General Discussion

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

41. Not an excuse to not read him his rights. Takes a few seconds.

Reply to krawhitham (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:26 PM

Apr 2013

Do it and move on with the questioning.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Read him his goddamn Miranda rights. [View all] Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 OP

I agree. Let's just cover all the bases. femmocrat Apr 2013 #1

On MSNBC they said GitRDun Apr 2013 #2

And anything gathered in that 48 hours is potentially inadmissible. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #5

idk GitRDun Apr 2013 #12

How does not reading him the Miranda warning enhance their search for bombs? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #13

apparently GitRDun Apr 2013 #22

He has to answer questions, or else what? Mariana Apr 2013 #61

He could lawyer up, and remain silent Heather MC Apr 2013 #23

So he could become aware of his rights as an American and choose not to cooperate. That's bad. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #26

Who knows, due process just gets in the way sometimes Heather MC Apr 2013 #33

Due process just gets in the way sometimes? Seriously? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #36

left out pesky sarcasm tag Heather MC Apr 2013 #40

He can still remain silent. If he asks for a lawyer and he is denied access... Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #27

Thank you. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #30

Well, he is still FREE not to speak. Amonester Apr 2013 #29

Because if he knows of anything set to blow, he can tell. politicat Apr 2013 #44

The person STILL has the right to say nothing. How is this so hard to understand? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #46

It's the difference between "can" and "may" and has far more to do with evidentiary procedure. politicat Apr 2013 #69

Well, of course... Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #96

So you're saying we should resort to deception? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #97

How is it deception? Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #98

It's deception if you intentionally withhold informing him of his rights... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #99

I think you misunderstand... Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #100

No, the exception allows statements to be admissible even if the warning has not been read. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #101

+1, I agree! Logical Apr 2013 #3

The public safety exemption does not last more than 48 hours. FSogol Apr 2013 #4

Please explain to me why such an exemption should apply here. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #7

Him and his brother might have hidden bombs in other places or might have FSogol Apr 2013 #9

And explain to me how that has any connection to the Miranda warning. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #11

See reply #14. Sorry I don't remember the name of the case. n/t FSogol Apr 2013 #15

It's a technicality only. He doesn't have to say a damned thing. But MSNBC says if the helps, it'll freshwest Apr 2013 #73

"Have you planted any more bombs" krawhitham Apr 2013 #16

None of those scenarios apply here. Those revolve around questions asked immediately... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #25

And are the questions required to be only public safety questions? n-t Logical Apr 2013 #8

AFAIK. This came out of a supreme court case where a cop arrested a suspect who had hidden FSogol Apr 2013 #14

More info krawhitham Apr 2013 #19

Thanks. n/t FSogol Apr 2013 #24

There are no time constraints here. Reading him his rights takes literally seconds. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #20

They might have already asked questions while he was in the boat before he was taken into custody krawhitham Apr 2013 #21

And they can and should use the exception for those questions. Now they should read him the warning. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #28

Except he's probably sedated and on his way to surgery. FSogol Apr 2013 #56

His sedation has nothing to do with the exception argument invoked... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #60

You don't even understand what Miranda does. Good grief. DevonRex Apr 2013 #59

No, you don't understand Miranda warnings or the rights they express. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #63

LOL. You have no idea to whom DevonRex Apr 2013 #67

I know you don't understand the purpose or power of the warning or rights it expresses. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #68

snicker DevonRex Apr 2013 #82

If you think your appeal to invisible personal authority is going to sway me, you're wrong. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #87

Yes! diabeticman Apr 2013 #6

Wont they just classify him as an "enemy combatant" and not care about his rights? davidn3600 Apr 2013 #10

There's a good chance he will be transported newmember Apr 2013 #80

this is all extralegal datasuspect Apr 2013 #17

Not according to the SCOTUS. Gore1FL Apr 2013 #39

I think he's in worse shape than most realize... zeeland Apr 2013 #18

Miranda readings take a few seconds. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #32

Miranda rights are not in effect for 48 hours Gore1FL Apr 2013 #43

Miranda rights are in effect immediately upon recognition by the suspect. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #45

Take it up with The SCOTUS Gore1FL Apr 2013 #52

I don't think you undertand what you're posting. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #55

Perhaps I understand, perhaps I do not Gore1FL Apr 2013 #62

Point being... zeeland Apr 2013 #90

He may not be in good enough HappyMe Apr 2013 #31

That is not a good excuse to not read him his rights. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #34

reading him his rights is not good enough, he has to understand them krawhitham Apr 2013 #37

So if he is barely HappyMe Apr 2013 #38

If he's not in good enough shape to understand them, then you haven't read him his rights. jeff47 Apr 2013 #77

So that is a separate argument against the effectiveness, not against allowing his rights to be read Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #79

No, it really isn't. jeff47 Apr 2013 #84

They are absolutely separate arguments. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #86

Which part of "suspect must understand" do you not understand? jeff47 Apr 2013 #89

Maybe he is going to die or close to it krawhitham Apr 2013 #35

Not an excuse to not read him his rights. Takes a few seconds. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #41

reading him his rights is not good enough, he has to understand them krawhitham Apr 2013 #49

Yes, and let the courts decide if he was aware of them in the future. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #51

If they do, and he does not acknowledge he understands they can not ask him anything else krawhitham Apr 2013 #54

Where are you getting this "information?" Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #58

Google is your friend krawhitham Apr 2013 #72

If they read him his rights HappyMe Apr 2013 #64

I'm saying that it is prudent and just to read him his rights even if he might not understand. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #66

I'm pretty sure they don't HappyMe Apr 2013 #71

No it is worse krawhitham Apr 2013 #74

It could just as easily be argued that he was not in the right mind to understand... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #76

That is the "beauty" of the exemption, it does not matter what he understands krawhitham Apr 2013 #81

That's not the purpose of the exemption. It's not there to sneak around his rights... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #83

Black president and Black AG deny white man constitutional rights HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #42

OBAMA BAD BAD BAD!!!! I knew that it would be a matter of time before someone blamed Liberal_Stalwart71 Apr 2013 #47

I didn't say that did I? I said it's a gift to White Supremacists. HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #48

what an insanely dense post chillfactor Apr 2013 #50

Hey, I get that this challenges the dominant narrative that a terrorist HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #53

Maybe, but I think they know what they're doing ecstatic Apr 2013 #57

Under Yoo woo memos Obama can do ANYTHING as CIC HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #65

Jeff Toobin CNN said Miranda warnings are moot bc they don't need ZRT2209 Apr 2013 #70

Please, give the Boston cops some credit. They obviously know what they are doing. nt Zorra Apr 2013 #75

Never give authority benefit of the doubt when it comes to individual rights. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #78

Inadmissible evidence like "where are the other bombs?" bhikkhu Apr 2013 #85

No, the exception is for questions asked before the warning because of practical restrictions. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #88

You're welcome to your opinion. The one that matters (SCOTUS) says they've got 48 hours. (nt) jeff47 Apr 2013 #91

I happen to think SCOTUS made the wrong choice. Not that that's rare or anything. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #93

There is a procedure in place that allows for 48 hours. randome Apr 2013 #92

As stated upthread, the unconscious argument is separate. If he isn't awake, wait for him to wake up Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #94

Agreed. I've been bitching about this for an hour! Fawke Em Apr 2013 #95

They (not all but too many) watch damn Die-Hard flicks and just love the thrills. Amonester Apr 2013 #102

I don't grieve for Dzhokar Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #105

Your points don't make sense Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #103

I don't think they HAVE to read him his rights, only if kudzu22 Apr 2013 #104

Exactly. Blue_In_AK Apr 2013 #106