This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Wounded In Serious Condition, Will Get "Public Safety" Exception To Miranda

Tyler Durden's picture





 

The nightly developments continue as we learn next that Tsarnaev is in serious (or critical according to Bloomberg) condition in the hospital, with a gunshot wound to the neck and leg, and that perhaps just as importantly, he will not get his Miranda warning, instead the FBI is overruling due process and using the "public safety" exception instead.

The wound speak for themselves. Those wishing to learn in what circumstances the Miranda Rights can be overruled, read on.

From the FBI:

The "Public Safety" Exception to Miranda

After 44 years, the Miranda decision stands as a monolith in police procedure.1 Its requirements are so well known that the Supreme Court remarked, "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."2 And, although the Supreme Court has clarified and refined Miranda over the years, its central requirements are clear.3 Whenever the prosecution seeks in its direct case to introduce a statement made by a suspect while in custody and in response to interrogation, it must prove that the subject was warned of specific rights and voluntarily waived those rights.4 The penalty imposed on the prosecution for failing to prove that the Miranda procedures were properly followed is harsh. While some secondary and limited uses of statements obtained in violation of Miranda are permitted, such statements are presumed to be coerced and cannot be introduced by the prosecution in its direct case.5

The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.

Recent and well-publicized events, including the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 235 near Detroit, Michigan, on December 25, 2009, and the attempted bombing in New York City's Times Square in May 2010, highlight the importance of this exception.6 Those current events, occurring in a time of heightened vigilance against terrorist acts, place a spotlight on this law enforcement tool, which, although 26 years old, may play a vital role in protecting public safety while also permitting statements obtained under this exception to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. In brief, and as discussed in this article, police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights. This article discusses the origins of the public safety exception and provides guidance for law enforcement officers confronted with an emergency that may require interrogating a suspect held in custody about an imminent threat to public safety without providing Miranda warnings.

ORIGIN OF THE RULE

The origin of the public safety exception to Miranda, the case of New York v. Quarles, began in the early morning hours of September 11, 1980. While on routine patrol in Queens, New York, two New York City police officers were approached by a young woman who told them that she had just been raped. She described the assailant as a black male, approximately 6 feet tall, wearing a leather jacket with "Big Ben" printed in yellow letters on the back. The woman told the officers that the man had just entered a nearby supermarket and that he was carrying a gun.

The officers drove to the supermarket, and one entered the store while the other radioed for assistance. A man matching the description was near a checkout counter, but upon seeing the officer, ran to the back of the store. The officer pursued the subject, but lost sight of him for several seconds as the individual turned a corner at the end of an aisle. Upon finding the subject, the officer ordered him to stop and to put his hands over his head. As backup personnel arrived, the officer frisked the man and discovered he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. After handcuffing him, the officer asked where the gun was. The man gestured toward empty milk cartons and said, "The gun is over there." The officer found and removed a loaded handgun from a carton, formally placed the man under arrest, and then read the Miranda rights to him. The man waived his rights and answered questions about the ownership of the gun and where it was purchased.7

The state of New York charged the man, identified as Benjamin Quarles, for criminal possession of a weapon.8 The trial court excluded the statement "The gun is over there," as well as the handgun, on the grounds that the officer did not give Quarles the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona. 9 After an appellate court affirmed the decision, the case was appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.

The New York Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision by a 4 to 3 vote.10 According to the New York Court of Appeals, because Quarles responded "to the police interrogation while he was in custody, [and] before he had been given the preinterrogation warnings…," the lower courts properly suppressed the statement and the gun.11 The court refused to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda and noted that even if there were such an exception, there was "no evidence in the record before us that there were exigent circumstances posing a risk to the public safety or that the police interrogation was prompted by such concern."12 In dissent, Judge Watchler believed that there was a public safety exception to Miranda and that the facts presented such a situation. Judge Watchler noted that "Miranda was never intended to enable a criminal defendant to thwart official attempts to protect the general public against an imminent, immediate and grave risk of serious physical harm reasonably perceived."13 He also believed there was "a very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from a weapon being at large."14 The state of New York appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled on these facts that a public safety exception to Miranda existed. To understand how the Court reached this conclusion and the implications of this exception on the admissibility of the statement and the handgun, a consideration of a summary of the steps used by the Court is important.

The first step toward this conclusion was a discussion by the Court of the relationship between the Miranda requirements and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."15 The Fifth Amendment "does not prohibit all incriminating admissions," only those that are "officially coerced selfaccusations…." 16 In Miranda, the Supreme Court "for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police."17 Thus, Miranda created a presumption that "interrogation in custodial circumstances is inherently coercive" and that statements obtained under those circumstances "are inadmissible unless the subject is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights."18 Importantly, the Court noted that Miranda warnings were not required by the Constitution, but were prophylactic measures designed to provide protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. 19

After providing this explanation of the relationship between the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, the Court explained that Quarles did not claim that his statements were "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist."20 Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed. 21 And, in this regard, the Court explained that the failure to administer Miranda warnings does not, standing alone, make a confession involuntary in violation of the Constitution. 22

The Supreme Court then proceeded to determine whether the Miranda rule was implicated in this case and agreed with the New York Court of Appeals that it was. The Court agreed with the New York courts that Quarles was in custody. As the Court noted, "Quarles was surrounded by at least four police officers and was handcuffed when the questioning at issue took place."23 Therefore, on the facts of the case, the Court found that the Miranda decision was clearly implicated. The Court then referred to the determination by the New York courts that there was nothing in the record indicating that any of the police officers were concerned with their safety when they questioned Quarles. The Supreme Court noted that the New York Court of Appeals did not address the issue of whether there was an exception to Miranda in cases that involve a danger to the public "because the lower courts in New York made no factual determination that the police had acted with that motive."24

The Supreme Court chose to address whether a public safety exception to Miranda should exist. In this regard, the Court held that: "there is a 'public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved."25 Thus, according to the Court, without regard to the actual motivation of the individual officers, Miranda need not be strictly followed in situations "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."26

