21–30 of 270 posts
Serious question... Have we verified that the reason he hasn't been mirandized yet is anything other than the fact that he's in serious condition and may not yet be able to affirm that he is aware of his rights?
So, no.
Because one day it might be you who doesn't get read their rights.
No, simply because it is the right thing to do. However, this case is in a gray area because Dzhokhar apparently was unconscious when taken into custody.
Unless they're questioning an unconcious person, there is no gray area.
Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong accusation, etc. At least in all the cases mentioned this is not the case, the person presented a clear and present danger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, simply because it is the right thing to do. However, this case is in a gray area because Dzhokhar apparently was unconscious when taken into custody.
Ah, The Right Thing To Do™ I was expecting an invocation of a god or the State™ whims, but an appeal to some kind of morality not mentioned in relation to works just as well. /sarc
This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night." How do we or the author know this, is he assuming this is common practice, has FBI mentioned that they won't read him Miranda? Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong acc…
The Bill of Rights does not say "Applies to citizens of USA". He should be properly Miranda-ized. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Because one day it might be you who doesn't get read their rights.
As long as you remember you still have those rights, it doesn't really matter?
But in this case, certainly they should ensure he doesn't die due to lack of medical attention while they attempt to read him his Miranda rights.
Because one day it might be you who doesn't get read their rights.
I thought witholding Miranda means that anything he says is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law – but it's not like there's a lack of other incriminating evidence so that they would need to use self-incrimination to form a case against him.
In this case, it seems pretty unlikely to actually matter.
This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night." How do we or the author know this, is he assuming this is common practice, has FBI mentioned that they won't read him Miranda? Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong acc…
What I'm more curious about is whether or not he still has those rights even if they weren't read to him. I would assume he does no?