HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I dare you to read this.

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:13 AM

 

I dare you to read this.

The Miranda exception (all 48 hours of it) was declared because these two guys were loose in the city for a week, and they proved violently that they were adept at making bombs. The exception allowed law enforcement to ask the captured suspect if more bombs were out there, or more co-conspirators with bombs, etc., to protect public safety.

This is neither wild, nor crazy, nor new. There is a pile of legal precedent, and the exception exists for a very good reason.

To wit:

Limited Questioning

The Quarles Court made clear that only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of the public" were permitted under the public safety exception. In U.S. v. Khalil, New York City police officers raided an apartment in Brooklyn after they received information that Khalil and Abu Mezer had bombs in their apartment and were planning to detonate them. During the raid, both men were shot and wounded as one of them grabbed the gun of a police officer and the other crawled toward a black bag believed to contain a bomb. When the officers looked inside the black bag, they saw pipe bombs and observed that a switch on one bomb was flipped.

Officers went to the hospital to question Abu Mezer about the bombs. They asked Abu Mezer "how many bombs there were, how many switches were on each bomb, which wires should be cut to disarm the bombs, and whether there were any timers." Abu Mezer answered each question and also was asked whether he planned to kill himself in the explosion. He responded by saying, "Poof."

Abu Mezer sought to suppress each of his statements, but the trial court permitted them, ruling that they fell within the public safety exception. On appeal, Abu Mezer only challenged the admissibility of the last question, whether he intended to kill himself when detonating the bombs. He claimed the question was unrelated to public safety. The circuit court disagreed and noted "Abu Mezer's vision as to whether or not he would survive his attempt to detonate the bomb had the potential for shedding light on the bomb's stability."

The whole thing: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

Plus: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/19/1898851/what-you-need-to-know-about-why-the-boston-bombing-suspect-hasnt-been-read-his-miranda-rights/

I dare you to read it - I triple-dog dare you - and see if your astonishing display of pissing and moaning stands up before actual information, history and case precedent. You know who you are, and I am talking to you.

I dare you to read this.

I dare you to read.

65 replies, 8146 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply I dare you to read this. (Original post)
WilliamPitt Apr 2013 OP
MjolnirTime Apr 2013 #1
AverageJoe90 Apr 2013 #50
Tree-Hugger Apr 2013 #2
frazzled Apr 2013 #3
W_HAMILTON Apr 2013 #8
Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #23
W_HAMILTON Apr 2013 #26
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2013 #61
treestar Apr 2013 #4
Logical Apr 2013 #5
Cirque du So-What Apr 2013 #10
emulatorloo Apr 2013 #16
Logical Apr 2013 #17
WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #31
Logical Apr 2013 #34
GoneOffShore Apr 2013 #30
kelliekat44 Apr 2013 #6
frogmarch Apr 2013 #7
SidDithers Apr 2013 #9
Spider Jerusalem Apr 2013 #11
alarimer Apr 2013 #37
Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #12
emulatorloo Apr 2013 #13
bigtree Apr 2013 #14
Spider Jerusalem Apr 2013 #18
bigtree Apr 2013 #22
jeff47 Apr 2013 #40
alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #15
Bucky Apr 2013 #19
Logical Apr 2013 #20
ProSense Apr 2013 #28
Amonester Apr 2013 #21
KharmaTrain Apr 2013 #24
panader0 Apr 2013 #25
B2G Apr 2013 #27
jeff47 Apr 2013 #42
B2G Apr 2013 #47
jeff47 Apr 2013 #51
B2G Apr 2013 #52
alphafemale Apr 2013 #29
Fumesucker Apr 2013 #38
alphafemale Apr 2013 #39
proud2BlibKansan Apr 2013 #32
JaneyVee Apr 2013 #33
KittyWampus Apr 2013 #57
a2liberal Apr 2013 #35
WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #36
a2liberal Apr 2013 #56
WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #63
a2liberal Apr 2013 #65
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #41
Zorra Apr 2013 #43
tavalon Apr 2013 #44
AtomicKitten Apr 2013 #45
moonlady0623 Apr 2013 #46
Zorra Apr 2013 #48
Dragonfli Apr 2013 #49
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #54
cliffordu Apr 2013 #53
dsc Apr 2013 #55
Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #58
Orsino Apr 2013 #59
Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #60
LWolf Apr 2013 #62
SidDithers Apr 2013 #64

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:19 AM

1. They prefer screaming at the President to reading.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 03:00 PM

50. Sad but damn true in many of these cases. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:20 AM

2. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:20 AM

3. You don't have to dare me

I determined immediately that this was both Constitutionally permitted and had sufficient legal precedent. Seven IEDs were found; it's important to be allowed to immediately try to determine if there were more, as well as to try to determine if there were co-conspirators who might be at large. These are indeed public safety issues.

I was also put at ease by the President's statement last night, which contained many hints, both overt and veiled, that this will be a fair trial:

"That's why we relentlessly gather the facts. That's why we have courts. And that's why we take care not to rush to judgment -- not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:27 AM

8. I have been wondering......

Does a suspect's "right to remain silent" only begin after he is read his Miranda rights? Or does the right always exist, even if he is not informed of his Miranda rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W_HAMILTON (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:49 AM

23. It always exists.

The Miranda warning is just about ensuring that the suspect knows that he has rights against self-incrimination, as granted in the Constitution.

The police have always retained the right to question a suspect in custody without reading him/her the Miranda warning, but the constitutional protection is that statements a suspect makes, and evidence derived from those statements, are almost certainly not going to be admissible in a court of law.

The minimal Miranda warning tells the suspect that he/she may remain silent, that if he/she says anything it may be used against him/her in court, that the suspect has the right to speak with an attorney, and that the suspect has the right to have an attorney present during questioning.

Well, the cops have a mixed interest in some cases. They want to get information to protect the public against further repercussions, which may include questioning the suspect about other perpetrators, and they want to fully document the case and generate the evidence which can be used to prosecute the suspect. A lawyer's interest in our constitutional system is sole - it is directed toward protecting the suspect's rights. Therefore the cops may choose to ask some questions without the Miranda warning in order to develop a wider case.

The public safety exception is quite limited, but it does allow police to ask certain immediate questions in order to forestall possible additional danger to others AND permits the prosecution later to introduce such statements or evidence produced by such statements in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:54 AM

26. So, in the hypothetical situation from my earlier post...

...could the guy that got a speeding ticket and basically admitted guilt prior to having been read his Miranda rights have his admission used against him in court? Or would it be disallowed since the admission came before he was notified of his Miranda rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W_HAMILTON (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:40 AM

61. Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation.

People aren't usually arrested for traffic tickets; these are misdemeanors in most states. If you haven't been taken into custody they don't have to read Miranda. However, you always have the right to remain silent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:22 AM

4. Exactly, thanks for taking time to find and post that case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:24 AM

5. "I dare you to read this", 5 times, wow do you love the drama. n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:29 AM

10. So pissing and moaning

and making rash assumptions is somehow not drama? Thanks for the elucidation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:32 AM

16. As far as I can tell, you are projecting when it comes to "drama"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:37 AM

17. Not far I see. n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:33 AM

31. "Not far I see."

 

A fair imitation of Yoda.

Accurate, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:44 AM

34. LOL, good point. n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:15 AM

30. It is obviously for effect and emphasis.

It's what a good writer does.

And Will is one of the best we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:26 AM

6. For government haters it doesn't matter. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

And this includes haters like Lindsay and John.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:26 AM

7. You weren't talking to me, but

I read it anyway.

Thanks for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:28 AM

9. Good post...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:30 AM

11. Which means in practice...

 

that the public-safety exemption should limit the scope of questioning to things like: "are there more bombs? do you have accomplices who may have more bombs?" (Although there's also the question of whether admissibility of evidence obtained through such questioning is in conflict with the Fifth Amendment; such an issue is outside the immediate scope of the exemption, however.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:45 PM

37. But in reality it probably won't.

I don't like it because I don't trust authority figures not to abuse it.

And I might point out that this power was expanded under Obama with the underwear bomber, but if it had happened under Bush, we would be screaming.

And we already know that police and FBI and all other law enforcement can and will violate the Constitution when it suits them to do so. They see those rules as impediments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:31 AM

12. Nice post

Some just have to flip into knee-jerk oppo mode.