The Court then applied the facts to the situation confronting them when Quarles was arrested. In the course of arresting Quarles, it became apparent that Quarles had removed the handgun and discarded it within the store. While the location of the handgun remained undetermined, it posed a danger to public safety.27 In this case, the officer needed an answer to the question about the location of the gun to ensure that its concealment in a public location would not endanger the public. The immediate questioning of Quarles was directed specifically at resolving this emergency. Since the questioning of Quarles was prompted by concern for public safety, the officers were not required to provide Miranda warnings to Quarles first. Therefore, the statement made by Quarles about the location of the handgun was admissible.28 In addition, because the Court found there was no violation of Miranda, the handgun also was admissible. The Court declined to address whether the handgun would have been suppressed if the statements were found to be inadmissible.29

FRAMEWORK OF THE EXCEPTION

The Quarles case provides a framework that police officers can use to assess a particular situation, determine whether the exception is available, and ensure that their questioning remains within the scope of the rule. This framework includes the presence of a public safety concern, limited questioning, and voluntariness.

Limited Questioning

The Quarles Court made clear that only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of the public" were permitted under the public safety exception.35 In U.S. v. Khalil, New York City police officers raided an apartment in Brooklyn after they received information that Khalil and Abu Mezer had bombs in their apartment and were planning to detonate them.36 During the raid, both men were shot and wounded as one of them grabbed the gun of a police officer and the other crawled toward a black bag believed to contain a bomb. When the officers looked inside the black bag, they saw pipe bombs and observed that a switch on one bomb was flipped.

Officers went to the hospital to question Abu Mezer about the bombs. They asked Abu Mezer "how many bombs there were, how many switches were on each bomb, which wires should be cut to disarm the bombs, and whether there were any timers."37 Abu Mezer answered each question and also was asked whether he planned to kill himself in the explosion. He responded by saying, "Poof."38

Abu Mezer sought to suppress each of his statements, but the trial court permitted them, ruling that they fell within the public safety exception. On appeal, Abu Mezer only challenged the admissibility of the last question, whether he intended to kill himself when detonating the bombs. He claimed the question was unrelated to public safety. The circuit court disagreed and noted "Abu Mezer's vision as to whether or not he would survive his attempt to detonate the bomb had the potential for shedding light on the bomb's stability."39

A common theme throughout cases such as this is the importance of limiting the interrogation of a subject to questions directed at eliminating the emergency. Following Quarles, at least two federal circuit courts of appeals have addressed the issue of the effect of an invocation of a right on the exception. In U.S. v. De- Santis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the public safety exception applies even after the invocation of counsel.40 According to the court: "The same consideration that allows the police to dispense with providing Miranda warnings in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel."41

In U.S. v. Mobley, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the public safety exception applied even when the subject had invoked his right to counsel.42 The court recognized that a threat to public safety still may exist even after Miranda rights are provided and invoked.

CONCLUSION

The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 04/19/2013 - 21:59 | Link to Comment tsx500
tsx500's picture

i hope this c-s'er is in serious seriously unbearable pain 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:04 | Link to Comment Race Car Driver
Race Car Driver's picture

> i hope this c-s'er is in serious seriously unbearable pain 

How big of you - asshole.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:13 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

A 19 year old killed 3 people and seriously maimed a couple dozen.  Asshole?  Yes.  Fry him if he's guilty after a Constitutional jury trial?  Absolutely.  National security threat so Miranda is out the window?  Jesus FUCKING Christ.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

There is no Miranda right anymore. The Quarles case destroyed that. Just figure it out yourself. How can there be a "public safety" exception when a suspect is in handcuffs. That doesn't even pass the laugh test. End of story.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:48 | Link to Comment freedogger
freedogger's picture

The narrative goes that he was out droppping pressure cookers allover the city before being arrested.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:00 | Link to Comment Stackers
Stackers's picture

"Shut up! You dont get a lawyer. You're enemy combatant"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGdMxOKiMHo

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:08 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Keeping on ZH topic -- the algos know when you are guilty, like the drones.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:28 | Link to Comment strannick
strannick's picture

Miranda? CNBC and the police now decide guilt.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:42 | Link to Comment derek_vineyard
derek_vineyard's picture

how do the conspiracists reconcile the fact he was taken alive rather than the certain death they predicted?   i think their paranoid minds will rationalize some deeper conspiracy  (perhaps little men in blue suits will visit them while they sleep to explain)

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:36 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

how do the conspiracists reconcile the fact he was taken alive rather than the certain death they predicted?   i think their paranoid minds will rationalize some deeper conspiracy 

Don't need conspiracy theories at this point, thousands of paramilitary police and lockdown of Boston to apprehend a 19 year old kid? Miranda rights exception for "Public Safety" reasons?

Yep, we've moved well beyond the need for conspiracy theories.  

And one other thing, with the amount of ammunition fired into the boat I doubt the police were hoping to take him alive...but I guess that is a crazy conspiracy theory. Still need a few I suppose. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:47 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

probably some family issues. Father left family, mother went psycho, kids do crazy things and blame the world.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 04:51 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Yep. Course gotta take the kids alive not so "they can come up with an alibi" but so they can actually say what their motivation was/still is. I look at these things (remotely of course) as a mystery to be figured out. And no...these kids doing this is not "inexplicable." just as anyone who's served in any of these war zones or any of these victims of these Terri attacks. "they could never do such a thing...they're great kids" blah blah blah. Same thing all the time. Of course you have to listen closely to the denial...there is a striking amount of truth in there that in fact these kids did do it by dint of simply "hearing" what is left out. (no mention of hanging out at radical web sites, talking to/with clerics promoting radical ideology. The fact that they already are on an FBI watch list, etc...etc...) great job ZH. Now we discover that unlike the MSM that simply provide cover stories for terrorists thus furthering and encouraging more terrorism this place actually divulges the ridiculous truth of these clowns...that they talk about this stuff before, during and after...that the authorities are not listening...or worse, and that when the manhunt gets underway the use of social information to literally put a stop to the whole thing immediately/before hand?? seems to be ignored.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 07:28 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

Living on a green card doesn't make you a citizen.....and only citizens get Miranda rights.

