Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Public Safety Exemption V Miranda

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495

    Public Safety Exemption V Miranda

    Hi Folks

    What are your thoughts and opinions on Public Safety Exemption and Miranda?

    Will this Exemption someday affect our 2A right?

    TIA

    Best regards.

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 04-20-2013 at 03:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Can you be more specific? Is there a court ruling you have in mind?

    There should be no public safety exemption that trumps the right not to self-incriminate.

    I don't care about Miranda. Excluding confessions because the police failed to tell someone that they did not have to talk is silly. We have a right to remain silent. We should all be informed enough to know it without having to be told by the police. If one is ignorant of his rights, tough.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495
    Since the arrest of the alleged Boston Bomber, The term is being used with frequency.

    CCJ

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/p...1/legal_digest

    See also the discussions at the Volokh Conspiracy
    Thanks for the link. As I don't agree with Miranda, and as the officer in the cited case was not coercing the statement, and as the suspect voluntarily gave up the location of the gun, I would agree with the outcome, but not with the reasoning. Again, I see no public safety exception to the right to remain silent, but I don't see the circumstances in this case as violating the right to remain silent of the thug.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Since the arrest of the alleged Boston Bomber, The term is being used with frequency.

    CCJ
    I imagine they asked him a lot of "Are there any more bombs?" questions before they told him that he had the right to remain silent. If he doesn't know that already, he is an idiot and responsible for any legal missteps he takes. If he gave up any incriminating information before being mirandized, meh. Like I said before, I think the Miranda ruling is stupid.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Since the arrest of the alleged Boston Bomber, The term is being used with frequency.

    CCJ
    eye has not been keeping up with the news...

    The notion that the defendant (I'll call the kid this for now-its clear he will be tried--if they don't firebomb his hospital room) does not need to be mirandized is a joke.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    As I don't agree with Miranda,
    Well, I forwarded your thoughts to Justice Roberts and your compelling argument has made him and his cronies to issue out a first interweb initiated ruling --- striking down the Miranda decision.

    COMMENTS REMOED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack
    Last edited by John Pierce; 04-24-2013 at 11:09 AM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ...
    For obvious reasons, I never reply to you on topic.

    If anyone would like to rationally discuss my take on this, I will be happy to reply.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    For obvious reasons, I never reply to you on topic.

    If anyone would like to rationally discuss my take on this, I will be happy to reply.
    ooo oooo oooo ooooooooooooooooo

    speaking in your language ... I think your avatar is actually a pic of you for real

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    The public safety exception in the above cited case amounted to exigent circumstances. Had the question not been answered, the gun might have been found by someone with nefarious intent or a child who might irresponsibly use it.

    Law enforcement has had all the time in the world to comply with Miranda, as silly as it is. As much as I disagree with the Miranda ruling (and, consequently, the need for a public safety exception), as a matter of practicality, I am convinced that LE will be found not to have a public safety exception in this case, therefore jeopardizing the case against this vile bomber.

    Dumb.

    Guys, just fill the square. Odds are you won't be telling him something that he has not heard on TV a thousand times before. Not mirandizing him will likely have zero effect on whether he talks or not.

    Dumb.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    meh...nevermind...
    Last edited by eye95; 04-20-2013 at 05:38 PM.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    this kid is going to get off because the gov't simply cannot control itself from violating the constitution ...


    although he may be guilty, OUR due process rights are more important than a single conviction of ANY person

  13. #13
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    Waterboard; then a long drop on a short rope...all done
    Attachment 10286 Miranda sucks...but she never makes breakfast
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurchiron View Post
    Waterboard; then a long drop on a short rope...all done
    Attachment 10286 Miranda sucks...but she never makes breakfast
    I do believe that both of these actions (torture and lynching) are illegal acts and as such encouraging one to engage in either of these acts would be a violation of the rules of this forum.

    EVERYONE in the US is guaranteed by the Constitution certain rights and just because some in power have decided to violate the rights does not make it right or CONSTITUTIONAL. We ALL either have these rights OR NONE OF US HAVE THEM!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    Ignore...then count to 10; priceless!!!

    Attachment 10287
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    I do believe that both of these actions (torture and lynching) are illegal acts and as such encouraging one to engage in either of these acts would be a violation of the rules of this forum.

    EVERYONE in the US is guaranteed by the Constitution certain rights and just because some in power have decided to violate the rights does not make it right or CONSTITUTIONAL. We ALL either have these rights OR NONE OF US HAVE THEM!
    I thought that the Patriot Act allows for interrogation & high treason was/is a hanging offense...did I miss something???
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  17. #17
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,387
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe
    What are your thoughts and opinions on Public Safety Exemption and Miranda?
    Never heard of such a thing.
    Having now read that post about the Quarles case, I think it's rubbish. The criminal was under arrest & could no longer get to the gun. The officers could search the area. And it's doubtful that the average person, finding an unattended gun, would pick it up & shoot someone with it. Heck, in NY someone seeing a gun would probably faint!
    If a court finds that the questioning of a subject, even in the presence of a situation involving public safety, violated due process standards, the statement will be suppressed... This exception does not permit police officers to compel a statement from a subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth
    this kid is going to get off because the gov't simply cannot control itself from violating the constitution ...
    although he may be guilty, OUR due process rights are more important than a single conviction of ANY person
    +1 on both
    Although I'm afraid that there will be great pressure on whatever judge draws this case to ignore the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurchiron View Post
    I thought that the Patriot Act allows for interrogation & high treason was/is a hanging offense...did I miss something???
    OK, you've got me there after conviction and sentencing following his Constitutionally allowed appeals. But, I'll argue that even though the so called Patriot Act has been enacted and signed into law does NOT make it CONSTITUTIONAL and an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law is NOT LAW!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  19. #19
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurchiron
    I thought that the Patriot Act allows for interrogation & high treason was/is a hanging offense.
    18USC2381
    "...shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
    The wiki article says that "treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution".

