GOP Outraged A US Citizen Was Mirandized

[danefan]

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.

I was really trying to clarify my other post.

I think we're on the same page.

Miranda law is an interesting one. The exclusionary rules is a real tough pill to swallow some times. Its hard for me to even come to an opinion on the necessity and effectiveness of it anyway.

[Ivytalk]

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

Stigmatism!

[appmaj]

But you have Mirandized yourself, right?

Of course.

Oh, and mayonnaise.

[native]

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.

One hostage versus potentially hundreds of casualties? You're not thinking this through. The authorities knew immediately there was potential for additional attacks and had no way to ascertain the scope or liklihood of such attacks until questioning the bad guy.

[danefan]

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.

One hostage versus potentially hundreds of casualties? You're not thinking this through. The authorities knew immediately there was potential for additional attacks and had no way to ascertain the scope or liklihood of such attacks until questioning the bad guy.

I did think it all the way through. Reread the post. There is certainly a clear and present danger of future terrorist acts, but is there anything related to this particular guy? They must have had the facts to make them beleive that. Without specific facts as to his involvement, its questionable if there is a "clear and present danger." And that is thinking it all through.

[native]

One hostage versus potentially hundreds of casualties? You're not thinking this through. The authorities knew immediately there was potential for additional attacks and had no way to ascertain the scope or liklihood of such attacks until questioning the bad guy.

I did think it all the way through. Reread the post. There is certainly a clear and present danger of future terrorist acts, but is there anything related to this particular guy? They must have had the facts to make them beleive that. Without specific facts as to his involvement, its questionable if there is a "clear and present danger." And that is thinking it all through.

Good God Almighty, I am glad you are not in charge of public safety.

[danefan]

I did think it all the way through. Reread the post. There is certainly a clear and present danger of future terrorist acts, but is there anything related to this particular guy? They must have had the facts to make them beleive that. Without specific facts as to his involvement, its questionable if there is a "clear and present danger." And that is thinking it all through.

Good God Almighty, I am glad you are not in charge of public safety.

Don't get it twisted Native. I don't have a problem with what they did. In fact, I'm not even convinced Mirandizing anyone is even necessary or useful. I'm just pointing out what the law is. I'm trained to pretty much argue either side of any argument, regardless of whether i like it or not. Ask my wife. its the worst part of living with a lawyer.

Personally - I'd take drop the guy out of a helo at 500 feet over a cell camp in Pakistan. Kill him and hopefully somebody he lands on.

[native]

Good God Almighty, I am glad you are not in charge of public safety.

Don't get it twisted Native. I don't have a problem with what they did. In fact, I'm not even convinced Mirandizing anyone is even necessary or useful. I'm just pointing out what the law is. I'm trained to pretty much argue either side of any argument, regardless of whether i like it or not. Ask my wife. its the worst part of living with a lawyer.

Personally - I'd take drop the guy out of a helo at 500 feet over a cell camp in Pakistan. Kill him and hopefully somebody he lands on.

Thanks, DF. I feel better now.