6 votes

'Miranda Rights' Are A TV Fiction Not Used In Real Life. Ever.

I don't like to go running my dumb mouth about stuff I know absolutely nothing about. And I really don't like when I hear other clueless morons running their dumb mouths about stuff they know absolutely nothing about. It is for reason that talk about so-called 'Miranda Rights' is a real bug up my butt.

So stop whatever else you're doing right now and let me make one thing perfectly clear:

Miranda Rights are what actors playing cops on TV say to actors playing criminals on TV. They are not read by real-life cops to real-life criminals. Ever.

How do I know this?

Because I've been arrested probably around 20 times and been 'Mirandized' exactly 0 times. The first time I was in jail I mentioned this to other inmates and they said the same was true for them. When I did 9 months for leading a 63-mile per hour 'high speed' chase on the interstate I got to hear dozens of new inmates talk about how they never had 'their rights' read to them.

Once I told a judge about this and he asked me how I knew what Miranda rights were and I told him from TV. He said "Fine. Then you knew your rights and didn't need my officer to waste time telling you what you already knew."

Still don't believe me? Try it yourself. Go get arrested for something. While you are being led to the back of the cop car in handcuffs ask the officer if he is going to read you your rights. He will tell you that he doesn't have time for nonsense, he's got a lot of work to do.

"They didn't read him his rights!" Ha!

Rights? You don't have no f'ing rights. Now shut your damn mouth if you know what's good for you and get in the car.

Oh, and watch your head.

(I've never had a cop fasten me in with a seatbelt either, but that's a different story...)

Comment viewing options

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

The one time I was arrested,

The one time I was arrested, I was not read my rights, either. But I was only under the assumption that you are only read your rights if you are under investigation and brought in for questioning.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


It might have seemed natural. time progressed smoothly.

was the process so familiar that you assumed you were supposed to know your rights?

You may have been suggested to believe this by the officer pushing empty upturned hands towards you at a distance as a way of making you feel like you were in the middle of a diplomatic procedure.....

It was probably the pandas.

Custody + Interrogation =

Custody + Interrogation = Miranda. An arrest does not automatically trigger Miranda. Miranda is required if you are in custody and they begin to question you. Booking questions, such as personal identifying information, does not require Miranda. Also, many states are now beginning to require police to audio record Miranda warnings for more serious crimes (usually 3rd degree or higher).


is absolutely correct.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Miranda rights are very real.

The reading of your rights is from Miranda v Arizona.

It's not like TV though.

They only have to read the to you before they attempt to interrogate you as a suspect in an intimidating setting, like a police interrogation room.

The OP is likely to have either confessed while being arrested, or gave the officers enough evidence during the arrest that they did not need to interrogate him at the station.

The Miranda ruling does not give you any rights. It only requires that police inform you of you rights in certain settings. At any time, before during or after your arrest you can exercise those rights.

If the officer asks you any question after you have requested a lawyer without council present, he can be held criminally liable for infringing on your right to council. However, after you have requested a lawyer, if you begin speaking to the police, they can question you again without a lawyer present.

The only words you should ever say to a police officer are, "Am I free to go?"

If he says no, you shouldn't say one more word, except to ask "Am I being detained?" And if you are being detained say you do not consent to any search and you would like a lawyer present before questioning, don't speak one more word. Be very respectful. Respectfully establishing your rights while being understanding of the officers job can go a long way to get on the officers good side, while blocking every avenue he has to keep you detained or gain evidence from you.

If they say you are not being detained, ask them "Am I free to go?" Loop this around until they either say you are being detained or you are free to go.

This is not legal advice, just my experience with it.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."


when in contact with the cops it is best to go into deaf mute mode.

Show them your papers, which should be in order, and then go into deaf mute mode.

Say nothing.

If the SCOTUS hadn't just

If the SCOTUS hadn't just ruled that silence connotes guilt I might agree with your statement. As things stand right now it'd be best to memorize at least the first one - I have the right to remain silent - and then clam up so at least the cops are aware that you're familiar with the few rights you have left.

wolfe's picture

The correct answer was:

"My lawyer explained them to me after I was arrested."

I have been read my rights on a number of occasions, and I have heard them read in audio recordings to others.

I have even been asked to sign a piece of paper stating they had been read.

All I am saying is different jurisdictions behave differently. And in those cases that I wasn't read rights, the cops lied and said they did.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

I'm just going to go ahead and assume Adam Kokesh was never...

read his rights...

And it wouldn't even matter because clearly he doesn't have any, anymore.

It was probably the pandas.

Don't talk to police

Anything you say will be used against you.
Cops will lie to get you to say anything.

Watch the video and listen to the lawyer and then the cop after him about why you should never say anything to the police.

