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.

(Newser)   Dzhokhar: "So anyway we planted the bombs and then I have the right to what now?"   (newser.com) divider line 173
    More: Obvious, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, federal public defender, bill of rights, home runs, Tsarnaev  
•       •       •

16391 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 01:02:11 PM

vygramul: Right. If a cop asks you if you know where a particular guy lives who has been burglarizing homes in your neighborhood, there's absolutely no upside to telling them if you know. No upside at all.


Where I come from, snitches get stiches, so...yeah. No upside.
 
2013-04-25 01:03:31 PM
He wrote everything down, so he retained his right to remain "silent" and he didn't "say" anything. He sure wrote down a lot of stuff though.
 
2013-04-25 01:03:31 PM

Gunny Highway: Washed up at India Point Park in Providence, RI. I havent seen anything about how long they think he was in the water.


Link to a NY Daily News article.
 
2013-04-25 01:03:43 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Sin_City_Superhero: So if they were questioning him without Mirandizing him, and he said "I'd like a lawyer, now" they'd have to stop the interrogation, or else everything he said AFTER that point would be inadmissable, but anything said prior to his request would still be admissable, correct?

vygramul: No.

Could you kindly elaborate, please. Which part did I get wrong, and can you please explain why it's wrong?


Everything prior to his being Mirandized, except for things covered by the public safety exception, are inadmissible, including the things he said before he said, "I'd like a lawyer." The public safety exception applies to imminent threats to public safety, like the locations of bombs he might have planted. It does not apply to things like whether he set the bombs off.
 
2013-04-25 01:04:21 PM

Tommy Moo: With this article now in mind, do the ACLU members in the thread now understand why it was important for them to not Mirandize the kid the moment he woke up?


Non-ACLU member.

I don't have a problem with him exercising his rights.  They are a RIGHT!  They're not something to make it harder for the cops to do their job.  Not something that can be ignored because we need information fast and quick.

He should have been mirandized immediately.  I have to wonder how much of anything he said even if he had talked after being read his rights would be allowed in a court of law.  All a smart lawyer would need to do is bring in his medical charts and a doctor to testify that anyone under the influence of that many pain killers should be considered mentally incapacitated.
 
2013-04-25 01:06:50 PM
"Right after hearing his Miranda rights read, he stopped talking, "
See? Fox News was right! This is why we shouldn't give rights to people we don't like!

/it's like one false-flag operation after another until all our rights are gone
 
2013-04-25 01:07:03 PM

jehovahs witness protection: vernonFL: They probably don't need him to say anything to convict him, they probably have enough physical evidence.

That isn't the problem. Chances of finding others involved just became impossible.


That happened when his brother died.
 
2013-04-25 01:07:55 PM
The idea that this alleged criminal has no rights is absurd.  We don't get to choose which citizens get Constitutional rights and which don't -- all citizens do.  If we're to discriminate who is protected under the Constitution and who is not, then we might as well just abolish the Constitution, declare the terrorists the victors and say good bye to the United States of America.  Sorry, but it's equal protection for all or for none.  There is no room in between.
 
2013-04-25 01:08:58 PM

BizarreMan: Tommy Moo: With this article now in mind, do the ACLU members in the thread now understand why it was important for them to not Mirandize the kid the moment he woke up?

Non-ACLU member.

I don't have a problem with him exercising his rights.  They are a RIGHT!  They're not something to make it harder for the cops to do their job.  Not something that can be ignored because we need information fast and quick.

He should have been mirandized immediately.  I have to wonder how much of anything he said even if he had talked after being read his rights would be allowed in a court of law.  All a smart lawyer would need to do is bring in his medical charts and a doctor to testify that anyone under the influence of that many pain killers should be considered mentally incapacitated.


The controlling Supreme Court case is New York v Quarles. The public safety exception is a narrow one, and Mirandizing him is really optional for the government anyway. It has no obligation to Mirandize people if they don't use any evidence gathered after arrest in criminal proceedings.
 
2013-04-25 01:12:42 PM

Tommy Moo: With this article now in mind, do the ACLU members in the thread now understand why it was important for them to not Mirandize the kid the moment he woke up?


I don't know why this is still an issue myself. the authorities got information out of him that was at least interesting if not informative, and there's still plenty of evidence that doesn't require a verbal admission of guilt to put him away.

/the whole thing about republitard congressmen saying "no Miranda" was dumb, but they are the legislative branch. it's a non issue except for the easily outraged.
 
2013-04-25 01:15:14 PM

vygramul: Right. If a cop asks you if you know where a particular guy lives who has been burglarizing homes in your neighborhood, there's absolutely no upside to telling them if you know. No upside at all.


How do you know if the cop isn't setting you up as a possible suspect or an accomplice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
 
2013-04-25 01:15:55 PM

vygramul: Everything prior to his being Mirandized, except for things covered by the public safety exception, are inadmissible, including the things he said before he said, "I'd like a lawyer." The public safety exception applies to imminent threats to public safety, like the locations of bombs he might have planted. It does not apply to things like whether he set the bombs off.


Got it. Thanks.
 
2013-04-25 01:17:21 PM

legion_of_doo: /the whole thing about republitard congressmen saying "no Miranda" was dumb, but they are the legislative branch. it's a non issue except for the easily outraged.


The legislative branch legislates has the power to pass laws.  They make the rules.  If they state "no Miranda", they are all too capable of making that stick, particularly in a knee-jerk-prone time like this.
 
2013-04-25 01:22:04 PM

AndreMA: There no indication that anyone else was involved, so finding those non-existent people was impossible from the start.


How sure are you?  Considering the number of people who, out of nowhere and for no reason at all, start assembling homemade bombs to detonate on public events, this is something which in the very least deserves some detective work.
 
2013-04-25 01:26:36 PM

maggoo: vygramul: Right. If a cop asks you if you know where a particular guy lives who has been burglarizing homes in your neighborhood, there's absolutely no upside to telling them if you know. No upside at all.

How do you know if the cop isn't setting you up as a possible suspect or an accomplice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik


The proposal under discussion is not whether there is a downside, but whether there cannot be an upside.
 
2013-04-25 01:26:42 PM

palan: olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.

nope.  There's a public safety exception that was invoked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona


umm, you realize that only applies in California, right?
 
2013-04-25 01:28:48 PM

maggoo: legion_of_doo: /the whole thing about republitard congressmen saying "no Miranda" was dumb, but they are the legislative branch. it's a non issue except for the easily outraged.

The legislative branch legislates has the power to pass laws.  They make the rules.  If they state "no Miranda", they are all too capable of making that stick, particularly in a knee-jerk-prone time like this.


They are not. It requires a constitutional amendment, which is outside the sole power of the legislators. It requires the states to also agree. Even in times like this, that's a very high bar.
 
2013-04-25 01:29:01 PM

vygramul: Sin_City_Superhero: Mercutio74: vygramul: I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.

Regardless, the smart move is always to say nothing.

True dat. Talking to the cops will NOT help you. Period. And it may cause great harm to you. There is NO UPSIDE to talking to the police, and there is a potentially huge downside. Cops are NOT your friends. Don't talk to them.

Right. If a cop asks you if you know where a particular guy lives who has been burglarizing homes in your neighborhood, there's absolutely no upside to telling them if you know. No upside at all.


You tell a lawyer who then tells the cops.
 
2013-04-25 01:30:30 PM

metallion: "If you can't afford an attorney, we will find the dumbest mother-farking lawyer who's stupid enough to take this case..'.

Paraphrased, but from where, I can't remember...


Lethal Weapon 4

And if you get Johnny Cochran I'm going to kick your ass
 
2013-04-25 01:32:06 PM

maggoo: legion_of_doo: /the whole thing about republitard congressmen saying "no Miranda" was dumb, but they are the legislative branch. it's a non issue except for the easily outraged.

The legislative branch legislates has the power to pass laws.  They make the rules.  If they state "no Miranda", they are all too capable of making that stick, particularly in a knee-jerk-prone time like this.


I realize republicans are the devil, but that would have to be legislated through both houses, signed into law by the president, and pass muster before the courts.

grandstanding by congress critters is more amusing than dangerous.

/ let's see that sensible gun control thing work
 
2013-04-25 01:34:26 PM

Tommy Moo: With this article now in mind, do the ACLU members in the thread now understand why it was important for them to not Mirandize the kid the moment he woke up?


Cut the conservative straw man bullshiat. Most of us who understood the circumstances,  are ACLU members and/or otherwise understand the rights at hand and their circumstances and application.  Most of the people continuing to herp-a-derp about this after it was explained to them, were ODS sufferers and outright morons.  Are most of us who know our rights, liberties, and their application entirely happy with this? Well, obviously not, but on the other hand we understand nuance and context.

Besides, Mirandizing the kid "the moment he woke up"? The kid was in recovery, and probably on painkillers if not narcotics -- in other words,  non compos mentisand legally incapable of consent.
 
2013-04-25 01:36:40 PM

vygramul: Everything prior to his being Mirandized, except for things covered by the public safety exception, are inadmissible, including the things he said before he said, "I'd like a lawyer."


Even that is a gross-oversimplification of things. Spontaneous statements, questions which aren't expected to illicit incriminating responses, pedigree information... Hell, even if he asks for a lawyer some jurisdictions allow him to then waive that right before any lawyer shows up.

Miranda warnings are not some magical point in time that determines which statements are admissible and which aren't. Things said prior to the warnings can be found admissible and things said after them can be found inadmissible.

And you can bet there are facts relevant to this issue that we won't know until motions get filed many months from now (such as, what medication was he on, who was in the room, did he offer to talk or did someone make him a promise, etc.).
 
2013-04-25 01:41:27 PM

legion_of_doo: republitard congressmen saying "no Miranda" was dumb


I don't even understand why this was discussed in the first place. Nobody needed to come out publicly and say "public safety exception" or "we aren't giving him Miranda warnings yet." They could have just done what they wanted to do and argued about it in court later. Even with the public announcements, the arguments will be exactly the same.
 
2013-04-25 01:43:20 PM

Cork on Fork: vygramul: Everything prior to his being Mirandized, except for things covered by the public safety exception, are inadmissible, including the things he said before he said, "I'd like a lawyer."

Even that is a gross-oversimplification of things. Spontaneous statements, questions which aren't expected to illicit incriminating responses, pedigree information... Hell, even if he asks for a lawyer some jurisdictions allow him to then waive that right before any lawyer shows up.

Miranda warnings are not some magical point in time that determines which statements are admissible and which aren't. Things said prior to the warnings can be found admissible and things said after them can be found inadmissible.

And you can bet there are facts relevant to this issue that we won't know until motions get filed many months from now (such as, what medication was he on, who was in the room, did he offer to talk or did someone make him a promise, etc.).


All true.
 
2013-04-25 01:44:05 PM

ShadowKamui: pute kisses like a man: Zombie DJ: If you can't (heh-heh)....afford an attorney(heh-heh) ...we.....uh......we'll provide one (hee-hee)...for you..BWAHAHAHAHAHA

he'll get a good attorney.  high profile cases like that attract attorneys who want to make a name for themselves.  i don't blame them, it's what you do as a foot soldier of democracy and liberty.  and everyone deserves a competent defense.  fortunately for justice, this guy is toast.

/ i blame bad investigators, not good defense attorneys, for bad guys getting away.
// i do feel sorry if this goes to a public defender though, cause it's going to ruin their social life. at least the high profile goon wants the publicity.  public defenders usually just want to do good.  and, depending on where you live, some places have excellent public defenders.  I would assume boston would.  you have great legal universities and lots of almost sympathetic criminals.  the perfect mix for a public defender.

