Suspect Was Not Read Miranda Rights

[IndyDave1776]

My only point is, the fact that a tyrant uses an argument does not necessarily invalidate the legitimacy of the argument in other, non-tyrannical circumstances. I can see the point of that little sound bite if you think that everyone in government is a tyrant. I take a less radical view.

OK, you want to talk necessity? WTF is necessary in the things they did? Did stepping on the citizens bring the fugitive in? No, it was an alert citizen who was responsible for that. The only thing their acts of 'necessity' did was drive home the point that when the powers that be tell you to do something, you damned well drop your pants, grab your ankles, and pray they use vaseline.

 

[jbombelli]

My only point is, the fact that a tyrant uses an argument does not necessarily invalidate the legitimacy of the argument in other, non-tyrannical circumstances. I can see the point of that little sound bite if you think that everyone in government is a tyrant. I take a less radical view.

So the next time there's a criminal somewhere in Indiana, that's on the loose, you'd have no problem with the authorities kicking in every door in the state until he's found? It's just an expansion of the search perimeter, after all.

The term "reasonable" has been expanded many, many times. Every time it's expanded we're one step closer to that tyranny. And every step of the way we're given the same reason: necessity. And people buy into it. Over and over and over, until eventually there's nothing left BUT the police state you're helping usher in.

 

[Sharpie]

OK, you want to talk necessity? WTF is necessary in the things they did? Did stepping on the citizens bring the fugitive in? No, it was an alert citizen who was responsible for that. The only thing their acts of 'necessity' did was drive home the point that when the powers that be tell you to do something, you damned well drop your pants, grab your ankles, and pray they use vaseline.

You seem to be angry. Sorry if my attempts at rational discussion are chafing you. I am not one to equate the momentary infringement of rights for a legitimate public safety interest with anal rape.

So the next time there's a criminal somewhere in Indiana, that's on the loose, you'd have no problem with the authorities kicking in every door in the state until he's found? It's just an expansion of the search perimeter, after all.

The term "reasonable" has been expanded many, many times. Every time it's expanded we're one step closer to that tyranny. And every step of the way we're given the same reason: necessity. And people buy into it. Over and over and over, until eventually there's nothing left BUT the police state you're helping usher in.

Terrorist attacks on international sporting events are not comparable to routine crimes, in my opinion. The damage from a terrorist attack on our soil goes beyond the official body count. I'm sorry, I simply can't understand the argument that this event was the same as your standard every day crime. To make such a comparison is mind-boggling.

 

[HoughMade]

Yes, correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't given any rights by being "Mirandaized', you always have the rights. Miranda was about not being aware of said rights. Unless he was captured by the military (which I don't remember that being legal in the U.S.) he was arrested and has every right to an attorney and a jury trial.

As Ed McMahon used to say: "You are correct sir"!

 

[Smokepole]

In a perfect world, this sound bite would be accurate. Reality calls for a more objective view.

Then just sign the waiver stating that you willfully relinquish all claims to your Constitutional Rights as your Government see fit and walk peaceably with the nice men when they come for you.

Because unless you missed it "your" Government has labelled all those that support the 2A, most Christians, those that openly question the Government's authority, those that support survivalist groups and those that participate on freedom related forums like this as well as other convenient (for them) classifications as "domestic terrorists" or "quiet paper terrorists". And the Patriot Act provides them with the mechanism to treat anyone that they classify as a form of terrorist in ways that deny them their Constitutional Rights as we have been discussing here.

The Gubmint can put conditions and exceptions on laws that it passes, but not on Rights without benefit of criminal conviction. Doing so allows the Government manipulate the basic foundation of our legal system to their benefit and is the hallmark of the tyrant. So it appears, based your compliance, that you support the tyrant and are willing to submit to his machinations.

 

[jbombelli]

You seem to be angry. Sorry if my attempts at rational discussion are chafing you. I am not one to equate the momentary infringement of rights for a legitimate public safety interest with anal rape.



Terrorist attacks on international sporting events are not comparable to routine crimes, in my opinion. The damage from a terrorist attack on our soil goes beyond the official body count. I'm sorry, I simply can't understand the argument that this event was the same as your standard every day crime. To make such a comparison is mind-boggling.

That's not the point. What are you going to say if/when "necessity" requires them to kick in YOUR door because some terrorist was last seen 150 miles away? Or 250 miles away? And they can't find him? All that takes is an expansion of the search perimeter.

There's always someone on the loose. These things always start out as tools to be used only rarely. Then they're used more often. And more often. And before you know it they're used all the time. You're simply denying the existence of the slippery slope.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You seem to be angry. Sorry if my attempts at rational discussion are chafing you. I am not one to equate the momentary infringement of rights for a legitimate public safety interest with anal rape.



Terrorist attacks on international sporting events are not comparable to routine crimes, in my opinion. The damage from a terrorist attack on our soil goes beyond the official body count. I'm sorry, I simply can't understand the argument that this event was the same as your standard every day crime. To make such a comparison is mind-boggling.

First, you are right up to a point. I do get irritated by people who would allow the rights that were given to us after being paid for in blood to be frittered away for any reason. It is particularly troubling to find such people among those who ostensibly have gathered together in support of our rights, particularly the Second Amendment, but by extension all others as they are all necessary working in concert to generate the condition of liberty.

Second, the notoriety of the crime and the nature of its target do not change the nature of murder nor do they change the law, nor does the Constitution contain any asterisks followed with exceptions based on such largely political and emotional concerns. If you are willing to allow this, you should be happy to have the Constitution abolished as it is no good to us if it is only observed, and then poorly so, in times devoid of difficulty. That would be similar to permitting possession of fire extinguishers only in the absence of fires.

Third, you raised the issue in a previous post of the interpretation of the Constitution needing to change on account of the different times in which we live. What is different about this? Didn't Guy Fawkes attempt to do the same thing with the same substance only on a larger scale centuries ago?

Fourth, given the irrelevance of the police overreach concerning the eventual capture of the fugitive, explain again please this 'necessity' and 'legitimate' issue of 'public safety' you keep talking about.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's not the point. What are you going to say if/when "necessity" requires them to kick in YOUR door because some terrorist was last seen 150 miles away? Or 250 miles away? And they can't find him? All that takes is an expansion of the search perimeter.

There's always someone on the loose. These things always start out as tools to be used only rarely. Then they're used more often. And more often. And before you know it they're used all the time. You're simply denying the existence of the slippery slope.

Maybe we should remind him about asset forfeiture laws which were sold as a tool to prevent drug lords with more money than God from bankrupting prosecutors with legal hurdles before they had any chance of getting into court on trial, and now it is practically illegal to get caught with cash in public--or at least if you do in any significant amount, it is going to get confiscated as they defy you to try getting it back.

 

[Llamaguy]

That's not the point. What are you going to say if/when "necessity" requires them to kick in YOUR door because some terrorist was last seen 150 miles away? Or 250 miles away? And they can't find him? All that takes is an expansion of the search perimeter.

There's always someone on the loose. These things always start out as tools to be used only rarely. Then they're used more often. And more often. And before you know it they're used all the time. You're simply denying the existence of the slippery slope.

I hate to relate serious matters to television, but this was written into a Star Tk episode in the 90's, based on Paradise Lost. If you want to see how slippery this slope is, watch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)

 

[jbombelli]

Maybe we should remind him about asset forfeiture laws which were sold as a tool to prevent drug lords with more money than God from bankrupting prosecutors with legal hurdles before they had any chance of getting into court on trial, and now it is practically illegal to get caught with cash in public--or at least if you do in any significant amount, it is going to get confiscated as they defy you to try getting it back.

I don't think he'll take any of that to heart. It will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I hate to relate serious matters to television, but this was written into a Star Tk episode in the 90's, based on Paradise Lost. If you want to see how slippery this slope is, watch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)

Nothing wrong with an analogy that makes the point you are trying to explain. If I were going to teach a civics class on the transition from a free republic to a totalitarian state for dummies, I would start by having them watch Star Wars Episodes I-III which do a fantastic job of explaining it right down to the point at which 'freedom dies with thunderous applause.'

 

[MikeDVB]

Oh look... A butterfly.

 

[Smokepole]

Oh, stop the hand wringing. It's a very, very limited exception that arises only while a threat is still imminent, like asking "if we move you to take you to the hospital, will we all blow up." See, NY v Quarles (1984). Once the exigent circumstances have passed, the exception evaporates. You're only making yourselves look more foolish than usual.

And who is the determiner of "exigent circumstances", when they apply, for how long and when they expire? And EXACTLY what are the criteria for each of these? And as I asked, WHO gets to decide these? The ones applying them? The Prosecutor, the Court, the People, Obama's aunt's uncle's sister's mother's brother's cousin? Is there a secret panel of citizens secreted away somewhere making these decisions? And how subjective and/or arbitrary is the standard of "exigent circumstances".

While I agree with most that there are numerous seemingly trivial "technicalities" that complicate the LEO's jobs, most will agree that they are in place to protect the innocent from overzealous arrest and prosecution and support them. Do we no longer worry about this standard because a purported criminal is rightly or wrongly labeled a terrorist? I am more worried about the wrongly, but we cannot always be certain of labels. Especially those employed by our government as they are not always applied and/or prosecuted with equanimity. We have all seen and complained on this.

And I think that we all agree that non-citizens are not necessarily entitled to the rights that citizens are.

 

[jerryv]

Because unless you missed it "your" Government has labelled all those that support the 2A, most Christians, those that openly question the Government's authority, those that support survivalist groups and those that participate on freedom related forums like this as well as other convenient (for them) classifications as "domestic terrorists" or "quiet paper terrorists". And the Patriot Act provides them with the mechanism to treat anyone that they classify as a form of terrorist in ways that deny them their Constitutional Rights as we have been discussing here.

The 'Patriot Act' was the biggest erosion of our rights of all time. The general environment of fear after 9/11 .. which was amply exploited by the government at that time .. allowed incredible exceptions under 'extreme' circumstances .. Our phones can be bugged, our internet interactions can be monitored, our emails can be read, our rights to privacy, our immunity to illegal search/sizure .. all were compromised by the politicians in the name of being tough on terrorists. A power grab that has no equal in this country. This was also related to a huge expansion of government (via Homeland Security) and subsequently the start of the Irag war, which cost us billions in unbudgeted expense in order to wipe out a 'relatively' urbane Muslim nation and open it up to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and countries .. like Syria.

I'm not an anti-government guy .. there are lots of things government provides that I value. I have no desire for anarchy. But the changes brought about after 9/11 have created an America different from the one I knew in the 50s ... one in which I have less pride.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

If you want to be a damned serf, you are welcome to it, but leave me out of it. Rights are not negotiable regardless of the malfeasance of the spate of activist judges we have suffered in the post-Roosevelt era. The reality is that the trend away from a free republic requires people to organize the shift (which are hard at work), the first layer of enablers who directly support those people, and the second layer of enablers, people like you, who decide that constitutional government is not 'reality' and tacitly support the demolition of our rights in tandem with flagrant disregard of the Constitution.

The less perfect the world, the more accurate that phrase is shown to be.

All great points and when you consider that based on position papers and reports that have come out of the Dept of Justice (just us), ATF, FBI and other departments, our Government has effectively labeled roughly half of the Country as "domestic terrorists". Which could mean, shoot on sight, no Miranda, what would otherwise be "unlawful detention", etc.

Whoever said we are next may not be very far off of the mark. They are manipulating everything to their advantage. Patriot Act doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore does it? It is the mechanism that makes all of the other stuff work.

The argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves.

You can call it legitimate if you want. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

Hey, guys. Since the perfect society in which personal rights - as each man perceives them - are paramount over society's interests doesn't exist here in these United States, where are you going to go to find a place where they do exist?

It's easy enough to rant about "argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves" when you haven't assumed any responsibility for the safety of the whole people (or the jurisdictional people). I'm no more fond of police over-reaction than any of you, but blithe statements about how this guy could have been captured using tried-and-true traditional methods which don't violate peoples' rights betray an idealistic view of the history of law enforcement in this country as well as an abysmal ignorance of the methods commonly used to find people, AND you're also displaying a pretty fair disdain for the potential danger the two bombers presented to the population in general as long as they remained at large.

Looking at this whole incident with the (somewhat) jaundiced eye of a guy who used to do emergency planning for special events for a living, the Boston Police and associated agencies did a pretty good job from the time of the initial blasts until the last guy was apprehended. While I'd like to know where all the rounds ended up in the several firefights that occurred between the initial contact and the final capture, I don't have any problem with the tactics - or the strategy - used to capture this guy and end his brother.

When the government starts coming after otherwise-law-abiding citizens wholesale, I'll start to worry. But if you (generic you) want to detonate an explosive device in a crowd for kicks and grins, or for any other purpose, I'll help the law hunt you down to whatever extent is possible.

 

[Smokepole]

The 'Patriot Act' was the biggest erosion of our rights of all time. The general environment of fear after 9/11 .. which was amply exploited by the government at that time .. allowed incredible exceptions under 'extreme' circumstances .. Our phones can be bugged, our internet interactions can be monitored, our emails can be read, our rights to privacy, our immunity to illegal search/sizure .. all were compromised by the politicians in the name of being tough on terrorists. A power grab that has no equal in this country. This was also related to a huge expansion of government (via Homeland Security) and subsequently the start of the Irag war, which cost us billions in unbudgeted expense in order to wipe out a 'relatively' urbane Muslim nation and open it up to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and countries .. like Syria.

I'm not an anti-government guy .. there are lots of things government provides that I value. I have no desire for anarchy. But the changes brought about after 9/11 have created an America different from the one I knew in the 50s ... one in which I have less pride.

Agreed. I wasn't around in the 50's, but close and I wish that state of freedom now was the same as then.

 

[jbombelli]

Hey, guys. Since the perfect society in which personal rights - as each man perceives them - are paramount over society's interests doesn't exist here in these United States, where are you going to go to find a place where they do exist?

It's easy enough to rant about "argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves" when you haven't assumed any responsibility for the safety of the whole people (or the jurisdictional people). I'm no more fond of police over-reaction than any of you, but blithe statements about how this guy could have been captured using tried-and-true traditional methods which don't violate peoples' rights betray an idealistic view of the history of law enforcement in this country as well as an abysmal ignorance of the methods commonly used to find people, AND you're also displaying a pretty fair disdain for the potential danger the two bombers presented to the population in general as long as they remained at large.

Looking at this whole incident with the (somewhat) jaundiced eye of a guy who used to do emergency planning for special events for a living, the Boston Police and associated agencies did a pretty good job from the time of the initial blasts until the last guy was apprehended. While I'd like to know where all the rounds ended up in the several firefights that occurred between the initial contact and the final capture, I don't have any problem with the tactics - or the strategy - used to capture this guy and end his brother.

When the government starts coming after otherwise-law-abiding citizens wholesale, I'll start to worry. But if you (generic you) want to detonate an explosive device in a crowd for kicks and grins, or for any other purpose, I'll help the law hunt you down to whatever extent is possible.

There's nowhere left TO go. All we can do is rail against it here and hope that over time we can reverse the trend we've been seeing over the last few decades. That trend has been against the rights of the people, and the argument every time has been "necessity." Whether we're talking about what just happened in Boston, or asset forfeitures, or limits on speech, or anything else, it's always the same: necessity.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Hey, guys. Since the perfect society in which personal rights - as each man perceives them - are paramount over society's interests doesn't exist here in these United States, where are you going to go to find a place where they do exist?

It's easy enough to rant about "argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves" when you haven't assumed any responsibility for the safety of the whole people (or the jurisdictional people).

There's nowhere left TO go. All we can do is rail against it here and hope that over time we can reverse the trend we've been seeing over the last few decades. That trend has been against the rights of the people, and the argument every time has been "necessity." Whether we're talking about what just happened in Boston, or asset forfeitures, or limits on speech, or anything else, it's always the same: necessity.

Since we are running parallel arguments in two threads, I am going to be lazy and repost the same thing:

You are correct that there is nowhere left in the world to where a person can go to escape. Then again, some 238 years ago, a number of good men did not try to escape but rather acted to correct the problem. One of them was an ancestral grandfather of mine.

 

[Smokepole]

There's nowhere left TO go. All we can do is rail against it here and hope that over time we can reverse the trend we've been seeing over the last few decades. That trend has been against the rights of the people, and the argument every time has been "necessity." Whether we're talking about what just happened in Boston, or asset forfeitures, or limits on speech, or anything else, it's always the same: necessity.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

And don't forget "It's for the CHILDREN".

There's nowhere left TO go. That's exactly the point. The U.S. USED to be the last bastion of real FREEDOM in the world. That's why everybody wanted to come here. But our Government has gradually eroded this to the point that we are not any more free than those in Europe. And there are a couple of countries out there (and that's about it) that are actually more free than we are now because of the "necessary" erosion of our rights "for the children".

 

[CarmelHP]

And who is the determiner of "exigent circumstances", when they apply, for how long and when they expire? And EXACTLY what are the criteria for each of these? And as I asked, WHO gets to decide these? The ones applying them? The Prosecutor, the Court, the People, Obama's aunt's uncle's sister's mother's brother's cousin? Is there a secret panel of citizens secreted away somewhere making these decisions? And how subjective and/or arbitrary is the standard of "exigent circumstances".

While I agree with most that there are numerous seemingly trivial "technicalities" that complicate the LEO's jobs, most will agree that they are in place to protect the innocent from overzealous arrest and prosecution and support them. Do we no longer worry about this standard because a purported criminal is rightly or wrongly labeled a terrorist? I am more worried about the wrongly, but we cannot always be certain of labels. Especially those employed by our government as they are not always applied and/or prosecuted with equanimity. We have all seen and complained on this.

And I think that we all agree that non-citizens are not necessarily entitled to the rights that citizens are.

So, you were so interested in this issue that you didn't bother even reading the case that was cited. Why do so many here consider ignorance a virtue? Courts decide, just like ALL OTHER Miranda and evidence issues, at a suppression hearing. Everybody is on their high horses thumping their chests, acting like they're reenacting Brave heart. Miranda is an ADVISEMENT requirement, not a substantive right. The little bastard hasn't been denied any rights. Stop acting like a summary execution by drawing and quartering was held.