Little-Acorn
04-20-2013, 10:27 PM
You know which ones I mean. You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to an attorney, etc. etc. and all the rest.
Of course, it's vitally necessary that accused persons have these rights, even the Boston Marathon Bomber slimeball, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Far too easy for the government to abuse people if we don't ALL have these rights.
But where does it say that, when a cop arrests you, he must suddenly turn into a schoolteacher and inform you of those rights?
If I'm going to drive a car, does some cop have to walk into my driveway before I leave, and inform me that it's illegal to run a stop sign, illegal to speed, illegal to turn left on a red light etc., so that if I later do one of those things I can't claim that I didn't know the law? No. In fact, the cops can simply assume I did know the law, and if I didn't, that's my tough luck. It is NOT their job to inform me of what the law says before I drive and possibly violate a law.
So why is it their job to inform a suspect of what the law says about his rights, when they arrest him?
It's certainly their job to respect his rights, and get him a lawyer if he wants one, and not press him if he doesn't want to answer their questions etc. etc. The Constitution is very clear on that, and again I wouldn't have it any other way. But I have yet to see the part of the Constitution that says it is their job to INFORM him of those rights.
People are yelling about how the cops didn't "Mirandize" the Boston bomber before asking questions. They claim some "public safety" exception, which I would imagine means that if there might be other bombs around waiting to go off, the cops don't have to waste time explaining his rights to him. But, I'm sure, they must RESPECT his rights: Quit questioning him if he doesn't want to answer, get him a lawyer etc.
But to the people screaming that they didn't EXPLAIN his rights to him, I say: So what? Where does the Constitution say they have to EXPLAIN them to him (or to any other suspect)?
I know, I know, the Miranda v. Arizona ruling says so, handed down by a Warren court notorious for inventing laws that never existed. But that doesn't answer my question.
Certainly any suspect must have those rights, no question, and the cops must obey them. But where does the Constitution say the cops must turn into schoolteachers and EXPLAIN them?
Of course, it's vitally necessary that accused persons have these rights, even the Boston Marathon Bomber slimeball, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Far too easy for the government to abuse people if we don't ALL have these rights.
But where does it say that, when a cop arrests you, he must suddenly turn into a schoolteacher and inform you of those rights?
If I'm going to drive a car, does some cop have to walk into my driveway before I leave, and inform me that it's illegal to run a stop sign, illegal to speed, illegal to turn left on a red light etc., so that if I later do one of those things I can't claim that I didn't know the law? No. In fact, the cops can simply assume I did know the law, and if I didn't, that's my tough luck. It is NOT their job to inform me of what the law says before I drive and possibly violate a law.
So why is it their job to inform a suspect of what the law says about his rights, when they arrest him?
It's certainly their job to respect his rights, and get him a lawyer if he wants one, and not press him if he doesn't want to answer their questions etc. etc. The Constitution is very clear on that, and again I wouldn't have it any other way. But I have yet to see the part of the Constitution that says it is their job to INFORM him of those rights.
People are yelling about how the cops didn't "Mirandize" the Boston bomber before asking questions. They claim some "public safety" exception, which I would imagine means that if there might be other bombs around waiting to go off, the cops don't have to waste time explaining his rights to him. But, I'm sure, they must RESPECT his rights: Quit questioning him if he doesn't want to answer, get him a lawyer etc.
But to the people screaming that they didn't EXPLAIN his rights to him, I say: So what? Where does the Constitution say they have to EXPLAIN them to him (or to any other suspect)?
I know, I know, the Miranda v. Arizona ruling says so, handed down by a Warren court notorious for inventing laws that never existed. But that doesn't answer my question.
Certainly any suspect must have those rights, no question, and the cops must obey them. But where does the Constitution say the cops must turn into schoolteachers and EXPLAIN them?