They will have crystal-clear sounds – no small feat inside of a car – and very little distortion….

Your Miranda Rights only need to be read to you after you have been arrested. Arrested, not detained. There is a difference.

Acheron,

Minor point, because I am not about to second guess the FBI in this situation, especially given your excellent defense of them, but the statement above is not accurate. I am grossly oversimplifying this, but Miranda rights have to be given when a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation, not when he or she is formally arrested, i.e. more or less when that person is not free to go and that person is being questioned

I was trying to point out the last point at which a suspect NEEDS to be Mirandized. The point of giving a Miranda warning is to make anything said by the suspect admissable in court. When you have arrested a person, an officer’s purpose should be to assist the prosecuters as much as possible by collecting admissable evidence.

A person in “custody” does not NEED to be Mirandized, but if you don’t Mirandize them, you won’t be able to use anything they say in court. In theory, an officer can Mirandize you the second he pulls you over, just to make sure everything in your conversation is admissable in court. Or, if they plan on not asking you any questions at all, they could not ever Mirandize you. It is not uncommon for people to never had a Miranda warning read to them by the time they get in front of a judge.

That’s my take on it. I am neither a law enforcement officer nor a lawyer. My knowledge of the law comes from working, training, and drinking with law enforcement officers, and paying lawyers.

But back on topic: FBI should have apologized. It was rude not to. But being rude isn’t against the law.

purplepeeps, you come off plenty bright all by your lonesome my man.

dakine said:
purplepeeps, props to you for making some very interesting additional points…enjoyed your exchange with Archon.

Archie makes a good addition here. If he can help to make me look any brighter than I actually am, even better.

Your Miranda Rights only need to be read to you after you have been arrested. Arrested, not detained. There is a difference.

Acheron,

Minor point, because I am not about to second guess the FBI in this situation, especially given your excellent defense of them, but the statement above is not accurate. I am grossly oversimplifying this, but Miranda rights have to be given when a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation, not when he or she is formally arrested, i.e. more or less when that person is not free to go and that person is being questioned.

Remember kids, if you are questioned by the police ask first: “Am I free to go?” If the answer is no, the ONLY words out of your mouth (as Buck said) should be “I want a lawyer.” Not “I think I want to talk to my lawyer.” Not “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” “I WANT A LAWYER!” Okay, you can ask for a glass of water or to use the restroom if you have to, but thats it.

You are dead on! Every point you make is completely valid and true. Without disagreeing with you one iota, let me just say that the agents who brought him his things and released him could easily and absolutely SHOULD HAVE said to him, “Sorry to have roughed you up, sir. As you know we can’t be too careful.”

4 seconds.

The problem there, Archon, is this did not occur on the plane, Mr.Wynn was stripped, handcuffed and laying on the tarmac when, according to his account

Yes, on the tarmac, but still unsearched. Mr Wynn was still a suspect, and was still unsearched. Agents were under the impression that he was an accomplice to someone they thought might have had a grenade or other explosive device. If Mr Wynn HAD been a terrorist, he would be thinking “Shoot, I just got found out. I need to detonate what I have as soon as I can.” And that was the principle agents were operating under. That was why his pants were pulled down, his shirt pulled up.

There was no concern about a bomb at this point and if they were shaking from fear he was going to overpower them here, then re-training is definitely called for and desperately needed

Have you done an in depth search of a suspect in a high energy environment. It can take more than a few minutes to make sure everything is kosher. Beyond that, I would be willing to bet that the responding team was probably understaffed, and had more responsibilities than just securing Mr Wynn. That would explain the amount of time that passed (which Mr Wynn admits he did not know). As far as the shaking goes, I’ve addressed it above. I’m sure there was fear, and adrenaline, on both sides. I question Mr Wynn’s account, however, when he says things like “The guns were on me, the rifle butts were so close to my head”. It’s awful hard to have your weapon trained on someone, AND have the butt next to their head. Maybe the weapons were aimed at his feet?

It’s unknown if they acted outside of the bounds of law and professionalism. It’s just my IMHO this warrants an internal investigation, for several reasons. “Good PR” being one.

It was an interrigation room. A simple review of the video camera that should have been running should clear up whether or not there was unprofessional conduct. No need for a full blown investigation. If, however, there is no video (because there damned well should be), than yes, an investigation is more than in order.

First, as a fellow who’s an attorney here said above the only thing you want to do in a case like this is to talk to an attorney. (Unless it’s a birthday card to my brudder, I ain’t signing nuthin’ at that point.)

While I would do the exact same thing (no lawyer, no talky), I need to point out that by not asking for a lawyer, Mr Wynn probably expedited his release. But he was Mirandized, even though he was only being detained and not arrested, and he knew what his rights were. And honestly, in this day and age, you would have to be living under a rock not to know to ask for a lawyer.

Second, the threats to shoot him were still being issued even at this point. It’s obvious they didn’t feel in control of the sitiuation even this far along, safely on their own turf.

It’s not a matter of not feeling safe. It’s a matter of keeping control of the situation. Beyond that, no one said “Move and I’ll shoot you” in the room. They said “Make a move and it will be the last move you make.” That can easily mean “You do something stupid and I’ll slam your face into this table so hard you won’t think about doing it again.” Any halfway competent lawyer could argue that point.

Actually if it’s posited as a threat, I don’t really know it would be helpful

Not a threat, but a warning. Notice the use of the word “could” instead of “will”. Something I tell my students all the time: You ain’t John Wayne and this ain’t the movies. Your plan drives the operation, your operation does not drive the plan.

Your average Joe/Jane just feels terror.

Yeah, that’s kind of the point. Keep in mind that the Good Guys didn’t know that Mr Wynn was trying to do a Good Thing when they proned him out. They thought he was a terror suspect.

The difference, of course, is we are the employers of the Federal agents and they can do more to respect that fact.

I won’t argue with you about who employs who. But, so long as you’re just Joe Blow citizen on the street, yes, respect should be afforded by a Federal agent. But when they think you’re a terrorist bringing a bomb on a plane, don’t expect much in the way of “please” or “thank you”.

Archon said:
Someone does not bring a bomb on aircraft and -not- plan to use it. As stated, the goal is to keep the individual disoriented and focused on something, anything, except for closing that switch.

The problem there, Archon, is this did not occur on the plane, Mr.Wynn was stripped, handcuffed and laying on the tarmac when, according to his account:

“They’d cuffed me and I was lying there with my pants down. My shirt was up. I looked up and I saw four guys with their guns at me. I was being held at gunpoint. Their rifle butts were shaking and they were screaming, screaming, ‘Don’t move or we will blow you fu——- head off!’

I looked to my right and one guy had a pistol to my head. All the guns were shaking. They were screaming so many four letter words at me, finally I just said, ‘Please don’t shoot me on accident.’ I kept saying that. I thought, if I sneeze, they’re going to shoot me. They had me on the ground, cuffed, pants down, for I don’t know how long. Ten more minutes, twenty more minutes? The cuffs hurt. My pants were down, my socks and shoes were gone. My shirt was ripped and up off my back. The guns were on me, the rifle butts were so close to my head. My arms were pinched back, jacked-up behind me because the cuffs are super tight. They were shouting, shouting, ‘One move and I’ll blow your f——— head off!’ ”

There was no concern about a bomb at this point and if they were shaking from fear he was going to overpower them here, then re-training is definitely called for and desperately needed.

However, nothing I read said that the agents were still shouting at Mr Wynn or berating him after his apprehension.

It’s unknown if they acted outside of the bounds of law and professionalism. It’s just my IMHO this warrants an internal investigation, for several reasons. “Good PR” being one.

“One of the FBI agents slid me this piece of paper. ‘These are your Miranda rights,’ he said. ‘Sign it.’ So I asked him, ‘Am I under arrest?’ He didn’t say anything. No smile, no nothing. He handed me a pen. He said, ‘we are going to move your handcuffs so you can sign. If you make any false move, it will be the last move you make.’”

First, as a fellow who’s an attorney here said above the only thing you want to do in a case like this is to talk to an attorney. (Unless it’s a birthday card to my brudder, I ain’t signing nuthin’ at that point.)

Second, the threats to shoot him were still being issued even at this point. It’s obvious they didn’t feel in control of the sitiuation even this far along, safely on their own turf.

Someone high up in the food chain should address this. But the message should be: “Report suspicious activity or THIS could happen to you.”

Actually if it’s posited as a threat, I don’t really know it would be helpful.

It’s been said, but I’ll say it again. Mr Wynn had great intentions, but poor execution.

Yup and I think if ya scroll up you’ll see I was the first to say it. This stinks all around but it seems everyone acted in good faith as much as was within them. Sometimes things just do happen.

But everyone involved should learn from it: including the Federal agencies involved. When the average person is helpless and surrounded by a dozen men all shakily waving guns in his/her face and sreaming obscenties, it really doesn’t matter if it’s a dozen FBI, a street gang or a dozen al Qaeda. Your average Joe/Jane just feels terror. The difference, of course, is we are the employers of the Federal agents and they can do more to respect that fact.

On the other hand, over the top screaming can just as easily also make a situation worse, escalating things to the point of a bomb being detonated.

If someone has a bomb, they’ve already made up their mind to detonate it. There is no “escalating” involved. Someone does not bring a bomb on aircraft and -not- plan to use it. As stated, the goal is to keep the individual disoriented and focused on something, anything, except for closing that switch.

If the agents were still screaming when they were telling this fellow to sign things, that’s wrong – and perhaps even a violation of law. If professionalism doesn’t take hold at some point – especialy when a situation is obviously well in hand – there’s a clear problem.

It most certainly would be wrong, and a violation. Professionalism is key for a federal institution. However, nothing I read said that the agents were still shouting at Mr Wynn or berating him after his apprehension. They asked him repeatedly, and in a brusque manner, what his relationship to the people in his pictures was, and they asked how he knew the man on the plane. But so far as I can tell, the questioning was performed in a professional, although not exactly polite, fashion.

I think if they want to encourage passangers to report suspicious behavior, then a regional director should address this

I’ll halfway agree. Someone high up in the food chain should address this. But the message should be: “Report suspicious activity or THIS could happen to you.” It’s been said, but I’ll say it again. Mr Wynn had great intentions, but poor execution. I think the spirit of Flight 93 is still strong in the populous. But being disorganized from the people responsible for the welfare of the aircraft is dangerous, and is a last resort. Obviously, the flight crew knew what was going on. Mr Wynn wanted to keep an eye on the guy, which is cool. But he should have gotten the attendant’s attention, said, “Hey, this guy is acting weird, and I’m here to help if you need me. Is it ok if I move over to that seat so I can help you keep an eye on him.” Deviate from that basic set of standards, and you’ll get to know the tarmac fairly well.

Jim M. said:
Since a bomb can be detonated with even the slightest movement, they have a vested interest in making sure a suspect does not move. At all.

The SOP no longer calls for speaking to people in a calm manner. It gives people time to think. Shouting and pressuring a suspect from all sides keeps them disoriented and focused on the police rather than the execution of any possible plan.

On the other hand, over the top screaming can just as easily also make a situation worse, escalating things to the point of a bomb being detonated.

If the agents were still screaming when they were telling this fellow to sign things, that’s wrong – and perhaps even a violation of law. If professionalism doesn’t take hold at some point – especialy when a situation is obviously well in hand – there’s a clear problem.

It’s unclear in this case if the agents were over-the-top, if they were adding chaos and panic into an obviously controlled situation. If so, some re-training would be in order.

This sounds like a case where everyone, with good intent, just over-reacted to one another.

Although the agents/FBI are not required to comment or apologize, I think if they want to encourage passangers to report suspicious behavior, then a regional director should address this. Explain they’re sorry it played out as it did and use this as an example for passengers about what not to do in such cases. Make it a general public teaching/awareness moment.

Famous But Incompetent

Are you an FBI agent? Do you know any? Have you had any personal interactions with any? If not, I’d venture to say that you know not what you speak. The FBI is a huge, nation wide entity. To make a broad and sweeping judgement about such a large group of PROFESSIONAL men and women, based solely on second and third hand information, is the height of irresponsibilty. Moreover, the agents (be they FBI or local PD) acted EXACTLY in accordance with the stated Rules of Engagment and Standard Operating Procedures. These rules are designed to maximize the safety for EVERYONE around, not to make the hippies happy.

There is no accountability

Have you seen the FBI chain of command? If anything, there is too much accountability (and yes, there is such a thing). Supervisors are scrutinized so much that they end up weighing their decisions on whether or not it is politically correct enough to make sure their career isn’t ruined, instead of making decisions based on the rule of law, safety of their agents, and prosecution of criminals.

but for Pete’s sake, when they found out they were wrong, couldnt they at least apologized to Wynn?

Again, people are failing to realize that the agents did not do anything wrong. They reacted exactly as they should have to ensure the safety and well being of EVERYONE around them. It was a case of mistaken identity, initiated by Mr Wynn himself, and perpetuated by the aircraft staff. But the responsibility rests solely on Mr Wynn.

Having commentors here like Archon, who want to edjimacate us, are truly of great value to our society. I believe he is the real deal.

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I suppose they could have been in a humorous mood and sequestered Mr. Wynn for a few years. No habeas corpus for terrorists nowadays.

Thank God they didn’t.