I can't differ to him because I can't find what he said. So, go ahead differ all you want.

The man is a US citizen and needs to be told his Miranda rights. Pretty simple.

Not exactly.  That would be an incorrect statement of Miranda in this type of crime.  One would have to know when Miranda applies and understand the concept in State cases, then Federal cases then in acts of Terrorism.  Miranda is not always needed and not a catch all.  I can discuss Supreme Court rulings on Miranda if necessary.  The US Atty was very clear when Miranda would be needed in THIS CASE.  I am clear on what SHE said regarding Miranda.  I'm sure the FBI and BPD are following it to a tee.  No need to worry about the bomber's Miranda rights in this case.  

There is no imminent danger the police have already come out and said it.
 

No Miranda Warnings for the Surviving Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Because of the Public Safety Exception?

 

Unless you’ve had your head in the sand, you’ve no doubt seen the media coverage of the apprehension of the second Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, on April 19.  You probably also know that he’s currently being held in a hospital, being treated for his injuries, while the prosecuting authorities, both state and federal, decide how to handle things from here.  But what you may not know is that he has NOT been given his Miranda warnings.  How can that be?

Those of us practicing criminal defense and criminal appeals know that anytime there’s custodial interrogation, the individual should be Mirandized.  (Of course we also know that many times, officers decide the for themselves what constitutes custodial interrogation, but that’s a topic for another post).  According to news reports, the feds have invoked the public safety exception to Miranda, which can be traced to the United States Supreme Court case of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).  According to Quarles, the reason the court carved out the public safety exception was because of the exigency of the situation facing the officers in that case.  There, the officers, while “in the very act of apprehending a suspect, were confronted with the immediate necessity of ascertaining the whereabouts of a gun which they had every reason to believe the suspect had just removed from his empty holster and discarded in the supermarket. So long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, with its actual whereabouts unknown, it obviously posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, a customer or employee might later come upon it.“  Quarles, 467 U.S. at 657.

Now, does that really seem like the situation that officers and prosecuting authorities are currently facing with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?  I admit that it’s pretty likely that the authorities have not revealed all the facts that have gone into their decision not to Mirandize Tsarnaev, but I would think that if there were any exigent circumstances, such as the possibility of immediate public danger, then the press would have been privy to that.  After all, the FBI actively called on the press to help them locate the suspects when they released the photos of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother the day before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev  was apprehended.   And the whole reason the city of Boston was on lockdown was because the police feared that he would have  a bomb on his person.  I guess we’ll have to watch the legal aspects of this unfold.  All I can say is that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is going to need one hell of a lawyer.

There is a one hour ruling when it comes to Miranda for this type of offense, per the US atty.

No imminent danger. Police, FBI and politicians have all said so all this does is allow for more money to be spent on appeals. Great for the lawyers but not so for the citizens who are paying for it.

No need to explain our criminal justice system to me.  I spend countless hours every month in court on appeals and pleas when there is absolutely no need for me to be there.  I am involved in cases that have dragged on for 2 and 3 years from date of arrest because of motions, and appeals.  Your taxes will not go up because of this.

No they may not but a citizens Miranda rights should be read to him. Period.

No, Miranda may not apply immediately whether the defendant is a citizen, foreign national, diplomat or terrorist.  There are provisions in Federal law for Miranda.  There are also times when Miranda is required and times when suspects can be questioned without Miranda in State law.  Miranda is not complicated, but knowing when to advise Miranda may be.  I really doubt anyone involved in questioning this suspect will have any issue with reading Miranda at the appropriate time.  

So, you believe him to be an imminent danger and an enemy combatant?