Boston Marathon Explosions

[JJ Husker]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

[Someone]

It seems like the pro-torture crowd is the same group that is offended with Miranda not being used soon enough.

[carlfense]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

Why are you limiting your comment to Miranda warnings? BRI went well beyond that in what I assume was an emotion-clouded lack of judgment.

 

The rights in the Constitution aren't necessary to protect popular people, opinions, and actions. They're necessary to protect the opposite.

[Junior]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

 

Is imminent threat of a crisis reason enough to temporarily suspend the 2nd amendment?

[Someone]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

 

Is imminent threat of a crisis reason enough to temporarily suspend the 2nd amendment?

Not. But public safety issues do result in limits being put on the 2nd amendment, as CONFIRMED in Heller.

[Someone]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

Why are you limiting your comment to Miranda warnings? BRI went well beyond that in what I assume was an emotion-clouded lack of judgment.

 

The rights in the Constitution aren't necessary to protect popular people, opinions, and actions. They're necessary to protect the opposite.

You are correct. Equal protection under the law is what we must expect from all who are sworn to protect and serve.

[Junior]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

 

Is imminent threat of a crisis reason enough to temporarily suspend the 2nd amendment?

Not. But public safety issues do result in limits being put on the 2nd amendment, as CONFIRMED in Heller.

 

Thanks, but I was merely asking his opinion, since he's keen on suspending constitutional rights under certain circumstances.

[QMany]

Que beating of chest from some to say "see he wasn't a terrorist!" Wouldn't have known that without some sort of questioning from the feds.

This isn't just about Miranda Warnings. What about his other rights?

What other rights would you be referring to? Just my opinion but the day he decided to knowingly hurt innocent people is the day I stopped caring about his rights.

The Sixth Amendment is a good place to start:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[knapplc]

It seems like the pro-torture crowd is the same group that is offended with Miranda not being used soon enough.

 

 

 

 

Who's saying that in this discussion?

[Someone]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

 

Is imminent threat of a crisis reason enough to temporarily suspend the 2nd amendment?

Not. But public safety issues do result in limits being put on the 2nd amendment, as CONFIRMED in Heller.

 

Thanks, but I was merely asking his opinion, since he's keen on suspending constitutional rights under certain circumstances.

Technically, when you walk into a court house, your 2nd ammendment right are suspended.

[Someone]

It seems like the pro-torture crowd is the same group that is offended with Miranda not being used soon enough.

 

 

 

 

Who's saying that in this discussion?

No here. In Washington.

[Junior]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

 

Is imminent threat of a crisis reason enough to temporarily suspend the 2nd amendment?

Not. But public safety issues do result in limits being put on the 2nd amendment, as CONFIRMED in Heller.

 

Thanks, but I was merely asking his opinion, since he's keen on suspending constitutional rights under certain circumstances.

Technically, when you walk into a court house, your 2nd ammendment right are suspended.

 

Great. Thanks again for the lesson that no one asked for.

[ShawnWatson]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

 

Is imminent threat of a crisis reason enough to temporarily suspend the 2nd amendment?

Not. But public safety issues do result in limits being put on the 2nd amendment, as CONFIRMED in Heller.

 

Thanks, but I was merely asking his opinion, since he's keen on suspending constitutional rights under certain circumstances.

Technically, when you walk into a court house, your 2nd ammendment right are suspended.

 

cool

[JJ Husker]

I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.

Why are you limiting your comment to Miranda warnings? BRI went well beyond that in what I assume was an emotion-clouded lack of judgment.

 

The rights in the Constitution aren't necessary to protect popular people, opinions, and actions. They're necessary to protect the opposite.

 

I limited my comments to Miranda rights because that is what started this discussion. I also assumed that some of the other comments BRI made were emotionally charged and therefore chose to ignore them. I think it understandable that people may express varying levels of disdain towards the cowardly acts of these two terrorists. It may be inflammatory to some to refer to them as POS or to say they need to burn in hell but, those really aren't policy positions. Those are simply ways to express how distasteful a person finds their actions. I would imagine that BRI happens across all kinds of activities that he finds repulsive but I also imagine he would not remain a LEO for long if he acted according to his feelings rather than the law and his training. And the fact of the matter is that there are circumstances that allow Miranda rights to be postponed when public safety is in question. I think this was an excellent case in which to apply that waiver. As much as Junior would like that to mean I am for trampling peoples constitutional rights on a regular basis, it does not. It simply means that there are times when it is more prudent to act to prevent more possible carnage than it is to begin building your legal case. Besides that some people here are acting like Miranda rights and Constitutional rights are the same thing. They are not. I make the assumption that they still cannot use anything they discovered through questioning him, before Miranda rights, as evidence to convict him. I fail to see how that infringes on his rights but I can see how it could possibly save valuable time and help prevent further attacks. It sure can't be applied in all cases but you would have to convince me why it is not a good idea in this specific case.

[carlfense]

I think it understandable that people may express varying levels of disdain towards the cowardly acts of these two terrorists. It may be inflammatory to some to refer to them as POS or to say they need to burn in hell but, those really aren't policy positions. Those are simply ways to express how distasteful a person finds their actions.

I don't care if people say that he is a POS or if they say that he needs to burn in hell. I do care when a law enforcement officer says that and American citizen who committed a crime on US soil "deserves no rights."

 

He is a POS. I hope that there is a hell for him to burn in. I also hope that he has every right afforded every other US citizen.

 

And the fact of the matter is that there are circumstances that allow Miranda rights to be postponed when public safety is in question. I think this was an excellent case in which to apply that waiver. As much as Junior would like that to mean I am for trampling peoples constitutional rights on a regular basis, it does not. It simply means that there are times when it is more prudent to act to prevent more possible carnage than it is to begin building your legal case. Besides that some people here are acting like Miranda rights and Constitutional rights are the same thing. They are not. I make the assumption that they still cannot use anything they discovered through questioning him, before Miranda rights, as evidence to convict him. I fail to see how that infringes on his rights but I can see how it could possibly save valuable time and help prevent further attacks. It sure can't be applied in all cases but you would have to convince me why it is not a good idea in this specific case.

Again, you're focusing on Miranda in response to my post that was focusing on "deserves no rights." I'm fine with delaying Miranda advisements. Regardless, odds are good that his statements will be completely unnecessary in proving the criminal case so the whole Miranda issue won't matter.