The Constitution provides those rights

By James Clark | May 14, 2013


John Pierre wants elimination of Miranda Rights given to "some miscreant because under certain circumstances the required delivery of the "rights" is ludicrous."

The fact is Mr. Pierre, the Constitution of the United States allows for one to have such a right under the fifth and sixth amendments.

Does Mr. Pierre want to eliminate those amendments and any other parts of the Constitution that he doesn't agree with?  I don't think so.

You can't be selective when you are addressing issues that travel well beyond your ability to understand them.

If you must write  a column every week Mr. Pierre please eliminate the bluster and provide something with well thought out substance.

Is doing away with Habeus Corpus next?


James Clark

Comments (1)
Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | May 15, 2013 17:56

Thank you, Mr. Clark.  I have to admit that I had not read the column in question until I saw your comment - but now I have.

So, enter some judge whose opinion, unfortunately becomes the law of the land and the right decision was wiped out.

Did Mr. Pierre skip his classes in US government? A Judge enforcing the law (after, in this case, three days had passed) does not make “the law of the land.” He (or in this case, she) obeys and enforces it. Thank heaven we live in a land where the rule of the law is enforced.

Under certain circumstances the required delivery of the "rights" is ludicrous.

Alas, they are rights, not “rights”. And who, Mr. Pierre, gets to decide when our legal rights are not applicable?

Picture an officer coming upon a miscreant involved in a criminal act who has to first subdue the perpetrator and then hold him down while telling him that he doesn't have to talk about the incident and is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and, by the way, a lawyer will be provided free of charge.  What nonsense.

Nonsense indeed, Mr. Pierre! Please give us one example of someone stopping a crime being committed and doing all this? The case in point happened after almost 72 hours of intense interrogation.

If the courts had their way, in a battlefield situation, our combat soldier would have read Miranda Rights to a downed enemy combatant who, moments before had been trying to kill him.

Courts do not rule on battlefield situations, nor has this nonsense ever been so much as suggested. Please stop being silly.

Two of the stupidest matters continuing in our country is the necessary reading of Miranda Rights to the obviously guilty…

The “obviously guilty” according to whom, please?

I repeat – I am glad to live in a land where we do have rights, where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If Mr. Pierre dislikes this, perhaps he should move to say, Iran, where such silly niceties are not observed. He could mail in his weekly diatribe from there – if the sensors would let it out.

Mr. Pierre would better serve the community if he would ground himself in reality and research his facts. Can the Beacon please find a better use for its paper than this sort of thing?


If you wish to comment, please login.