If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Boston Bombing suspect has been mirandized. (Link goes to bedside transcript)   (nytimes.com) divider line 157
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

4688 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 9:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-23 09:17:00 AM
Good.  American citizen on American soil.
 
2013-04-23 09:17:42 AM
That's REALLY unna-merrkan!
 
2013-04-23 09:18:00 AM
Good. That's one argument we won't have to listen to anymore.
 
2013-04-23 09:18:35 AM
Now let's look at all the tremendous negative consequences this act has had:
 
2013-04-23 09:18:42 AM
Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??
 
2013-04-23 09:19:43 AM

karnal: Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??


No, it's when they let you soak in barbecue sauce overnight.
 
2013-04-23 09:20:21 AM
Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.
 
2013-04-23 09:20:43 AM
Miranda? I don't know the biatch!
 
2013-04-23 09:21:13 AM
Good.

I didn't think this would have been an issue, but glad it is happening.
 
2013-04-23 09:21:14 AM

vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.


Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'
 
2013-04-23 09:22:11 AM
good
 
2013-04-23 09:23:04 AM

vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.


Wat
 
2013-04-23 09:23:04 AM
The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.
 
2013-04-23 09:23:42 AM

karnal: Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??


No, it's where you dose them with G-32 Paxilon Hydroclorate and hope to god they don't turn into a reaver
 
2013-04-23 09:23:43 AM
It's about damn time. I can't wait to hear the shiat the defense comes up with on this.
 
2013-04-23 09:24:46 AM
Well, if his throat is injured forever, and he cannot talk, he's got that right to be silent one down.
 
2013-04-23 09:25:26 AM

TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.


So if a foreigner visits the U.S. and is accused of a crime, they don't have all the same rights of due process as an American citizen does?
 
2013-04-23 09:26:18 AM
www.sadanduseless.com
 
2013-04-23 09:26:21 AM

StRalphTheLiar: karnal: Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??

No, it's when they let you soak in barbecue sauce overnight.


Don't be ridiculous.  That's a waste of good BBQ sauce.  It will just burn and create char.  BBQ should only be applied in the last few minutes of a slow cook.  Or in the case of grilling, just long enough to caramelize the sugars in the BBQ sauce.

/Glad he was mirandized and sent to civilian court.  It can be dealt with sufficiently for justice and prove to the world this mutt was nothing special.
 
2013-04-23 09:26:34 AM

enry: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Wat


It's true.
 
2013-04-23 09:27:10 AM

Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'


Government or any of its agents such as policemen.
 
2013-04-23 09:27:42 AM
static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-04-23 09:28:02 AM

vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.


It is if they want to introduce any of his testimony for a criminal trial.
Anyone advocating they cut corners is more thinking about setting a bad precedent than trying to bury this guy.

/If he doesn't get the death penalty then he's going to be planted under the jail.
/He should get death.  I don't believe he feels a twinge of sorrow and would only spit in the survivors faces if they confronted him.
/There isn't a reason to keep him around once he's said his piece.
/But this isn't about him. Its about how criminal trials for other citizens get handled from now on.
 
2013-04-23 09:28:11 AM
userserve-ak.last.fm

"¡Bueno!"
 
2013-04-23 09:28:46 AM
RockSteadyUSMC


It's about damn time. I can't wait to hear the shiat the defense comes up with on this.

From what I hear he is blaming everything on his dead brother.
 
2013-04-23 09:29:55 AM
I really hate to see people get all worked up over the judicial process in this case. He is never going to be a threat to anyone again, and there is no amount of 'justice' on this Earth that can compensate the victims for what they will have to suffer through. It's disappointing to see the judicial process and timing of events in that process be used as yet another wedge issue.
 
2013-04-23 09:29:58 AM
Good.
Now charge him with treason.
And after he's convicted, strip him of his citizenship.
 
2013-04-23 09:29:59 AM

vygramul: Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'

Government or any of its agents such as policemen.


That's weird. I thought law enforcement officers were required to read miranda rights to arrested suspects.
 
2013-04-23 09:30:14 AM
Anybody in West, TX been charged yet?
 
2013-04-23 09:30:25 AM
Has it been released what the extent of his injuries were/are?
 
2013-04-23 09:30:43 AM

way south: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

It is if they want to introduce any of his testimony for a criminal trial.


Yes. If they do not Mirandize him, they cannot use statements from an interrogation against him. But they may choose not to Mirandize him.
 
2013-04-23 09:30:47 AM

karnal: Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??


No, it's when they force you to wear fruit on your head.
 
2013-04-23 09:30:59 AM

Cythraul: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

So if a foreigner visits the U.S. and is accused of a crime, they don't have all the same rights of due process as an American citizen does?


In a word? No.
 
2013-04-23 09:31:17 AM
Way good.  Not only is he an American citizen (which means that he has rights even if we SUPER don't like him), but this removes a potential avenue for pursuing a mistrial.  This dude is guilty as hell, and short of some kind of ASTOUNDING revelation he isn't going anywhere.  He will be executed or die in prison.
 
2013-04-23 09:31:22 AM

Cythraul: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

So if a foreigner visits the U.S. and is accused of a crime, they don't have all the same rights of due process as an American citizen does?



Yes, it means that when you are a Mexican caught speeding on I90 you won't get a speeding ticket.
 
2013-04-23 09:31:33 AM

Cythraul: vygramul: Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'

Government or any of its agents such as policemen.

That's weird. I thought law enforcement officers were required to read miranda rights to arrested suspects.


Generally it's policy, but there is no legal obligation unless you want to submit evidence from an interrogation.
 
2013-04-23 09:31:49 AM
well, it was probably more important to get him talking first. it's not like we don't have plenty of images, eye witnesses, evidence from running gun battles, and the like.

it'll probably be harder to find an impartial jury than to come up with evidence.
 
2013-04-23 09:33:26 AM
Quick aside.

Foreigners, America sucks don't come we are crazy and have guns.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-04-23 09:33:27 AM
We're protecting rights!  The terrrists have WON!

OMG!
 
2013-04-23 09:33:32 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Anybody in West, TX been charged yet?


That investigation is going to take some time. Unfortunately, the owner is in his 80s (no idea about health) and currently under extreme stress, so there's more than a passing chance that he does not live to see the outcome of the investigation.
 
2013-04-23 09:33:37 AM

namegoeshere: Good. That's one argument we won't have to listen to anymore.


Are you kidding?  It's going to be a sore spot for everyone who felt otherwise for a long time and believe me, they will tell you all about it.
 
2013-04-23 09:33:43 AM

vygramul: enry: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Wat

It's true.


Yeah, but they won't be able to use any of the evidence they get during the trial until after Miranda.
 
2013-04-23 09:34:14 AM

vygramul: enry: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Wat

It's true.


He's right, as long as nothing he ever says to the cops is used as evidence at trial.
 
2013-04-23 09:35:16 AM
Queue the right wing saying he shouldn't have been mirandized, his citizenship should be stripped, and he should be held and treated as an enemy combatant, and that Obama is going soft on terrorism never mind all the drones, in...

Wait, shiat, that already happened didn't it.
 
2013-04-23 09:35:26 AM

bingo the psych-o: namegoeshere: Good. That's one argument we won't have to listen to anymore.

Are you kidding?  It's going to be a sore spot for everyone who felt otherwise for a long time and believe me, they will tell you all about it.


Yah, you're probably right. *sigh*
 
2013-04-23 09:35:44 AM
I hate the news coverage of this trial already.
 
2013-04-23 09:36:00 AM
vygramul

enry: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Wat

It's true.


Does this fall under "cannot claim ignorance to the law"
 
2013-04-23 09:36:03 AM

TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.


Basic rights in the legal system has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.
 
2013-04-23 09:36:19 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Cythraul: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

So if a foreigner visits the U.S. and is accused of a crime, they don't have all the same rights of due process as an American citizen does?

In a word? No.


Well that's good to know.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-04-23 09:36:26 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Anybody in West, TX been charged yet?


The CEO hopped his corporate jet, you can bet on it.

That saga is a great testament to what is so farked up in the US and in Texas specifically.  When hundreds of people get flooded out of their homes then spending on them is wasteful.  When a corporation causes their own demise and takes half a town with it then it deserves government help.
 
2013-04-23 09:36:43 AM
Interestingly enough, Hamdan's lawyer (of Hamdan v Rumsfeld fame) pointed out the public safety exception comes from a 1984 case, NY v Quarrels (or some such) and was ok with it.
 
2013-04-23 09:37:04 AM
It's remarkable how much the whole Miranda issue has been discussed and how thoroughly ignorant people remain.   It's not that complicated.
 
2013-04-23 09:37:10 AM

Dansker: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

Basic rights in the legal system has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.


When it comes to terrorism, it sure as hell does.
 
2013-04-23 09:37:30 AM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: vygramul

enry: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Wat

It's true.

Does this fall under "cannot claim ignorance to the law"


No.
 
2013-04-23 09:37:33 AM

Cythraul: vygramul: Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'

Government or any of its agents such as policemen.

That's weird. I thought law enforcement officers were required to read miranda rights to arrested suspects.


Nope, however if you don't anything the witness says\does after the arrest is more than likely going to be inadmissible. So its pretty standard practice in case the guy you arrest decides he is going to spill his guts to you in the cop car on the ride back to the station.

However in this case, they have decided they already have all of the evidence they need, and were just hoping to get some intel out of him before a lawyer told him to shut up.
 
2013-04-23 09:37:58 AM

vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.


And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.
 
2013-04-23 09:37:59 AM

vygramul: enry: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Wat

It's true.


They are if they want to use anything said during a subsequent custodial interview in a court of law.  Non-custodial interviews (where the person being interviewed is not under arrest and can terminate the conversation at any time, such as speaking over the phone or with someone who's an undercover cop).

In this particular case it wasn't technically necessary since they already have plenty of evidence to convict a dozen times over already.  However if he gives up the names of any additional co-conspirators, not reading him his rights now could screw up subsequent investigations.
 
2013-04-23 09:38:57 AM

hinten: Cythraul: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

So if a foreigner visits the U.S. and is accused of a crime, they don't have all the same rights of due process as an American citizen does?


Yes, it means that when you are a Mexican caught speeding on I90 you won't get a speeding ticket.


Of course not.  They get charged with Driving While Mexican.
 
2013-04-23 09:39:16 AM
I really don't get the infatuation some people have with whether or not he has been read his Miranda WARNING.  Note that these aren't rights that you suddenly acquire when you are read them, every American citizen ALWAYS has these rights.  The only significance at all is that until read the warning, anything you say may be inadmissible in court.  They may not even NEED any statement from him to form a rock solid case.  He may be in no condition to answer any relevant questions.  Moot point is moot.
 
2013-04-23 09:40:11 AM

karnal: Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??


/They don't need a confession at this point.  He's well and truly farked all the way up to his tonsils if he has them, with all the photo evidence against him, his retardation of robbing the convenient store and shooting at police, as well as throwing bombs, he could be in a coma in the hospital and they would have enough to convict.  I feel sorry for his lawyer. WTF defense could you possibly come up with, other than "feel sorry for my poor misguided client who's older brother was a idiot Islamic radical who led this poor innocent boy astray".  Also will be interesting if they could charge him with his brothers murder as well, as he ran his ass over with the SUV and killed him.  Though i guess that would be hard to prove, and pointless considering all the other capital crimes they have him up for now.  Looks like it's smooth sailing to the electric chair for this asshole.  I would gladly buy tickets to attend.
 
2013-04-23 09:40:26 AM

Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.


Actually, they are, if the evidence is properly collected.
 
2013-04-23 09:41:12 AM

FLMountainMan: It's remarkable how much the whole Miranda issue has been discussed and how thoroughly ignorant people remain.   It's not that complicated.


it's one of this left/ right wing holy war issues, now that we know that it wasn't the tea party.

can't let a good crisis go to waste if there's some political hay to be made.
 
2013-04-23 09:41:16 AM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: RockSteadyUSMC


It's about damn time. I can't wait to hear the shiat the defense comes up with on this.

From what I hear he is blaming everything on his dead brother.


That's probably the best defense, and even making that stick will be a long shot.
 
2013-04-23 09:41:35 AM

vygramul: Interestingly enough, Hamdan's lawyer (of Hamdan v Rumsfeld fame) pointed out the public safety exception comes from a 1984 case, NY v Quarrels (or some such) and was ok with it.


NY v Quarles is the case that determined a public saftey exception.
 
2013-04-23 09:42:08 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Cythraul: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

So if a foreigner visits the U.S. and is accused of a crime, they don't have all the same rights of due process as an American citizen does?

In a word? No.


Equal rights under the law means rule of law for everyone.  The moment you start making exceptions, trouble starts.

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Besides, this guy is just a dickhead.  If we deny the rule of law to dickheads, half the country would lose their rights.
 
2013-04-23 09:42:46 AM

nekom: I really don't get the infatuation some people have with whether or not he has been read his Miranda WARNING.  Note that these aren't rights that you suddenly acquire when you are read them, every American citizen ALWAYS has these rights.  The only significance at all is that until read the warning, anything you say may be inadmissible in court.  They may not even NEED any statement from him to form a rock solid case.  He may be in no condition to answer any relevant questions.  Moot point is moot.


Because it shows that it's being treated as a criminal case rather than some quasi-military tribunal and he gets chucked in Gitmo for the foreseeable future.
 
2013-04-23 09:43:38 AM

way south: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

It is if they want to introduce any of his testimony for a criminal trial.
Anyone advocating they cut corners is more thinking about setting a bad precedent than trying to bury this guy.

/If he doesn't get the death penalty then he's going to be planted under the jail.
/He should get death.  I don't believe he feels a twinge of sorrow and would only spit in the survivors faces if they confronted him.
/There isn't a reason to keep him around once he's said his piece.
/But this isn't about him. Its about how criminal trials for other citizens get handled from now on.


/They are being EXTREMELY careful at this point, giving his defense lawyer NOTHING to object against, and no flaws in the handling of this scumbag.  They want a airtight, no defense, slam dunk win. They are treating him with kid gloves, and every move they make in court is by the book.  I wouldn't wanna be the one to lose this case. Career ender.
 
2013-04-23 09:43:48 AM

enry: Good.  American citizen on American soil.



And that has nothing to do with why they didn't mirandize him in the 1st place.
 
2013-04-23 09:44:03 AM
Mr. Fick will have a difficult job.
 
2013-04-23 09:44:19 AM

Marcus Aurelius:

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."


That's a bullshiat statement, as there is an objective way to differentiate between a terrorist and other combatants.
 
2013-04-23 09:44:29 AM

LineNoise: Cythraul: vygramul: Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'

Government or any of its agents such as policemen.

That's weird. I thought law enforcement officers were required to read miranda rights to arrested suspects.

Nope, however if you don't anything the witness says\does after the arrest is more than likely going to be inadmissible. So its pretty standard practice in case the guy you arrest decides he is going to spill his guts to you in the cop car on the ride back to the station.

However in this case, they have decided they already have all of the evidence they need, and were just hoping to get some intel out of him before a lawyer told him to shut up.


What about the "right to an attorney" component? Is that subsumed under the "right to remain silent" ?
 
2013-04-23 09:45:08 AM

vygramul: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

Actually, they are, if the evidence is properly collected.


The jury can do whatever the hell it wants once it's behind closed doors.  It's called "jury nullification".
 
2013-04-23 09:45:12 AM

Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.


How would it be a miscarriage of justice?  The precise trade-off against not giving the Miranda warnings is to (usually) exclude the gains of any statement made without the warnings.  It would be "ridiculous" to use your word to suggest the whole case be disregarded.

The Miranda warnings are purely about making sure you don't inadvertently testify against yourself and nothing more.  If your statements (or their direct fruit) aren't introduced at trial then there is no self-incrimination, and so no issue.
 
2013-04-23 09:46:47 AM

Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

Actually, they are, if the evidence is properly collected.

The jury can do whatever the hell it wants once it's behind closed doors.  It's called "jury nullification".


And jury nullification is not considered a valid legal move by the jury. They have an obligation not to engage in jury nullification. Whether they do is a separate issue from whether they are supposed to.
 
2013-04-23 09:47:37 AM

vygramul: Marcus Aurelius:

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That's a bullshiat statement, as there is an objective way to differentiate between a terrorist and other combatants.


But they are human, yes?  You'll admit that much?
 
2013-04-23 09:48:07 AM

Mudd's woman: What about the "right to an attorney" component? Is that subsumed under the "right to remain silent" ?


The full right there is to have an attorney present during questioning.  It isn't about your right to have an attorney at other stages of a trial (for that, see Gideon, etc.).  The Miranda-based right to an attorney is - like ALL of Miranda - purely about questioning while in state custody.  If you're not in custody or if there is no questioning, then there are no applicable Miranda-based rights.  If the state doesn't use your statements made outside of Miranda against you at trial, then there is no issue.

It is ironic that people misunderstand this so much, given how often the Miranda rights are repeated on TV, etc.
 
2013-04-23 09:48:24 AM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: From what I hear he is blaming everything on his dead brother.


I guess they can say whatever they want, but "following orders" doesn't work as a defense-- and he obviously knew what was going to happen when he put that bag at the bomb site and then took off. And if he claims he didn't know what was happening, he had a few days to report to authorities after the fact.
 
2013-04-23 09:49:19 AM

mattharvest: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

How would it be a miscarriage of justice?  The precise trade-off against not giving the Miranda warnings is to (usually) exclude the gains of any statement made without the warnings.  It would be "ridiculous" to use your word to suggest the whole case be disregarded.

The Miranda warnings are purely about making sure you don't inadvertently testify against yourself and nothing more.  If your statements (or their direct fruit) aren't introduced at trial then there is no self-incrimination, and so no issue.


So pray tell me, why in hell would the cops, when apprehending a perpetrator, not mirandize them?

The only reason I can see is political, which is a lousy reason.  The AG is grandstanding, showing us all what a tough guy he is.
 
2013-04-23 09:49:26 AM

Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Marcus Aurelius:

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That's a bullshiat statement, as there is an objective way to differentiate between a terrorist and other combatants.

But they are human, yes?  You'll admit that much?


Of course they are human. What is legal or not is actually irrelevant to what the moral thing to do is. You don't torture people, even if they don't play by the rules, even if the law were to say it was allowable, for example.
 
2013-04-23 09:50:22 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: karnal: Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??

/They don't need a confession at this point.  He's well and truly farked all the way up to his tonsils if he has them, with all the photo evidence against him, his retardation of robbing the convenient store and shooting at police, as well as throwing bombs, he could be in a coma in the hospital and they would have enough to convict.  I feel sorry for his lawyer. WTF defense could you possibly come up with, other than "feel sorry for my poor misguided client who's older brother was a idiot Islamic radical who led this poor innocent boy astray".  Also will be interesting if they could charge him with his brothers murder as well, as he ran his ass over with the SUV and killed him.  Though i guess that would be hard to prove, and pointless considering all the other capital crimes they have him up for now.  Looks like it's smooth sailing to the electric chair for this asshole.  I would gladly buy tickets to attend.


Not sure about federal law, but at least in some states, say you rob a bank with your brother, a security guard shoots and kills your brother, YOU are tried for his murder because it occurred during your commission of a felony. As you say, moot since he's pretty well farked either way. If I'm his defense counsel, I'm thinking the BEST I can do is cop a plea for a confession and life. The prosecution MAY not even be interested in that, assuming they have a rock solid case regardless, which it would appear that they do.
 
2013-04-23 09:50:28 AM

LL316: enry: Good.  American citizen on American soil.


And that has nothing to do with why they didn't mirandize him in the 1st place.


Look back a minute.  I go into a tiny bit more detail why it's important.
 
