Is that I think it is somewhat ridiculous to be claiming that the offender's rights have been violated at this point.
Not only did all concerned do a great job of investigation during a very short period of time, the individuals involved in this man's capture took some very high personal risks in order to capture him alive. Then they secured him, knowing that he could still be booby-trapped, and then he was promptly given emergency medical care and taken to the hospital.
At the time that he was being captured and secured, the immediate priority would have been to ensure that letting EMTs at him would be safe for the EMTs and that he could be transported to the hospital and safely taken into the ER without endangering the medical staff. Any questioning at that point would have been of the variety of "Are you carrying explosives", and not only would be aimed at protecting others, but protecting the life of the suspect. Therefore Miranda warnings do not come in at all at that point.
It's pretty clear that he was in bad condition at the time of the arrest, and it is not even clear that a Miranda warning given before he is medically stable would be legally valid. A Miranda warning given when a person is not in condition to understand the warning can be disputed in court and the courts would generally strike evidence if the actual interrogation occurred later.
In other words, if the cops receive a report of an erratic driver with a car with multiple occupants out on a rural road in the middle of the night, and the cops arrive on the scene and find a car rammed into a telephone pole with one driver slumped at the wheel who appears stinking drunk, the cops can Mirandize him at that point and ask if anyone else was in the car, because they want to make sure that they don't have some injured person staggering around in a field. But because he was drunk, if they show up in his hospital room the next day to ask for more information, they cannot rely on the Miranda warning at the scene and must give it again if they are going to use any of his statements, or evidence produced from his statements, in a court prosecution.
It's not in clear that the suspect has yet been interrogated by any LEO in any meaningful way, and when he is so interrogated, at that point one would assume that the Miranda warning would be given if the information were to be used in his prosecution. So screaming that the cops didn't stand over him and read him his Miranda rights as he was strapped to the gurney on oxygen is really rather ridiculous.
By the way, the legal derivation of the Miranda warning is from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentv
and thus it does not pertain to gathering information about other perpetrators. The protection is against self-incrimination.
= new reply since forum marked as read