I was wrong.

[Jen]

I posted that the authorities Mirandized (read Jokar his rights) too soon and that he should have been questioned longer before reading him his rights and lawyering him up. That was wrong.

As citizens of the USA we have the right to remain silent until we get a lawyer. From the moment we commit a crime or are arrested on..........that right is ours. Mirandizing someone is just informing him/her of those rights. It does not signify the moment those rights begin. They are already there. The reading of the Miranda rights just informs a person that he/she has rights under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution not to incriminate themselves. Some Americans don't know they have the right to remain silent.

So, as a citizen Jokar had the Constitutional (Fifth Amendment) right to remain silent even before the Miranda Right statement was read.

I am glad that we got valuable information from Jokar before he was read his rights, but those rights had to be read him (he had the right to know he had rights) at the earliest possible time. The rights were probably not read to him soon enough Constitutionally.

And yes. I heard this on Fox....... not as any criticism of anyone, but as information for those who were critical of the authorities who came in while Jokar was being interrogated to stop the interrogation and tell him he has rights.

Jen

 

[MaryAnne]

I posted that the authorities Mirandized (read Jokar his rights) too soon and that he should have been questioned longer before reading him his rights and lawyering him up. That was wrong.

As citizens of the USA we have the right to remain silent until we get a lawyer. From the moment we commit a crime or are arrested on..........that right is ours. Mirandizing someone is just informing him/her of those rights. It does not signify the moment those rights begin. They are already there. The reading of the Miranda rights just informs a person that he/she has rights under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution not to incriminate themselves. Some Americans don't know they have the right to remain silent.

So, as a citizen Jokar had the Constitutional (Fifth Amendment) right to remain silent even before the Miranda Right statement was read.

I am glad that we got valuable information from Jokar before he was read his rights, but those rights had to be read him (he had the right to know he had rights) at the earliest possible time. The rights were probably not read to him soon enough Constitutionally.

And yes. I heard this on Fox....... not as any criticism of anyone, but as information for those who were critical of the authorities who came in while Jokar was being interrogated to stop the interrogation and tell him he has rights.

Jen

You mean you could not decide what is right without Fox telling you so? Shaking head!

 

[Jen]

I know you are so bright, MaryAnne, that you know everything without ever being told or reminded of anything. Since you chastise me here for forgetting that we all have the right to be silent even without being read our rights you are also pointing out that you would NEVER forget anything like that.

But I am not at all perfect like you are. Sorry. I wish I were.

 

[Jen]

But doesn't it prickle just a bit that Fox News has pointed that out to people?
You know. Fox (aka Faux) News that always lies?

It should.
I doubt it will to someone as lofty and self-righteous as you.

Jen

You mean you could not decide what is right without Fox telling you so? Shaking head!

 

[GordonGecko]

But doesn't it prickle just a bit that Fox News has pointed that out to people?
You know. Fox (aka Faux) News that always lies?

It should.
I doubt it will to someone as lofty and self-righteous as you.

Jen

Doesn't always lie, Jen. Sometimes it just OMITS the truth. :smile:

BTW, that was very big of you to admit you were wrong...

 

[Jen]

Thanks , Gecko. I was quite sure of myself saying that he should have been questioned longer to get more info. But bad it it is.............he is a citizen of this country and has the same rights all of us have.

Jen

Doesn't always lie, Jen. Sometimes it just OMITS the truth. :smile:

BTW, that was very big of you to admit you were wrong...

 

[zzigzzag]

That's always a compelling TP title on PJ. Hahahahaha!

I agree. They did that part right.

 

[Jen]

Compelling and RARE.

That's always a compelling TP title on PJ. Hahahahaha!

I agree. They did that part right.

 

[GordonGecko]

Compelling and RARE.

True....the ability to admit error is rare. Outside of the snarky "I was wrong...Obama is WORSE than I thought!"....don't see much of that on the Right, Jen.

I'd also like to see some of those who were so "interested" in the "deported Saudi national" admit that they were wrong and it was NOT an Arab as they kept trying to pin Boston on.

 

[MaryAnne]

I know you are so bright, MaryAnne, that you know everything without ever being told or reminded of anything. Since you chastise me here for forgetting that we all have the right to be silent even without being read our rights you are also pointing out that you would NEVER forget anything like that.