For what?  They got him on car jacking, manslaughter of his brother, murder of the MIT cop, attempted murder of hundreds of police officers & random bombing.  Hell they could charge him for reckless driving, trespassing and graffiti for bleeding all over that guys boat.   And that's only for his escape attempt on Thursday/Friday.  They don't need to use anything he said in the hospital to convict him, that's all Miranda covers.  He's also a poor college kid, so the only people who are likely to touch the case are anti-death penalty folks.


not sure if you meant to quote me.  i didn't say anything about miranda or not being able to convict.  i said he was toast.  as in, farking cicero isn't getting this guy out of jail.  I don't think the miranda warning is a big deal.  they weren't looking for a confession, they were looking for more bombs and other people.  whether they got a confession or not, I'd be surprised if it was prohibited.  since, there's a public safety exception, and this one pretty much falls right into the exception.
 
2013-04-25 01:53:42 PM

vygramul: All true.


If only my clients were as accepting of my opinions...
 
2013-04-25 01:54:29 PM

pute kisses like a man: ShadowKamui: pute kisses like a man: Zombie DJ: If you can't (heh-heh)....afford an attorney(heh-heh) ...we.....uh......we'll provide one (hee-hee)...for you..BWAHAHAHAHAHA

he'll get a good attorney.  high profile cases like that attract attorneys who want to make a name for themselves.  i don't blame them, it's what you do as a foot soldier of democracy and liberty.  and everyone deserves a competent defense.  fortunately for justice, this guy is toast.

/ i blame bad investigators, not good defense attorneys, for bad guys getting away.
// i do feel sorry if this goes to a public defender though, cause it's going to ruin their social life. at least the high profile goon wants the publicity.  public defenders usually just want to do good.  and, depending on where you live, some places have excellent public defenders.  I would assume boston would.  you have great legal universities and lots of almost sympathetic criminals.  the perfect mix for a public defender.

For what?  They got him on car jacking, manslaughter of his brother, murder of the MIT cop, attempted murder of hundreds of police officers & random bombing.  Hell they could charge him for reckless driving, trespassing and graffiti for bleeding all over that guys boat.   And that's only for his escape attempt on Thursday/Friday.  They don't need to use anything he said in the hospital to convict him, that's all Miranda covers.  He's also a poor college kid, so the only people who are likely to touch the case are anti-death penalty folks.

not sure if you meant to quote me.  i didn't say anything about miranda or not being able to convict.  i said he was toast.  as in, farking cicero isn't getting this guy out of jail.  I don't think the miranda warning is a big deal.  they weren't looking for a confession, they were looking for more bombs and other people.  whether they got a confession or not, I'd be surprised if it was prohibited.  since, there's a public safety exception, and this one pretty much falls ...


The point is no lawyer is touching this pro-bono except the anti-death penalty ones, there's not going to be anything flashy to try and make a name for yourself otherwise.
 
2013-04-25 02:03:25 PM
They'll get around anything he might have said to police by having the carjack hostage testify. He said they admitted doing the bombing. Even as is there are more than enough charges that can be piled against him post bombing that Miranda means very little here.
 
2013-04-25 02:03:52 PM
If true, it's interesting that he went quiet as soon as he was read his miranda warning.  It kinda implies he didn't know he had the right to remain silent.  Which seems absurd that someone could make it all the way through some college and not know you have the right to remain silent.
 
2013-04-25 02:10:24 PM

ShadowKamui: The point is no lawyer is touching this pro-bono except the anti-death penalty ones, there's not going to be anything flashy to try and make a name for yourself otherwise.


Well if that's the case, fark it, no need to waste more tax dollars on this pissant than the quarter's worth of lead we can put in his head right now and be done with it.
 
2013-04-25 02:11:29 PM

farkingatwork: palan: olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.

nope.  There's a public safety exception that was invoked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

umm, you realize that only applies in California, right?


I listed it just as a way to establish that the exception exists and that the cops are likely within legal boundaries to not mirandize.   I should have followed it a bit more and listed better sources. Either the  Miranda rights wiki page or NY v. Quarles where it was established by the supreme court.

But, i'm not a lawyer and the trial will probably figure out if it's correct useage of the exception.
 
2013-04-25 02:17:48 PM

RelativeEase: If true, it's interesting that he went quiet as soon as he was read his miranda warning.  It kinda implies he didn't know he had the right to remain silent.  Which seems absurd that someone could make it all the way through some college and not know you have the right to remain silent.


