- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
But he said the administration needs to consider at least modifying the public safety exception for reading a suspect his rights to ensure law enforcement can act with flexibility and within constitutional bounds.
They must have heard the howls of criticism from conservatives when they offered the failed Times Square bomber his miranda rights. Now they can't do right for doing wrong....
Being required to read someone their rights is retarded in the first place.
Of course, I rarely if ever read rights to an arrested suspect now, so I guess it doesn't make a difference to me.
The Miranda warning is only necessary if you are going to be interrogated; it's not required to be read if you're just being arrested.
Well they don't have an obligation, but if they don't read it then anything that you say in interrogation is inadmissable as evidence.
Why should it be inadmissible, that person arrest should have already learned about the constitution in school? We don't force gun store clerks to remind customers that they have the right to keep and bear arms. Nor for we force churches and religious bookstores to remind their congregation and customers of their right to freedom of religion.
Then that is the fault and responsibility of the individual, not the police.Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights. If anything should be mandated it should be school classes on constitutional rights, not forcing cops to remind people.If someone is unknowledgeable about their rights then they don't have the ability to knowingly waive them. It isn't about what your rights are but rather about your ability to voluntarily waive them.
jamesrage said:Then that is the fault and responsibility of the individual, not the police.Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights.
Your comparison is invalid because the Miranda warning is not about simply informing people of their rights. It is about informing people about their ability to voluntarily waive them or to refuse to do so.
I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference between the two.
And Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights.And the reasoning behind it is that if one is not aware of one's rights then any information obtained through interrogation is based on coercion.
And Again we do not force churches, gun stores, newsstands, book stores and other places to read constitutional rights.
And once again that is because this is not about the reading of rights but about the informing people of their ability to choose whether or not they wish to voluntarily waive those rights.
"They should have known" is not an argument, because of the fact that if someone is unaware of their fifth amendment rights then any information obtained through interrogation was based on coercion.
If someone allows the police to coerce them then that is their fault.
Being required to read someone their rights is retarded in the first place.
Of course, I rarely if ever read rights to an arrested suspect now, so I guess it doesn't make a difference to me.
Thats Hope and Change for you...Hell even Beck believed that the guy was entitled to his Miranda rights as US citizen! This is sick road we're taking and its only getting worse.
Thats Hope and Change for you...
As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.
Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.
Aw... you don't get it, do you?As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.
So you agree that The Obama is as guilty at removing everyone's rights as GWB. Gotcha.Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.
As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.
Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.
By law, as set forth in the landmark Miranda case, law enforcement is only require to read a suspect his rights before they question him.
A failure to do so renders anything said suspect says "fruit of the posionous tree" (makes it in admissable in court).
Thats Hope and Change for you...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?