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.

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

16416 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 11:59 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-25 11:49:15 AM  
They probably don't need him to say anything to convict him, they probably have enough physical evidence.
 
2013-04-25 12:01:13 PM  
The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.
 
2013-04-25 12:01:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:01:58 PM  

Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.


Make it nine and a half.
 
2013-04-25 12:02:25 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 12:03:42 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.


Yes, because there is literally no other way to gain intelligence on a possible operation. Hit the button for more meds, please.
 
2013-04-25 12:03:59 PM  
"If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.
 
2013-04-25 12:04:33 PM  

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.


It was done on purpose and wasn't an oversight.
 
2013-04-25 12:05:14 PM  

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.


It doesn't mean they throw out the whole case, just whatever he said before the reading.  No problem.
 
2013-04-25 12:05:22 PM  

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.


No, I remember reading that since it was classified as a terrorist act, they had the right to immediately question. Or something to that effect.
Also the fact that everything he's said has been reported on somehow, this thing's in the bag. It comes down to now whether or not he gets the death penalty.
 
2013-04-25 12:05:39 PM  

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
 
2013-04-25 12:05:51 PM  
Without him saying a thing they already have enough evidence to convict him.  Trying to explain that he was brainwashed or influenced by his older brother isn't going make the harm that he caused any less.  There is nothing that the defense can pull to keep him out of prison once he's discharged from the hospital.
 
2013-04-25 12:05:51 PM  
He's INNOCENT. HE WAS FRAMED!! His brother's death at the hands of law Enforcement was MURDER. Plain and simple.
/amidoinitrite
 
2013-04-25 12:06:41 PM  

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.


Where the hell are they going to find an impartial jury? He's already been tired and convicted by the media.
 
2013-04-25 12:06:56 PM  

Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.


Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover. I can only imagine the torture the general public would do to this kid
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-04-25 12:07:14 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.


Care to explain how it became 100% impossible to make any additional progress in locating any (potential) others involved?

/holds breath
 
2013-04-25 12:07:36 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.


Oh.

He's an American, he has rights. You can whine about it, but them's the breaks.

// also not "impossible", just "less easy right now"
// Saddam ended up talking to his American guards a whole lot once we made with the Fruity Pebbles and Doritos
 
2013-04-25 12:08:27 PM  

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.


errrrrr.... haven't you been following this? they used a special rule (under the terrorist act) so that they could question him without having to miranda him so that they might get information of accomplices and possible other bombs, etc.

I'd be surprised that under this rule, anything said wouldn't be admissible... he's been miranda(ed), so I'd assume that from now on, anything else said without a lawyer would be an issue.

At this point, this is one of those situations that there is no question about his guilt, all that's left is how much involvement he's had, and the consequences that he'll be facing.
 
2013-04-25 12:08:54 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.


Done in 3.

/and by done I mean the point to where the thread is free of ridiculous hyperbole.
 
2013-04-25 12:09:11 PM  

ChipNASA: He's INNOCENT. HE WAS FRAMED!! His brother's death at the hands of law Enforcement was MURDER. Plain and simple.
/amidoinitrite


The bold was a nice touch. Perhaps some variation with font size could've been the icing on the cake.
 
2013-04-25 12:09:59 PM  

ChipNASA: He's INNOCENT. HE WAS FRAMED!! His brother's death at the hands of law Enforcement was MURDER. Plain and simple.
/amidoinitrite


yes... that the pressure cookers were meant to bring delicious food to the starving crowd.
 
2013-04-25 12:11:40 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:11:46 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.


Wait, what???
 
2013-04-25 12:11:56 PM  
The Russians warned the FBI of these guys a few years ago.

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

c) Doing a heavy metal radio show.
 
2013-04-25 12:13:01 PM  

Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???


Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body
 
2013-04-25 12:13:52 PM  

puddleonfire: MEANWHILE for over 15 years I have been stalked, harassed, provoked and assaulted


Occam's razor says you're crazy. Seek help.
 
2013-04-25 12:15:16 PM  
If you can't (heh-heh)....afford an attorney(heh-heh) ...we.....uh......we'll provide one (hee-hee)...for you..BWAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-04-25 12:15:19 PM  

awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body


Washed up at India Point Park in Providence, RI.  I havent seen anything about how long they think he was in the water.
 
2013-04-25 12:15:19 PM  

awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body


Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.
 
2013-04-25 12:16:43 PM  

Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.


Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.
 
2013-04-25 12:16:48 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.


What's reprehensible about providing a suspect with his constitutional rights? If we can't abide by the rule of law, then we have no moral authority to pass judgment anyway. Justice must mean more than an angry mob.
 
2013-04-25 12:17:36 PM  

Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.


Probably someone who is complains about sensationalized media coverage.
 
2013-04-25 12:19:12 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: puddleonfire: MEANWHILE for over 15 years I have been stalked, harassed, provoked and assaulted

Occam's razor says you're crazy. Seek help.


Don't listen to this guy; he's one of 'them'!
 
2013-04-25 12:19:16 PM  

awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.


No. Sunil Tripathi went missing on March 16, and was reportedly very depressed at the time. He has the sad yet otherwise perfect alibi of being a waterlogged corpse at the time of the bombings.

So much farking noise to signal these days. Google isn't hard, people.
 
2013-04-25 12:20:26 PM  
awalkingecho:
Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

There's some question as to when and how he died, though. He's been missing since March 16th, and probably committed suicide that weekend (weeks before the Boston Marathon bombing). The people who thought they saw him were mostly indulging in wishful thinking.

No, he probably wasn't murdered because of the stories in the news.
 
2013-04-25 12:21:34 PM  

jshine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

What's reprehensible about providing a suspect with his constitutional rights? If we can't abide by the rule of law, then we have no moral authority to pass judgment anyway. Justice must mean more than an angry mob.


awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.


No, he went missing back in MARCH.
 
2013-04-25 12:21:45 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.


There no indication that anyone else was involved, so finding those non-existent people was impossible from the start.
 
2013-04-25 12:22:15 PM  
How we treat suspects of crime (even if it is obvious they did it) is a measure of a healthy society. Sometime down the road I don't want them coming for me when I run a red light because I didn't say equal under the law now.

We have a healthy justice system (except for the rich and famous) why not rely on it and the rules we have established?
 
2013-04-25 12:22:25 PM  
I blame the republicans and the tea party for stealing this guy's right to remain silent.

if only a democratic person were in charge, our constitutional freedoms would have been respected.
 
2013-04-25 12:22:38 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.


We still hold the possibility of the death penalty over his head, and it became impossible?

I'm glad to hear you think torture doesn't work.
 
2013-04-25 12:22:47 PM  

ruta: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.

No. Sunil Tripathi went missing on March 16, and was reportedly very depressed at the time. He has the sad yet otherwise perfect alibi of being a waterlogged corpse at the time of the bombings.

So much farking noise to signal these days. Google isn't hard, people.


Google is hard when your laptop is broken and all you have is m.fark.com
 
2013-04-25 12:22:57 PM  

Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.


Shot while attempting to escape? I'm ok with this, just this once.
 
2013-04-25 12:23:45 PM  
 
2013-04-25 12:24:37 PM  

awalkingecho: ruta: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.

No. Sunil Tripathi went missing on March 16, and was reportedly very depressed at the time. He has the sad yet otherwise perfect alibi of being a waterlogged corpse at the time of the bombings.

So much farking noise to signal these days. Google isn't hard, people.

Google is hard when your laptop is broken and all you have is m.fark.com


It's still easy than making an ass of yourself.
 
2013-04-25 12:24:40 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:25:36 PM  

Coco LaFemme: awalkingecho: ruta: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.

No. Sunil Tripathi went missing on March 16, and was reportedly very depressed at the time. He has the sad yet otherwise perfect alibi of being a waterlogged corpse at the time of the bombings.

So much farking noise to signal these days. Google isn't hard, people.

Google is hard when your laptop is broken and all you have is m.fark.com

It's still easy than making an ass of yourself.


Not really. It doesn't work on this phone properly. I was just repeating what I heard here because I know you are all so knowledgeable
 
2013-04-25 12:26:03 PM  

awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.


It takes five seconds on google to find out that you're full of shiat.  Why post in the first place?
 
2013-04-25 12:26:05 PM  

ruta: No. Sunil Tripathi went missing on March 16, and was reportedly very depressed at the time. He has the sad yet otherwise perfect alibi of being a waterlogged corpse at the time of the bombings.So much farking noise to signal these days. Google isn't hard, people.


To HELL with your facts and timelines! This is our last chance to blame the Tea Party for something!

/NO SAMIL, NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
//amidoinitrite?
 
2013-04-25 12:27:43 PM  
I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that not mirandizing Dzhokhar from the start is going turn the whole thing into a legal train wreck. It's also seems hard to even argue that there could have even been a ticking time bomb scenario given that when he was arrested his whereabouts for the last 24 hours had been mostly accounted for, and that for the better part of the day he was hunkered in boat bleeding. And on top of that, the police ended the lockdown.
 
2013-04-25 12:28:20 PM  

Great Janitor: Without him saying a thing they already have enough evidence to convict him.  Trying to explain that he was brainwashed or influenced by his older brother isn't going make the harm that he caused any less.  There is nothing that the defense can pull to keep him out of prison once he's discharged from the hospital.


Almost certainly not...this is one of those cases where you count life imprisonment for your client as a "win".
 
2013-04-25 12:28:21 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: That isn't the problem. Chances of finding others involved just became impossible.


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.


Lost Thought 00: Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover. I can only imagine the torture the general public would do to this kid

awalkingecho: Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body


Threads like this (and pretty much every one regarding the bombing and aftermath) serve to remind me of just how simply misleading or totally, completely and utterly wrong so much of what you read on the internet actually is.
 
2013-04-25 12:28:24 PM  

legion_of_doo: I blame the republicans and the tea party for stealing this guy's right to remain silent.

if only a democratic person were in charge, our constitutional freedoms would have been respected.


guess which of the three categories you fall into?
 
2013-04-25 12:28:27 PM  

FLMountainMan: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.

It takes five seconds on google to find out that you're full of shiat.  Why post in the first place?


This is not what fark led me to believe and I am currently unable to google
 
2013-04-25 12:28:37 PM  

sure haven't: 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.

No, I remember reading that since it was classified as a terrorist act, they had the right to immediately question. Or something to that effect.
Also the fact that everything he's said has been reported on somehow, this thing's in the bag. It comes down to now whether or not he gets the death penalty.


It has nothing to do with it being a terrorist act. There has long been a 'public safety' exception to Miranda (if you drop a gun somewhere while cops are chasing you they can ask you where it is to avoid someone finding it and hurting themselves/others).

I don't think he stopped talking because he heard the warnings. Everyone knows the warnings just from watching TV. The judge told him he could remain silent at the arraignment, which is also when this guy was assigned a lawyer. I think it is much more likely that he had a discussion with his lawyer that led him to realize his cooperation is the only bargaining chip he has to try and avoid the death penalty, so he is keeping his mouth shut while the defense and prosecution discuss it all.
 
2013-04-25 12:28:41 PM  
you think you know what's going on.

but you don't.
 
2013-04-25 12:29:11 PM  

TigerMWD: ChipNASA: He's INNOCENT. HE WAS FRAMED!! His brother's death at the hands of law Enforcement was MURDER. Plain and simple.
/amidoinitrite

The bold was a nice touch. Perhaps some variation with font size could've been the icing on the cake.


and unnecessarily mixed placed capital letters as well would have topped the *retarded* with a cherry.

/sorry, I'll try harder next time.
 
2013-04-25 12:29:23 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 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.

Oh.

He's an American, he has rights. You can whine about it, but them's the breaks.

// also not "impossible", just "less easy right now"
// Saddam ended up talking to his American guards a whole lot once we made with the Fruity Pebbles and Doritos


Fruity Pebbles?  Really?  hadn't heard that one...it's almost adorable.

/rain snack cakes down on them
 
2013-04-25 12:29:31 PM  
As said before, the problem without Mirandizing him is that anything he said before his official warning is inadmissable as evidence against him.

FTFA:
Sorry to break this to you, but Miranda isn't about protecting your rights. It never was.
Miranda is about giving the police a free pass. It always has been.

The Fifth Amendment is there to make sure we don't have another Star Chamber. We don't want the government using its power to override your free will, and make you confess to a crime so it can punish you. Lots of confessions are purely voluntary. In fact, most probably are. But sometimes the government has to force it out of you, and we don't want that to happen.


But it's hard for courts to tell voluntary confessions from involuntary ones. They have to look at facts and assess things on a case-by-case basis. That's hard. And it's hard for police to know if they're crossing the line, when the line is different for every individual. So the Miranda rule creates an easy line that applies to everyone:
Say the magic words, and the law presumes that the confession was voluntary.


See how easy that was? Not hard. Easy.
 
2013-04-25 12:30:42 PM  

legion_of_doo: I blame the republicans and the tea party for stealing this guy's right to remain silent.

if only a democratic person were in charge, our constitutional freedoms would have been respected.


Time for. www.sabinabecker.com
 
2013-04-25 12:31:09 PM  

cirby: awalkingecho:
Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

There's some question as to when and how he died, though. He's been missing since March 16th, and probably committed suicide that weekend (weeks before the Boston Marathon bombing). The people who thought they saw him were mostly indulging in wishful thinking.


The "missing" poster I saw of that guy was pretty grainy...you could pretty easily THINK you'd seen him anywhere.
 
