15 votes

Suspect 2 was not mirandized

The Federal Attorney just said the decision to not Mirandize Suspect 2 was first an option "due to public safety" and then said they had that prerogative in cases of national security. He is a US Citizen, correct?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Miranda Exception

If a detainee confesses while Miranda is suspended, is that admissible in court? I don't believe it is.

Miranda Warning

If the Miranda Warning is suspended, does the detainee still have the right to remain silent? Does suspending Miranda magically compel the detainee to talk?

Incidentally, when did the

Incidentally, when did the lazy verb "mirandized" come into use? Is it too much to ask people to use the proper term... "Miranda Warning"? Ugh, the mindlessness of our society...

Cyril's picture

It's such a lot of fun, isn't it?

Loose language, lip service, fuzzy logic, and fallacies are now part of the standard, official vernacular of your rulers.

Our Federal Attorney buddy has great teachers to look up to.

Ask Feinstein or your POTUS how it works.

The latter made a recorded statement last year that "his job is to protect and defend the American people" (alluded: from the "bad guys" and "whatever it takes").

Too bad nobody but him and his thugs get to decide who are the bad guys.

I take it the Supreme Court and Senate are now in full prostitution mode, competing with the Congress brothel.

Interestingly enough, Hitler had more or less much of the same rhetoric, btw.

I'm not even sure the POTUS changed any words beyond the countries names.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I've been arrested dozens of times...

and I have never been read any Miranda rights. Not once.

One time I asked the cop "hey, aren't you supposed to read me my rights?" He asked "where did you hear about these rights?" I said "from cop shows on TV." He said "well then you know your f'in rights. Now shut the hell up."

It was probably the pandas.

a miranda rights exception is public safety, the

exception will be argued by the prosecutors, but in reality the arrest was made after medics were on scene and the suspect was declared ambulatory and in critical condition, then the public safety exception ends.

The suspect was restrained, in custody, and no miranda rights were read, violating miranda.

taking him in with suspicion that bombs were in place must be based on evidence that the suspect was possessing explosives and to this day the FBI has yet to reveal evidence of such.

IN THE END,
THIS WAS A EXPERIMENT TO MILITARIZE POLICE AND BLEND PARAMILITARY AGENCIES WITH POLICE ENFORCEMENT.

THE EXPERIMENT WAS TO CONDITION THE PUBLIC TO MILITARY AGENTS IN ORDER TO CONDUCT FUTURE PARAMILITARY OPS IN THE USA.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

I don't care what you've

I don't care what you've heard, but the correct term is Miranda Warning... not "rights".

true.

I tend to say that when aggregating all the due process rights.

I don't care that you don't care that I have heard something that you aren't caring about. :P

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Take care. ;D

You can't violate the Miranda

You can't violate the Miranda rights if you don't ask the suspect questions. The kid was unconscious deeming being read Miranda rights would be pointless. Just because you are being arrested doesn't mean you're going to get you're Miranda rights read. If the law enforcement arresting you does not intend on immediately asking questions, then you don't need to be read you're rights.

Not true, Every time you are arrested they have to read you

miranda unless you waive.

If he was unconscious than why are there pictures of him getting out of the boat straddling the edge?

This is arguable and the suspect should have all potential evidence obtained in violation of miranda excluded.

You are right in that it only applies to evidence gathered while in custody, the defendant can not have charges dropped but rather evidence excluded.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Rothbard, Block, Hoppe

and non-anarcho-capitalist libertarians agree that Miranda Rights is against justice and was created to serve lawyers mafia. Sadly our populists are closeted progressives.

Progressive schools and youtube clips did not inform the populists that Miranda did not exist before 1960's.

Here's a counter-argument

No matter if you've been read your Miranda Warning or not, you still maintain the right to remain silent and you can simply say so under direct (possibly even physically violent) questioning. Just because the government insists it can ignore legal procedure, you do not lose your constitutionally guaranteed rights as a citizen.

They keep talking about whether he should be "mirandized"...

or considered an "enemy combatant" as if this is a normal thing.

They are using it as euphemism for whether we should torture him or not, it's sickening.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Josh

the right to remain silent and have a lawyer does not disappear if Miranda disappears. W/o Miranda, a suspect could tell his side of the story while he is emotionally charged without realizing he could be silent. For the purpose of JUSTICE TO VICTIMS, we want him to tell his side of the story. Justice does NOT suffer if we do NOT remind suspects to keep silent and wait for a lawyer to fabricate a bogus defense.

I'm not talking about the legitimacy of miranda rights...

I'm talking about how Fox News is dancing around the concept of torture.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

You are right. Over payed

You are right. Over payed lawyers who know how to work the system. It would be nice to get some answers out of him without a lawyer in the way. They may have enough evidence to prosecute him but perhaps they want some intel first. They can't get their intel with a defense attorney around.

crietmann's picture

http://www.slate.com/articles

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

Please "Like" Prismstop.com on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/Prismstop

Or visit us at http://www.prismstop.com to protect your whole home and mobile devices from identity thieves, hackers, government officials and other criminals.

@Prismstop on

crietmann's picture

My FB post which is gaining in unpopularity as we speak

I do try to educate a bit, but the response has been decidely negative as you can imagine. I call it preaching to the sheep.

Many of you will not like this post, but I ask you to either stop here or read the entire thing before you comment. It is about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. And to be clear - I am assuming that a very strong case has been made against the brothers and they are very likely guilty; if found so he should be prosecuted to the max allowed by law.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the Boston bombing suspects. If they are guilty they deserve the maximum punishment allowed by Massachusetts and perhaps Federal law. Additionally the surviving suspect will be charged with the murder of an MIT officer and the wounding of another police officer, along with a myriad of other charges.

Or will he?

In the press conference about 15 minutes ago the question was asked to verify whether the survivor was read his Miranda rights. The answer was clarified - no he was not. A Federal representative explained at first that as a matter of public safety they were granted an exemption. She then backtracked and said that he could not be Mirandized due to national security concerns.

The Miranda rights are typically read something like this:

You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen who is the primary surviving suspect in a number of horrific crimes. He became a naturalized citizen on September 11, 2012. He is entitled to all the protections of the US Constitution, particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

I have a feeling that will be denied to him. In the War on Terror when we do not Mirandize suspects it is for one simple reason - to treat them not as US citizens but as enemy combatants. I suspect we will hear this phrase in the coming days. As such he can be aggressively interrogated, held without trial or bail indefinitely and denied access to legal counsel. He could rot for the rest of his life in Guantanamo Bay. He may be interrogated or tortured to find out every last detail of why this crime was committed, who else was involved (if anyone) and whether he has any knowledge of future attacks.

What I truly love about America's founding principles are our concepts of protecting the rights of everyone, no matter how despicable their acts. Charles Manson got a trial by jury, the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church frequently win court cases based on their right of free speech and assembly and we frequently brag and emphasize about how in America you are truly "innocent until proven guilty".

Our citizens and our government are terrified of terrorism. That's understandable. But when we cease to treat American citizens with the due process afforded by the Constitution - whether it's not allowing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his rights to due process or we kill American citizens in Yemen by drone without a trial or charges but as the result of a Presidential Kill List - we give up a little more about what made America great.

I'm guessing public opinion would all be in favor of executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev based on the evidence we've seen on the news, that's not how America is supposed to work.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should have been read his Miranda rights, no matter how horrible the crimes he should be charged with. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should know and understand his rights, he should be afforded a fair and speedy trial with counsel provided if he cannot afford it, no matter what the evidence we or the government possess. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has the right to not talk to police at all and should not be interrogated unless he has counsel present, and he has the right not to incriminate himself.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American, like it or not. In the eyes of our law he is absolutely equal to and should have every right that you - the person that is reading this right now - possess in our country. You deserve those rights, and like or not, so does he.

Please "Like" Prismstop.com on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/Prismstop

Or visit us at http://www.prismstop.com to protect your whole home and mobile devices from identity thieves, hackers, government officials and other criminals.

@Prismstop on

If the state gets to choose who

in this country, citizen or stranger, is not protected by the Bill of Rights, then I could be the next one to go, and for any reason whatsoever. Scary.

i might add

if he does not have those rights, neither do you.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Would be reason enough to arm

Would be reason enough to arm oneself for protection from ones neighbors... not just from a freedom-stealing, Constitution-stomping government.

I think you just nailed it on the head

This event is for the very purpose of mainlining people being hauled off to camps while hearing opposition and disbelief from family and friends in the media. They know as the police state usurps the law this type of media coverage of families and friends in disbelief or speaking out will grow as more and more people are hauled off to camps. This is the democratizing of Justice by public opinion based on media fed information. They need to normalize these scenes so that people get conditioned to seeing them. They need this new threshold to be broken and they made it happen.

In law if he is not proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury then he is lawfully innocent. He can never lawfully be guilty without this requirement. This event has all the hallmarks of a false flag operation designed and executed with predetermined intent to expand the police state and "normalize" unlawful detention.

You mention evidence. Please point to the best evidence you have seen because I have seen nothing but very disturbing inconsistencies, very suspicious connections of people and reports and predictable behavior of tyrants salivating at the expansion of their control over the people.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

America is fast becoming a

America is fast becoming a Mob-ocracy, aka a "true" Democracy.

I'll post this again... "I'm

I'll post this again...

"I'm a criminal justice major in college (no expert by any means) and I know that you don't necessarily have to read a Miranda warning to someone your arresting, UNLESS you are going to question him right then and there. They can read him his rights at the hospital, station, etc. but by law he can say whatever he wants and it can't be used against him unless he is read his rights."

This is true. An arresting officer does not have to read his rights unless he is questioned. He will be allowed due process.

crietmann's picture

I'd have to watch the news conference again (and it's not Tivo'd

But it appeared pretty clear that he would not be Mirandized - hence my suspicion that he will be named an enemy combatant. Remember the uproar over the Underwear Bomber (I think it was the Underwear Bomber, I could be wrong)? The right went absolutely nuts that the Obama Administration was so inept that they actually Mirandized him and allowed him to stand trial? I suspect that the administration will follow the playbook and declare him an EC to "find the answers" of "who else was involved" and "are there future attacks planned" all in the name of "keeping every American safe from terrorism". The Constitution be damned.

Please "Like" Prismstop.com on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/Prismstop

Or visit us at http://www.prismstop.com to protect your whole home and mobile devices from identity thieves, hackers, government officials and other criminals.

@Prismstop on

It would actually be wrong to

It would actually be wrong to read him his rights in the state of mind he was in to begin with (loss of blood and probably in and out of consciousness).

Amen

Well...my understanding is

Well...my understanding is that he was brought to the hospital. Does he need to be mirandized to be brought to the hospital?

It was specifically mentioned

It was specifically mentioned how and why his right to a lawyer was waived by "authorities"... Very troubling.