Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#101

Post by geuis » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:30 AM UTC

nhebb wrote: post #58

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.

No, Tsarnaev and his brother did not plant bombs as of the current moment. They are SUSPECTS in a criminal investigation in which one or more parties planted bombs.

Be VERY, VERY careful before you throw out that distinction. One day you may find yourself arrested for something you did or didn't do, only to find public opinion very much against you based on little more than hearsay.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#102

Post by venomsnake » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:32 AM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #93

Other countries get by fine without having a Miranda law at all so I don't see what the big deal is about. To be honest I thought Miranda was only used in movies to make an arrest sound cool.

There is no such thing as Miranda law. It is just a warning/reminder about constitutional rights.

Also any country worth living in has anti self incrimination right.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#103

Post by SworDsy » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:32 AM UTC

I went to highschool with this guy at CRLS and after going there you know your miranda rights as well as exactly whats legal and whats not. they make sure of that, and that he'll stand up for them. weather the FBI cares or not is beyond our hands reach at this point

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#104

Post by geuis » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:34 AM UTC

I said this on reddit a couple hours ago. I don't care if he murdered 100 men, he still deserves the same rights as any of us.

If we don't treat the worst of us the same as the best, what can the rest of us expect?

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#105

Post by philwelch » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:34 AM UTC

wavesounds wrote: post #42

For people asking "how do we know he wont be read his rights" its because the DA Carmen Ortiz[1] said she wouldn't in the press conference immediately following the suspects capture[2]. 1. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat... 2. I haven't been able to find video although I saw it live, this site confirms http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/19/boston-bombing-su...

Unfortunately, this gives Carmen Ortiz every chance to be known for something other than the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#106

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:42 AM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #102

Kiro wrote: post #93

Other countries get by fine without having a Miranda law at all so I don't see what the big deal is about. To be honest I thought Miranda was only used in movies to make an arrest sound cool.

There is no such thing as Miranda law. It is just a warning/reminder about constitutional rights. Also any country worth living in has anti self incrimination right.

[deleted]

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#107

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:44 AM UTC

hncommenter13 wrote: post #36

You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial. Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment wrote: "Importantly, though, it would not have vi…

[deleted]

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#108

Post by tantalor » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:44 AM UTC

hncommenter13 wrote: post #36

You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial. Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment wrote: "Importantly, though, it would not have vi…

Several other comments contradict you, and indicate that the pre-miranda admissions would be admissible.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#109

Post by ubernostrum » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 6:52 AM UTC

dsfasfasf wrote: post #4

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

So far as I can tell, no liberty has been given up.

The point of the Miranda warning is to make it crystal-clear that a suspect is aware that he doesn't have to speak to police without a lawyer, and is aware that if he does speak to police, what he says can be used against him. The Miranda warning is not a right; it's literally a warning, meant to save people from their own ignorance of their actual rights.

It also does not mean police can't question someone, just that if they do, and don't observe certain forms, a court may not allow the resulting evidence to be admitted at trial.

In this case, the police are basically going to go ahead with questioning, and let the courts sort out later what's admissible and what's not. Courts have been known to allow non-Mirandized statements obtained in circumstances where some immediate risk made it impractical to give the warning before asking a question.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#110

Post by lurker14 » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:06 AM UTC

rdl wrote: post #69

The FBI page on the "public safety exception" is really interesting: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforceme...

Indeed. " The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule"

So, not much of a commitment at all. I am so committed to my wife that I only recognize one exception to my marriage vows: if I get a chance with a really attractive woman, then not only can I do it, but I can charge my wife for the cost of dinner.