+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 63 of 63

Thread: How do you deny miranda rights to someone who is innocent?

  1. #51
    Cognitive Infiltrator Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck Shaggy Gold Club Fightin' Buck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    around
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Samuel Johnson View Post
    The constitution applies here, imo.

    Use the constitution. The "public safety exception" will be used to circumvent things, I'm afraid. Don't let the government have this power. It's only going to be a matter of time before this exception is used for anything labeled "terrorism", and more and more things will be labeled "terrorism".
    Absolutely.

  2. #52
    asshat softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Περπάτημα απαλό
    Posts
    3,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Escriva View Post
    So in this case, where they probably don't need any of his statements for a conviction, but may be hunting a cell, it makes sense to continue the questioning right?
    Absolutely.

  3. #53
    asshat DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah Shaggy Gold Club DoobieWah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    I been up I been down Take my word I been round
    Posts
    2,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Samuel Johnson View Post
    The constitution applies here, imo.

    Use the constitution. The "public safety exception" will be used to circumvent things, I'm afraid. Don't let the government have this power. It's only going to be a matter of time before this exception is used for anything labeled "terrorism", and more and more things will be labeled "terrorism".
    I seem to recall vehemently disagreeing with Doc Johnson on many things, but this is truth.

    Don't let them chip away, because they will not stop.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Samuel Johnson View Post
    The constitution applies here, imo.

    Use the constitution. The "public safety exception" will be used to circumvent things, I'm afraid. Don't let the government have this power. It's only going to be a matter of time before this exception is used for anything labeled "terrorism", and more and more things will be labeled "terrorism".
    Though I agree more with Marshall's dissent in Quarles, based on the scope of the exception, there's not really a natural way for it to be extended to anything labeled terrorism.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Mizzou415 View Post
    Though I agree more with Marshall's dissent in Quarles, based on the scope of the exception, there's not really a natural way for it to be extended to anything labeled terrorism.
    There is a very natural way to do just that: public safety.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Samuel Johnson View Post
    There is a very natural way to do just that: public safety.
    And had the Quarles majority stated a general rule that public safety trumps the Fifth Amendment, you would have a point. But they did no such thing.

    They created an exception, limited in scope, that applied solely to interrogations regarding immediately dangerous weapons where the officers have a reasonable belief that such a danger actually exists. The costs are limited and the risk of abuse is small where the scope of questioning is limited in such a manner.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Mizzou415 View Post
    And had the Quarles majority stated a general rule that public safety trumps the Fifth Amendment, you would have a point. But they did no such thing.

    They created an exception, limited in scope, that applied solely to interrogations regarding immediately dangerous weapons where the officers have a reasonable belief that such a danger actually exists. The costs are limited and the risk of abuse is small where the scope of questioning is limited in such a manner.
    The potential for abuse is right in front of you and you still refuse to see it.

    Is this exception still in play for the Boston guy? How long has it been? It's an easy step to have a "reasonable belief that such a danger exists". Look what's happened with the Patriot Act and whatnot during our "war on terror".

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Samuel Johnson View Post
    The potential for abuse is right in front of you and you still refuse to see it.

    Is this exception still in play for the Boston guy? How long has it been? It's an easy step to have a "reasonable belief that such a danger exists". Look what's happened with the Patriot Act and whatnot during our "war on terror".
    What exactly is the potential for abuse? If he's asked a question not regarding an immediate threat to public safety, his response is excluded. So what would be the motivation of the interrogator to go outside the scope?

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Mizzou415 View Post
    What exactly is the potential for abuse? If he's asked a question not regarding an immediate threat to public safety, his response is excluded. So what would be the motivation of the interrogator to go outside the scope?
    You are far, far, far too trusting of our govt to "do the right thing", imo.

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Samuel Johnson View Post
    You are far, far, far too trusting of our govt to "do the right thing", imo.
    I'm not trusting anyone to do the right thing. I'm saying there's a consequence to doing the wrong thing.

  11. #61
    asshat softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow is a rep whore. softlynow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Περπάτημα απαλό
    Posts
    3,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Samuel Johnson View Post
    You are far, far, far too trusting of our govt to "do the right thing", imo.
    How do you propose that we implement a system to actually prevent LEOs from asking a question that does or may violate the constitution if the answer is later used in court?

    I ask that because at this point this $#@!'s 5A right to "silence" cannot be violated. The actual text of the amendment reads: "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The right is at issue in a courtroom, not in the rest of the world.* If an interrogation takes a turn towards violating the 5A, LE hasn't "done the wrong thing" other than possibly jeopardize their chances of getting a conviction. IOW, the act of interrogating someone after failing to properly Mirandize them can really be harmful to themselves.

    And, looking at it another way, carving out exceptions to the rule, especially one so narrow as this, doesn't give LE carte blanche to "do the wrong thing" since at the time of the interrogation the officers will not know for sure whether the risk they're taking will cause problems for the prosecutors. LEOs who are aware of the exception know that they are taking a chance, sometimes a very great one, by relying on it.

    * Section 1983 actions have not generally been allowed for violations of Miranda.

  12. #62
    asshat Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil Shaggy Gold Club Horn.Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    I like the way you die, boy.
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by softlynow View Post
    How do you propose that we implement a system to actually prevent LEOs from asking a question that does or may violate the constitution if the answer is later used in court?

    I ask that because at this point this $#@!'s 5A right to "silence" cannot be violated. The actual text of the amendment reads: "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The right is at issue in a courtroom, not in the rest of the world.* If an interrogation takes a turn towards violating the 5A, LE hasn't "done the wrong thing" other than possibly jeopardize their chances of getting a conviction. IOW, the act of interrogating someone after failing to properly Mirandize them can really be harmful to themselves.

    And, looking at it another way, carving out exceptions to the rule, especially one so narrow as this, doesn't give LE carte blanche to "do the wrong thing" since at the time of the interrogation the officers will not know for sure whether the risk they're taking will cause problems for the prosecutors. LEOs who are aware of the exception know that they are taking a chance, sometimes a very great one, by relying on it.

    * Section 1983 actions have not generally been allowed for violations of Miranda.
    I think it's still considered a "criminal case" before it hits the court room, when they are building up evidence and interviewing beforehand. That's the way our judiciary has defined it anyway, and it seems like a reasonable interpretation to me, though I agree that phrase is a bit vague.

  13. #63
    I don't know if he has been mirandized yet or not but if not, it looks like the feds are just conceding that they'd rather interview him and aren't worried about the admissibility of his statements as some of the responses being reported (about religious motives, which brother was the leader, etc.) are outside the scope of the public safety exception.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Home .. Advertise .. ShaggyShop .. PanchoChat
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont