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

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






Report