 

Hence.....no exception needed.

 

Set the MSM spin machines to full turbo. All of a sudden they're worried about constitutional rights.....after all they've done to shred them.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 07:46 | Link to Comment samcontrol
samcontrol's picture

good point, i have no green card, don,t live in the US bu yet i fell somewhatt American, and that includes having almost NO rights.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 08:29 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

I wouldn't expect any rights if I blew the crap out of some people in France....which is why I wouldn't think of doing it.

 

I could care less what they do to him.....no rights seems about right to me.

 

Screw the whole UN citizen of the world crap. You pull that stunt in west Texas, you'd better hope the cops get to you first.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 08:56 | Link to Comment Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Just FYI, this kid IS an American citizen. The now-dead older brother was the one with the green card. Since the Patriot Act and NDAA, your citizenship status is utterly meaningless. All it takes is for some nameless, faceless constumed-enforcer of the state to 'designate' you an 'enemy combatant'.

 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:05 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

GZG - regardless of what you expect, foregners on US soil do get basic protections under the Const.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:43 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

I love these arguments about "citizen" and "US soil" pertaining to rights.

Cannot remember the boundaries specified or definitions of citizen, non-citizen, or brown man who won't accept FRNs for oil in the DOI?

But we all play the game of looking at rights as privileges and privileges as rights.

Just another day in that happy world of 1984.

We are a fucking empire. Any "rule" can be set aside for the betterment of the empire.

The sooner we all come to accept that little truth these arguments can cease.

pods

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 14:58 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

When the flag waving goes into full force, make sure to keep a close watch on your rights. 

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:35 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

With young male muzzles living in the west they end up angry because the women are liberated sexually and they are NOT. Muzzie males end up a mess because of the way Islam and islamicate cultures treat girls and women. Contact with women I the western world either sets them free or sets them off.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:53 | Link to Comment toys for tits
toys for tits's picture

That's the men in black.

Everyone on this site seems to be worried about this denial of the right to be mirandized.

We just have to remember that policies regarding the citizens of the US are made on the spot to fit the occasion.

The precedent allowing the government to intern any race for good reason has never been overturned.  The case is Korematsu v. United States. From the Supreme Court's order:

 

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a "Military Area," contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General 216*216 of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed,[1] and the importance of the constitutional question involved caused us to grant certiorari.

 

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

....

We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Cf. Chastleton Corporation v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 547; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154-5. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. Cf. Ex parte Kawato, 317 U.S. 69, 73. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direct emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.

 

 

Some of the members of the Court are of the view that evacuation and detention in an Assembly Center were inseparable. After May 3, 1942, the date of Exclusion Order No. 34, Korematsu was under compulsion to leave the area not as he would choose but via an Assembly Center. The Assembly Center was conceived as a part of the machinery for group evacuation. The power to exclude includes the power to do it by force if necessary. And any forcible measure must necessarily entail some degree of detention or restraint whatever method of removal is selected. But whichever view is taken, it results in holding that the order under which petitioner was convicted was valid.

 

It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers — and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies — we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

From dissenter Justice Jackson explaining the effect of this order:

But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as "the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic."

 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:13 | Link to Comment Shooting Shark
Shooting Shark's picture

His peanut butter was better than we thought.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:23 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

He hasn't gone to trial yet, so he can still hang himself in jail or they can drug him up like they did to the Aurora shooter.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 17:59 | Link to Comment icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

recovering their asset to find out what he said and to whom

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:22 | Link to Comment wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

Looks to me like the FBI just screwed up...

and gave the perp's lawyers a nice juicy technicality to have the case thrown out - or at least endlessly appealed, ad nauseum.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 02:26 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

That's prolly why they decided to keep him alive... 2 dead perps & the story would fade away by barbecue season... Gotta keep the story fresh in people's minds, the World Series isn't until October...

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 08:32 | Link to Comment smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

they will just bradley manning him.....purgatory....

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:53 | Link to Comment Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

He is a Muslim, unlike any usual "white person", we must understand his rage. (See Maj. Hassan and the boys of Gitmo).  There every good feeling and ritual and belief must be respected and hallowed.

 

Just last night, Peerless Leader stated: Obama: "When a tragedy like this happens....Don't rush to judgements especially on groups of people."  Pity he doesn't extend this those he dislikes or the 2nd Amendment.

 

FORWARD SOVIET!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:49 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And remember that when "rule of law" is the model proposed as the alternative to Constitutional democracy.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:44 | Link to Comment lewy14
lewy14's picture

Since the Government is just the People, this punk is just someone we all decided to arrest together.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:15 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Fortunately, we have branches.  Checks and balances.  Blah blah blah.  CNN, Fox and MSNBC all say he's guilty so fuck him.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 07:34 | Link to Comment Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

The "Government" is a bunch of puppets manipulated by a small group of uber-wealthy families and powerful corporations.

The "We, the people" of the Constitution is only a memory at this point.

Sun, 04/21/2013 - 00:40 | Link to Comment lewy14
lewy14's picture

Vince, I was hoping I wouldn't need the <sarc/> tag. Turns out I did.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:48 | Link to Comment freedogger
freedogger's picture

The narrative goes that he was out droppping pressure cookers allover the city before being arrested.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:53 | Link to Comment quikwit
quikwit's picture

No, "public safety" exception can make sense sometimes.  For example, if a suspect is in custody, and it is known that a time bomb has been set to go off in the next 10 minutes somewhere in a public place, the suspect may be interrogated in custody without a reading of Miranda rights to save the public from the time bomb.

Of course, there seems to be no factual basis for the exception to apply here.  But when has that ever stopped law enforcement?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:56 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Some assholes here are already saying that he MAY have a bomb somewhere else, therefore no rights.  Pretty easy to see how that exception swallows the Constitution.  Thanks, Hollywood for convincing the sheep that this shit happens.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:20 | Link to Comment quikwit
quikwit's picture

Yeah, if you replace the requirement for hard evidence with "maybe," "plausibly," or "possibly," its as good as gutted.  If you go over to comments section of any mainstream online publication, the baying for blood on mere suspicion and rumor... it's so disheartening to see how little respect for due process our society actually has.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 09:57 | Link to Comment Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

How many of you here decrying the Public Safety Exception to Miranda have actually taken the time to read the Quarles decision? Do you know what it says, and why it was developed?