But I am not at all perfect like you are. Sorry. I wish I were.

That is not bright,Jen.That is knowing the law of the land. The Miranda law was passed to protect citizens.

 

[MaryAnne]

I have been wrong lots of times.
Admitted it,too.

Just yesterday on who gave up a seat on Buddy Holly's plane.

I also use cutting remarks that I mean to be funny,so I apologize,Jen.

 

[Jen]

No problem, MaryAnne. I probably have the prize here for coming across as being self-righteous anyway (when I think I am being funny). So I understand using cutting remarks that are meant to be funny all too well. Maybe we share a sense of humor and don't even realize it.

Jen

I have been wrong lots of times.
Admitted it,too.

Just yesterday on who gave up a seat on Buddy Holly's plane.

I also use cutting remarks that I mean to be funny,so I apologize,Jen.

 

[as seen on tv]

i'm sure jughead went through a US history/constitution class in his public high school. and like most kids there, he was probably stoned and shooting spitballs from the back row.

 

[Jen]

I know it's the law of the land. I think we all know it. But when we're hurt like we were in Boston sometimes we need a reminder. I know I did.

That is not bright,Jen.That is knowing the law of the land. The Miranda law was passed to protect citizens.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

The media do a horrible job of explaining things like Miranda rights.

The bottom line is that...

1. US citizens need not answer question whether or not the Miranda rights are read to them,
2. The only effect of not reading Miranda rights is that a confession could be suppressed. That is often not even a factor.

Many Pugs do their very best to distort such things, venting their Obama hate whenever the opportunity arises, and the media just repeat their lies.

 

[Jen]

As I just posted to MaryAnne, we all "know" that we have the right to remain silent. Somewhere deep inside us even if we were stoned or shooting spitballs in the back of the class we know it. But when something happens to wound us deeply as what happened in Boston did, we need to be reminded of it.

i'm sure jughead went through a US history/constitution class in his public high school. and like most kids there, he was probably stoned and shooting spitballs from the back row.

 

[Jen]

I wish we could move (for just a moment in time) beyond the pejorative and realize that when we are hurt as we were in Boston we tend to forget things we have always known in our attempt to find out what happened and why and who did it.

The media do a horrible job of explaining things like Miranda rights.

The bottom line is that...

1. US citizens need not answer question whether or not the Miranda rights are read to them,
2. The only effect of not reading Miranda rights is that a confession could be suppressed. That is often not even a factor.

Many Pugs do their very best to distort such things, venting their Obama hate whenever the opportunity arises, and the media just repeat their lies.

 

[Mytzlplk]

what's new, other than the admission?

 

[ARMCX1]

But doesn't it prickle just a bit that Fox News has pointed that out to people?
You know. Fox (aka Faux) News that always lies?

It should.
I doubt it will to someone as lofty and self-righteous as you.

Jen

Some on Fox News were against mirandizing Tsarnaev before some on Fox News were in favor of mirandizing Tsarnaev. Opinion on this varies but there is no doubt that SCOTUS carved an exemption to Miranda in 1984 for purposes of the public safety. None the less, it's nearly always a constitutional violation to not mirandize. In Tsarnaev's case, I doubt the failure to mirandize for ~24hrs will be much of an issue since it appears reasonable that Tsarnaev's knowledge might have posed a public threat. If reports are accurate, Tsarnaev talked to authorities during this period.

 

[fairsheet]

The media do a horrible job of explaining things like Miranda rights.

The bottom line is that...

1. US citizens need not answer question whether or not the Miranda rights are read to them,
2. The only effect of not reading Miranda rights is that a confession could be suppressed. That is often not even a factor.

Many Pugs do their very best to distort such things, venting their Obama hate whenever the opportunity arises, and the media just repeat their lies.

Yup...contrary to what I'm sure is a lot of conventional "wisdom", law enforcement absolutely is NOT "required" to read ANYone their Miranda rights. But, since any evidence obtained prior to said reading may be excluded, it's in law enforcement's interest TO read people Miranda.

This particular case is one in which the independent evidence is already so overwhelming, that the prosecution may not even need to put anything he may've said, into evidence. Therefore, we may be making a whole lot Miranda-more of it, than we need to.