Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Do you agree with the ACLU that the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect should be read his Miranda rights?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(71)

concerned

Apr-25-13 9:45 AM

I wonder if someone didn't want him taken alive to start with? Somebody sure pumped him full of lead. He has bullet wounds in almost every part of his body. Wasn't he suppose to be hiding in a boat under a cover when they found him? Seems kind of fishy to me. Doesn't the police usually try to disable someone and take them alive and not try to gun them down?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Apr-25-13 8:36 AM

Of course the Justice department wants him to stop talking...they might just learn that these two actually have ties to something bigger and muslim terrorists actually exists. To admit that would show the folly in the Obama administration's effort to hug the radicals and harm America.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-24-13 8:42 PM

phoenix Unless they were going to interrogate someone reading them their rights would be redundant.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Apr-24-13 7:53 PM

Concerned, sorry if I misunderstood you, I thought you were implying that someone rights were required to be read at every arrest, not just the ones that require interrogation, not every arrest does.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-24-13 6:36 PM

phoenix you are splitting hairs. : ) They can only interrogate someone after an arrest has been made. Therefore the arrest is the trigger. That was my point. Until they arrested the kid they had no reason to read him his rights because they were not interrogating him. From what I have read on the subject I believe the supreme court ruled that police were required to read people their rights prior to interrogation. It doesn't make sense that they would charge them and arrest them and then not talk to them about it. I think it all pretty much goes hand in hand and in the proper order or the court will throw out any information obtained by the police interrogation. Why do they do that? Because proper procedure was not followed. Proper procedure is arrest, then rights read, then interrogation.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Apr-24-13 5:26 PM

That's correct, if they fail to read someone their rights after arrest and prior to questioning, nothing that person says can be used against them at trial. Another reason they do it, to protect their case. Oddly enough, if they bring someone in for questioning prior to arrest, any self-incriminating statements they may make can be used at trial, that's why they can hold a suspect for only so long before they must charge or let go.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Apr-24-13 5:14 PM

To protect their case and to protect the suspect from self- incrimination. Most police only mirandize a suspect upon arrest if they wish to interrogate them, to warn the suspect and to protect their case for possible trial. The Miranda warning is all about being protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, it's not about the arrest.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-24-13 4:54 PM

I believe if they don't any information the person gives up or answers to any questions they ask them can not be used against them. I bet a lawyer will have a hay day with this kid. An article I read said they read him his rights but that he was under sedation and he was not able to talk due to a gun shot in his throat. So it was thru writing that they got him to say he did it. Think that reading of his rights will hold up when they read them to him while he was under the influence of sedatives? This whole case just keeps getting more bazar.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-24-13 4:25 PM

Why do they do it? Just to be nice?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Apr-24-13 3:48 PM

Reading someone their rights is not required at the time of arrest.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-24-13 9:58 AM

Well they read him his rights and at the proper time. Reading someone their rights is required at the time of arrest. They have the right to hold people for a limited time and then they have to either charge them and read them their rights or let them go. In this case the kid was/is in a hospital not in custody. I would imagine there were officers at his door or maybe even in his room for his protection just as much as ours. If there is a larger force at work someone may not want him to recover as he might expose them. That is one of the reasons why all this sensationalism that the media has done is wrong. They don't seem to care that they may be jeopardizing sensitive information.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-23-13 3:09 PM

Watchdog, Maybe you misunderstood me. I never intended to imply his rights were being violated. I was just supporting the fact that we had to follow proper procedure. The media has this guy tried and convicted already and we don't even know if all that they are reporting is even factual. I Think there is more going on here than meets the eye. Could these guys be sacrificial lambs for something larger? Maybe,I don't know. All I know is just because the media is reporting something does not mean it is accurate. The whole thing could be a cover up for a larger plan that failed. In case you haven't noticed I don't have a whole lot of confidence in what the national media reports. Could this guy, if guilty, get off because of media bias? What ever happened to I can't comment on a case while an investigation is on going, yet the media is reporting all kinds of things as if they are fact and quoting people that should not be saying anything until the investigation is complete.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Apr-23-13 2:11 PM

concerned, maybe I am missing the point here and I value your input. I don't understand yet where the system or the constitution has been trashed because of this bomber. How has his rights been violated?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Apr-23-13 1:49 PM

Don't forget...Obama wants to aid and abet them...AMNESTY!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Apr-23-13 1:48 PM

"But regardless we must not let our constitution be trampled on."

It was already trampled on...we are allowing terrorists to hide behind it and use it to their advantage and safe passage into this country.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-23-13 1:47 PM

Watchdog says: "What bothers me even more is the fact that terrorists are now using our constitution as weapon in their plans of terror against us" This bothers me too, and I think that this is something that should not be. The U. S. Constitution is the constitution of our country only not the world. It should only apply to U.S. Citizens. This idea that foreign peoples have the same rights as Americans within our borders is wrong. Especially when they are here illegally.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-23-13 1:35 PM

watchdog we are not dealing with normal minded people. Look at 9-11 they had people willing giving up their lives to complete their mission. Who knows these guys may have been sacrifices for the cause also. But regardless we must not let our constitution be trampled on. My whole point was not in support of this guy. My support was in our system, a system that has to work in all instances or it don't work at all. Even those where we would like to by pass it. Our system must be allowed to work as it was intended or we are all in jeopardy because, if allowed to be ignored in this case, what's to prevent it being allowed to be ignored in other cases that we support? Yes he was a new citizen but rather than question the constitutional legal system I would question how at 19 years old he was allowed to become a citizen and how did he get into the country to start. Personally I think there is a lot more to this case than a couple of half baked young adults going off the deep end.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Apr-23-13 1:26 PM

WatchDog: "The only question we need to ask? Was we this dumb or was they just that good?"...

Or was we just focused upon O's revenge and his anti American agenda?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Apr-23-13 1:12 PM

So, what happens now?

We accept that the victims were sacrificed politically, we pray that we get through the next four years and we can get a leader in the White House that is of strength and respect for this entire country.

I can not accept that these two bombers pulled this off right under our noses. These two boys had a total of 11 pressure cookers. Do you have a clue what the price of a pressure cooker costs at any local store? Plus everything they used to build those bombs. These two were unemployed, there has to be a money trail.

The only question we need to ask? Was we this dumb or was they just that good?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Apr-23-13 1:01 PM

concerned the ONLY thing that bothers me is the fact that our Country has way to many bleeding heart sympathizers. Heck, Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. Thus, the reason the bomber will not be tried as an enemy combatant. Obama will not let it happen. I think it is the biggest mistake in the world. We need the intelligence to PROTECT this Country.

These two bombers attacked Americans with weapons of mass destruction to commit terror and death upon us. "US", they didn't pick and choose their victims. Even though the bomber that is alive was an American Citizen for a few short months worked with and on behalf of his "non American" foreign brother.

What bothers me even more is the fact that terrorists are now using our constitution as weapon in their plans of terror against us.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-23-13 10:48 AM

Kozy The media will convene their court and give us a steady diet of this. Then he will probably plead guilty to a lesser charge. Just like U S Army sergeant John Russell did on monday in Washington State. He got a plea bargain deal for killing a U S Navy Officer and 4 fellow US soldiers at Camp Liberty in Baghdad in 2009. He opened fire on them and killed them in cold blood. He got a reduced sentence of life in prison instead of execution.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Apr-23-13 8:37 AM

Ok, he's been charged and read his rights and the administration says they are looking at this as two nuts killing people...

So, what happens now?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-22-13 9:52 PM

Agreed watchdog we should let the system work. However the system says you are innocent until proven guilty. A media trial and a public opinion verdict is not letting the system work. If he is found guilty then he needs to get the fullest penalty the law allows. If they have enough evidence to charge him then they need to charge him and then it will be up to the court system to decide if the evidence is sufficient to bring about a conviction. Until that time he has not been charged nor found guilty of anything, he is just an American citizen with the same rights as anyone else in this country. What bothers me is with all the media exposure and investigating into his personal life by the media, I question whether they can come up with a jury that has not already decided the guy was guilty even before the evidence is seen in a light that is not being shined on him by the media.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Apr-22-13 8:45 PM

"I do agree with you that he should be tried as an American citizen and not an enemy combatant."

That is what is confusing everyone. He will be tried as an American Citizen. He is not going to be tried in a military court. "Enemy Combatant" is throwing everyone out of whack. They are only using that to collect intelligence "under the law of war". His criminal actions (the bombing, his actions after the bombing will be tried in Mass. under the Federal and State laws there.

They don't have to Mirandize him under that law". If people would just let the system unfold and stop rushing this process, it will all come together.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Phoenix

Apr-22-13 7:45 PM

Grant, they are under no constitutional obligation to mirandized him. If they feel the can convict him on evidence and witness testimony alone, without any incriminating statements he may make, they are free to do so, however, if he does incriminate himself without being mirandized, that information cannot be used at trial. I do agree with you that he should be tried as an American citizen and not an enemy combatant.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 71 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web