How many of you have even read Miranda, Massiah, or Escobedo?

Do you know why the Miranda admonishment was established in the first place?

Did you even realize that a Miranda advisal is not a Constitutional right, but rather a prophylactic rule of evidence?

Seems this discussion could use a little less heat and a little more light... 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 15:33 | Link to Comment quikwit
quikwit's picture

Law student here - read the cases.  If you re-read my previous comment, you'll understand I have no problem with there being a public safety exception.  I do have a problem with the exception being invoked without the right kind of evidence.  Whether the evidence is at hand can be debated, as some other commenters here have done.

And I do have a problem with the standard of evidence required to invoke the exception.  Each event sets a precedent.  If the exception keeps growing by weaking the evidentiary standard required, it will swallow the general rule.  And when you hear important people like Sen. Lindsay Graham advocate for a complete waiver of Constitutional rights for this US citizen, you have to worry about even little things like mere prophylactic rules.

As for your comment -- so what if it is a prophylactic rule?  Its grounds are still rooted in the 5th Amendment -- it's not some arbitrary procedural crap.  It also is Supreme Court-made law, and cannot be ignored.  And it is odd that you put down the <i>Miranda</i> case as merely stating a prophylactic rule, but so forcefully cite the cases defining an exception to it.

Seems you're the one needing some cooling off...

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:19 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

Nobody is saying he should have "no rights".

Everyone here is pretty well versed in civil rights and the dangers (and realities) of our government trampling them. Everyone here witnessed the abuse of GITMO and has to live with the invasive bullshit of DHS.

Lets be clear:

These guys were exchanging *gunfire* with the cops. They were throwing explosive devices at the cops. The deceased suspect was found with an explosive device on his person. There is powerful case evidence of them being connected to a bombing which used a timed-explosive which killed and wounded large numbers of people.

The public safety statute was created with exactly this type of scenario in mind. This is not analogous to illegal DHS checkpoints or holding suspects without trial. This is about Miranda rights.

It's hardly an abuse of the public-safety statute to question him about additional explosives in the interest of public safety.

Nor is it an example of conveniently citing special powers to expand the role of government. This was clearly a legitimate threat.

And if two guys shooting at cops, throwing explosives at cops, found with explosives on their person, fleeing in a stolen car ... and by the way, who were photographed at the exact scene of a major terrorist attack .... if that isn't a legitimate enough threat to public safety.... What the fuck is?

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:46 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

These guys were exchanging *gunfire* with the cops. They were throwing explosive devices at the cops. The deceased suspect was found with an explosive device on his person. There is powerful case evidence of them being connected to a bombing which used a timed-explosive which killed and wounded large numbers of people.

And if two guys shooting at cops, throwing explosives at cops, found with explosives on their person, fleeing in a stolen car ... and by the way, who were photographed at the exact scene of a major terrorist attack .... if that isn't a legitimate enough threat to public safety.... What the fuck is?

You're conflating multiple events. The police so far haven't given evidence for the public excemption at the point when he was taken into custody. 

Defaulting to assuming the police did the correct thing when constitutional rights are being played around with is always the wrong assumption imo. Have the police prove they were in the right first, always.

So far CNN is too busy fawning over what a great a job the police did to bother asking any questions. I'm sure they're eager to launch a full investigation into how the police handled this whole affair but *spoiler alert* fortunately the police did everything 100% correct. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:16 | Link to Comment mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

Apparently these kids have been followed by the FBI for years. Could it be that, like so many others, they were set up to do the job?

Could it be possible that the FBI, or other security organs of the govt, ytrained these kids to build bombs, gave them guns and training, and encouraged them to bomb the marathon?

Of course, it all went wrong. Maybe CRAFT operatives were supposed to secure the bombs before they went off. maybe the bombs were not supposed to be live, or were designed in such a way as to be neutralized, but something went wrong.

The kids, set up to be patsies, but possessed of sterner stuff, exploded their bombs and got away. When cornered they faught back, using their training against their trainers.

Of course, they're stil patsies, and we'l never know why, or who's beghind it, but of course gun control is full steam ahead, and you and I have no more Constitutional protections- the objectives of the attack have been accomplished.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:47 | Link to Comment lewy14
lewy14's picture

Don't bother arguing with people possessed of unfalsifiable beliefs.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:11 | Link to Comment TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

Sure he's a threat to public safety - but so is every other meth head, heroin addict, Federal Reserve banker  and murderer. The question is, is he a threat to the national security of the United States? 

 

Obviously he's no threat to the security of the nation which is what the Miranda exception was designed to account for. 

If they were afraid that there were ticking time bombs laying around, perhaps they shouldn't have let him bleed for an hour or more before moving in to affect arrest. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 09:42 | Link to Comment azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

Bernanke is a terrorist. Does he get miranda?

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:20 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Then fucking easy jury trial.  Hope the DOJ doesn't lose a bunch of that clear evidence that made it a no-brainer just before the trial, though.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 04:35 | Link to Comment Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

***It's hardly an abuse of the public-safety statute to question him about additional explosives in the interest of public safety.***

I don't object to this. It's the electrodes on the testicles that I object to.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 07:57 | Link to Comment percyklein
percyklein's picture

In an effort to bring some sanity to this thread, I have a new question: where are they going to find jurors for this one -- jurors whose minds are not already made up after watching this stuff and reading about it? Hmmm?

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:31 | Link to Comment Vooter
Vooter's picture

"It's hardly an abuse of the public-safety statute to question him about additional explosives in the interest of public safety."

ANSWER THE QUESTION: HOW IS NOT READING HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS GOING TO MAKE HIM TALK? Is this some sort of magic wand thing? "We have chosen not to read you your Miranda rights...now you MUST tell us where the bomb is!" LOL...

