They probably decided to not charge him since they administered justice on the street...LOL
At 02:09 PM 12/2/2002 -0500, you wrote: >OK. > >Then to me it is pretty clear, the person should have been "Mirandized", >however, it did say he was never charged with a crime, leading me to >believe that the Miranda warnings would have been useless. > >But I don't know all of the circumstances of the incident, so I am in no >place to judge this one. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:01 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Lapd at its best -Miranda Warnings go byebye? > > > > in custody and under interrogation... > > > > At 01:50 PM 12/2/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > >I always thought Miranda warnings were only given to those under >arrest. > > >This article says they are to be given to anybody the police >question. > > > > > >Is this true, I ask because I want to know. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:37 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Lapd at its best -Miranda Warnings go byebye? > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/01/scotus.police.questioning.ap/index.ht >m > > >l > > > > > > > > > > > > Hrm i can't see the supreme court removing miranda warnings. > > > > And its great how the LAPD thinks its can shoot a person 5 times >then > > >not > > > > give miranda warnings lol > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
