Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

“Did they Mirandize him? I know he’s an American citizen but still” Rep. Peter King

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about" Sen. John McCain

"It all depends on how they're going to try him" Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio

Huh>?

Exactly.


I had never been to Belize.

bandl wrote:Exactly.


I had never been to Belize.

But you have Mirandized yourself, right?

dbackjon wrote:

bandl wrote:Exactly.


I had never been to Belize.

But you have Mirandized yourself, right?

Of course.

Oh, and mayonnaise.

This not remarkable. You guys are a little off target here.

What does the government lose if they fail to Mirandize upon arrest? They forfeit the ability to use the non-mirandized evidence in court, up to the time the suspect is mirandized. They do not lose the ability to prosecute, and they are not necessarily destroying the Constitution.

There may be times, such as this one, when the greater good requires investigators to place a higher priority on preventing mass casualties than on obtaining court-usable evidence. Getting immediate actionable intelligence might be the top priority.

This thread has no purpose that I can see, so I'm going to steer it in completely different direction. Starting with cheese.

I don't normally agree with native, but his arguments against Mirandizing are pretty decent. I'm not sure it was a problem with this guy in terms of Mirandizing him as he may very well be talking up a storm and they may be getting gobs of information, but you can make an argument for not Mirandizing immediately.

bandl wrote:This thread has no purpose that I can see, so I'm going to steer it in completely different direction. Starting with cheese.

Big surprise in who started it.

bandl wrote:This thread has no purpose that I can see, so I'm going to steer it in completely different direction. Starting with cheese.

If I 'shop that JPG and have it read Canned Chinese will I be banned on that other site?


Moist.

John mcCain is an idiot and not a part of ANY conservative movement let alone the GOP

Travis needs some new meds quix.

Rob Iola wrote:

bandl wrote:This thread has no purpose that I can see, so I'm going to steer it in completely different direction. Starting with cheese.

If I 'shop that JPG and have it read Canned Chinese will I be banned on that other site?


Moist.

If you post it, probably not. If I post it, 6 months.

I don't agree with the Miranda decision. I don't believe an agent of the State arresting somebody should be responsible for educating someone as to what their rights are.

On the other hand, the way in which the Republican Party tends to take an "ends justifiy the means" attitude about law enforcement does disturb me.

It turns out that there is a public safety exception to the Miranda Rule:

"...The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency..."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#cite_note-47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:It turns out that there is a public safety exception to the Miranda Rule:

"...The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency..."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#cite_note-47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Questionable whether that exception applies here, but yes Miranda has exceptions and as you say above, the only thing you lose from not Mirandizing a suspect is any evidence obtained pre-Miranda (known as the exclusionary rule).

danefan wrote:

native wrote:It turns out that there is a public safety exception to the Miranda Rule:

"...The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency..."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#cite_note-47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Questionable whether that exception applies here, but yes Miranda has exceptions and as you say above, the only thing you lose from not Mirandizing a suspect is any evidence obtained pre-Miranda (known as the exclusionary rule).

Questionable? How so? If this case is not a slam dunk, what case would be?

bandl wrote:This thread has no purpose that I can see, so I'm going to steer it in completely different direction. Starting with cheese.

Only one good use for squirtable cheese...













...a cheese facial...

travelinman67 wrote:

bandl wrote:This thread has no purpose that I can see, so I'm going to steer it in completely different direction. Starting with cheese.

Only one good use for squirtable cheese...













...a cheese facial...

Is that an aardvark? A marsupial of some kind? D1B's firstborn?

Ivytalk wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Only one good use for squirtable cheese...













...a cheese facial...

Is that an aardvark? A marsupial of some kind? D1B's firstborn?

native wrote:

danefan wrote:
Questionable whether that exception applies here, but yes Miranda has exceptions and as you say above, the only thing you lose from not Mirandizing a suspect is any evidence obtained pre-Miranda (known as the exclusionary rule).

Questionable? How so? If this case is not a slam dunk, what case would be?

The typical case is where there is a clear and present danger that can be prevented by the non-Mirandized integragation. As simple example that is portrayed in the movies all the time - if the cops knew a guy was holding a girl hostage in a room with little air, but didn't know where that room was they interogate him without Mirandizing for the sake of time. From everything we've read and seen there was no indication to anyone that this guy had any additional plans for anything that could be classified as "clear and present danger." There is certainly a clear and present danger of future terrorist acts, but nothing that can be linked to this guy in particular. That's how its questionable.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:
Questionable? How so? If this case is not a slam dunk, what case would be?

The typical case is where there is a clear and present danger that can be prevented by the non-Mirandized integragation. As simple example that is portrayed in the movies all the time - if the cops knew a guy was holding a girl hostage in a room with little air, but didn't know where that room was they interogate him without Mirandizing for the sake of time. From everything we've read and seen there was no indication to anyone that this guy had any additional plans for anything that could be classified as "clear and present danger." There is certainly a clear and present danger of future terrorist acts, but nothing that can be linked to this guy in particular. That's how its questionable.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:It turns out that there is a public safety exception to the Miranda Rule:

"...The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency..."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#cite_note-47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Questionable whether that exception applies here, but yes Miranda has exceptions and as you say above, the only thing you lose from not Mirandizing a suspect is any evidence obtained pre-Miranda (known as the exclusionary rule).

My understanding is that they used this exception and then mirandized him after he had already provided information. Seems like a logical course of action.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
Questionable whether that exception applies here, but yes Miranda has exceptions and as you say above, the only thing you lose from not Mirandizing a suspect is any evidence obtained pre-Miranda (known as the exclusionary rule).

My understanding is that they used this exception and then mirandized him after he had already provided information. Seems like a logical course of action.

Perhaps they did. And knowing what they knew at the time, they may have had information to believe there was a clear and present danger. I'm looking at it with 20/20 hindsight and we certainly don't know all of the information that the cops/FBI knew.

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
My understanding is that they used this exception and then mirandized him after he had already provided information. Seems like a logical course of action.

Perhaps they did. And knowing what they knew at the time, they may have had information to believe there was a clear and present danger. I'm looking at it with 20/20 hindsight and we certainly don't know all of the information that the cops/FBI knew.

Me neither. And copying your quote was convenience not a disagreement with you. My point was really that it seemed like the correct approach was taken. use the exception to get whatever immediate information you can regarding present danger and the read him his miranda rights.

Sorry if it seemed I was disagreeing with you.