because they can or to invite radical muslims over here to create publicity at our expense.

You wouldn't be wanting us to be fooled again, would you, Shroom? I really don't think that, I'm just saying the obvious--national security is constitutional, and the President is relegated that task "to provide for the common defense" which is done now at the discretion of Homeland Security.

 

[Freewill]

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Incorrect.

The Constitution refers to due process only, that could be judicial or administrative. See: Davidson v. City of New Orleans (1878), Public Clearing House v. Coyne (1904). The Administration affords terrorist suspects administrative due process. You also failed to cite a Federal court case that determined the practice was either illegal or un-Constitutional, as your opinion is both subjective and irrelevant.

From the following site:

Government takes many actions that may deprive people of life, liberty, or property. In each case, some form of due process is required. For example, a state might fire someone from a government job, send defendant to prison, revoke a prisoner's parole, or cut someone's social security payments or other welfare benefits. Due process does not prohibit these actions, but it does require that certain procedures be followed before any action is taken.

Right to Due Process

Considering we are talking about Americans what is the problem with at LEAST getting a grand jury indictment? Other then it is a Consitiutional requirement meant to prevent the government for killing 16 year old Americans I do not see a problem.

The fifth amendment:

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation.

Killing 16 year old Americans without due process is a perversion of the Constitution of the United States, no matter where the young man may be at the time. And please, don't tell me he was a terrorist no court, grand jury, ever made that determination and neither did the administration. If you like the road we are heading down then we all will get what we deserve.