In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
what difference does it make whether he's informed of his rights or not?
If i don't tell you that you have the right to remain silent how does that in and of itself compel you to talk to me?
it's a matter of actionable intelligence and the gathering thereof, not criminal case building
The difference is that he was talking to them about what they did. Then he gets Miranda rights, and he shuts the fvck up. What I said, and you quoted me on, was what I heard on the news as far as them not giving him the Miranda Rights right away. I know, the news screws things up all the time. Just putting out there what I heard.
My opinion is, if you do an act of terrorism, you are treated like a terrorist. No rights. You lose them when you decide to blow shit up and hurt/kill innocent people.
3 time POTW
show me the language that stats the rights are granted upon issuance
On Twitter: @Niebuhr247
Well in the traditional sense of the word, I am a liberal (classical liberal/Jeffersonian Dem/Lib). I am very much a libertarian and in favor of maximum individual rights.
If this guy were not a US Citizen or if he were caught on a battlefield or ??? any other law that would allow for us to ignore his rights, then fine go that route. However, we can't make/change a law after the fact an apply it to him. Same token, I don't know all the rules and am all in favor of doing what we can within the rules to get intel out of him (FYI - I do not think water-boarding should be illegal or considered torture for an enemy combatant). The big monkey wrench in this is that he is a US citizen.
3 time POTW, member since 2006, MLWTI: 4-3
If he is a citizen of this country... Yes.
Serious question: is the law that police have to read the rights right away or is the law that nothing that the citizen says can be used against them unless the rights are read?
If police had to read the rights immediately, then Yes he should have be read them.
If not, then as long as they don't use any information that he is offering against him in court, then my answer is No, they should not have.
Which is the law, or is it both?
No - If the President deemed him an enemy combatant
Yes - because they had to as a citizen and after 48 hours - you cannot hold a citizen without charges or it is kidnapping under our laws
Kid is an open book anyway
Well... It's kind of complicated. I just covered it in class, but I'm guessing CMXI can answer you better.
By Supreme Court decisions once a person is arrested, they are obligated to read the accused their rights. However, if during questioning (before the arrest) if the suspect admits to the crime and then they arrest him and read him his Miranda rights, the things said before the Miranda rights are read can only be used if they completely contradict what they said. Such as "I burned down that house". Then after saying "What house?" I believe this to be correct, but again CMXI would know much more better than I.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by dkerns 15 months ago
Yes he should be read the rights, but it doesn't matter. Miranda rights only need to be read for statements to be admissible in court. They have enough evidence to convict this guy without the statements.
Plus, the statements may get in anyway. Prosecutor could call the carjack victim as a witness and he testifies the defendant said he was the bomber. If that witness's credibility is attacked, Prosecutor then calls in police officer who heard the statement for the purpose of rehabilitating the credibility of the carjack victim, not for the purpose of incriminating the defendant. Not sure if that works, but it may.
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
Ill say this before someone else does. This is NOT my view by the way. Don't care one way or the other on the gun issue.
Our forefathers probably didn't envision someone having a gun capable of shooting 60 rounds a minute and holding 100 rounds when they said we should have the right to bear arms.
I'm not a gun guy, so the numbers are probably way off, but you get my point. There's always a potential problem when the law that was written over 200 yrs ago is applied to modem day
Not arguing, just saying
Moot thread is moot.
Accused bomber who survived massive manhunt invokes key right after visit from magistrate judge, U.S. attorney representative
they should have blew off his knee caps
Read him every word of it slowly, while he's getting the shit kicked out of him. IDGAF.
I'd like to know who the POS is who said we didn't read him his rights, and beat the brakes off them to.
Wrong. If we didn't do it, he would have kept talking... like he was, which could have potentially hurt the terrorist organization more. Now he won't say a word.
They win by us living in fear of them and not living our every day lives the way we always do.
The Constitutionalist side of me says yeah, sure.
The Common Sense side says, F no.
Who cares if they have enough to convict him? Him being on tape with the back pack, shooting cops, and hiding in a boat is enough to convict him.
I am talking national security.
Not to mention running over his own brother to get away. Do to him what his peeps would do to you. No mercy.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports