User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:37:03 PM EDT
[#1]
When the law gets bent out of shape for him, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.
Because next time it could be an honest citizen whom they feel is a danger because he is a member of the NRA and a TEA party member. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:41:08 PM EDT
[#2]
This is 'murica, we don't give a damn about 're rights.
Reading is for faggots. We trying to catch a dern terrierist |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:42:52 PM EDT
[#3]
They'll Mirandize him later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:43:57 PM EDT
[#4]
I bet the Iraqis are shitting bricks...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:44:48 PM EDT
[#5]
He's an American. Mirandize him.
There's enough evidence to try, convict, and execute him without infringing on Constitutional rights (and he absolutely should get the needle). And McCain and Graham? Screw those guys. It's big government progressives like them who are going to pave the way for drone strikes in the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:45:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Most people know the use of the Miranda advisement only because they saw it on t.v.
What if there are other bombs waiting to explode...isn't that kind of important to know about. The clock is ticking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:45:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Just more, "we can get away with this" games. The ends justifying the means.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:46:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
He's an American. Mirandize him. There's enough evidence to try, convict, and execute him without infringing on Constitutional rights (and he absolutely should get the needle). And McCain and Graham? Screw those guys. It's big government progressives like them who are going to pave the way for drone strikes in the US. What he said |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:46:30 PM EDT
[#9]
I'll take it on a case by case basis. This case? I don't give a damn. I'll provide the board, bucket, water and towel.
edit; He'll get his day in court, but this mother fucker is going to talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:46:32 PM EDT
[#10]
This will be used as justification for repeated appeals in years to come and save him from the needle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:47:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Yes. Yes, I do mind. I also resent the fact that Gitmo exists. Either execute them for being unlawful combatants under the Geneva convention, or try them in criminal court with full rights. The gray area is a slippery slope with an 89 degree drop off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:47:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Yes because constitutional rights are far more important than capturing a terrorist
I would rather see him go free than lose my rights |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:47:55 PM EDT
[#13]
I dont think the fact he hasn't been mirandized yet is important.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:48:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
They'll Mirandize him later. What does reading him Miranda do, other then possibly remind him of Rights he already has and should already know about? And if that is the case, who fucking cares? People keep saying he is not mirandized like it really means something dire for him. I don't get it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:51:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
When the law gets bent out of shape for him, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night. He will have to remember on his own that he has a right to a lawyer, and that anything he says can be used against him in court, because the government won’t tell him. This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.” Article on Bomber #2's Miranda Rights I don't think he's presently able to speak, so it's a bit of a moot point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:52:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: They'll Mirandize him later. What does reading him Miranda do, other then possibly remind him of Rights he already has and would already know about? And if that is the case, who fucking cares? People keep saying he is not mirandized like it really means something dire for him. I don't get it. People are worried that if the feds ask questions of him without Miranda, then the info they glean down the line could be deemed inadmissible. I'm not worried about its bearing on the case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:54:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
What he said She, but thanks. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:54:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Yes because constitutional rights are far more important than capturing a terrorist I would rather see him go free than lose my rights Is tough to say, but I agree. Do I care? Yes, I believe he should have rights. Can we do something about it? Nothing but vote. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:54:41 PM EDT
[#19]
is this guy a citizen or not??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:55:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Oh, and multiple dupes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:57:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
I don't think he's presently able to speak, so it's a bit of a moot point. Bingo. 'Serious' condition generally implies that someone is not exactly conscious, and if they are, they're drugged out of their mind, and won't understand what you tell him anyway. In the long run... he's a citizen. He gets tried in a court. He gets proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Which should be very, very easy. Then we get to kill him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:57:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They'll Mirandize him later. What does reading him Miranda do, other then possibly remind him of Rights he already has and would already know about? And if that is the case, who fucking cares? People keep saying he is not mirandized like it really means something dire for him. I don't get it. People are worried that if the feds ask questions of him without Miranda, then the info they glean down the line could be deemed inadmissible. I'm not worried about its bearing on the case. So the purpose of not mirandizing is the hope that a suspect forgets he has the right to STFU? The numerous references to water boarding and what not are then just arfcomers being dramatic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 8:58:55 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
is this guy a citizen or not?? Reportedly yes, since 9/11/12. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:01:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They'll Mirandize him later. What does reading him Miranda do, other then possibly remind him of Rights he already has and should already know about? And if that is the case, who fucking cares? People keep saying he is not mirandized like it really means something dire for him. I don't get it.
This. Does anyone here or anyone you know, not know of their rights when a badge carrier starts asking you questions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:02:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They'll Mirandize him later. What does reading him Miranda do, other then possibly remind him of Rights he already has and would already know about? And if that is the case, who fucking cares? People keep saying he is not mirandized like it really means something dire for him. I don't get it. People are worried that if the feds ask questions of him without Miranda, then the info they glean down the line could be deemed inadmissible. I'm not worried about its bearing on the case. So the purpose of not mirandizing is the hope that a suspect forgets he has the right to STFU? The numerous references to water boarding and what not are then just arfcomers being dramatic? Miranda normally MUST be read before any questioning IF you're under arrest. FBI is citing a special safety exemption to Miranda in this case. Yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:03:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They'll Mirandize him later. What does reading him Miranda do, other then possibly remind him of Rights he already has and should already know about? And if that is the case, who fucking cares? People keep saying he is not mirandized like it really means something dire for him. I don't get it. This. Does anyone here or anyone you know, not know of their rights when a badge carrier starts asking you questions? You'd be surprised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:03:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Yes because constitutional rights are far more important than capturing a terrorist I would rather see him go free than lose my rights ding ding ding, i'll go with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:04:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Not necessary unless you want to use his statements in court.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:04:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Why do we have to remind people of their rights. Is it not that person's responsibility to know their rights?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:05:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Not necessary unless you want to use his statements in court. It'll all come in. Just wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:07:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think he's presently able to speak, so it's a bit of a moot point. Bingo. 'Serious' condition generally implies that someone is not exactly conscious, and if they are, they're drugged out of their mind, and won't understand what you tell him anyway. In the long run... he's a citizen. He gets tried in a court. He gets proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Which should be very, very easy. Then we get to kill him. By dunking him in bacon fat, and then publicly swing him from a tree at the site of the explosion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:08:07 PM EDT
[#32]
It has nothing to do with charges. If the cops were found wrong by not mirandizing him, it just means his testimony couldn't be used.
I think we all know they have a case against him no matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:08:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Dupe
But I'll say it again: Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter how many fucks I wish upon him he is still a citizen and has rights. He is no different than any other killer in America and should be treated to the same justice. This is a normal thing. It's not a special condition. READ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles If there is an imminent threat to the public, police do not need to Mirandize the subject in order to ask incriminating questions, if the questions are only about said threat. If they started asking him about how he got funds without Mirandizing him, that would not be permissible in court, because the answer to that is not an imminent threat. Thus, they'll ask him if there are any other people out planting bombs, and ask him if he planted any more bombs, and how many devices in total they may have. This is not jeopardizing the case. It's clearly established legal precedent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:15:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Two things - First, I don't recall that a suspect has to be advised of Miranda rights unless they're going to be questioned. No questioning, no reading of rights.
Second, I think with all the cop shows on TV for the last 30-40 years, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the Miranda warnings almost as well as actual cops do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:22:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Bunch of ignorant shit up in here. There is a huge difference in a Citizen by birth and a Naturalized Citizen! His US Citizenship should be revoked and his ass shipped to GITMO for some proper interrogation!!! If you believe different your probably a couch bitch libby which arfcom has plenty of, this motherfucker is a "Enemy Combatant" and should be treated as such!! Nuff said............you fuckers may return your regularly scheduled bullshit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:23:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Two things - First, I don't recall that a suspect has to be advised of Miranda rights unless they're going to be questioned. No questioning, no reading of rights. Second, I think with all the cop shows on TV for the last 30-40 years, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the Miranda warnings almost as well as actual cops do. To be given a Miranda warning, the suspect must be in custody and they must be getting asked incriminating questions. If there is an imminent danger to the public, the warning may be skipped in order to address the danger. In this case, if there are other terrorists out there working, or if there are bombs planted that have not been discovered, or where the firearms they used may be present an imminent danger to the people, so the Miranda warnings may be skipped to address those issues. This is not an erosion to your rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:26:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Two things - First, I don't recall that a suspect has to be advised of Miranda rights unless they're going to be questioned. No questioning, no reading of rights. Second, I think with all the cop shows on TV for the last 30-40 years, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the Miranda warnings almost as well as actual cops do. To be given a Miranda warning, the suspect must be in custody and they must be getting asked incriminating questions. If there is an imminent danger to the public, the warning may be skipped in order to address the danger. In this case, if there are other terrorists out there working, or if there are bombs planted that have not been discovered, or where the firearms they used may be present an imminent danger to the people, so the Miranda warnings may be skipped to address those issues. This is not an erosion to your rights. It's like a fucking kindergarden Alex Jones class up in here............  His fucking rights are gifted to him not birthed so fuck him and the ship he floated in on......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:27:53 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Yes because constitutional rights are far more important than capturing a terrorist I would rather see him go free than lose my rights Yup. Somebody else using their right to be armed to the god danged teeth can always shoot his ass later. In self defense of course. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:28:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Finding out if there is a terrorist cell/network operating with these fucks or if there are other bombs sitting around somewhere is fuckloads more important than whether some paragraph is read to a terrorist.
