Boston Marathon Explosions

JJHusker1 said:
I think it understandable that people may express varying levels of disdain towards the cowardly acts of these two terrorists. It may be inflammatory to some to refer to them as POS or to say they need to burn in hell but, those really aren't policy positions. Those are simply ways to express how distasteful a person finds their actions.
Click to expand...
I don't care if people say that he is a POS or if they say that he needs to burn in hell. I do care when a law enforcement officer says that and American citizen who committed a crime on US soil "deserves no rights."

He is a POS. I hope that there is a hell for him to burn in. I also hope that he has every right afforded every other US citizen.

JJHusker1 said:
And the fact of the matter is that there are circumstances that allow Miranda rights to be postponed when public safety is in question. I think this was an excellent case in which to apply that waiver. As much as Junior would like that to mean I am for trampling peoples constitutional rights on a regular basis, it does not. It simply means that there are times when it is more prudent to act to prevent more possible carnage than it is to begin building your legal case. Besides that some people here are acting like Miranda rights and Constitutional rights are the same thing. They are not. I make the assumption that they still cannot use anything they discovered through questioning him, before Miranda rights, as evidence to convict him. I fail to see how that infringes on his rights but I can see how it could possibly save valuable time and help prevent further attacks. It sure can't be applied in all cases but you would have to convince me why it is not a good idea in this specific case.
Click to expand...
Again, you're focusing on Miranda in response to my post that was focusing on "deserves no rights." I'm fine with delaying Miranda advisements. Regardless, odds are good that his statements will be completely unnecessary in proving the criminal case so the whole Miranda issue won't matter.

 
JJHusker1 said:
I think something that is being lost in this discussion regarding BRI's opinion is that as a law enforcement officer, it is not up to him or other LEO's to determine who to mirandize and who not to. If higher ups determine there may still be an imminent public safety issue and they postpone the reading of Miranda rights, then that is the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong BRI but that is not a determination you make simply based on your preference is it? Additionally, I think rational people can agree that the possibility of further devices or accomplices in this specific case is valid enough reason to temporarily suspend this guys Miranda rights. It's not like individual LEO's are running around determining on their own who deserves Miranda rights. And I am not aware of many cases where this exception has been applied or any where it has been misapplied.
Click to expand...
It is not up to me, it's up to the courts and the US Supreme Court to be exact. My problem is should a terrorist have rights to the US constitution when they've clearly completed a terroristic act against the United States as deemed by the courts? I don't think so, but again the courts make those decisions. I don't always agree with every law out there and depending on what the courts say I'll either enforce those laws black and white if they tell me to or enforce them as needed in the case of say traffic violations. In the situation where the courts say, "the officer may...." that gives me room to use my discretion, in the situations where the courts say, "the officer will...." that's different. The courts are telling me what I will do and I will uphold and enforce those laws to the letter.

Let's use the case of Timothy McVeigh.............he was a born American US citizen so that takes the "when they became a US citizen" out of the situation. Was a member of the US military, but after he got out of the military he became a sympathizer of militia movement and showed up at the whole Waco situation to show his support. What he did is considered domestic terrorism however the courts never came out and said, "domestic terrorist." He was charged with 11 counts in the federal courts including conspiracy to use weapon of mass destruction, use of weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosion and 8 counts of first degree murder.

It could be argued that the fact that he was charged and convicted of the above crimes that the federal government would consider him a terrorist and the courts may consider him a terrorist although I don't believe the courts would make such a distinction officially, please correct me if I'm wrong. In my OPINION once deemed a terrorist whether foreign or domestic it makes since to say they are attacking the very fabric of the US constitution and shouldn't have access to those rights. They are a terrorist, they killed several people or injured several people through their actions. I'm not saying because someone voices their opinion against the federal government that they are labeled a terrorist, their actions would speak for themselves if they went that route. I'm a supporter of the US constitution and our rights as citizens, but then again 99.9% of us aren't going to do the things that terrorists do and if I was in this morons situation I wouldn't expect to have very many rights due to my actions.

 
carlfense said:
JJHusker1 said:
I think it understandable that people may express varying levels of disdain towards the cowardly acts of these two terrorists. It may be inflammatory to some to refer to them as POS or to say they need to burn in hell but, those really aren't policy positions. Those are simply ways to express how distasteful a person finds their actions.
Click to expand...
I don't care if people say that he is a POS or if they say that he needs to burn in hell. I do care when a law enforcement officer says that and American citizen who committed a crime on US soil "deserves no rights."