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:14 | Link to Comment Oliver Klozoff
Oliver Klozoff's picture

I think everyone has got this wrong.

The Miranda rights inform an arrestee of their right to "remain silent, the right to an attorney"

Obviously his testimony can now be forced from him.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:28 | Link to Comment Vooter
Vooter's picture

LOL...what if they choose not to read him his rights and he doesn't tell them where the bomb is before it explodes?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:56 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Miranda was an absolutely embarrassingly stupid decision with an awful legacy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the bill of rights, the fundamental law of the land, gets you off Scott free. FUBAR lefty court decision from hell without which lots f Americans would have gone unraped and unrobbed and undefrauded.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:05 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yeah, fuck rights.  

Guess what.  If you're guilty, you are convicted by a jury of your peers.  Last time I checked, my "peers" do not include CNN and every other fucking news outlet that followed it and announced the arrest of a suspect 24 hours before one was arrested.  Evidence, proof, testimony.  So quaint.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:12 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

And the point of Miranda in all of that is what exactly? Mirandising just informs someone of what they should bloody fucking well know because what they need to know is in the Bill of Rights. If they want to blab, let them run their mouth.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:16 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So your point is that suspected criminals who are not well educated can go fuck themselves?  

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:35 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Except when a lefty supreme court gets some bad shit in the pipe they are passing around and decides everyone must be informed of clear provisions i the most basic original law of the land, else nothing they say an be used to incriminate them. It is breathtakingly retarded. Just breathtakingly magnificently fucking idiotic, nd noting to do with the spirit or meaning of the constitution, which was clear and fair exactly as it was, in this respect.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:37 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Lefty Supreme Court?  The author of Miranda was a Republican appointee who at one time was a Republican Vice President Candidate.  Look it up.  Nevermind, they don't have that link on Fox.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:05 | Link to Comment SkySavage
SkySavage's picture

Miranda rights is a legal issue and nothing more.  It is required to have "proof" that the perp knows his constitutional rights, and so therefore cannot be released on a technicality.  Does anyone really think that anyone would be somehow more or less willing to talk to interrogators if they had or had not been read their Miranda rights?   This kid got the shit kicked out of him in order to get him to "willingly divulge information" and the only difference between him and any other bad guy is that he cannot get off on a technicality.  Welcome to the slippery slope. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:10 | Link to Comment SkySavage
SkySavage's picture

So many problems with this entire fiasco...don't know where to begin...

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:06 | Link to Comment dog breath
dog breath's picture

Are you aware that some Republicans are left wing?  I suggest you look it up.  Or do they have that at MSNBC?

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:08 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

That saying came about hundreds of years ago when there were about 20 laws on the books. Today, there are ten thousand laws on the books. No lawyer or judge in the world knows all of the laws of the federal, state or even local governments. The IRS code alone is over 25,000 pages. Do you know every law on the books?

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:24 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Fuck me.  I agree with you.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:43 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Ignorance of the Constitution on the other hand? The guy passed a citizenship test and probably knows it better than the Jaywalk types.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 18:04 | Link to Comment icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

 

That may be the established legal principle, but in the context of the US today it's total bullshit. 40,000 new laws were passed last year alone, do you know what they are? They change the laws so often that outside basic and fundamental things like murder, rape, and robbery, no one knows what the law is anymore.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 12:11 | Link to Comment Mr. Magniloquent
Mr. Magniloquent's picture

The US Federal Government permeates every aspect of life within the USA. There is nothing untouched by federal agencies--police included. The Federal Register, the code stipulating rules and procedure for them, was was 81,405 pages long in 2010. That's small print, tripple column on each page. These words dictate how the law is applied; therefore, what the law actually is.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? Please. When is the last time you comprehenisvely memorized all 81,405 pages of tiny print, triple columns in the Federal Register?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:25 | Link to Comment 88888
88888's picture

Why are they avoiding mentioning that he is a radical islamist? 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Because they don't know if he really is.  He's a Muslim.  Does his religious affiliation mean that our Constitution is a joke?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:02 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

No, the Miranda decision is a fucking bad joke though.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:03 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Now you know it's a decision and not an Amendment to the document you think is a joke, at least.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:28 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The constitution is great. Miranda is a lefty supreme court brainfart of epoch proportions. It is retarded. Retar. Ded.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:38 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Earl Warren.  Lefty Supreme Court Justice nominated by ..  a Republican.  Propaganda works, doesn't it Mr. Sheep TBT or not to Sheep.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:59 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

The fact is the Obama Admin made the call on his Miranda rights being waived and Eric Holder has been trying to dismantle Miranda rights for a while. 

If Miranda rights are so useless why are successive governments so eager to get rid of them when dealing with 'terrorists'?

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:25 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Because our government of the people and by the people has been taken over by private interests.   They once called them Kings, Queens, Lords, etc.  

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 02:55 | Link to Comment Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

Way to late to this debate. Well said LTER... shame the red and blue teams show their conditioning in the end.

However, the MSM are used to distract the sheep chanting USA,USA,USA has this was an embarrassing display by 10,000 police or better put, internal security troops, made famous in the Soviet error took a painfully cautious and conveluted way to find and remove the threat of a 26 old boxer and his 19 year old 'facebook fan' of a brother. Despite more tools, kit and advanced weaponry, just used in Boston, than perhaps 95% of the nations on earth.

Love CNN with how great the Police where. LOL!

If this had been the real deal the sheeple on the crossfire would have been complelety fucked.

 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:52 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Because Miranda is a breathtakingly stupid supreme court precedent, in all cases, at least as regards the little spiel cops are required to recite and get a response to. The constitution has the required protections as is. Why. The fuck. Remind probable perps they have the right not to talk. They do have this right. Miranda does not modify that in any fashion, it just requires arresting police to inform them of what's in the fucking constitution already. Can I try that one out when I don't pay some tax or other? "no one told me about the tax laws, the iRS failed to come read them to me, in person, at bedtime each night, tucking me in with a 'do you understand this provision of the tax code?'". Therefore the law doesnt apply to my breaking of it and all my breaking of it is...drum roll...in admissible in court! Re tard Ed.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 03:32 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

TBT or not TBT said:

 

"The constitution is great. Miranda is a lefty supreme court brainfart of epoch proportions. It is retarded. Retar. Ded."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court

hit ctrl-F and search for miranda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

Nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower

Warren was also the vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party in 1948

Now I absolutely love Eisenhower (the last great president IMO) and I get our country has moved WAYYYYY to the right since then, but it's pretty hard to call a Republican VP candidate and Republican appointee a lefty. Unless you are saying Repubs are lefties in which case...I got nothing.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:59 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Nixon was a statist prick control freak with a Republican brand name. John McCain of McCain Feingold fame and pro universal gun registration is a Republican. George W Bush was a republican, but so was Ron Paul. They are all over the map. The stupidissime Miranda decision , is what it is independently of whether you would like to label Warren a Republican or not. Keep in mind that back then the Republican party was socially liberal, and the Democrat party was in your face socially conservative. Te party of apartheid in amemerica. The party that voted against civil rights even after the country had long before shifted on the matter. The party of jim crow, of keeping blacks away from guns.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:03 | Link to Comment McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

The more I hear about this, the more it smells a bit of the Russian mob who supposedly got screwed in Cyprus. Didn't these guys supposedly visit Russia in the recent past? The radical Islamist angle makes little to no sense at this point, at least based upon what we know.

And the way some people wish to casually disregard the Constitution, which — I must remind them — is there to protect every American citizen, even the ones people loathe, disgusts me.

If the Constitution doesn't "work" in cases like this, it doesn't work period.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:29 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Now what would the Russian Mob and bankers and anti-Constitution folks have in common....?

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:02 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

They're not big on following the rules but very happy to make their own as they go.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 08:05 | Link to Comment The Abstraction...
The Abstraction of Justice's picture

Why bomb a marathon and not a bank. If they had placed it outside a merchant bank during rush hour, the casualties would have been in the dozens, and the message clear. There was no message in this bombing.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:03 | Link to Comment overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

 abstr;"Why bomb a marathon and not a bank?" the FBI ATF never bomb banks or elite gathering places Never, it's in the manual, they serve their and our masters.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:08 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The message is they hate you and want to end your wicked civilisation.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:42 | Link to Comment JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Cause it's always better to wait for a chorus of dupes and dissemblers to divert the discussion to the direction that the hoax requires...in order to succeed without blowing cover.

But thanks for asking. You may be unaware that "radical islamists"(most particularly in the Chechen context!)are a subset of those CIA trained, State Dept\BlackBudget\NGO funded professional agitators which the ZOG-controlled USA and ZATO used to destabilize Russia and the Slavic states...aka AlCIAda...via bombings and acts of terror against civilian targets.

and then were employed to create falseflag disturbances around the world in furtherance of Sionist strategies of tension and the creation of a phony confrontation between East and West designed to have both destroyed, each by the other, and replaced by a global hegemonist talmudist regime of the kind which already redirects billions of your tax $ to the tiny terrorist statelet which runs the whole scam.

Any more questions?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:07 | Link to Comment 88888
88888's picture

Oh trust me im aware. Ironic isn't it. The "opposition" in syria is backed by the USA, oh and they have already been proven to be ALCIAda. 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:39 | Link to Comment The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

Take some anti-nausea medication and watch FAUX, if you can stand it. CNN is almost as bad.

Thinking way ahead, I'm wondering whether this might not lead to some joint U.S./Russia strike against Chechnya. U.S. has already deployed military advisors to Georgia. Pincer move? Maybe this was the plan all along. Maybe Russian protests were just so much Hollywood movie set fog disguising their true intentions and backroom plans.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:01 | Link to Comment rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 88888

Don't beat around the bush.

The US government currently supports the Chechnyan "radical Islamists".

Same as the ones from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kosovo.

So long as they undermine the Russians, and support the expansion of US domination, they are in turn supported by the US government.

But if they turn, or are no longer useful, they are branded "terrorists", like the Taliban or AlQaeda. Terrorists are just the code name for those who oppose the US government. It is not about the tactics. Any tactics, torture, killing civilians, assassination, etc. is deemed OK (rationalized) so long as done in support of US.

The declared "war" against the tactics is all PR for a never ending "emergency" state of war. Imagine if a never ending war against "suprise attacks" had been declared after Pearl Harbor.

 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment Race Car Driver
Race Car Driver's picture

> A 19 year old killed 3 people and seriously maimed a couple dozen.

 

Used to be a time in America when a suspect was presumed innocent until proof of guilt was presented and weighed by a jury of his peers. Now, folks mostly just eat whatever the MSM feeds them ... which is mostly shit.

Right now, we really have no idea what this is all about because the MSM has made more chaos out of this event than was inherent to begin with. AFAIK, this kid is just a patsy with the wrong history, wrong religion and wrong skin color. We'll prolly never see whatever evidence will be brought against him. Just watch the outcome of Aurora to see how this one is gonna go. 

Go back to sleep America. The police are dressed like soldiers and are lining your streets.  We got the dirty sand nigger. You are as safe as we want you to be, for now. Go back to sleep - and pray we don't come for you.


Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:24 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Well I agree with you and I don't watch TV or Hollywood unlike a lot of fux posting here including probably you.  He deserves his Miranda rights and the presumption of innocence.

You had to bring his skin tone in and sand ni**er crap. F You.  He is a Caucasian from the real Caucases which is probably meaningless to you.   As far as Chechnians - after what they did to Russian children at Beslan - they will ALWAYS be Chechnian Islamic shit to me.  1400 years of misery from Islam - so F off.

Oh and I know all about our own muslim dronie killing innocent children daily between golf rounds.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:26 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You are mad about a nigger comment but you speak about Chechnians as if they are one person?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:34 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Chechnian muslims are shit.  After Beslan they will always be shit.  HEaring about this family, their tweets and other shit is only more evidence.   