I'd suspect the multiple bullet holes and massive blood loss made him a bit forgetful.

More likely, though, is the probability that he suddenly realized how deep he was in when they Mirandized him.
 
2013-04-25 02:23:37 PM

that bosnian sniper: no need to waste more tax dollars on this pissant than the quarter's worth of lead we can put in his head


Haven't bought ammo in a while, have ya?
 
2013-04-25 02:24:09 PM

puddleonfire: MEANWHILE for over 15 years I have been stalked, harassed, provoked and assaulted by FBI Counterintel and SSG and gangstalkers for......


Have you considered that you're farking crazy? Cause any mention of gangstalking is a big red flag for the crazy.
 
2013-04-25 02:27:09 PM

powtard: The idea that this alleged criminal has no rights is absurd.  We don't get to choose which citizens get Constitutional rights and which don't -- all citizens do.  If we're to discriminate who is protected under the Constitution and who is not, then we might as well just abolish the Constitution, declare the terrorists the victors and say good bye to the United States of America.  Sorry, but it's equal protection for all or for none.  There is no room in between.


Unfortunately rights and due process are based on a sliding scale.  The more horrific and distasteful the act the fewer rights the accused has.  This also carries over to the jury system.  The preponderance of evidence scale is directly proportional to the imagery and sensibilities the prosecutor can paint.
 
2013-04-25 02:30:49 PM
To ber fair to the FBI before they'd done this they merely looked like a dickhead with fundamentalist views and his little brother.
The Russian government saying they were subversive is practically a character reference seeing as how Putipoots routinely cries wolf over suspicious types like journalists,  democrats, punk girls, people who look at him funny etc etc
 
2013-04-25 02:33:27 PM

StoPPeRmobile: olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.

That was before a certain day. When everything changed.


hawkdog.net
 
2013-04-25 02:34:07 PM

ethics-gradient: To ber fair to the FBI before they'd done this they merely looked like a dickhead with fundamentalist views and his little brother.
The Russian government saying they were subversive is practically a character reference seeing as how Putipoots routinely cries wolf over suspicious types like journalists,  democrats, punk girls, people who look at him funny etc etc


...which is especially funny for a person who tries to cultivate an "I can wrestle a bear to the ground with one hand tied behind my back" macho image.
 
2013-04-25 02:35:04 PM

palan: olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.

nope.  There's a public safety exception that was invoked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona


There is no "invoking" it and things said are automatically admissible. The defense will still motion to suppress what he said beforehand, the prosecutor's will still argue that it should fall under the public safety exception.

Based on what the PSE was designed for, it would not suprise me at all if the judge ruled against the prosecution, and suppressed it.

That being said, I don't trust unnamed sources.  Until this goes to trial, nobody will know anything even remotely close to what has taken place in that hospital room the past week or so.
 
2013-04-25 02:48:25 PM

RelativeEase: If true, it's interesting that he went quiet as soon as he was read his miranda warning.  It kinda implies he didn't know he had the right to remain silent.  Which seems absurd that someone could make it all the way through some college and not know you have the right to remain silent.


unless they told him that they were operating under the public safety exception and therefore they were not going to mirandize him or allow him a lawyer until they'd determined there was no further threat. once he was mirandized he stopped talking because he was out of that unique status.
 
2013-04-25 02:49:02 PM
Honestly, after the brothers killed that MIT cop, I really wasn't expecting him to be taken alive out of that boat.
 
2013-04-25 02:51:43 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Mercutio74: vygramul: I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.

Regardless, the smart move is always to say nothing.

True dat. Talking to the cops will NOT help you. Period. And it may cause great harm to you. There is NO UPSIDE to talking to the police, and there is a potentially huge downside. Cops are NOT your friends. Don't talk to them.


So if I see a guy get murdered and I know who did it, I should say nothing and let him get away with it. Got it.
 
2013-04-25 02:55:15 PM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Until this goes to trial, nobody will know anything even remotely close to what has taken place in that hospital room the past week or so.


Even then, the words "filed under seal" and "redacted" are going to be quite popular. I don't think the public will ever know who was in that room or what kind of questions they were asking (beyond, "did you do it and did you act alone").
 