He is a POS. I hope that there is a hell for him to burn in. I also hope that he has every right afforded every other US citizen.

JJHusker1 said:
And the fact of the matter is that there are circumstances that allow Miranda rights to be postponed when public safety is in question. I think this was an excellent case in which to apply that waiver. As much as Junior would like that to mean I am for trampling peoples constitutional rights on a regular basis, it does not. It simply means that there are times when it is more prudent to act to prevent more possible carnage than it is to begin building your legal case. Besides that some people here are acting like Miranda rights and Constitutional rights are the same thing. They are not. I make the assumption that they still cannot use anything they discovered through questioning him, before Miranda rights, as evidence to convict him. I fail to see how that infringes on his rights but I can see how it could possibly save valuable time and help prevent further attacks. It sure can't be applied in all cases but you would have to convince me why it is not a good idea in this specific case.
Click to expand...
Again, you're focusing on Miranda in response to my post that was focusing on "deserves no rights." I'm fine with delaying Miranda advisements. Regardless, odds are good that his statements will be completely unnecessary in proving the criminal case so the whole Miranda issue won't matter.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the difference between a terroristic act against the United States and the day-to-day situations the courts deal with then we will never agree on this situation. I have ZERO issue with the courts and the federal government dealing with a terrorist as they see fit. Then again I don't plan on ever committing a terroristic act against the country that I love, that I served, and that I would serve again at the drop of a hat!

 
QMany said:
Walleye Hunting Husker said:
QMany said:
BIGREDIOWAN said:
Que beating of chest from some to say "see he wasn't a terrorist!" Wouldn't have known that without some sort of questioning from the feds.
Click to expand...
This isn't just about Miranda Warnings. What about his other rights?
Click to expand...
What other rights would you be referring to? Just my opinion but the day he decided to knowingly hurt innocent people is the day I stopped caring about his rights.
Click to expand...
The Sixth Amendment is a good place to start:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You don't think he will get to exercise these rights when time comes? He will get his day in court, he will get counsel, and he will receive everything that the 6th amendment guarantees. My point was that I could care less if he did receive them or not based on his actions.

 
How easily we set aside our morals. He did something bad - he deserves no rights.

The journey to a broken America starts with one step. The sad thing is we took that step, and many others, years ago. But nobody noticed.

And every time we take another step, it becomes easier to take yet another, and another.

 
knapplc said:
How easily we set aside our morals. He did something bad - he deserves no rights.

The journey to a broken America starts with one step. The sad thing is we took that step, and many others, years ago. But nobody noticed.

And every time we take another step, it becomes easier to take yet another, and another.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's exactly what everyone here has been saying.

 
knapplc said:
How easily we set aside our morals. He did something bad - he deserves no rights.
Click to expand...
Bad is not quite the word I would use for what he did but I understand what you are saying knap. I never said that he should not receive the fundamental rights in which our country was built upon. I only offered my opinion that I didn't care if he did or not based on his actions.

 
Walleye Hunting Husker said:
I never said that he should not receive the fundamental rights in which our country was built upon. I only offered my opinion that I didn't care if he did or not based on his actions.
Click to expand...
If that's not what you meant, this was a poor choice of words - something we're all guilty of at times.

Walleye Hunting Husker said:
the day he decided to knowingly hurt innocent people is the day I stopped caring about his rights.
Click to expand...
I'm simply stressing caution in the rhetoric here. Our friends up in Washington use times like this to stretch the envelope on civil liberties. We've seen that envelope stretched pretty badly out of shape in the past and it's being stretched again today.

 
Back
Top