So far most of the stuff I've read claiming a nefarious attack on the Constitution seems solidly based both on a very deep misunderstanding of Miranda rights and a deep misunderstanding of the reasonable exercise of police power under the Constitution.

It's odd and striking. Perhaps we should all learn more about the Constitution before claiming to defend it?

I'm also watching with some interest the development of proto-FBI-conspiracy theories over this.

The facts are that the law enforcement authorities appear to have acted with great restraint and some considerable bravery in dealing with this whole sorry mess, but maybe admitting that fact is close to heresy on DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:31 AM

13. You can't reason with ideologues

Or Alex Jones style conspiracy theorists.

But thanks for trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:31 AM

14. or this

" . . . unchanged is the fact that any statements suspects give during such pre-Miranda questioning wouldn’t be admissible in court, the memo says."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:39 AM

18. Directly contradicted in the above

 

Abu Mezer sought to suppress each of his statements, but the trial court permitted them, ruling that they fell within the public safety exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:43 AM

22. yes it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:54 PM

40. You're describing the situation as if there was no exemption. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:32 AM

15. Cue Clichéd, Poorly Understood Ben Franklin quotation in 5...4....3...2...

 

You are, of course, correct. That will not, of course, satisfy those for whom a fixed idea is more valuable than human lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:39 AM

19. Gosh, that's not a slippery slope.

Dude, you sound angry.

I think you fail to appreciate that a citizenry vigilant about its civil rights, and the civil rights of the accused, is a fundamental protection of liberty. People raising hell every time they hear about rights being waved is the first protection against government authorities stepping down that slippery slope.

If you don't like people whining about their rights, you don't like something basic about America. I think a week from now you'll see the logic in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Logical (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:58 AM

28. That piece is

"Here is another opinion that explains why this "Exception" is not a good idea....."

...actually arguing something that doesn't apply here.

And so the FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.” <...>

They are not going beyond the scope of the existing law, which is public safety. In fact, the mention above acknowledges the purpose of the public safety exception.

The Boston bombers and civil liberties
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022721075


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:51 AM

24. Civil Defense Vs. Civil Liberties...Perils Of An Open Society...

...seems I see a big disconnect here on several fronts. This is a glaring one as I saw the screams of "marial law" and "police state" as an over-reaction to what was actually happening. With more sophisticated weaponry comes more lethal situations and add this to a major urban area and the need for public safety should always trump the "rights" of someone intent on killing as many people as they can while they can. I'm sure the folks in Watertown and surrounding communities took comfort in the sounds of the helicopters overhead and the strong show of force until the threat had passed. We should be grateful that there was far less loss of life than there could have been...and for the professional and thorough work of the Law Enforcement Officers (many unionized) who put their lives on the line.

That said, we now have a lot of loose ends in this story. A lot of whys that I expect will come forth in due time and will be part of a trial in a Federal court. The lack of issuing Miranda rights for 48 hours in hopes that Tsarnaev will spill the beans about any other conspirators and bombs is to be determined, but in the end he will have a day in court and will be represented by the consul of his choice. He will be accorded the same rights as any other American citizen in the American judicial system and his guilt or innocence will be weighed by a jury of peers.

The irony is I see some who claim to be all for "civil liberties" also griping that the FBI should have had a tighter grip on these people...

Cheers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:52 AM

25. I thought Obama had to read him his rights personnally. WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:56 AM

27. And if he is too injured to be questioned within 48 hours?

 

What then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:59 PM

42. Then they can't ask questions without Mirandizing.

Really not that complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:23 PM

47. I thought they only had 48 hours n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #47)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:28 PM

51. The exception only lasts 48 hours.

After 48 hours, the "imminent threat to the public" is assumed to be over - after all, 48 hours have passed.

So if they want to use the answers in court, they have to Mirandize if 48 hours have passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #51)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:30 PM

52. Got it. Thank you! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:09 AM

29. Some people here fit the stereotype painted of all liberals by right wing media.

Pity for mass murderers.

Hang wringing...oh the poor child. He is only 19!

I do not understand that mindset. Never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #29)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:47 PM

38. Taking the instructions of Jesus Christ to heart is now "stereotypical liberal"

I'm not even a Christian and I understand that's what the Christ instructed his followers to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #38)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:52 PM

39. quick now...what did this Jesus person say should happen to people that harmed children? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:35 AM

32. No problem here.

Sounds like the authorities are handling this very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:35 AM

33. Has anyone checked on Glenn Greenwald?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:57 PM

57. LOL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:41 PM

35. Well thanks for bringing it to my attention

I hadn't seen any if the complaining about this horrendous violation of the constitution (exactly how much is ok because it makes us feel safety?) until your post and thus was unaware of it. So not what you wanted I know, but thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a2liberal (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:42 PM

36. How is it a violation of the Constitution

 

when it has been upheld by multiple courts of law?

#comprehensionfail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:53 PM

56. So you think courts always role correctly on the Constitution? (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a2liberal (Reply #56)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:14 PM

63. I think it should all be left up to anonymous internet outrage junkies.

 

That whole judicial system of argument and precedent and case law is so old-world, anyway.

"I don't like it, so it must not be Constitutional!"

...is what you're saying. And you're wrong. Simply, plainly, absolutely wrong.

But don't let that stop you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #63)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 05:46 PM

65. Don't worry, I won't

You may be happy to live in a police state to feel a little safer, and justifying it with bad court decisions that go against the plain text of the Constitution. I'm not. And no amount of attacks on me is going to change that. Have a nice day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:57 PM

41. More context

 

It was done in the 1980s, and in this case expanded and used due to the possible placement of explosives not yet found. (That is the fear)

The downside, from the authorities perspective, clock is ticking already.

I suspect they also want some questions answered on possible foreign ties.

I could make some arguments as to where this could violate the Fourth, but Miranda is a relatively modern interpretation, due to heinous violations of the rights of Mr Miranda, back in the. 1950s. There has been some relaxation of it, especially in recent years with the Roberts Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:02 PM

43. I would not have a problem with the pse if it had not come about

in conjunction with numerous other reductions of our legal rights within a a relatively short time frame.

From the passage of the Patriot Act (that place where the sun never sets) until now, there have been so many both big and little reductions in our legal rights that I fear that the sum of all these new laws may be designed for and used in the future by RW authoritarians intent on establishing a strict plutarchal and/or theocratic dictatorship.

But the eternal, infallible truth ~ it is what it is ~ is our current lot here in this tragically broken system where the sun no longer sets.

So if some deluded arrogant loser deliberately blows up a bunch of innocent people, and hasn't even taken the time to become familiar with her/his rights before going out and ecstatically killing 9 yr. olds with the bombs that he made, and goes bye-bye,...well...ya know...that'll be one more deadly dumbass wacked out conservative steaming POS who won't ever get another shot at blowing the legs off of my beautiful little granbaby angels.

My aim is, to the best of my ability, to help make this fucked up world a whole lot better for my grandkids before I die. I failed my kids; but they know I really tried. And the deluded pieces of shit who deliberately hurt masses of innocent people are the reasons for the excuses that lead to the limitations of our rights and my granbabies rights, and they obstruct me from changing the world for the better, so...well...ya know what?...

Fuck all of them, whatever they are, wherever they are, and wherever they come from, and fuck the bloodthirsty invisible vampire creature they created and worship, that thing that instructs them to hate and kill, and that they keep alive only their heads, in their heinous actions, and in the hate that is eating their
hearts.

I have some really great news for all of them.

That thing definitely ain't God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:13 PM

44. Thank you. Good infomation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:13 PM

45. Now you've done it.

 

Let the air out of a good hissy fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:16 PM

46. Thank you.

You just provided actual factual and pertinent information - oh my god. I am SO tired of extremist reactionary hissy fits. Unfortunately, our ever-present 24 hour news channels have given us all the impression that is how adults discuss things.

THANK YOU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:59 PM

48. One thing about the OP:

"only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of the public" were permitted under the public safety exception."

This is subject to extremely broad and subjective interpretation.

There's an ancient saying among civil liberties proponents:

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 02:59 PM

49. What fascinates me about these discussions, has nothing to do with Miranda rights

or an exception that allows questioning without those rights for 48 hrs in a case of public safety.