Cher even sang a song about them called Gypies, Tramps and Theives.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:41 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So why did you ** nigger?   What race/ethnicity/religion are you?  Do you identify with ALL of them and support ALL of their beliefs?  Why am I wasting my time talking to an idiot?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:51 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

You are rather emotional aren't you? Let's just say I had ancestors who fought shit like this in Europe hundreds of year ago.  No I don't like them.  Read what they did to children at Beslan.  This klan in Boston more of the same shit.   As far as guilt or innocence - give the kid a trial though I doubt he survives.  The video of them wandering around together during the bombing with backpacks does not look good but the whole thing looks false flag.

The brother had been arrested in 2009 and should have been deported. They are scum.  

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:05 | Link to Comment McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

I thought the mess in Beslan was more a case of hostage-taking gone bad, with the Russians essentially gassing the whole place. Not excusing the behavior of the Chechens, but the whole thing seemed to be a colossal fuck-up.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:24 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

No there was another one where they took over a movie theater.  Same vermin.  The Russians used gas to put everyone to sleep but some people died.  There were two or three of these tragedies.  The movie theater I think was with Chechian black widow assasins.  I realize the Russians are not very nice either.

People can claim false flag, Miranda, whatever but we do know this Chechnian Muslim shit tied up and locked down a major city whether they are innocent or not.   You let shit like this into this country and you ruin it.  Oh but we cannot judge them or say they are bad people.  The son and his mother had been arrested in the USA for felonies.

We are so far gone now it really does not matter.  

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:32 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I am shit "they" let into this country a couple of generations ago, so I guess you've proved your point Sitting Bull[shit].

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:28 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The right to be informed of what is in the constitution in case you are ignorant or just too stupid to shut your mouth. Jesus.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 09:22 | Link to Comment Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

Freddie,

Russian would call him "black". Basically, a disparaging term. Chechnya had stuff going on since 1700's.  For the last 20 years they have been killing each other left and right.

It's very hard now to state who is a "victim".  I hope "they" use Sharia law to prosecute him.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:19 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

You're right except for the skin color. Chechens are white, unless you mean white is the wrong skin color. You could be correct though, with 0bummer and Holder in charge.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 02:48 | Link to Comment JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Sort of like "white for the rong reasons">>>???

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:45 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Miranda was an extra retarded supreme court decision. Keep in mind what it is about. The suspect must be informed of their rights. Which are spelled out in a simple document of a few pages. The constitution, for those who need it spelled out. The basic law of the land. On the other hand your ignorance of provisions deep in the federal or state or local laws, or even of unreadable regulations issued by faceless unelected mini tyrants IS NO DEFENSE. On the other hand not knowing to simply STFU must be spelled out as Miranda holds, because you are assumed ignorant of the fundamental simply stated bill of rights. FUBAR. Let the ignorant self incriminate all they like, or else give us all a fucking break for being ignorant of one of tens of thousands of defined crimes no single human could ever be simultaneously aware of.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:20 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Most cops and judges don't know the laws. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:15 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The judges tell the jury they alone will declare what the law holds, no one else. And the jury is not to do their own study of the law but rather depend entirely on the judge's take. They don't like the jury acting as acheck on the judicial, or legislative branches, but they're ok having juries trump executive branch (police). Miranda is a stupid stupid decision inasmuch as it requires the police to read out that little phrase. Retarded.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:38 | Link to Comment TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

The Constitution sets forth the structure, powers and functioning of the Federal government. The Bill of Rights enumerates some, but not all of our God given rights. 

To claim that Miranda is already covered by the Constitution shows that you do not understand the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that a criminal defendent is entitled to an attorney if he/she cannot afford one. Miranda does. 

 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:40 | Link to Comment rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

entitled to due process, particularly in a felony case,

necessitates legal representation.

Miranda, many seem to be missing the point,

was actually meant to restrain police from using coerced confessions as evidence.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:21 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The right to shut up is right there in the constitution. As to the right to an attorney, there is the lawyer-judicial complex at work. They are a special caste in the USA that guarantees itself an elite protected status and lots of work to do, playing god with people 's lives. The right to a free attorney ie paid for by taxpayers was both scope creep and further legitimation of the pro lawyer, lawyer supported notion that only lawyers can argue cases adequately.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:59 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

That's just it. He is ACCUSED of killing 3 (4) people and injuring another couple of hundred. Accused. Guilt needs to be determined in court.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:03 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Sure, but let him run at the mouth all he wants to. He went through naturalization so he had to learn the bill of rights. Fuck the stupid fuckety fuck Miranda bullshit. It is a nonsense supreme court decision. A national embarrassment.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:28 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You are a local embarrasment.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:35 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

But I'm acting globally.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:50 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Acting like an idiot on a global stage.   I'll give you that.  Congratulations on your successful attempt to be an idiot to anyone who will listen.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 02:08 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

No you're acting like some richer-than-po dumb-ass pig-cock-sucking white untermensch bitch, i.e. the exact opposite of globally.

Ask someone who lives someplace where there aren't Miranda (or similar) rights- what happens when the police "want to speak" with you... 

 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:57 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"Yes. Fry him if he's guilty after a Constitutional jury trial? Absolutely. National security threat so Miranda is out the window? Jesus FUCKING Christ."

What good would it do to read him his miranda right if he's unconcious?  So they'll read it when he wakes up.  Besides miranda rights are not in the Constitution and I haven't heard anyone saying he wasn't going to get a fair trial.  Miranda came from court systems and the 60's civil rights movement.  What this guy needs is a dream-team of lawyers to get him off the hook.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:59 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

He is clearly guilty.  TV said so.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:06 | Link to Comment jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

the fact is cops are strangers and you do not have to talk to them about anything.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:20 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

But that would assume we have a Constitution.  Fuck that.  So inconvienent when we want blood from some 19 year old that Channel 4 clearly says is guilty because he was hiding in a FUCKING BOAT IN A BACKYARD AND WAS THREATENING NATIONAL SECURITY THEREBY!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Every 19 year old kid with two serious profusely bleeding gunshot wounds (from scanner) hiding under the tarp of a strangers boat in his back yard is generally not going to be presumed as just along for the fucking cruise.

