Phatscotty wrote:Also, does anyone have a problem with this guy not being read the miranda rights?
No. Treat him as a Terrorist.
Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:Also, does anyone have a problem with this guy not being read the miranda rights?
Phatscotty wrote:Also, does anyone have a problem with this guy not being read the miranda rights?
Jdsizzleslice wrote:No. Treat him as a Terrorist.
Phatscotty wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.
patches70 wrote:At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.
Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.
Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.
Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.
thank you mr toxin. That really clears it up. Everybody at my place just learned something!
Do you know if that originated in the Patriot Act?
Facts of the Case - After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.
Question - Should the Court suppress Quarles's statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights?
Ruling - No. The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1213/
Phatscotty wrote:patches70 wrote:At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.
They unloaded 30 shots in the boat didn't they? We don't know for sure his wounds were from this morning....or do we?
patches70 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:patches70 wrote:At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.
They unloaded 30 shots in the boat didn't they? We don't know for sure his wounds were from this morning....or do we?
I don't know any of the circumstances of Dzhokhar's arrest, only that he was taken alive. I was just doling out a shot at the LAPD for their handling of Dorner a couple of months back, who as you know wasn't taken alive. Nor did the LAPD seem very interested in taking their former comrade alive anyway.
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.
Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.
thank you mr toxin. That really clears it up. Everybody at my place just learned something!
Do you know if that originated in the Patriot Act?
No, it was Supreme Court ruling from 1984:Facts of the Case - After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.
Question - Should the Court suppress Quarles's statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights?
Ruling - No. The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1213/
- so they can ask the Chechen things like "are there any bombs or booby traps around here?" or "is there another bomb about to go off?" before they Mirandize him but they are not allowed to ask "where were you on the day of the Boston Marathon?" or "did you do it?"
Phatscotty wrote:patches70 wrote:At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.
They unloaded 30 shots in the boat didn't they? We don't know for sure his wounds were from this morning....or do we?
Phatscotty wrote:Can this power/exception be abused? Used with malicious intent?
Phatscotty wrote:Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.
Phatscotty wrote:I hope he got shot in the balls, and the victims get to spit in his face
patches70 wrote:Thank God! Now we can finally get back to our regular schedule of ignoring nearly all rapes, muggings and murder.
Ray Rider wrote:If lived in Boston, I think I would hit the streets and have a blast driving the empty roads. Seriously, how often do you see this?
It would be different if these guys were shooters sniping innocents along the streets or if the police were warning of additional bombs planted in various locations around the city. But shutting down life for 4+ million people just because there's a suspect or two on the run seems to be giving the criminals exactly the attention they crave.
Secondly, what kind of idiot criminals would remain in the city where they planted the bombs? You'd think any criminal in their shoes and possessing half a brain would've fled the state, if not the country, by now.
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:TO ARMS! TO ARMS!
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.
Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.
thank you mr toxin. That really clears it up. Everybody at my place just learned something!
Do you know if that originated in the Patriot Act?
No, it was Supreme Court ruling from 1984:
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users