2013-04-25 03:03:14 PM
If he ends up on "Bomber's Row" in Florence, Colorado, him and the rest of the bombers should form a band.  I'm thinking they could call themselves the  B-52's.
 
2013-04-25 03:09:58 PM

Jument: Sin_City_Superhero: Mercutio74: vygramul: I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.

Regardless, the smart move is always to say nothing.

True dat. Talking to the cops will NOT help you. Period. And it may cause great harm to you. There is NO UPSIDE to talking to the police, and there is a potentially huge downside. Cops are NOT your friends. Don't talk to them.

So if I see a guy get murdered and I know who did it, I should say nothing and let him get away with it. Got it.


Not without a lawyer present you shouldn't.
 
2013-04-25 03:32:43 PM

A Terrible Human: puddleonfire: MEANWHILE for over 15 years I have been stalked, harassed, provoked and assaulted by FBI Counterintel and SSG and gangstalkers for......

Have you considered that you're farking crazy? Cause any mention of gangstalking is a big red flag for the crazy.


So "gangstalking" is completely new to me, and a few minutes on the intertubes led me to discovering something utterly astounding - there is an actual medical condition known as
Exploding head syndrome
 
2013-04-25 03:39:58 PM
IANAL, etc, but...

The way I understand it, once you're in custody you have Miranda rights whether anyone's told you about them yet or not.

I understand the principle behind waiting to TELL someone they can have a lawyer, but I think a suspect can still choose to excercise their rights at any time, even before he's been read them.  So, if the first words out of this guy's mouth when he climbed out of the boat were "get me my attorney", I think that would have trumped any clever plan to not "remind him" about his rights until later on.

Anyone out there who's watched more Law and Order than me that could clarify?
 
2013-04-25 03:57:36 PM

Highroller48: The way I understand it, once you're in custody you have Miranda rights whether anyone's told you about them yet or not.


I'm also not a lawyer, but you are correct.

*puts on teabagger hat* Rights are from God, NOT the Government!!1! *takes off teabagger hat*
 
2013-04-25 04:03:28 PM

Highroller48: IANAL, etc, but...

The way I understand it, once you're in custody you have Miranda rights whether anyone's told you about them yet or not.

I understand the principle behind waiting to TELL someone they can have a lawyer, but I think a suspect can still choose to excercise their rights at any time, even before he's been read them.  So, if the first words out of this guy's mouth when he climbed out of the boat were "get me my attorney", I think that would have trumped any clever plan to not "remind him" about his rights until later on.

Anyone out there who's watched more Law and Order than me that could clarify?


Mostly right, as I understand it

Essentially, any custodial interrogation can only be done after they remind you of your rights. Asking questions before the Miranda warning means that the answers to those questions will be inadmissible as evidence. Also, any further evidence gathered as a result of those questions is also inadmissible (as fruit of the poisonous tree).

Of course, if they already have enough evidence, they may not care about questioning you, and so might not read you your rights at all. I used to have a friend who was a criminal defense attorney who summarized it like this:

Defendant: "They never read me my rights"
Attorney: "Did they ask you any questions?"
Defendant: "No"
Attorney: "Then it doesn't matter"

However.

There are cases where, in the interest of public safety, the police will ask the suspect questions right away, without a Miranda warning, because time is of the essence - a tossed weapon, possible additional bombs,  etc. In those cases, the answers and any found evidence are still admissible  under the appropriately named Public Safety Exception, even if he asked for an attorney and didn't get one. But the longer the pre-Miranda questioning goes on, and the further afield from immediate safety concerns it goes, the more likely it is that the Court will disallow the public safety exception when it all goes to trial and rule all of the subsequent information inadmissible

And that's what my GED in law taught me
 
2013-04-25 04:30:34 PM

People really amuse me when they think that they *need* any statement or evidence from him at all.  Without the crimes at the marathon they have enough, with eye witnesses (to include police), to ship him away for life.


I guess if you care about the death penalty, but the officer shooting probably carries the death penalty anyway.

 
Displayed 50 of 173 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