2013-04-25 12:31:09 PM  
In case no one has said so already, +1 Subby!
HotW material.
 
2013-04-25 12:31:56 PM  

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.


If I remember correctly, the one they brought in to represent him is a Harvard law grad. The state is going to want to bring in one of the best, if only to avoid possibilities of a mistrial or some other loophole that might get him off.
 
2013-04-25 12:32:13 PM  
"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...
 
2013-04-25 12:32:19 PM  

Gunny Highway: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

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


He was already missing for a month wasn't he?
 
2013-04-25 12:32:40 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"

I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.


I used to work with a guy who subsequently went on to defend Ramzi Yousef (1993 WTC bomber). His view: We promise everyone the right to a fair trial, which includes a (theoretically competent) defense for the accused. Someone's got to do the job.

I admit, I have always wondered at the dynamics of the attorney-client relationship in that case, since said defense attorney is Jewish.
 
2013-04-25 12:33:57 PM  

thornhill: I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that 99% of murders in New York City are committed by wealthy, moderately attractive white people.


Dude, did you really just cite Law & Orderto try to illustrate how the American legal system works?  LMFAO.  Between you and awalkingecho, I'm not sure who is funnier.
 
2013-04-25 12:35:40 PM  

Lydia_C: DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"

I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

I used to work with a guy who subsequently went on to defend Ramzi Yousef (1993 WTC bomber). His view: We promise everyone the right to a fair trial, which includes a (theoretically competent) defense for the accused. Someone's got to do the job.


Defense attorneys are absolutely essential, at least under our current legal system, to keep the government in check and avoid a police state.
 
2013-04-25 12:37:13 PM  

imfallen_angel: 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.

errrrrr.... haven't you been following this? they used a special rule (under the terrorist act) so that they could question him without having to miranda him so that they might get information of accomplices and possible other bombs, etc.

I'd be surprised that under this rule, anything said wouldn't be admissible... he's been miranda(ed), so I'd assume that from now on, anything else said without a lawyer would be an issue.

At this point, this is one of those situations that there is no question about his guilt, all that's left is how much involvement he's had, and the consequences that he'll be facing.

Miranda

does not stand for the proposition that LEOs must inform a person of their 5th Amendment rights as a prerequisite to all interrogation, rather it is constitutionally required for statements made during an interrogation to be admitted as evidence at trial.

What I believe you are referring to is that the DOJ is hoping to use is the "public safety" exception to the requirements of  Miranda from  NY v. Quarles. In brief, that exception applies when there is an imminent threat to public safety and LEOs need to know the answer to prevent harm to the public.  In  Quarles, for instance, the police interrogated the suspect about where in an open grocery store he had hid his gun (it was behind a gallon of milk, IIRC).  His statement about the location of the gun was found admissible as evidence against him because the interrogation was a matter of imminent public safety.  In other words, in some circumstances the safety of the public outweighs the right of a person to be read their Miranda rights before making statements to the police.

There is serious doubt about whether the DOJ will be successful in an attempt to extend the public safety exception to this circumstance.  It is, however, unlikely an issue because there appears to be sufficient evidence to convict him outside of whatever he may have said to police.
 
2013-04-25 12:37:15 PM  

FLMountainMan: Dude, did you really just cite Law & Orderto try to illustrate how the American legal system works?


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2013-04-25 12:37:55 PM  

thornhill: I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that not mirandizing Dzhokhar from the start is going turn the whole thing into a legal train wreck. It's also seems hard to even argue that there could have even been a ticking time bomb scenario given that when he was arrested his whereabouts for the last 24 hours had been mostly accounted for, and that for the better part of the day he was hunkered in boat bleeding. And on top of that, the police ended the lockdown.


Then you didn't pay attention to Law & Order, because it was only a train-wreck because the crucial evidence was gathered during illegal interrogation in that show, and even then, they sometimes found more evidence and won anyway. Plus, they never had a public safety exception issue.

/Only a TV show
//Still surprisingly good about the law
 
2013-04-25 12:39:40 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...


I know a lawyer...

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-04-25 12:39:43 PM  

It's his legal right to remain silent.  It's not like they don't have enough info already.  And if he wants any kind of deal, he's going to have to confess to everything.


I have no problem with any of this.

 
2013-04-25 12:41:10 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:41:17 PM  

PanicMan: It's his legal right to remain silent.  It's not like they don't have enough info already.  And if he wants any kind of deal, he's going to have to confess to everything.
I have no problem with any of this.


Maybe, but you never, ever talk to cops.  period.
 
2013-04-25 12:41:28 PM  
Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?
 
2013-04-25 12:41:55 PM  
Best analysis of this case I read said something like this: The fact that the older brother died is the younger brother's greatest weakness AND advantage. Weakness in that it focuses the entire inquiry on him, as the lone surviving suspect. Advantage in that it allows his defense to blame everything they can on a dead guy.
 
2013-04-25 12:42:37 PM  

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 will be represented by Harvard Law graduate Miriam Conrad, and Yale Law graduate William Frick.  They are smart, experienced lawyers.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:39 PM  

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.


There is a 48 hour exceptiin to miranda when public safety is a concern. This bombing fell under those regilations. The DoJ chose to end that exception at 16 hours with the FBI claiming they were getting good information of possible connectiona to others. The brothers were in welfare yet funded gun purchases, 6 month trip to Russia, new car, etc.

A conspiracy theorist would state the DoJ pushed to end the exception for political reasons in pushing the lone wolves theory.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:46 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover. I can only imagine the torture the general public would do to this kid


Did you hear that on CNN or the NY Post? Because I don't believe such a thing happened.
 
2013-04-25 12:44:21 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?


The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.
 
2013-04-25 12:46:18 PM  
I honestly have no idea why they didn't mirandize him on day 1.  Any lawyer worth half a damn would come in to that situation knowing how much physical evidence there is and make a deal that prevents the death penalty in exchange for total candor about what occured.  Make sure the kid knows that any lies will result in the deal being called off and away you go.  It's not like the whole case hinges on his statement, but if some judge somewhere decides that the constitution REALLY SHOULD apply to human beings then enough of a monkey wrench could be thrown into the works to take this away from being a slam dunk conviction.
 
2013-04-25 12:47:57 PM  

reillan: PanicMan: It's his legal right to remain silent.  It's not like they don't have enough info already.  And if he wants any kind of deal, he's going to have to confess to everything.
I have no problem with any of this.

Maybe, but you never, ever talk to cops.  period.


I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:01 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.


I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic about the reprehensible part (I'm they are lawyers after all) but this has always bothered me, why can't people understand that defending scum does not make the lawyer scum (they may have already been scum however). Its bothers me just as much when people can't understand that actors are not there characters. It makes me weep for humanity.
This kid deserves a credible defense, the judge needs to make sure no BS takes place during the trial and the prosecutor needs to seal the deal or in short  Justice.
 
2013-04-25 12:50:42 PM  
edit:
(I mean they're lawyers)

Actors are not their characters
 
2013-04-25 12:51:12 PM  

Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.


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?
 
2013-04-25 12:51:48 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"

I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

Agreed.
Freedom, liberty and justice require us to hold our noses occasionally.
Distateful or not, it is completely necessary for these types of people.


He gets to remain silent because he is an American and it is his right.
He will get legal consul because he is an American and it is his right.
There should be no debate on those two facts no matter what *side* of other political debates you are on.
Full stop.

Hope he talks anyway if there is anything else to add about financing, other actors,etc., though from what is public so far, I doubt it.
 
2013-04-25 12:51:54 PM  

vygramul: thornhill: I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that not mirandizing Dzhokhar from the start is going turn the whole thing into a legal train wreck. It's also seems hard to even argue that there could have even been a ticking time bomb scenario given that when he was arrested his whereabouts for the last 24 hours had been mostly accounted for, and that for the better part of the day he was hunkered in boat bleeding. And on top of that, the police ended the lockdown.

Then you didn't pay attention to Law & Order, because it was only a train-wreck because the crucial evidence was gathered during illegal interrogation in that show, and even then, they sometimes found more evidence and won anyway. Plus, they never had a public safety exception issue.

/Only a TV show
//Still surprisingly good about the law


The show always and obviously greatly compressed all of the procedure and appeals. They're going to use the myranda issue to drag this out for years.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:40 PM  

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.  I guess some cold comfort can be derived that you were wronged by one of the "more intelligent" criminals and not some D-list street thug.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:51 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.

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?


No.
 
2013-04-25 12:53:52 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.

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?


Maybe.  A good defense lawyer might be able to argue somehow -- I dunno how, I'm not a lawyer -- that imminent danger was NOT present and therefore they should have Mirandized him.
 
2013-04-25 12:54:28 PM  

thornhill: They're going to use the myranda issue to drag this out for years.


ONLY if there's evidence gathered from him between his apprehension and their Mirandizing him that is used at trial. Even then, the judge might be swayed by a NY v Quarles argument and ignore it. If there isn't such evidence, there won't even be an avenue for appeal for it.
 
2013-04-25 12:54:44 PM  

MyRandomName: 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.

There is a 48 hour exceptiin to miranda when public safety is a concern. This bombing fell under those regilations. The DoJ chose to end that exception at 16 hours with the FBI claiming they were getting good information of possible connectiona to others. The brothers were in welfare yet funded gun purchases, 6 month trip to Russia, new car, etc.

A conspiracy theorist would state the DoJ pushed to end the exception for political reasons in pushing the lone wolves theory.


wrong, wrong, wrong andddddddddddddd WRONG.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:15 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:17 PM  

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.


They didn't need this testimony for a conviction; they needed it to ensure there were no more bombs or conspirators. They've got this kid dead to rights without him saying a word.
 
2013-04-25 12:56:58 PM  
wow, so many legal experts on Fark.

Oh well, I look forward to the movie.
 
2013-04-25 12:57:00 PM  
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?
 
2013-04-25 12:57:45 PM  

elchupacabra: Sin_City_Superhero: Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.

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?

Maybe.  A good defense lawyer might be able to argue somehow -- I dunno how, I'm not a lawyer -- that imminent danger was NOT present and therefore they should have Mirandized him.


Anything prior to his request would remain inadmissible as well, unless covered by the public safety exception. For example, if he told them why he did it, they couldn't present it as his motive, because that's not covered by the public safety exception, so it would not be admissible unless he subsequently said so after getting a lawyer.
 
2013-04-25 12:58:24 PM  

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?

 
2013-04-25 12:58:54 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.


I take it in irony, that you make such a comment, and yet, have selected your forum name in such a fashion.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:14 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.


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.
 
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.

 
2013-04-25 04:49:35 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.


there are a lot of anti-death penalty folks, and that is always flashy.  I don't know... I can see it.  19 year old kid, dominating older brother, some other factors.  I mean, there's nothing to hang your hat on, but a decent lawyer might get him an extra decade or two of life, or maybe some amenities.
 
2013-04-25 04:53:35 PM  

IRQ12: 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.


the day you try a case before a judge, you can talk about how well prepared you want to be before you make your case.  it's like telling NASA that they only have to do some of the math because everybody knows that mars exists.
 
2013-04-25 04:56:25 PM  
I don't know.  I like to think he will get the needle, but we aren't to far removed from the Casey Anthony verdict.  Anything can happen. What if the jury is a bunch of Alex Jones listeners?
 
2013-04-25 05:16:45 PM  
I do not like this headline. I do not like it one bit.
 
2013-04-25 05:16:46 PM  

<a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" pute%20kisses%20like%20a%20man"="" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.3em;">pute kisses like a man  :

 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.

the day you try a case before a judge, you can talk about how well prepared you want to be before you make your case.  it's like telling NASA that they only have to do some of the math because everybody knows that mars exists.

Of course from a DAs point of view they want everything they can get but to think that his statements are  needed to prosecute him is kind of silly.  Especially when the tradeoff is being able to asses any connections or threats to come.


These aren't bunch of idiots in a small town who are new to this.

 
2013-04-25 05:17:24 PM  
Love the new editor!
 
2013-04-25 05:27:05 PM  
That's a retarded analogy. It would be more like refusing to believe Mars exists because we haven't actually been there.
 
2013-04-25 05:50:55 PM  

IRQ12: People really amuse me when they think that they *need* any statement or evidence from him at all.


It's called police work, in a country where the rule of law applies.

You shouldn't really be amused by this, unless you are ok with the idea of living in a totalitarian state where a despot dictates anyone should be subjected to in spite of evidence, laws and other pesky details.
 
2013-04-25 06:12:19 PM  
What are you on about?
 
2013-04-25 06:12:54 PM  
Actually nm I don't care.
 
2013-04-25 06:13:26 PM  

HAMMERTOE: 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.

Where the hell are they going to find an impartial jury? He's already been tired and convicted by the media.


What's OJs jury up to these days?
 
2013-04-25 06:52:56 PM  

maggoo: IRQ12: People really amuse me when they think that they *need* any statement or evidence from him at all.

It's called police work, in a country where the rule of law applies.

You shouldn't really be amused by this, unless you are ok with the idea of living in a totalitarian state where a despot dictates anyone should be subjected to in spite of evidence, laws and other pesky details.


i think he meant that we don't need any evidence of statements directly from the suspects mouth- as in, we could not interogate him at all and it would not effect the outcome of the trial because the physical, video and circumstantial evidence and witness statements are so overwhelming that his input does not matter one way or the other
 
2013-04-25 07:05:14 PM  

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.


Not a lawyer or anything, but used to take some business and personal law classes in college.  My recollection may be fuzzy, but I think I recall that the Miranda warning's public safety exception, which I'm pretty sure they used here, allows them to use anything obtained before he was Mirandized if they can successfully argue the exception in court.  I suspect the chances of success in that would be high in this case.
 
2013-04-25 07:52:26 PM  

thornhill: I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that not mirandizing Dzhokhar from the start is going turn the whole thing into a legal train wreck. It's also seems hard to even argue that there could have even been a ticking time bomb scenario given that when he was arrested his whereabouts for the last 24 hours had been mostly accounted for, and that for the better part of the day he was hunkered in boat bleeding. And on top of that, the police ended the lockdown.


It wasn't so much for that, I suspect. It was for other possible issues; such as, the tens of thousands of people who were sure to complain when he didn't get read his rights on the boat because of those same episodes of Law & Order; for the dozens of other people Tsarnaev was going to encounter between arrest and incarceration who would be talking to him in a semi-official capacity and who would not necessarily know his Miranda right status; the fact that he was badly wounded and couldn't be expected to understand his rights at the time of arrest anyway and would need to be re-Mirandized; and a whole host of other legal problems.

Because Tsarnaev was so badly injured when he was caught, reading him his rights was a moot point; the subject has to respond "knowingly and voluntarily" to the rights and so someone can't just blurt them out to a barely conscious body lying on the gurney. Delaying the reading ensures nobody can claim later "Oh, we thought he'd been read his rights, so you can/can't talk to him!" on either side of the case.

Likewise, there is another whole body of case law about statements made to doctors, medics, nurses, etc., and what anyone can say while the subject is under a doctor's care. Is the statement part of his treatment, or just a random comment? Is an officer in the room for safety covered by privilege or not? By not Mirandizing Tsarnaev, and thus keeping all his statements outside legal testimony from the defendant, all these questions don't need to be asked.

Also, if he said "Yeah, we planted the bombs," before he got Mirandized, guess what? They can't use those statements against him. Too bad for them.
 
2013-04-25 08:16:34 PM  

jshine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

What's reprehensible about providing a suspect with his constitutional rights? If we can't abide by the rule of law, then we have no moral authority to pass judgment anyway. Justice must mean more than an angry mob.


Kind of like how the Watertown police ignored that whole inconvenient 4th Amendment when they sent the storm troopers to force people at gun point out of their houses to be patted down and their houses searched without a warrant or probable cause?  I'm pretty sure the Founders had EXACTLY this in mind when they wrote that Amendment; the British did house to house searches without warrants.  They didn't want Americans to be subject to this type of intrusion.
 
2013-04-25 08:19:37 PM  

FLMountainMan: Defense attorneys are absolutely essential, at least under our current legal system, to keep the government in check and avoid a police state.

****Attorneys in general have been essential for hundreds of years.
That's why in "King Henry VI Part Two" one of the group of conspirators with Jack Cade who want to overthrow the crown says the well-known line about the first thing they will do is kill all the lawyers.
The line is often misinterpreted as being anti-lawyer, but was Shakespeare's way of saying that lawyers were needed as a way to maintain law and civility, yes, even in the England of the 1400s.

 
2013-04-25 08:37:55 PM  

remus: jshine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

What's reprehensible about providing a suspect with his constitutional rights? If we can't abide by the rule of law, then we have no moral authority to pass judgment anyway. Justice must mean more than an angry mob.

Kind of like how the Watertown police ignored that whole inconvenient 4th Amendment when they sent the storm troopers to force people at gun point out of their houses to be patted down and their houses searched without a warrant or probable cause?  I'm pretty sure the Founders had EXACTLY this in mind when they wrote that Amendment; the British did house to house searches without warrants.  They didn't want Americans to be subject to this type of intrusion.


Guy, known to take hostages, disappears in a residential neighborhood. That's probable cause.

Magistrate on the phone, with pre-made warrants in front of him, just needs to write down the address and sign his name. There's your farkin warrant.

Care to go all "4th Amendment! Gub'mit thugs!" on us again?
 
2013-04-25 08:49:11 PM  

IRQ12: <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" pute%20kisses%20like%20a%20man"="" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.3em;">pute kisses like a man  : 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.

the day you try a case before a judge, you can talk about how well prepared you want to be before you make your case.  it's like telling NASA that they only have to do some of the math because everybody knows that mars exists.Of course from a DAs point of view they want everything they can get but to think that his statements are  needed to prosecute him is kind of silly.  Especially when the tradeoff is being able to asses any connections or threats to come.
These aren't bunch of idiots in a small town who are new to this.


I'm fairly sure that shortly after he invoked his rights a federal prosecutor walked into the room with a big smile on his face and said, "Thank you, The Attorney General wouldn't let me seek the death penalty while you were cooperating.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have to form a fund raising committee and file to run for a congressional seat from Boston.  How does "I got the death penalty for Dzhokhar" sound as a campaign slogan?"
 
2013-04-25 08:53:22 PM  

Rhino_man: remus: jshine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

What's reprehensible about providing a suspect with his constitutional rights? If we can't abide by the rule of law, then we have no moral authority to pass judgment anyway. Justice must mean more than an angry mob.

Kind of like how the Watertown police ignored that whole inconvenient 4th Amendment when they sent the storm troopers to force people at gun point out of their houses to be patted down and their houses searched without a warrant or probable cause?  I'm pretty sure the Founders had EXACTLY this in mind when they wrote that Amendment; the British did house to house searches without warrants.  They didn't want Americans to be subject to this type of intrusion.

Guy, known to take hostages, disappears in a residential neighborhood. That's probable cause.

Magistrate on the phone, with pre-made warrants in front of him, just needs to write down the address and sign his name. There's your farkin warrant.

Care to go all "4th Amendment! Gub'mit thugs!" on us again?


Fine, give them the pre-made warrant.  Keep in mind that, probable cause requires more than simply the wanted criminal disappeared somewhere within a twenty block radius of your house.  If that were the standard, every house in any remotely large city could be searched 24/7 as there are criminals all over.  The judge almost certainly would require more than just "well, we lost him and would like to search every house anywhere even remotely close to where we lost him".  I'm thinking the judge would want a trail leading to the house, a broken window, a blood smear, etc.  Just SOMETHING that provides some basis for articulating that they reasonably believe the suspect may be in a given home.  You can't search house to house just because you want the guy.

But, a warrant, would have been following the LAW.  What they did was to go martial law illegally.  They should have went to each door, knocked, identified themselves, and asked for permission to search.  If the residents declined, then they could ask a judge for a proper warrant, and then conduct the search properly.  What they did was to shove guns in people's faces, force them out of their house while yelling at them, frisk them down roughly, force them out of their own homes, and then conduct a warrant-less search of the premises.

Here's a news reporter showing some of what they did:

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html
 
2013-04-25 11:52:18 PM  
The silence came sixteen hours after law enforcement began interrogating

Hospitalized in serious condition with multiple gunshot wounds and massive blood loss suspect runs out of steam after only 16 hours of interrogation?

Pussy.
 
2013-04-26 12:13:09 AM  

Civil Discourse: Miranda does not stand for the proposition that LEOs must inform a person of their 5th Amendment rights as a prerequisite to all interrogation, rather it is constitutionally required for statements made during an interrogation to be admitted as evidence at trial.


Miranda is a constitutional right? Did I read that right? It is not.
 
2013-04-26 04:31:44 PM  
You want to know why? I know exactly why he did it. Dzhokhar, that is, not Tamerlan. I couldn't begin to guess at Tamerlan as he seems to have been a far more complicated and conflicted person. But Dzhokhar's motivation is easy.

Ennui. That's it. Talk to young people. Really talk to them. Hear what they have to say. There's a damn sizable portion of young people who could, right this very second, snap and say "fark it" and go down the same path. Nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with ethnicity or citizenship status. There are tons of young people who could quite literally just decide to knife family members, shoot up schools, plant bombs in crowded areas, and so on. They don't have mental problems. They come as often from good backgrounds as they do from bad ones. They just have ennui. Either they feel too much or not enough, even that doesn't really matter. Eventually some of them just stop caring and stop trying. They all have these odd fantasies. A few of them wind up acting on them. It's an attempt to combat the feeling of being powerless. Even those deemed most likely to succeed are just as likely to want to accomplish anything, especially something so drastic.

It's just disaffected youth. No more, no less. There's nothing special about it and it's not even a new phenomenon. It's been there for ages, we just have this grand ability to communicate nigh-instantly which makes it seem bigger than it really is. There's nothing proactive you can do to stop it. It's going to happen again. All we can do is live with it and maybe next time it won't be as bad. Maybe the next guy will get caught before he has a chance to hurt anyone.

The only thing I find strange at this point is that anyone is surprised or shocked by these happenings. We are a nation of murders, shootings, bombings, and wars. There's more on the way, folks, you should be keenly aware of that by now. If I wind up being a victim I'll hate the pain and the frustration if I survive, but I'm not going to pretend to be surprised about it.
 
2013-04-26 08:22:12 PM  
Whether read to him or not he always had the right to remain silent.  The difference is what is admissible in court.
 
Displayed 173 of 173 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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