He may not be the guilty party, and by Gods wounds the press is about as irresponsible as one can be, but this guy does not scream innocent bystander to me.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:51 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Who fucking cares what you think?  We live by a Constitution.  He was not a threat to national security.  As such, he was entitlted to Constitutional protections.  If you think otherwise, go suck Obama's cock and stop complaining about anything here.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:07 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Miranda is not in the constitution. It was in some lefty supreme court justice's hash pipe as they passed it around, and some have jaw droppinglynstupid thing chained around the neck of our justice system forever. It adds nothing. Ignorance of the ever living notherfucking Bill of Rights is no excuse people. Let the stupid lather all they want about their crimes. Jesus H.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:21 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You are an idiot.  I am not being mean, just factual.

The author of the Miranda opinion was Justice Warren, a Republican appointee who was at one point a Republican Vice Presidential Candidate.  

Do you prefer Hannity's hair or Rush's anal area?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:39 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Always been kind of a Levin guy. Also, McCain is a Rebublican. So was Nixon, the guy who exited us from the gold standard.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:51 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So now Red Team/Blue Team doesn't matter?   You win for King of the idiot team.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 02:25 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

For some reason you seem a little extra bitter tonight.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 09:32 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Kinda mastered that passive/aggressive thingy, haven't you?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:19 | Link to Comment Charles Nelson ...
Charles Nelson Reilly's picture

This fucking bullshit stinks to high heaven! I'm not saying these two are innocent, but this shit is scaring the fuck out of me. Something is most definitely up.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:15 | Link to Comment McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

Everything's a "threat to national security" now, Rand. Everything. If the President can deem any of us enemy combatants and have our asses droned, who's gonna give a fuck about some poor Chechen immigrant?

This country has lost its collective mind when it comes to due process. We're in for one big fucking world of pain if we don't come to grips with the fact that this government has placed itself above us as judge, jury, and executioner without so much as a whiff of adherence to the Constitution. We used to frown on this sort of, dare I say, "Special Police" type behavior. Now we shrug, and excuse it as a consequence of modern life during the Global War on Terror.™ The police looked like the fucking Stasi today, folks.

Give me a fucking break. And yes, I'm drunk again, people, same as I was the other night and for the same goddamn reasons. This shit should be obvious to you if it is to me. This country is going to hell and we're here fighting amongst ourselves.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 03:09 | Link to Comment Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

I feel the same way, it's not just America McMolotov, the same fucked up shit is happening everywhere.

Fighting amongst ourselves is pointless. WHo the fuck else have we got that actually thinks about what is going on.  Sure we do not all agree on the, finer details, solutions or even why, but we do understand there is a fuckin' problem.

 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:50 | Link to Comment JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

this guy does not scream innocent bystander to me...

true...but he may be whispering "I wish I hadn't listened to those FBI guys who put me up to this idiocy!"

This is a template...we've seen a dozen of this dupes with Merikan government handlers in the past decade...from Detriot to LA...let's just kill them and ask questions later...worked with Oswald!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:55 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

There is this strange document that guarantees guys like this to a trial, but fuck it.  If ZH posters don't get it, I give fucking up.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:06 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

your points are getting across. If you give up the zh'ers win.

(I'm drunk)

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:52 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I wasn't drunk earlier, but I'm trying.  If they surround my house later I swear I don't have a white hat.  Wait.  Oh shit.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:20 | Link to Comment McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

I imagine we're all drunk at this point, Fonz. Huzzah.

Goddamn it this was one hell of a shitty ass week.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 18:24 | Link to Comment icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

given the date, "drunk" is not perhaps the right description for most

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:09 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

I hear ya, man.  I suspect people will soon enough learn the importance of legal restraints to power.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:45 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Miranda is a stupid provision, no matter who the suspect is.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:51 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

It's not a "provision," it's a case decided by our Supreme Court which is part of our Constitutional government.  But fuck that.  This guy was a Muslim who Channel 7 said killed a bunch of people.  

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:29 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

Do you have to tell them your name if they ask for it?

"

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:47 | Link to Comment seek
seek's picture

Depends on the state.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 02:41 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"the fact is cops are strangers and you do not have to talk to them about anything."

The strangers that most people talk to about anything and everything are their facebook friends. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 19:41 | Link to Comment icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

So I farted the other day and I was like, "uh, that felt wet".

Anyway, here's a picture of my lunch

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:18 | Link to Comment The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

The rage and thirst for revenge is running high, especially among the victims and their families, but, I don't think you can overstate the value of having captured one of the suspects alive. Hopefully, we don't see a Breaking Bad-style, "mysterious death" in the ICU. That would be an outrage.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:29 | Link to Comment bunnyswanson
bunnyswanson's picture

Hysterical pitch.  Media is determining how the public should react. 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:32 | Link to Comment Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

 > The rage and thirst for revenge is running high, especially among the victims and their families

 You have just described (in a very succinct nutshell) why America's pretty indiscriminate "War on Terror" is completely un-winnable.

ONE incident has unleashed a torrent of rage and hatred (just Google "Boston Bombing" and you'll see!)

Now - multiply that by the millions killed Worldwide - "for the benefit of the USA", directly, or indirectly, and it provides quite a chilling inkling of what IS in store for the US, not "might be".

The majority of the Global population does NOT regard the US as a friend, or even as an ally.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:38 | Link to Comment The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

You're preaching to the choir.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:21 | Link to Comment kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

I'll sing alto. hujel

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:28 | Link to Comment 1C3-N1N3
1C3-N1N3's picture

All your bass are belong to me.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:29 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

War on Terror is just a jobs program for the defense industry and retards at TSA and DHS. It's not real.

The world does not love us? I thought our baby allah made us loved worldwide.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:17 | Link to Comment Dingleberry
Dingleberry's picture

Blow torches and pliers.....time to get medievil on some buttocks.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:53 | Link to Comment Ginsengbull
Ginsengbull's picture

Methylene chloride helps too.

 

It's available as gasket remover or paint stripper.

 

If you get ANY of it on your skin, you immediately seek water to wash it off.

 

It can be one hell of a truth serum if applied sparingly.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!