My fascination is, that people appear to believe in abundance than any rights exist while in police custody. That belief fills me with optimism as I thought my experiences and those of the people I grew up with were common and not unique to the lower west side or even worse the east sides of buffalo.
Here they will pick you up without explanation if you are poor looking, or worse yet any type of person of color with vague talk of descriptions and crimes somewhere you have nothing to do with. The best case scenario, they cuff you, slap you around a little and pull up hard on the cuffs like they want to pull your arms off through your shoulder blades (this hurts as at least some of you out there know) then let you go with just bruises and joint pain in your wrists and shoulders (this would be the best case scenario)

The variation on this theme is they handcuff you, really pound the crap out of you and slam you on the ground face first - then they either take turns kicking you in the ribs or they do this trick they like that involves a knee being presses into your spine while simultaneously trying to rip off your arms like chicken wings. Finally they shove you in the back seat, Take you in, and you get to find out at arraignment what fiction they wrote in a report and if they only charged you with resisting, or also assaulting an officer. I don't the bogus charges are personal, they need a justification for beating the shit out of you. I am used to only hearing about Miranda when I'm told my rights were made clear at the time of arrest (when?).

I have been abused by cops this way three times and taken in and held once, all when in my late teens or early twenties, I am not even sure when the arrest happened as no one told me or read me any rights (all that stuff happened in reports that the lawyers and judge read, fiction treated as gospel).

I was white trash so I got off easy, my black and PR friends received more attention more frequently and usually with more physical damage, they always took any weed we had in our pockets if we had any the weed (that would just disappear and never made the reports or the arraignments.

I simply wonder if law enforcement is executed differently according to class and neighborhood.
Everybody here appears to assume rights are always read, I am trying to understand why so many believe that. Won't they simply write in that miranda was read to him and understood in the report? I thought that was the way it worked out with the exception of TV (or maybe rich neighborhoods your ID says you belong in)

Is this different because it's Feds? They do seem to be a LE branch that actually follows their own rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #49)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:23 PM

54. You are right on the money

 

It is class related.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:21 PM

53. K&R

Good read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:27 PM

55. letting the last statement in screams of a judge unwilling to do his job

I agree that the number, placement, and how to disable, the bombs are a matter of public safety but the final question get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:55 AM

58. Unfortunately for you and the rest of the ticking bomb exceptionalists,

 

it seems that as the bomber shot himself in the neck, probably in an attempt to kill himself, all he could do for the last two days is gurgle.

Maybe you all could demand an extension to the rights shredding.

The same excuse has been used to justify the torture camps at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #58)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:21 AM

59. I'm not so worried about the exception in general.

I'm more worried about the individual suspect, and how he will be treated in a city that hates him. As written, the exception's not terrible. In practice, it will be very easy to use to cover other corner-cutting, I'm afraid.

And we'll never know, which makes the OP come across as willfully obtuse (never mind the holier-than-thou). That's a shame, because as far as it goes, the OP's correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #59)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:29 AM

60. I find it farcical that the mere reading of his rights would be the disaster it has been portrayed

 

to be. Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:51 AM

62. Okay. I read the links.

I haven't been pissing and moaning. At least, not about this topic. Until now, I haven't commented at all. My attention is perpetually fixed upon another topic, which I've done plenty of pissing and moaning about, and will continue to piss, moan, protest, and speak out about: the privatization and destruction of public education, and the Democrat's complicity and participation in that process.

Miranda? Questioning?

I understand the debate, and the arguments on various sides. Maybe.

I also reach these inescapable conclusions:

1. Law enforcement can ask questions of people who have been Mirandized. Therefore, this exception is an excuse for running roughshod over rights.

2. Miranda or not, what, exactly, is going to compel someone, in this case, a terrorist, domestic or other, to answer those questions openly and honestly? Does whether or not a suspect has been Mirandized really affect the substance of their answers? Does anyone organize, plan, and commit an act of terror without understanding the way the system that is coming after them really works? Maybe I give terrorists more credit for intelligence than they really deserve. Miranda warns them that answers can be used against them. The lack of Miranda doesn't compel answers. The only real reason I can think of to want to ask questions without Miranda is to use inappropriate interrogation techniques to elicit responses.

3. I don't give a flying fuck what loopholes, legal or not, law enforcement uses to exploit to deny someone their rights. That's a slippery slope I'm not willing to step onto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 05:13 PM

64. Kick...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread