Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Teo ever hear of the "public safety exception" rule in regard to Miranda rights?

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest

A Justice Department official told the Associated Press that Tsarnaev will not be read his Miranda rights because the government is invoking a public safety exception. That exception allows law enforcement “to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation of a suspect and allows the government to introduce the statement as evidence in court,” the wire service reported.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/19/boston-marathon-suspect-shot-dead/

Also, according to case law, this is not unheard of in doing and actually the courts have allowed this to happen:

The Supreme Court issued the ruling regarding a public safety exception in New York v. Quarles in 1984. Was just reading about it. Of course, some Justices have argued that based upon a strict constructionist view, the Miranda warning requirement is nowhere to be found in the Constitution to begin with.


Wondering....public safety exception = trojan horse for expanding the police state

Watch how quickly the govt class expands the use of these public safety exceptions. Marathon, parade, football game, grocery store, use of major highways....we must subject your home to periodic random searches to protect the homes that are nearby. Before long they will erase what little remains of the Bill of Rights. The masses will support this because it is "to keep us safe."

Oh, and this is a part of a discussion at Warchant.com on the political board.

Guest


Guest

Of course,it's not found in the constitution. It was based on a case around 1973,I think. Exact date not sure. Some people think they have to be given their Miranda Rights every time they're arrested but the truth is you only have to give them when you intend to question somebody.

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:Of course,it's not found in the constitution. It was based on a case around 1973,I think. Exact date not sure. Some people think they have to be given their Miranda Rights every time they're arrested but the truth is you only have to give them when you intend to question somebody.

Do you think that they are NOT going to question him? Gosh you are a ditz.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

The horse is already out of the barn with NDAA there are no rules..it's all 24 hours jack bauer stuff now...whatever they think it takes....We are officially being conditioned to a police state and we are doing little to stop it...

2seaoat



They probably have enough to convict just from the videos, but with the shoot out, the defendant could say nothing, and he will be convicted. If he confessed, and later the courts found miranda should have been given because there was not expedient factors........he still does not walk, the confession and any fruits from the same are simply not admissible. His goose is cooked because of the abundance of other evidence collected independently of the confession......if he even talks.

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:Of course,it's not found in the constitution. It was based on a case around 1973,I think. Exact date not sure. Some people think they have to be given their Miranda Rights every time they're arrested but the truth is you only have to give them when you intend to question somebody.

Do you think that they are NOT going to question him? Gosh you are a ditz.

Where did I say I thought they weren't going to question him, asswipe?

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:Of course,it's not found in the constitution. It was based on a case around 1973,I think. Exact date not sure. Some people think they have to be given their Miranda Rights every time they're arrested but the truth is you only have to give them when you intend to question somebody.

Do you think that they are NOT going to question him? Gosh you are a ditz.

Where did I say I thought they weren't going to question him, asswipe?



Dreamsglore





Posts: 4589
Join date: 2012-06-17





Of course,it's not found in the constitution. It was based on a case around 1973,I think. Exact date not sure. Some people think they have to be given their Miranda Rights every time they're arrested but the truth is you only have to give them when you intend to question somebody.

Assswipe

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:Of course,it's not found in the constitution. It was based on a case around 1973,I think. Exact date not sure. Some people think they have to be given their Miranda Rights every time they're arrested but the truth is you only have to give them when you intend to question somebody.

Do you think that they are NOT going to question him? Gosh you are a ditz.

Where did I say I thought they weren't going to question him, asswipe?



Dreamsglore





Posts: 4589
Join date: 2012-06-17





Of course,it's not found in the constitution. It was based on a case around 1973,I think. Exact date not sure. Some people think they have to be given their Miranda Rights every time they're arrested but the truth is you only have to give them when you intend to question somebody.

Assswipe

And? I fail to see your point. I made a statement about miranda rights period. Dumkoff.

Guest


Guest

German huh? Bet you have a picture of Hitler over your bed.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:They probably have enough to convict just from the videos, but with the shoot out, the defendant could say nothing, and he will be convicted. If he confessed, and later the courts found miranda should have been given because there was not expedient factors........he still does not walk, the confession and any fruits from the same are simply not admissible. His goose is cooked because of the abundance of other evidence collected independently of the confession......if he even talks.

I could be wrong... but this guy didn't travel overseas and I haven't heard of him having contact with radicals other than his brother. There may not be any info to be gained... which means there is no public safety issue after the fact. The enemy combatant status may apply tho.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:They probably have enough to convict just from the videos, but with the shoot out, the defendant could say nothing, and he will be convicted. If he confessed, and later the courts found miranda should have been given because there was not expedient factors........he still does not walk, the confession and any fruits from the same are simply not admissible. His goose is cooked because of the abundance of other evidence collected independently of the confession......if he even talks.

I could be wrong... but this guy didn't travel overseas and I haven't heard of him having contact with radicals other than his brother. There may not be any info to be gained... which means there is no public safety issue after the fact. The enemy combatant status may apply tho.

Nice to see that Sen Feinstein has "regrets" to speaking about the terrorist being labeled or assigned enemy combatant status...yeah we wouldn't want to offend this 'gentleman'...

NaNook

NaNook

OK,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLsElbW9Xo

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum