Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4698 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 9:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report