    Interesting side note from the wiki... it wasn't until 1973 that English law eliminated beheading (for nobles) as punishment for treason.

    "Traitor is derived from the Latin traditor which means "one who delivers."
    Last edited by MKEgal; 04-20-2013 at 08:31 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    It is my humble opinion, that ONLY when criminals learn that the PUNISHMENT(Capital) outweighs the crime; will our society even have a chance returning to a semblance of normal.

    Hang'em, shoot'em, or fry'em...take out the criminals' teachers as sentenced & the students will have NO ONE to learn from...IMHO
    Last edited by Lurchiron; 04-21-2013 at 04:36 PM.
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,009

    Public Safety Exemption V Miranda

    First, as far as Boston goes, the suspect is unable to communicate, so Miranda is useless. Second, they are not violating his rights, they are just not explaining them to him at this time. Third, the interview I heard explained that they don't need him to talk to get the conviction, they just need to be sure what other plan might be in place, such as associates and plots. They would not need to use anything he said to convict him, and if they don't, then there is no issue.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    First, as far as Boston goes, the suspect is unable to communicate, so Miranda is useless. Second, they are not violating his rights, they are just not explaining them to him at this time. Third, the interview I heard explained that they don't need him to talk to get the conviction, they just need to be sure what other plan might be in place, such as associates and plots. They would not need to use anything he said to convict him, and if they don't, then there is no issue.
    Then why are they talking about the public safety exception? If they do not intend to use anything he says against him, he does not have to be mirandized and no exception is necessary. It sure sounds to me like they intend to try to use his unmirandized statements against him. I bet they will fail.

    That being said, "miranda rights," as defined by the courts, are invented rights, not natural rights (or even legislated privileges). So I don't care about them at all. I am smart enough to exercise the real rights by remaining silent and demanding a lawyer. If some dumb criminal only knows his real rights because a cop honored some invented rights and explained the real rights to him, then he deserves what he gets.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,009

    Public Safety Exemption V Miranda

    Well, if you can't talk, you don't need to worry about what you say or don't say.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Can you be more specific? Is there a court ruling you have in mind?

    There should be no public safety exemption that trumps the right not to self-incriminate.

    I don't care about Miranda. Excluding confessions because the police failed to tell someone that they did not have to talk is silly. We have a right to remain silent. We should all be informed enough to know it without having to be told by the police. If one is ignorant of his rights, tough.
    While I understand, Eye's attitude, I disagree.

    Ignorant people have rights, too. We went all through this a few years ago on this forum regarding timid people. A police officer made fun of people too nervous to exercise their right to withhold consent and remain silent in the face of a pushy cop. That cop's logical absurdity being--when you extend his logic--that timid people don't have rights. First, there is the insanity of thinking people who get easily nervous don't deserve rights because only people who can exercise them deserve them; but, second and more importantly it was a cop who held this view while posting on this forum. Tells you a bit about how easily the government can find a justification to disregard, invalidate, or minimize a right doesn't it?

    Regarding Eye's other comments on the Miranda decision, one should just read Miranda v Arizona. The court made it clear it knew coercion still existed. The full warning covers not just the right to silence, but the right to adopt silence at any point, and the right to legal counsel.

    Regarding Eye's comment "we should all be informed enough to know it without being told...", the warning includes that anything said can be used against the arrestee. But, did you really know just how comprehensive that statement is before you saw the Professor Duane video about talking to police? I'd heard the Miranda Warning a zillion times on TV since watching Adam 12 as a child, but I still had no idea just how many different ways anything you say can be used against you. Now, ask yourself, how many people have not seen that video? Does Eye really expect vast numbers of people to understand that even the truthful statements of an innocent witness can be used against him?



    If you are new to these issues, you can find links to Miranda v Arizona and the Prof Duane video here:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ources-Here!!&


    And, if you're still not convinced at how easily government can diminish rights, read Justice Marshall's dissent in Schnekloth vs Bustamonte at the same link.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    Public safety exemption? Translation: icy slope covered in machine oil being approached by people wearing Teflon shoes.

    Lemme see, where did we hear the public safety argument before? Oh, yes! The Star Chamber Court and the High Commission! Of course, in those days they didn't use the words public safety. Oh, no. Their justification was saving the immortal souls of those jeopardized by heretical teachings. They even justified their actions by saying they were also trying to save the immortal soul of the heretic himself!

    Another phrase was peace of the realm. All the public un-safety from civil disturbances they claimed were sure to arise from non-conformity and heresy.

    Now, lets think this through just a little bit. We have a government that wrecks the economy regularly, expropriates large amounts of our earnings, and plans on taking even more by driving the national debt to Pluto. And, I'm supposed to believe the government is suddenly all concerned about my health and welfare?
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-21-2013 at 08:21 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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