Youtube: Dont Talk to Police

That's weird

I got a DUI in 1997 and 2006 and they read the Miranda rights to me both times. Are you sure that what you're saying is true?


Don't take my word for it.

The comments tell the story...

In your case I would suspect if it only happened once you had a rookie cop still going by the book. If both incidents were in the same judicial district the judge may have been through ripples in the past with the issue and given clear instructions to HIS officers to Mirandize simply to make his job easier.

Otherwise, every word I wrote is true. 'Miranda' is a joke - it is done on TV every single time to condition people to think that the system gives two poops about the law...

It was probably the pandas.

Cyril's picture



Let us not fall into deep, overwhelming paranoia. Let us not live in La-La-Land, either, by any means.

See and hear.

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


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

Told once

After inquiring about it at close to time of arrest.. "We don't have to read it." Blah blah blah. Something about the in the court of law, whatever, wasn't read there either if I recall.

*for notice: the Ky courts have been much more friendly than the Indiana court.

*other instances: don't recall, myself : - )

Cyril's picture

Thank you for the refresher and reality check.

Thank you for the refresher and reality check.

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


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


is my middle name.

It was probably the pandas.

Raffel v. U.S

In stark comparison to the decision made in Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Raffel v. U.S. that once the suspect begins cooperating with law enforcement and answers questions or consents to a search, he or she gives up the right to remain silent and must continue to cooperate throughout his or her arrest, trial, and judgment.


THE LAW is contradictory. Yeah, they have to tell you IF you still have those AND you don't know you have them. However:

...If you remain silent from the start, silence is acquiescence
...If you cooperate and talk, you no longer have them
...And if you claim they didn't tell you, then you already knew about them

...There is ALWAYS a way around marandizing the suspect, thanks to Raffel vs. US. Either you already knew your rights, or you already gave them up due to your ignorance. In both instances, "reading" you your rights is pointless.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Please add this to your post....

What are the "Miranda" Rights?

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, declaring that whenever a person is taken into police custody, before being questioned he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statements. As a result of Miranda, anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questioned:

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

Read the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision: Miranda v. Arizona.

The judge was right that you do have

those rights whether you were read them or not.

It's interesting that it's impossible to protest they weren't explained without admitting you know what they are and waiving your right to remain silent. Perhaps a lawyer could come up with a way to press the issue, but would also have to claim whatever the suspect said was in light of not knowing, just as in the original Miranda case.

The significance of "enemy combatants" not being read them is that it's done intentionally, then defended as because they are claiming those rights don't exist for that individual. If there's a discrepancy over Mirandizing otherwise, there is room to claim the arrestee only talked because they didn't know. They didn't neglect to mirandize the Chechen kid so he wouldn't know, but so they can torture him and advance the concept of legal torture under the motivation of making someone talk.

Defend Liberty!

wolfe's picture

Correct answer:

"I told my lawyer that I should have just shut my ass up, at which point he explained my rights to me and told me that the cops should have told me but didn't."

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Remeber when arrested you have the right to remain silent...

since anything you say can be twisted to your disadvantage and used against you in the court of law... so "SHUT THE F*** UP WHEN Handcuffs ARE BEING PUT ON".

That simple :)

miranda rights aren't magic

you have those rights whether or not anyone reads them to you, you should always be aware of that. the miranda rights warning is an additional thing that was added to ensure that people were aware of their rights, but it is not required by the constitution, it was simply a good idea that was added to help ensure people being arrested were aware of their constitutional protections.

if you're not read miranda rights, a good lawyer can exclude any statements you made after arrest from evidence. that's the extent of their power. complaining that your rights weren't read to you means nothing unless you're making a motion to exclude a statement you made after being under arrest. that's it, that's their whole power. don't rely on them being read to you, know them yourself. the cops won't bother to read them to you unless they believe that they are going to need to include your post-arrest statements in order to prove their case, and even then probably only if they expect you to have a decent lawyer or something.

which is why this "public safety" exemption is not in and of itself all that crazy (what was crazy was the idea of calling him an enemy combatant or something), so long as no statements that were obtained prior to him being informed of his rights are not admissible as evidence against him. the idea behind the public safety exemption is to obtain information not for the purposes of prosecution, but for the purposes of trying to stop another attack basically.

Could the cop, conceivably, tell the judge he did read

you your rights, even if you say he didn't? I wonder whom the judge would believe???

It was probably the pandas.

They make you read them for yourself.

However only after they have cuffed, transported, kidnapped and are holding you for ransom. You're told to sign a statement after also being told that you are "helping yourself" by "coming clean." The statement waives your rights.

The op is correct however. They cops never "read you your rights" while cuffing you. They want you to run your mouth as much as possible. All part of the plan to violate your rights for profit.