Honest question, where does treason factor into this? Heinous crime against the public at a public event yes. But where is national security involved? (If a bomb was set to get to a military / gov installation or function I could see it.)
Printable View
Honest question, where does treason factor into this? Heinous crime against the public at a public event yes. But where is national security involved? (If a bomb was set to get to a military / gov installation or function I could see it.)
Well The MSM and other liberals, in and out of .gov are really upset over the whole deal. Now they know how we as gun owners feel, too bad it will never sink in.
This is America. We don't go pissing all over the Constitution just because someone did something frightening and violent and evil.
At least, we shouldn't.
Besides, it looks like Miranda is mis-understood. Interrogating someone who is in custody does indeed violate Miranda. However, the remedy is that evidence resulting from the illegal interrogation is just inadmissible at trial. Okay, mostly inadmissible. I think it can still be brought in for impeachment purposes. Evidence which isn't fruit of that particular poisonous tree is still admissible, and the case doesn't get thrown out unless there wouldn't be any case at all without the illegally-collected evidence.
If it were up to me, he'd be charged and tried under applicable Massachusetts state laws, as a common criminal, and no different from some bullshit little insignificant hood rat. We would not even acknowlege him as being any different or more special than that.
Show of hands: Who here, honestly, trusts Barry Hussein Soetoro and Eric Holder with the legal authority to sidestep the Constitution?
Yes. However, if they do not use any of the information gathered from the questioning against him at trial, it doesn't matter. Given the evidence that is already present without hearing a single word from the suspect or using anything he has voiced after his arrest, I still think the case is pretty solid.
Now using that information to make additional arrests later all falls under the fruit of the poison tree, so there won't be any negotiating when those warrants are served.
Do cops even read the Miranda rights anymore? I thought SCOTUS ruled they no longer were required to. Even before that, all they usually did was just check the box on the form saying the suspect "had been advised of his rights" and nobody cared unless it was a teenaged first offender from a good family that could afford a real attorney.
So... Are we sure they did this? Or is this a scape goat, put a face with a crime kind of thing?
Not saying I agree with it, but they were talking about it on FNC last night just after the arrest (Shepherd I believe it was that said it) that he will not be marandized right now, which is allowed under some emergency/exigent privilege, didn't catch exactly what, I'm thinking NDAA or Patriot Act. The emotionally charged side of me thinks he shouldn't be told he has the right to remain silent, but the logical side says everyone deserves their rights and a fair shake, regardless... remember kids, innocent until proven guilty. Make an exception here and there and they'll make exceptions every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
That only applies in court. In lock up, unless you lawyer up, ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I hope that was a joke. BTW I love this quote "you can't arrest me, you haven't even read me my rights!" ha watch me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Yes.