2013-04-23 09:50:40 AM

vygramul: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

Actually, they are, if the evidence is properly collected.

The jury can do whatever the hell it wants once it's behind closed doors.  It's called "jury nullification".

And jury nullification is not considered a valid legal move by the jury. They have an obligation not to engage in jury nullification. Whether they do is a separate issue from whether they are supposed to.


OK then.  Welcome to the real world.
 
2013-04-23 09:50:41 AM
When asked whether he could afford an attorney, the suspect replied "No. I spent all my money on bomb-making materials".
 
2013-04-23 09:51:03 AM

Marcus Aurelius: mattharvest: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

How would it be a miscarriage of justice?  The precise trade-off against not giving the Miranda warnings is to (usually) exclude the gains of any statement made without the warnings.  It would be "ridiculous" to use your word to suggest the whole case be disregarded.

The Miranda warnings are purely about making sure you don't inadvertently testify against yourself and nothing more.  If your statements (or their direct fruit) aren't introduced at trial then there is no self-incrimination, and so no issue.

So pray tell me, why in hell would the cops, when apprehending a perpetrator, not mirandize them?

The only reason I can see is political, which is a lousy reason.  The AG is grandstanding, showing us all what a tough guy he is.


The public safety exception arouse in a 6-3 SCotUS decision in 1984. They asked a guy where his gun was as they were cuffing him (but hadn't Mirandized him yet) and he pointed out where he threw it. The Court allowed the evidence.
 
2013-04-23 09:51:10 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Dansker: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

Basic rights in the legal system has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.

When it comes to terrorism, it sure as hell does.


Indeed.  It makes the claim that the accused is a combatant much more credible.  And once that happens, you're in the Military Justice System.
 
2013-04-23 09:51:30 AM

TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.


Correct.

TheDumbBlonde: Non-citizens, not so much.


Incorrect.

As an intellectual exercise, dig out a copy of the Bill of Rights and count the number of times it uses the word "citizen."
 
2013-04-23 09:51:49 AM
Also, is he even being charged with any murder, specifically?  I don't get the impression that he is, only a charge of using a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death, and conspiracy to do so.  The murder charges may be a state fallback if somehow the pooch is royally screwed and he gets acquitted federally, he would then be charged with 4 counts of murder in MA, which would take the death penalty off the table but he'd still be farked.
 
2013-04-23 09:52:40 AM

mattharvest: Mudd's woman: What about the "right to an attorney" component? Is that subsumed under the "right to remain silent" ?

The full right there is to have an attorney present during questioning.  It isn't about your right to have an attorney at other stages of a trial (for that, see Gideon, etc.).  The Miranda-based right to an attorney is - like ALL of Miranda - purely about questioning while in state custody.  If you're not in custody or if there is no questioning, then there are no applicable Miranda-based rights.  If the state doesn't use your statements made outside of Miranda against you at trial, then there is no issue.

It is ironic that people misunderstand this so much, given how often the Miranda rights are repeated on TV, etc.


Thanks -- that is helpful. I guess it was muddied for me because of the wording that is so often used on television, i.e., "You have the right to an attorney" standing as its own statement and not specifically in the context of "while being questioned."

/"sorry" for "excessive" quotations marks
// "!"
 
2013-04-23 09:54:38 AM

Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

Actually, they are, if the evidence is properly collected.

The jury can do whatever the hell it wants once it's behind closed doors.  It's called "jury nullification".

And jury nullification is not considered a valid legal move by the jury. They have an obligation not to engage in jury nullification. Whether they do is a separate issue from whether they are supposed to.

OK then.  Welcome to the real world.


We were discussing legal obligations. Not the real world. Would you have objected were I to have said the Tsarnaevs had an obligation not to murder people?
 
2013-04-23 09:55:56 AM

vygramul: Marcus Aurelius:

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That's a bullshiat statement, as there is an objective way to differentiate between a terrorist and other combatants.


Haven't you seen Mel Gibson's immortal masterpiece The Patriot? He operated outside the "rules of war" of the time. Was he a terrorist?
 
2013-04-23 09:55:59 AM

vygramul: The jury can do whatever the hell it wants once it's behind closed doors. It's called "jury nullification".

And jury nullification is not considered a valid legal move by the jury. They have an obligation not to engage in jury nullification. Whether they do is a separate issue from whether they are supposed to.


No, they don't. See Bushel's case, also US v. Moylan.

It's also explicitly legal in New Hampshire.
 
2013-04-23 09:56:06 AM

RexTalionis: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

Correct.

TheDumbBlonde: Non-citizens, not so much.

Incorrect.

As an intellectual exercise, dig out a copy of the Bill of Rights and count the number of times it uses the word "citizen."


True enough, yet some rights are not extended to non-citizens, like the right to own an AR-15.
 
2013-04-23 09:56:49 AM

Marcus Aurelius: So pray tell me, why in hell would the cops, when apprehending a perpetrator, not mirandize them?


Two easy situations are rather obvious, and I'd suggest you're being disingenuous by pretending to be unaware of them (given how much they've already been discussed):

1. You have no need of any confession, and you're just trying to get useful information for something else.  In the instant case, for example, there is a multitude of video and photo evidence, not to mention his admissions made to the carjacking victim (who also, of course, provides identification), and finally the officers who were witnesses to his shoot-outs, escape, etc.  There is no need for a confession, and nothing really to gain.

2. You might need the confession, but public safety is at issue (hence "public safety exception"), where it is more important to ensure that no continuing danger exists (e.g. the presence of more bombs on delay, or of more bombers).

Both of these are legal and entirely solid.
 
2013-04-23 09:57:33 AM
Not sure why anyone is arguing about jury nullification, as if that's ever going to come into play here.
 
2013-04-23 09:57:34 AM

RexTalionis: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

Correct.

TheDumbBlonde: Non-citizens, not so much.

Incorrect.

As an intellectual exercise, dig out a copy of the Bill of Rights and count the number of times it uses the word "citizen."


I'll get right on that, Chief.
 
2013-04-23 09:58:18 AM

ransack.: vygramul: Marcus Aurelius:

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That's a bullshiat statement, as there is an objective way to differentiate between a terrorist and other combatants.

Haven't you seen Mel Gibson's immortal masterpiece The Patriot? He operated outside the "rules of war" of the time. Was he a terrorist?


Did he target civilians rather than engage enemy military units?
 
2013-04-23 09:58:56 AM

vygramul: RexTalionis: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

Correct.

TheDumbBlonde: Non-citizens, not so much.

Incorrect.

As an intellectual exercise, dig out a copy of the Bill of Rights and count the number of times it uses the word "citizen."

True enough, yet some rights are not extended to non-citizens, like the right to own an AR-15.


