Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It was wrong not to read Miranda rights to Boston Bomber (Vanity)

Posted on 04/22/2013 4:21:10 PM PDT by honestabe010

#1 Eric Holder needs to be fired #2 Love these so called conservatives and proponents of "limited government" that support the violation of the 5th Amendment in the case of the Boston bomber because these are "special circumstances" don't you know?

Public Safety exception? They arrest him and then tell the public that there is no remaining threat. However, they want to tell us the public is in imminent danger? This is bullshit and opens the door to government stripping our 5th amendment rights whenever they please. Also, it may keep the man from getting the federal death penalty due to the fact you must prove intent, and much of what has been gathered from his statements without properly mirandizing him may be thrown out, I will say likely will be.

Am I weird and respect our country's founding principles and the due process of law too much?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: holder; obama; scotus; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

1 posted on 04/22/2013 4:21:10 PM PDT by honestabe010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

Not reading Miranda doesn’t directly violate the 5th amendment. They just can’t use anything he says in his trial if they don’t.


2 posted on 04/22/2013 4:24:39 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

How much you wanna bet he gets off on this technicality...

And his dead roadkill bro takes all the blame...


3 posted on 04/22/2013 4:25:04 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010
The next enemy combatant could have been the Tea Party.
Every one is equal in the application of the law.
Which bill of rights is the most important?
The one you don't agree with because it may protect me from you.
4 posted on 04/22/2013 4:25:38 PM PDT by hans56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

5 posted on 04/22/2013 4:26:28 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010
We do need a legal means of dealing with someone like this, whose citizenship is clearly fraudulent.

But if they aren't prepared to argue that, then as a citizen taken on US soil, he should get mirandized. What they get from him between capture and miranda is not admissible.

In a ticking bomb scenario they can sweat him all they want, but its not admissible as I understand it.

6 posted on 04/22/2013 4:26:56 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

bleeeeechhhh....This guy onlt has citizenship by LYING when he took an oath a year ago. He did NOT forsake all other allegiances. He took up arms against the US.....treasonous at a minimum terrorist combatant else wise.

do not let the idiots deceive you. This yob has NO rights....too bad the police and doctors saved him


7 posted on 04/22/2013 4:27:09 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hans56

IF that Tea Party individual had LIED as he swore allegiance to the US and to forsake all other allegiances then I say treat him the same way.....

do not confuse what is happening here


8 posted on 04/22/2013 4:28:37 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

Suspect 2 was a naturalized US citizen and, as such, should have been Mirandized.

I don’t know what the procedures for stripping citizenship are. But, in his case, you could make a strong case that he would deserve such a punishment if proven guilty in a court of law.

The fact that he was naturalized on Sept 11 2012, and all the significance attached to that date, makes me think he was already planning some terrorist activities. That was last Sept folks. I don’t think the timing was coincidental.


9 posted on 04/22/2013 4:28:42 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

love it....carmen miranda has always had the best rights (and lefts too)


10 posted on 04/22/2013 4:29:10 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

He’s just a poor, mixed up kid. Maybe he could go on Oprah and ask for forgiveness.


11 posted on 04/22/2013 4:29:15 PM PDT by Third Person (Welcome to Gaymerica.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

as they were arresting him and putting him in the ambulance they could read him the rights as they were walking. Doesn’t take long. This is all much ado about nothing.


12 posted on 04/22/2013 4:30:00 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
How much you wanna bet he gets off on this technicality...

How much do you actually know about the Constitution?

He won't get off on a technicality because nothing he said before his rights were read to him can be used in court.

13 posted on 04/22/2013 4:30:25 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

I agree. Reading him his rights, which apply to illegal aliens, felons and US citizens - costs NOTHING. Many criminals have been set free because they were not read their Miranda rights, and their confessions were thrown out.

We basically gave this punk a “Get away with Terrorism card”.


14 posted on 04/22/2013 4:31:19 PM PDT by Hodar (A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.- Burroughs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

It depends what you mean by gets off? I will bet everything I have that he spends life in prison, but in order to be put to death for federal terrorism they must prove intent and if the bulk of that evidence comes from him talking when not be mirandized, well then once again our government has failed us.


15 posted on 04/22/2013 4:32:53 PM PDT by honestabe010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

you are correct. but the intention is to use what he says to incriminate himself which would be a violation of the 5th


16 posted on 04/22/2013 4:34:27 PM PDT by honestabe010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

The rights conferred by the 5th and 6th Amendments are not granted by government. In fact, they are restrictions on government. Everyone has them and can assert them at any time whether a Miranda Warning has be delivered or not. I guess that all of these crime shows (which I do not watch) have left people with the impression that reading of Miranda is a grant of those rights by their benevolent government acting out of fairness and compassion.


17 posted on 04/22/2013 4:34:57 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010
Personally, I'm a strong proponent of following the entire Constitution, including all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. However, I'm not a fan of Miranda in general, and I see nothing wrong with failing to inform someone of the Miranda rights that they have probably heard hundreds of times on TV and in movies. The terrorist still has the right to remain silent, but he has to think of that option for himself - not a violation of the Constitution. The terrorist still has the right to an attorney, but he has to ask on his own initiative rather than being prompted by the investigator. Again, that does not violate his human rights or his constitutional rights.

There is in fact a real chance that there are other conspirators planning attacks and other bombs that this murderer knows about, so the public safety threat is real. The Supremes went too far when they required that police inform a suspect of these rights except in narrow circumstances, but those circumstances apply and the police are right to take advantage of the situation and question the terrorist without providing a lawyer who will tell him not to cooperate.

Considering that the police are not required to inform suspects or crime victims that we have a right to keep and bear arms that, "shall not be infringed", I see no reason for the Supremes or the police to treat our rights unequally and expand the set of situations in which the police must inform us of our Fifth Amendment rights. Considering that the DC police and FBI are not required to barge in on Congress every time those corrupt elitists exceed their lawful authority and legislate outside the Enumerated Powers or in violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - to remind them of the limits on their just powers (a positive move that could dramatically improve freedom and reduce the cost of governmental fraud, waste, and abuse, while limiting genuine violations of the Constitution) - I don't see why the Fifth Amendment should get special treatment.

18 posted on 04/22/2013 4:35:42 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Don’t ever trust the government to use facts.
All they want is results
The ends justify the means
I stand by my statement


19 posted on 04/22/2013 4:35:52 PM PDT by hans56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

He won’t get off on anything, they’ll McVey him to keep the facts from coming out.


20 posted on 04/22/2013 4:37:38 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson