orclover: He shouldnt have a lawyer, he should not have been read his rights. He has publicly declared himself in league with an enemy force currently at war with the united states. He should have dissapeard from police custody and never been heard from again by the public while getting raped and waterboarded by saudi torture experts.This half in/half out shiat is going to bite us in the ass. Either hes the enemy or he's just some farking criminal, pick one and treat him as such.
CigaretteSmokingMan: Yes he does.
Weaver95: i'm gonna disagree with you there - the cops had little reason to believe there was additional devices that might cause a threat. the city was in lock down after all, and everyone was at home. damage (if any) would have been minimal. the cops had time to play it straight and didn't. what that means to the prosecution, I don't know...probably nothing, since I think we're gonna throw our rulebook out on this one.
Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.
orclover: Either hes the enemy or he's just some farking criminal, pick one and treat him as such.
Weaver95: oh I don't think there was any further threat to public safety at that point.
Tatsuma: Weaver95: oh I don't think there was any further threat to public safety at that point.Yes there could have been.1. They could have mailed bombs to politicians or citizens2. They could have planted bombs in the three days and a half free they had3. They could have been working with others who had bombs and were ready to go4. They could [fill in]It was the FBI's job to ascertain it wasn't the case.
Weaver95: Tatsuma: Weaver95: would YOU want to take that sort of risk? there was plenty of time to do this one by the numbers. they should have gotten him a lawyer.No, they didn't have time:1. He was in critical condition; and, more importantly2. They didn't know if there were other devices about to explodeWhen they ascertained he wasn't going to die and that was it, he was mirandized and they let get a lawyer and stay silent.i'm gonna disagree with you there - the cops had little reason to believe there was additional devices that might cause a threat. the city was in lock down after all, and everyone was at home. damage (if any) would have been minimal. the cops had time to play it straight and didn't. what that means to the prosecution, I don't know...probably nothing, since I think we're gonna throw our rulebook out on this one.
Tatsuma: .... no he doesn't, the government gave him those lawyers and they've declared that that was it. Not sure why, but they've done so in the past.
Weaver95: Tatsuma:That is downright wrong, by the time he was in the hospital, the curfew had already been lifted, and we don't know where they could have planted or dropped bombs. They could have mailed some for all they knew.very unlikely, and not a scenario matching the level of expertise shown by these two idiots. if there had been any level of danger then why lift the curfew in the first place? are you saying the cops thought there was a danger to the public and let everyone out in the streets...? the more logical scenario is that the cops didn't believe there to BE any public danger once they'd made their capture, but they didn't feel like following the rule book 'cause they were downright PISSED OFF at the surviving bomber.
skinink: Before some of you say it was okay for the authorities to run roughshod over the law, you should realize that things like Miranda rights came about because some criminal took this issue to court. Your going down a slippery slope to think you can judge who does and does not get protection under the law. Same for right to free speech which is why you see the ACLU defending all kinds of evil people and their rights.
The Muthaship: If so, I'm okay with trying to find out if there were other present threats he knew of, even if it meant infringing on his 5th amendment rights.
Weaver95: very unlikely,
Weaver95: so you are saying that the curfew was lifted AND there was still this massive level of threat to the public? again this does not make sense.
ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?
poot_rootbeer: "The Plaintiff Mr. Tsarnayev, who is currently serving four consecutive life sentences following a criminal conviction for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, alleges that FBI agents categorically violated his civil rights by failing to provide an attorney within an appropriate timeframe after his requests for one. The court finds in favor of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1. To be held in escrow until such time that Plaintiff is released from prison."
Weaver95: more and more people are starting to come around to the idea that if you 'hide' behind your rights then you MUST be guilty.
SuperNinjaToad: we're not rooting of the person we're rooting for justice.rule of law
Tatsuma: Weaver95: very unlikely,How the fark would you know that? The FBI didn't know but Mighty Weaver had figured everything out?
Weaver95: ..but at the exact same time you are saying there WAS a massive threat to the public
Weaver95: and that Tsarnaev should have been denied legal council
Weaver95: SkinnyHead:The most important information to get out of him would be his Jihadi connections, so they can track down others who might be planning similar attacks. That's why they were questioning him according to the public safety exception. Public safety exception allows them to ignore requests for counsel.oh I don't think there was any further threat to public safety at that point. the bombs weren't all that sophisticated and the cops knew it by that point. plus they'd searched his house and didn't find anyone else in their little plot. also, given that the city was in lock down damage (if any) would have been minimal at best.as I said before tho, we're going to throw our rulebooks out on this one. we'll pay lip service to our procedures, then fry him but good. we'll also ignore the damage we've done to our rights and try to tell ourselves that it's all for some vague concept of 'safety' and 'greater good'. meanwhile we'll be terrified of parades, public gatherings and holiday celebrations.
This About That: Yeah, about that whole "rights of the accused" business: we can't afford to destroy that. It's not about the rights of some shiathead we all hate, it's about the rights of the rest of us. If you think you can't become "the accused" in an instant, think again. If you think law enforcement, prosecutors, grand juries, and the media can't destroy your life, reputation and livelihood, and take from you everything you love or have earned, while making your friends and neighbors and the public despise you, think again. If you think "the authorities" give a shiat about you or your rights, think again. Even considering how much nobody likes this moron, the "authorities", whoever that really was, did it wrong, and we can't afford to let it pass. Let's hope the courts make it plain that "the system" still finds it necessary to guarantee the rights of the accused, knowing that this will have to be forced upon law enforcement forever.
Weaver95: SkinnyHead: Bontesla: SkinnyHead: He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.Fruit of the poison tree doctrine......doesn't apply to Miranda violations or ignoring a request for counsel. It only applies if he is forced to give an involuntary statement.would YOU want to take that sort of risk? there was plenty of time to do this one by the numbers. they should have gotten him a lawyer.
Amusement: Say the alleged bomber says "I want a lawyer", does that stop them from questioning him? Most suspects would STFU or in the case stop writing. Then again this is from the Guardian.
poot_rootbeer: Triumph: This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.Really?I know most of us fantasize about wicked lawyers being beaten to death by angry mobs, I didn't realize it was also the dream of the lawyers themselves.
Tatsuma: Do you think the cops need a lawyer every time they go interrogate a witness in cases?
The Muthaship: FTA- There is zero legal or ethical justification for denying a suspect in custody this fundamental rightWas there still a danger that he was going to die at the time? If so, I'm okay with trying to find out if there were other present threats he knew of, even if it meant infringing on his 5th amendment rights. Not sure about that being a legal justification, but it seems like an ethical one IMO.
Weaver95: Because People in power are Stupid: It would be awesome if this guy was released on a technicality because there is nowhere on this planet that he could go and be safe.he could go do what Baltar did...start a religious cult and get laid a whole bunch of times.
mbillips: Nothing he told the FBI before he was Mirandized is admissable for the purposes of prosecuting him, so it actually HELPS his defense that he confessed before being Mirandized.
Tatsuma: 2. The police is allowed to hold someone without charging them up to a certain amount of time, and question them without the presence of a lawyer.
Tatsuma: He had yet to be charged, he had no right to legal council. Do you think the cops need a lawyer every time they go interrogate a witness in cases?
PreMortem: Triumph:Boston bomber case dismissed.My exposure to Perry Mason leads me to believe this to be true. Suprised TFA didn't mention this.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 18 2017 23:42:30
Runtime: 0.538 sec (537 ms)