Those same rights are also not extended to certain classifications of citizens - minors, for instance, or felons.

Although I'm fairly sure that a permanent resident alien is within his rights to purchase and own a firearm, depending on the state that he is in.
 
2013-04-23 09:59:42 AM
It beyond sad that there was even the discussion it wouldn't happen.
 
2013-04-23 10:00:19 AM
Miranda is to keep investigators from stepping on their dicks and invalidating evidence obtained from interviewing the suspect without advising him of his rights.  It isn't necessary when they have enough evidence to convict the guy of any number of things (though they've only charged him with use of WMDs?) and they wanted to know whether there was ongoing danger, others were involved, and what assistance the guy got.

Now that they've mirandized him, my guess is that he basically said, "we did this alone, there are no more bombs or attacks planned."

Even without the Miranda warnings (an advisement of the rights he already has), he has the right to a lawyer at any time, etc... I do think he should have been given a lawyer right away regardless.  This lack of giving him that option, if they did, is more GITMO than I'm comfortable with.
 
2013-04-23 10:00:39 AM

This text is now purple: vygramul: The jury can do whatever the hell it wants once it's behind closed doors. It's called "jury nullification".

And jury nullification is not considered a valid legal move by the jury. They have an obligation not to engage in jury nullification. Whether they do is a separate issue from whether they are supposed to.

No, they don't. See Bushel's case, also US v. Moylan.

It's also explicitly legal in New Hampshire.


Maybe it's just around here, then.
 
2013-04-23 10:02:02 AM

RexTalionis: vygramul: RexTalionis: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

Correct.

TheDumbBlonde: Non-citizens, not so much.

Incorrect.

As an intellectual exercise, dig out a copy of the Bill of Rights and count the number of times it uses the word "citizen."

True enough, yet some rights are not extended to non-citizens, like the right to own an AR-15.

Those same rights are also not extended to certain classifications of citizens - minors, for instance, or felons.

Although I'm fairly sure that a permanent resident alien is within his rights to purchase and own a firearm, depending on the state that he is in.


Aome firearms, yes. But I chose the AR because, in VA at least, you can't buy one if you're not a citizen.
 
2013-04-23 10:03:24 AM

I_C_Weener: Miranda is to keep investigators from stepping on their dicks and invalidating evidence obtained from interviewing the suspect without advising him of his rights.  It isn't necessary when they have enough evidence to convict the guy of any number of things (though they've only charged him with use of WMDs?) and they wanted to know whether there was ongoing danger, others were involved, and what assistance the guy got.

Now that they've mirandized him, my guess is that he basically said, "we did this alone, there are no more bombs or attacks planned."

Even without the Miranda warnings (an advisement of the rights he already has), he has the right to a lawyer at any time, etc... I do think he should have been given a lawyer right away regardless.  This lack of giving him that option, if they did, is more GITMO than I'm comfortable with.


THIS.

(And thanks for the TF by the way)
 
2013-04-23 10:05:10 AM
Why has he not been charged with treason?
 
2013-04-23 10:06:32 AM

way south: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

It is if they want to introduce any of his testimony for a criminal trial.
Anyone advocating they cut corners is more thinking about setting a bad precedent than trying to bury this guy.


And if they have enough to convict him anyway, no interrogation and no Miranda needed.
 
2013-04-23 10:07:04 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Dansker: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

Basic rights in the legal system has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.

When it comes to terrorism, it sure as hell does.


No, when you're charged with a crime under US jurisdiction, you have the same rights in the legal system (representation, speedy trial, right to remain silent etc.) regardless of citizenship.
A foreigner accused of terrorism may be tried in a military court if they fit the definition du jour of an "illegal combatant", but that's a whole different set of rules altogether. In the civilian legal system, everyone is the same.
 
2013-04-23 10:07:07 AM
Right to remain silent?

Like it's voluntary now.
 
2013-04-23 10:07:33 AM
Love the internet lawyering. Misstating the law with confidence and authority.

Miranda is required when there is custodial interrogation. No custody, no Miranda required. No interrogation, no Miranda required.

Police do not read you your rights unless they are going to question you. If you blurt out something on the way to the station, and the cops did not intentionally elicit the statement, it is admissible.

If the cops intentionally elicit a voluntary statement prior to Mirandizing someone, that statement is not admissible, but it may be used for impeachment.

Any voluntary statements are admissible. Any coerced statements are not.

Yada, yada, yada...
 
2013-04-23 10:07:40 AM

soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?


Because he's not guilty of treason?
 
2013-04-23 10:07:52 AM
I'm not sure why people are so confused by the "public safety exemption" or why it was used.

They don't even have to try this kid for they bombing, he was party to the killing of a cop AND to shooting at and throwing explosives at police and federal agents.  That alone is enough to put him away for a VERY VERY long time, if not life.

You don't have to mirandize him to ask him about other bombs that might be there, if he was working with a larger organization that is still dangerous, and where to find any other explosive material.

You just can't use that information at his trial!

But again, they don't have to try him for planting other bombs that they might find and dispose of based on his answers to pre-mirandized questions, but it makes sense to find them.  Knowing that he won't be tried for them might be the incentive to tell investigators where they are.
 
2013-04-23 10:08:57 AM

freewill: Right to remain silent?

Like it's voluntary now.


It's actually amusing. A few years back, the Roberts Court said that to invoke the right to remain silent, you must state that you are, meaning you have to break that silence to invoke it.
 
2013-04-23 10:09:01 AM

Marcus Aurelius: So pray tell me, why in hell would the cops, when apprehending a perpetrator, not mirandize them?


Possibly because he is in no condition at that time to actually understand and reply. Such as having head and neck gunshot wounds. Like this assclown.
 
2013-04-23 10:10:38 AM

FLMountainMan: (And thanks for the TF by the way)


Hold it high, use it wisely.

You are welcome.
 
2013-04-23 10:13:02 AM

enry: Good.  American citizen on American soil.


Uh, he always had the rights, even if the cops didn't explicitly tell him.  "Mirandizing" is just the warning, it doesn't grant rights you already have.  That's why they call them rights.  I'm surprised people still have this fetish for this little speech considering anyone who has seen any cop show should know them already.

It's more important to know if the bomber will be tried in a civilian court (since he's a citizen) or a military tribunal (illegal? Or at least was for a US citizen).

/It's really for the cops' benefits so the person can't claim ignorance later.
//If the cop doesn't Mirandize you, don't assume it's an automatic get out of jail card either.  I wouldn't want to bet on it.
 
2013-04-23 10:19:59 AM
FTFT:
"THE COURT: Mr. Weinreb, what are the maximum penalties?"
"MR. WEINREB (representing the United States as prosecutor): Your Honor, the maximum penalty for each count is death, or imprisonment for any term of years, or life."
"THE COURT: Is there a fine?"
"MR. WEINREB: A fine of up to $250,000."

I don't know why I find amusing the fact that the punishment is death AND a fine, but I do. Maybe because I'm hearing this exchange in my head with Eddie Izzard's voice.

"THE COURT: Will he be allowed access to jam?"
"MR. WEINREB: No, Your Honor. No jams, jellies, preserves, or marmalades of any kind."
 
2013-04-23 10:20:51 AM

nekom: soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?

Because he's not guilty of treason?


He took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses.  That should count.
 
2013-04-23 10:21:08 AM

vygramul: freewill: Right to remain silent?

Like it's voluntary now.

It's actually amusing. A few years back, the Roberts Court said that to invoke the right to remain silent, you must state that you are, meaning you have to break that silence to invoke it.

no, they said that if you're already talking, suddenly clamming up doesn't invoke your right.  They said nothing about a situation where you never talk at all.
 
2013-04-23 10:23:25 AM

mattharvest: vygramul: freewill: Right to remain silent?

Like it's voluntary now.

It's actually amusing. A few years back, the Roberts Court said that to invoke the right to remain silent, you must state that you are, meaning you have to break that silence to invoke it.
no, they said that if you're already talking, suddenly clamming up doesn't invoke your right.  They said nothing about a situation where you never talk at all.


That seems a bit of a distinction without a difference. The dissent used pretty much the words I did, you have to break that silence to invoke it.
 
2013-04-23 10:23:55 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Cythraul: TheDumbBlonde: The bastard is a citizen, he has rights. Non-citizens, not so much.

So if a foreigner visits the U.S. and is accused of a crime, they don't have all the same rights of due process as an American citizen does?

In a word? No.


Citation needed. Our constitution wasn't written that way, and it wasn't written by accident.
 
2013-04-23 10:23:59 AM

FrancoFile: nekom: soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?

Because he's not guilty of treason?

He took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses.  That should count.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That's the definition. Doesn't seem to fit to me, but you can reach your own conclusions.
 
2013-04-23 10:24:43 AM
Good. Now when he gets put in solitary for the rest of his life we can serve him Bacon, Ham, and pulled pork sammies every day.

Oh and give him a puppy.
 
2013-04-23 10:26:53 AM

Marcus Aurelius: mattharvest: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

And the judge and jury are under no obligation to convict someone suffering such a ridiculous miscarriage of justice.

How would it be a miscarriage of justice?  The precise trade-off against not giving the Miranda warnings is to (usually) exclude the gains of any statement made without the warnings.  It would be "ridiculous" to use your word to suggest the whole case be disregarded.

The Miranda warnings are purely about making sure you don't inadvertently testify against yourself and nothing more.  If your statements (or their direct fruit) aren't introduced at trial then there is no self-incrimination, and so no issue.

So pray tell me, why in hell would the cops, when apprehending a perpetrator, not mirandize them?

The only reason I can see is political, which is a lousy reason.  The AG is grandstanding, showing us all what a tough guy he is.


Because they knew for a fact that he had bombs and were worried about, you know...protecting the public from those bombs.  If they have all the evidence they need to convict him already, why wouldn't they look out for the safety of citizens?  It's a no brainer.
 
2013-04-23 10:30:24 AM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: RockSteadyUSMC


It's about damn time. I can't wait to hear the shiat the defense comes up with on this.

From what I hear he is blaming everything on his dead brother.


I was telling my BPD friend that he would probably blame him on Friday. So predictable, you 19 year old runt you.
 
2013-04-23 10:32:22 AM

nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?

Because he's not guilty of treason?

He took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses.  That should count.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That's the definition. Doesn't seem to fit to me, but you can reach your own conclusions.


Really?
 
2013-04-23 10:33:29 AM

FrancoFile: nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?

Because he's not guilty of treason?

He took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses.  That should count.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That's the definition. Doesn't seem to fit to me, but you can reach your own conclusions.

Really?


That only works if Islam in general is "our enemy". What nation were they operating under orders from? Who is their commanding officer?
 
2013-04-23 10:41:14 AM

nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?

Because he's not guilty of treason?

He took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses.  That should count.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That's the definition. Doesn't seem to fit to me, but you can reach your own conclusions.

Really?

That only works if Islam in general is "our enemy". What nation were they operating under orders from? Who is their commanding officer?


Or if we're at war with Chechnya. I have no idea if "Tsarnaev thought America was at war with Chechnya because it's a Christian country and therefore at war with blah blah enemies of Russia blah blah" works, like thinking you're going to fark a child gets you Chris Hansen on your ass even though it's really a 30-yo guy from FBI. But otherwise since all "Christian countries" really aren't the same he can't be charged as making this attack on behalf of Chechen freedom.
 
2013-04-23 10:44:13 AM

nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?

Because he's not guilty of treason?

He took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses.  That should count.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That's the definition. Doesn't seem to fit to me, but you can reach your own conclusions.

Really?

That only works if Islam in general is "our enemy". What nation were they operating under orders from? Who is their commanding officer?


Adhere != under the command of.

They learned to make the bombs from a publication put out by a non-state organization that has declared war on the US. We know that the older brother espoused that organization's philosophy.
 
2013-04-23 10:46:38 AM
Miranda is a privileged, not a right. You gave up your right to Miranda when you chose to commit a crime.
 
2013-04-23 10:48:38 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: way south: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

It is if they want to introduce any of his testimony for a criminal trial.
Anyone advocating they cut corners is more thinking about setting a bad precedent than trying to bury this guy.

/If he doesn't get the death penalty then he's going to be planted under the jail.
/He should get death.  I don't believe he feels a twinge of sorrow and would only spit in the survivors faces if they confronted him.
/There isn't a reason to keep him around once he's said his piece.
/But this isn't about him. Its about how criminal trials for other citizens get handled from now on.

/They are being EXTREMELY careful at this point, giving his defense lawyer NOTHING to object against, and no flaws in the handling of this scumbag.  They want a airtight, no defense, slam dunk win. They are treating him with kid gloves, and every move they make in court is by the book.  I wouldn't wanna be the one to lose this case. Career ender.


Nah. Anyone that loses this case could really rake in the cash at a dunking booth. In fact, I'm worried someone might "throw the fight". We need to make sure none of the prosecution team has any sort of affiliation or infatuation with circuses / circus folk or diving teams.
 
2013-04-23 10:51:37 AM
"PDF Created with pdfFactory trail version"? Damn you sequester! (Or is it the Times being cheap?)
 
2013-04-23 10:54:39 AM

karnal: Mirandized?  Is that when they slowly and painfully peel the skin off your body to get a confession??


You're saying we should sick the Bastard of Bolton on him?
 
2013-04-23 10:56:55 AM
But we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change... We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. "

And without a hint of irony.  Impressive.
 
2013-04-23 10:59:30 AM
Look, we live in a very dangerous world.

Also, I am so very sick of this shiat.  Relative to, I dunno, the entire rest of history, we live in a remarkably safe world - a shiat ton (metric) safer than it was when the constitution was written.
 
2013-04-23 11:00:06 AM
They should have read him his rights immediately. They did so for McVeigh. They did so for the Unabomber. Let's not forget that as despicable as this person is, he is an American citizen in American soil, and is thus afforded the full rights enjoyed by citizens. My understanding is that Miranda rights are fundamental and exist whether or not they are stated by police; since it is his fundamental right, anything he said prior to being read those rights can't be entered as evidence against him. I can see why the government would not read his rights immediately: they think they have a slam-dunk case with a preponderance of evidence and don't need a statement from the defendant to secure a conviction. I find two things troubling, however. First, in the interim between his apprehension and his being read his rights, was he induced to make statements without lawyers present and in unorthodox ways? Second, what is the rubric for the decision to not read Miranda rights to a U.S. citizen in U.S. soil? Is it because he was born abroad? These are dangerous precedents that I believe to be unconstitutional.

/not a lawyer, obviously.
 
2013-04-23 11:01:50 AM

itsdan: Miranda is a privileged, not a right. You gave up your right to Miranda when you chose to commit a crime.


farm9.staticflickr.com

Here's Danny!
Miranda is there to guarantee your constitutional rights aren't trampled.
 
2013-04-23 11:07:55 AM
you all are still blaming republicans for the Miranda thing? it was in Massachusetts, president Obama is the chief of the executive branch.

did congressional republicans get police powers all of a sudden?

/blame the republicans for real things, not this witch hunt shiat.
 
2013-04-23 11:53:25 AM

rikdanger: FTFT:
"THE COURT: Mr. Weinreb, what are the maximum penalties?"
"MR. WEINREB (representing the United States as prosecutor): Your Honor, the maximum penalty for each count is death, or imprisonment for any term of years, or life."
"THE COURT: Is there a fine?"
"MR. WEINREB: A fine of up to $250,000."

I don't know why I find amusing the fact that the punishment is death AND a fine, but I do. Maybe because I'm hearing this exchange in my head with Eddie Izzard's voice.

"THE COURT: Will he be allowed access to jam?"
"MR. WEINREB: No, Your Honor. No jams, jellies, preserves, or marmalades of any kind."


Heh...it's like drunk driving, where they put you in jail...AND take your license.  So you don't drive...in jail.
 
2013-04-23 11:55:30 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: I'm not sure why people are so confused by the "public safety exemption" or why it was used.

They don't even have to try this kid for they bombing, he was party to the killing of a cop AND to shooting at and throwing explosives at police and federal agents.  That alone is enough to put him away for a VERY VERY long time, if not life.

You don't have to mirandize him to ask him about other bombs that might be there, if he was working with a larger organization that is still dangerous, and where to find any other explosive material.

You just can't use that information at his trial!


That is correct if the public safety exception didn't exist. But it does, and they actually  can use that pre-Miranda information. That's why it's an exception - because prosecutors said "hey, we're getting such great information out of these guys before we Mirandize them and we realllllly wanna use it!"
 
2013-04-23 11:56:55 AM
Bit'O'Gristle:
/They are being EXTREMELY careful at this point, giving his defense lawyer NOTHING to object against, and no flaws in the handling of this scumbag.  They want a airtight, no defense, slam dunk win.

 Procedurally, yeah. They may have some problems with the whole interstate commerce issue.
 
2013-04-23 11:59:22 AM

FrancoFile: nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: FrancoFile: nekom: soupafi: Why has he not been charged with treason?

Because he's not guilty of treason?

He took the oath of citizenship under false pretenses.  That should count.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That's the definition. Doesn't seem to fit to me, but you can reach your own conclusions.

Really?

That only works if Islam in general is "our enemy". What nation were they operating under orders from? Who is their commanding officer?

Adhere != under the command of.

They learned to make the bombs from a publication put out by a non-state organization that has declared war on the US. We know that the older brother espoused that organization's philosophy.


I haven't read the underlying case law on treason, but it sure SOUNDS like it's meant to be a "wartime" thing...and we don't have a formal declaration of war.  (haven't since Bulgaria in '42, iirc, but that's another debate)

Last thing you want, as a prosecutor, is to get all snarled up in a debate over the War Powers Resolution, or whatever kludge we're using for the 'war' on (some) terror.
 
2013-04-23 12:47:39 PM
I don't even have a GED in law but would there be an option to plead out to avoid the death penalty?

I'm just asking as a lay person.
 
2013-04-23 12:49:11 PM

Random Name Generator: Well, if his throat is injured forever, and he cannot talk, he's got that right to be silent one down.


See page five - apparently he emitted some croaking noise they interpreted as "no" and his neck is in good enough shape that he can nod.
 
2013-04-23 12:52:39 PM

Tak the Hideous New Girl: I don't even have a GED in law but would there be an option to plead out to avoid the death penalty?

I'm just asking as a lay person.


Yes, if the prosecution agrees. Like, if he had information about a terrorist cell or could finger someone who helped them with the plot, then he could offer to give them that information in exchange for just a life sentence. But if they say no, he can't force it.
 
2013-04-23 01:32:05 PM
Is it too late to waterboard him?  I sure hope not.
 
2013-04-23 01:34:37 PM
FARK-Lawyers question:

If you are being held and questioned, but have not been Mirandized, can you Mirandize yourself?

I mean, just state the criteria (right to silence, right to have a lawyer present, right to a public defender if you can't affor one).
 
2013-04-23 01:39:38 PM

SirHolo: FARK-Lawyers question:

If you are being held and questioned, but have not been Mirandized, can you Mirandize yourself?

I mean, just state the criteria (right to silence, right to have a lawyer present, right to a public defender if you can't affor one).


Yes, though you don't really need to repeat them... You can just assert them. Point is that you already  have those rights - the Miranda warning is just a reminder. But before they Mirandize you, you can still stfu, demand a lawyer, etc.
 
2013-04-23 01:44:01 PM

SirHolo: FARK-Lawyers question:

If you are being held and questioned, but have not been Mirandized, can you Mirandize yourself?

I mean, just state the criteria (right to silence, right to have a lawyer present, right to a public defender if you can't affor one).


Why would you?
 
2013-04-23 01:48:54 PM

mattharvest: SirHolo: FARK-Lawyers question:

If you are being held and questioned, but have not been Mirandized, can you Mirandize yourself?

I mean, just state the criteria (right to silence, right to have a lawyer present, right to a public defender if you can't affor one).

Why would you?


To signal to the cops that you've been arrested before and heard them recited, I suppose, thus giving them even more incentive to question you about your criminal record? :)
 
2013-04-23 01:53:18 PM
Wouldn't he already know his Miranda rights? Everybody in this thread does, and I assume that very few of us have actually been arrested. He'd been in the country for years. If you've seen any cop show or movie or anything, you already know at least a bastardized version of your Miranda rights.

So why not just read him the damn thing so you can move past the formality and start using it as evidence against him. I just don't see him saying at this point, "Oh, I was allowed to have an attorney present? I didn't realize! I take back everything I said."
 
2013-04-23 03:57:29 PM

tennyson: Wouldn't he already know his Miranda rights? Everybody in this thread does, and I assume that very few of us have actually been arrested. He'd been in the country for years. If you've seen any cop show or movie or anything, you already know at least a bastardized version of your Miranda rights.

So why not just read him the damn thing so you can move past the formality and start using it as evidence against him. I just don't see him saying at this point, "Oh, I was allowed to have an attorney present? I didn't realize! I take back everything I said."


It's not really about not reading them to him; it's about not bothering with the issue.  It's about refusing to stop questioning him, despite his invocation of those rights.
 
2013-04-23 04:11:49 PM

mattharvest: It's about refusing to stop questioning him, despite his invocation of those rights.


Well, that makes more sense. Thanks.
 
2013-04-23 04:55:48 PM

bv2112: They should have read him his rights immediately. They did so for McVeigh. They did so for the Unabomber. Let's not forget that as despicable as this person is, he is an American citizen in American soil, and is thus afforded the full rights enjoyed by citizens. My understanding is that Miranda rights are fundamental and exist whether or not they are stated by police; since it is his fundamental right, anything he said prior to being read those rights can't be entered as evidence against him. I can see why the government would not read his rights immediately: they think they have a slam-dunk case with a preponderance of evidence and don't need a statement from the defendant to secure a conviction. I find two things troubling, however. First, in the interim between his apprehension and his being read his rights, was he induced to make statements without lawyers present and in unorthodox ways? Second, what is the rubric for the decision to not read Miranda rights to a U.S. citizen in U.S. soil? Is it because he was born abroad? These are dangerous precedents that I believe to be unconstitutional.

/not a lawyer, obviously.


The difference being that McVeigh and the Unabomber were awake, uninjured, and able to comprehend their rights as read to them.  This guy, not so much, not only does a person have to have the mental faculty to understand their rights, they also have to be of sound mind to receive those rights.  You cannot give Miranda rights to a person all drugged up, in and out of consciousness, etc.

A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court.  It has no memaning in a criminal case.

Statements he made prior to Miranda MAY be admissible, if a judge agrees that they fit the matrix for the public safety exception.

There is NO evidence to suggest that he was questioned without counsel, and in fact, all the evidence suggests that he wasn't.  He was intubated, he was unconscious, during his initial hearing he was only able to muster one audible word.

Miranda has NOTHING to do with citizenship, or being born abroad, or being naturalized.  It has everything to do with providing equal protection under the law.  Zacarias Moussoui was read his rights, he was not ever an American citizen.
 
2013-04-23 04:57:34 PM

LineNoise: Cythraul: vygramul: Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'

Government or any of its agents such as policemen.

That's weird. I thought law enforcement officers were required to read miranda rights to arrested suspects.

Nope, however if you don't anything the witness says\does after the arrest is more than likely going to be inadmissible. So its pretty standard practice in case the guy you arrest decides he is going to spill his guts to you in the cop car on the ride back to the station.

However in this case, they have decided they already have all of the evidence they need, and were just hoping to get some intel out of him before a lawyer told him to shut up.


If he chooses to spill his guts in the back of the squad car, those statements are unprompted, given without question being asked, those statements are admissible anyway.

Miranda ONLY applies to custodial questioning.  Nothing else.
 
2013-04-23 05:16:15 PM
Two points:

1.The "Miranda Warning" protects the cops, not you.  It means that once you've been advised of your rights, what you say is admissible as evidence.

2. There are exceptions, one being the "public safety exception" which means that certain statements may be admissible even if the suspect has not been advised.  The fact that so many people in this thread are misunderstanding this leads me to wonder if they're willfully ignorant.
 
2013-04-24 08:22:35 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court.  It has no memaning in a criminal case.


That's really, really false.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction - i.e. the fact-finder has to agree that the elements of the crime were shown beyond a reasonable doubt - but that's not the standard for questions of excluding evidence, etc.

In fact, the ACTUAL standard for whether or not Miranda rights have been waived is - wait for it - preponderance of evidence.  In other words, the Judge (who makes the decision since it is a legal one, not a factual one) reviews the evidence of waiver and establishes whether by the preponderance of evidence the defendant waived his rights under Miranda.  See, e.g.  Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618

If you don't know the law (and you clearly don't), why are you commenting as if you do?
 
2013-04-24 10:34:24 AM
meh, fark it.
Our sensitive citizens would never stand for giving militant (whatever religion) killers the treatment that the geneva convention seems to call for
and our military refuses to use the death penalty in court cases anyway
So the treatment would be the same as any other public spectacle.

feel free to continue to coddle bad people
and enjoy the fruits of your labor, America.
 
2013-04-25 03:01:36 AM

natas6.0: meh, fark it.
Our sensitive citizens would never stand for giving militant (whatever religion) killers the treatment that the geneva convention seems to call for


He is a civilian criminal in civilian custody, the Geneva conventions are completely irrelevant to his teeatment.
 
2013-04-25 03:42:23 AM

mattharvest: HideAndGoFarkYourself: A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court.  It has no memaning in a criminal case.

That's really, really false.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction - i.e. the fact-finder has to agree that the elements of the crime were shown beyond a reasonable doubt - but that's not the standard for questions of excluding evidence, etc.

In fact, the ACTUAL standard for whether or not Miranda rights have been waived is - wait for it - preponderance of evidence.  In other words, the Judge (who makes the decision since it is a legal one, not a factual one) reviews the evidence of waiver and establishes whether by the preponderance of evidence the defendant waived his rights under Miranda.  See, e.g.  Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618

If you don't know the law (and you clearly don't), why are you commenting as if you do?


No, it's really, really not false.

Look at the statement the poster made that I was referring to.  His insinuation was that a preponderance of the evidence was clearly established to convict the person, and that a confession wasn't necessary.

In the manner he was using it, is has absolutely NO meaning.

If you don't know how to read (and you clearly don't), why are you commenting as if you do?
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report