If you put bombs in crowds, blow up airplanes, plant bombs anywhere or commit mass murder over a religious idea you are a terrorist and have NO rights in my opinion. Torture away to get whatever info he has, even if all he can give is his ugly criminal mother's panty size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:30:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Two things - First, I don't recall that a suspect has to be advised of Miranda rights unless they're going to be questioned. No questioning, no reading of rights. Second, I think with all the cop shows on TV for the last 30-40 years, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the Miranda warnings almost as well as actual cops do. To be given a Miranda warning, the suspect must be in custody and they must be getting asked incriminating questions. If there is an imminent danger to the public, the warning may be skipped in order to address the danger. In this case, if there are other terrorists out there working, or if there are bombs planted that have not been discovered, or where the firearms they used may be present an imminent danger to the people, so the Miranda warnings may be skipped to address those issues. This is not an erosion to your rights. It's like a fucking kindergarden Alex Jones class up in here............ His fucking rights are gifted to him not birthed so fuck him and the ship he floated in on......Gifted rights? No, brother. That's not how it works. Your rights are not granted by the government. We do not "gift" rights to anyone. They are natural rights. All humans have them. We spelled out what we think those rights are, but they're not the Governments to give. Because otherwise they'd be privileges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:31:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Call me crazy, but I seem to remember a court decision that said just because you haven't been read your rights doesn't mean you don't have them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:33:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Finding out if there is a terrorist cell/network operating with these fucks or if there are other bombs sitting around somewhere is fuckloads more important than whether some paragraph is read to a terrorist. If you put bombs in crowds, blow up airplanes, plant bombs anywhere or commit mass murder over a religious idea you are a terrorist and have NO rights in my opinion. Torture away to get whatever info he has, even if all he can give is his ugly criminal mother's panty size. Dat's what I'm say'n he negated his rights what little he was owed.......These young folk just don't fucking get it or they just need something to bitch about. Of course most of GD is closet libs and CNN lovers so who knows these days......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:34:10 PM EDT
[#43]
If the questions are limited to further attacks/dangers to the public, I see no issue with the Quarles exception. Once it is determined that there is no danger to public safety, Miranda and interrogation should follow. I'm not seeing a big deal here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:34:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Call me crazy, but I seem to remember a court decision that said just because you haven't been read your rights doesn't mean you don't have them. That's why it's more precisely called a "Miranda Warning", not your "Miranda Rights". They're not giving you rights. They're warning you that they're going to question you, and advising you that you have rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:35:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Two things - First, I don't recall that a suspect has to be advised of Miranda rights unless they're going to be questioned. No questioning, no reading of rights. Second, I think with all the cop shows on TV for the last 30-40 years, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the Miranda warnings almost as well as actual cops do. To be given a Miranda warning, the suspect must be in custody and they must be getting asked incriminating questions. If there is an imminent danger to the public, the warning may be skipped in order to address the danger. In this case, if there are other terrorists out there working, or if there are bombs planted that have not been discovered, or where the firearms they used may be present an imminent danger to the people, so the Miranda warnings may be skipped to address those issues. This is not an erosion to your rights. It's like a fucking kindergarden Alex Jones class up in here............ His fucking rights are gifted to him not birthed so fuck him and the ship he floated in on......Gifted rights? No, brother. That's not how it works. Your rights are not granted by the government. We do not "gift" rights to anyone. They are natural rights. All humans have them. We spelled out what we think those rights are, but they're not the Governments to give. Because otherwise they'd be privileges. For a motherfucking Refugee they are! You are confused my friend this country owes him jack shit we saved his bitch ass from his own fucked up country and you think he has natural rights here? Maybe in Chechnya |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:35:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Poll fail
I clicked every choice. Not because I could but haven't made up my mind yet. There is a good argument on both sides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:37:55 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Finding out if there is a terrorist cell/network operating with these fucks or if there are other bombs sitting around somewhere is fuckloads more important than whether some paragraph is read to a terrorist. If you put bombs in crowds, blow up airplanes, plant bombs anywhere or commit mass murder over a religious idea you are a terrorist and have NO rights in my opinion. Torture away to get whatever info he has, even if all he can give is his ugly criminal mother's panty size. When he is found guilty in the court of law he will loose all of his rights. Until then the little cock sucker has all the same rights you do. We are a nation of laws, not feelings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:38:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Call me crazy, but I seem to remember a court decision that said just because you haven't been read your rights doesn't mean you don't have them. That's why it's more precisely called a "Miranda Warning", not your "Miranda Rights". They're not giving you rights. They're warning you that they're going to question you, and advising you that you have rights. It should fall onto each individual to know their own rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:38:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Had a law prof who went off on miranda for a whole class period, brilliant guy (argued before the sup ct, appellate specialist), very interesting argument. Essentially, hardly anyone understands or is qualified to talk about it with any authority.
There are a lot of rules re Miranda, when to mirandize, when you should/shouldn't, what gets excluded and what doesn't, not exactly simple and I highly doubt the article I won't read even came close to getting it right! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2013 9:40:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
If the questions are limited to further attacks/dangers to the public, I see no issue with the Quarles exception. Once it is determined that there is no danger to public safety, Miranda and interrogation should follow. I'm not seeing a big deal here. I could go with this. Is anything he says before his miranda warning admissible in court? |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
