3 ms·

>When this is used, we are saying that the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect. When we're talking about the possibility of active bombs hidden wi

>When this is used, we are saying that the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect. When we're talking about the possibility of active bombs hidden within a civilian population, I would think it's a no-brainer that the rights of the people to not be blown up trumps the suspect's rights. Jesus this is scary thinking. You're saying the rights of a suspect go out the window when we can contrive a situation where you think other people's rights are more important?

tptacek 14y ago
You can reframe most laws in the same terms.
mattzito 14y ago
Kind of how your first amendment rights stop at shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede
- dllthomas 14y ago
  Kind of how your first amendment rights stop at distributing anti-war literature, as in the case that analogy is drawn from?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pyre 14y ago
All rights in law are a balancing act. For example, when people were lobbying to "Grandparents' Rights," codifying such rights into law would have given power in custody-type situations to the grandparents, but at the cost of taking some level of rights away from the parents. My 'right' to murder someone is taken away by the law because it is deemed that the right of the other person to stay alive is more important. In this case, the only right that is being taken away is the right to be informed (or reminded) of your rights prior to interrogation. He still retains his right to remain silent, he just isn't specifically told about it by police. The purpose being to allow a line of questioning that would help to eliminate the risk to the general public (in this case accomplices, hidden bombs, ties to terrorist organizations, etc). If they use this as an excuse to ask him questions that clearly aren't going to help resolve the "risk to the general public," I'm sure his defense attorney will have a field day with it.

tptacek 14y ago

You can reframe most laws in the same terms.

mattzito 14y ago

Kind of how your first amendment rights stop at shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede

dllthomas 14y ago
Kind of how your first amendment rights stop at distributing anti-war literature, as in the case that analogy is drawn from?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

pyre 14y ago

All rights in law are a balancing act. For example, when people were lobbying to "Grandparents' Rights," codifying such rights into law would have given power in custody-type situations to the grandparents, but at the cost of taking some level of rights away from the parents. My 'right' to murder someone is taken away by the law because it is deemed that the right of the other person to stay alive is more important. In this case, the only right that is being taken away is the right to be informed (or reminded) of your rights prior to interrogation. He still retains his right to remain silent, he just isn't specifically told about it by police. The purpose being to allow a line of questioning that would help to eliminate the risk to the general public (in this case accomplices, hidden bombs, ties to terrorist organizations, etc). If they use this as an excuse to ask him questions that clearly aren't going to help resolve the "risk to the general public," I'm sure his defense attorney will have a field day with it.