81–90 of 270 posts
I hope this guy survives, only reason why? So he can go to trial, and then face his victims. They deserve to see justice done with the death penalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It only seems weird if you think of Miranda (and various other procedural protections) as a "gotcha" to hinder police efforts, instead of what it is: a way to keep people ignorant of their 5th amendment rights from incriminating themselves. That's the alpha and the omega of Miranda. It's not a search and seizure protection at all, which is why evidence obtained as a result of a Miranda-less interrogation is nonethele…
So what's the "public safety exception" about then? We're starting from the position that, absent a public safety concern, the defendant's right to know his rights is greater than the law enforcement interest in not encouraging the defendant to exercise them, and if the cops don't read the Miranda rights then the statements aren't admissible. Now throw in a public safety issue -- the cops have to interrogate this guy…
Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you…
Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before going all police-state-paranoid. If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the public safety exception to attempt to get Tsarnaev to incriminate himself then they are going to have some fun times in court and get their asses handed to them. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening. I'm also skeptical that he's not been read his rights…
This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. There is definitely something about this application of the "public safety exception", and the stare decisis discussed in the article, that gives cause for concern. We generally prefer citizens to know of their fifth amendment protections prior to a custodial interrogation. The fact he was in possession of a weapon or other armaments in his person should not defeat this aim.
Tsarnaev and his brother planted bombs. It is not unreasonable for the FBI to be concerned that they may have left other bombs in place that could detonate later. Or, that there were other people involved that we don't know about. Invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights seems prudent to me.
Or so thats what we are being told at this point without any evidence being presented in court with a trial in front of his peers… But believe in your State™.
I do believe that the State™ (in this case, not my state, as I'm not American) has the right and the responsibility to do what they are doing.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is no different than "Signature" killings via UAV Completely disagree. There's a vast difference between assassinations without trial of both US and foreign nationals vs. not reading a suspect their Miranda rights. Note that the rights themselves are not being stripped away, as is obviously the case with the former. This doesn't mean either practice is noble or desirable, but it's patently ridiculous to draw f…
Both set a precedent for violations of Constitutional rights.
I hope this guy survives, only reason why? So he can go to trial, and then face his victims. They deserve to see justice done with the death penalty.
You just want to feel safe. And watching the good guys kill this guy should provide a quick shot of safety and revenge in what must be a dark and terrified world.
But you can't call it justice if you don't care at all about the details and just want blood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, whatever works. If we agree it's a moral thing to do, the origin of the morality is less important. Philosophy can be debated... in a different thread.
"whatever works." Well if the State™ has to circumvent it's own laws to achieve some ends (which i doubt are really ends since incidents like this will continue to happen), one could argue that grounds for morality are null and void. After all, that's what Terrorists™ do.
Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before going all police-state-paranoid. If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the public safety exception to attempt to get Tsarnaev to incriminate himself then they are going to have some fun times in court and get their asses handed to them. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening. I'm also skeptical that he's not been read his rights…
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night" [id.] This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. There is definitely something about this application of the "public safety exception", and the stare decisis discussed in the article, that gives cause for…
Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court:
http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/