This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
This is why I only listen to Mark Ingram.Conflicts with Pierre Thomas on ABC. I prefer your version.George Zornick @gzornickwhere'd you hear this?You could see that snozz from space.
He was read his Miranda rights while he was still in the boat.
Pete Williams on NBC says federal authorities read Dzhokhar his Miranda rights on the boat. Sorry Lindsey
All we need is a police scanner link.at this point i'm giving up on network news
they can't get anything right
then we know moms right and its a setup
Break this down for me like you would to a little kid. I'm not invoking schtick, I'm legitimately asking because this would be sickening. There's no way this guy or his lawyer could plausibly find a loophole on anything he's done due to procedure, right?the law isn't going to Mirandize him.. something about needing to ensure he doesn't have information about an "immediate threat". no lawyer will be present at least for the initial questioning.more details pleasethis is bad
this should mean anything he says pre-lawyer is inadmissible, no?
could not matter as they may declare him an 'enemy combatant' who has no rights. if that's the case... yikes
We need to hear 12 different Boston accents talk about how hahd the week has been and how proud they are of the police depahtment.
The man had a family with kids.
From Wiki:Break this down for me like you would to a little kid. I'm not invoking schtick, I'm legitimately asking because this would be sickening. There's no way this guy or his lawyer could plausibly find a loophole on anything he's done due to procedure, right?the law isn't going to Mirandize him.. something about needing to ensure he doesn't have information about an "immediate threat". no lawyer will be present at least for the initial questioning.more details please
this should mean anything he says pre-lawyer is inadmissible, no?
could not matter as they may declare him an 'enemy combatant' who has no rights. if that's the case... yikes
Watching the limelight shine on the character of Bostonians has been a guilty pleasure for me in the aftermath of this deplorable act.
Would you Mirandize in a boat?George Zornick @gzornickwhere'd you hear this?You could see that snozz from space.
He was read his Miranda rights while he was still in the boat.
Pete Williams on NBC says federal authorities read Dzhokhar his Miranda rights on the boat. Sorry Lindsey
From Wiki:Break this down for me like you would to a little kid. I'm not invoking schtick, I'm legitimately asking because this would be sickening. There's no way this guy or his lawyer could plausibly find a loophole on anything he's done due to procedure, right?the law isn't going to Mirandize him.. something about needing to ensure he doesn't have information about an "immediate threat". no lawyer will be present at least for the initial questioning.more details please
this should mean anything he says pre-lawyer is inadmissible, no?
could not matter as they may declare him an 'enemy combatant' who has no rights. if that's the case... yikes
The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of "public safety". This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.[8]
The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[9] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.[8]
Sounds like he'll make it. They labeled him in "serious" condition... not even "critical".
It was used, or will be used.
Just had this exchange at the supermarket. I arrive at the register in the middle of a conversation between the checker and bagger.
Checker (to bagger): "They killed him. Cops shot him. Unbelievable. They killed the guy."
Me: "Really? I just heard 10 minutes ago they captured him alive."
Checker: "What?"
Me. "The 2nd suspect. They found him hiding in a boat, caught him alive."
Checker: "We're talking about something else."
Me : "Oh."
Was thinking the same thing. Suspect either was out or too hurt to flee? You gotta think he knew someone was checking it out.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}