Comment: I think they were calling them ...

(See in situ)


I think they were calling them ...

... "suspect" rather than "person of interest" right away. But I don't know if that means they have to get an arrest warrant to talk with him. Maybe they do; I don't know if that is or is not the case.

But if we go with the gov't story for a moment, then if they car jacked somebody, then the cops would be in hot pursuit at that time, and I don't think they would need a warrant.

Once #2 shot back, they would claim that he is resisting arrest plus involved in a car jacking, so I still think a warrant would not be needed.

If you know differently, let me know because I would like to know that, too.

But Miranda, that is a WHOLE different ballgame. The US Supremes have been EXCEEDINGLY clear that "no Miranda, no case."

Of course, they have done this on purpose for this very reason -- to force the hand of the Supremes to destroy rights of Americans anytime the gubmint CLAIMS somebody did a "very bad thing."

The tyrant class wants to take things to the next step, which is to bring Gitmo home to "USA! USA!"

*** Here's an idea: Maybe this is all about having a sufficiently "bad" case to bring to the courts to defend the existence of NDAA.