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.

(Guardian)   So, apparently, the FBI ignored multiple requests from Boston bomber Tsarnaev for a lawyer during his interrogation   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 322
    More: Asinine, FBI, interrogations, Mirandize, multiples, citizen's arrests, fundamental rights  
•       •       •

13388 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2013 at 7:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 07:20:25 PM  
Who is surprised? Really surprised?

Most of those guys in gitmo won't EVER get trials. That manning guy is barely getting a trial. OBL got a bullet to the head.
 
2013-04-29 07:20:34 PM  

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.


And when they come for you, who will be left to object?
 
2013-04-29 07:21:24 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: Yes he does.


.... 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: 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.


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.
 
2013-04-29 07:21:28 PM  

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.


Reading someone their rights doesn't work that way, at worse anything he said/wrote when he woke up in the hospital is inadmissible.  And yes you can basically tell them to STFU about a lawyer and demand to know if and where the other bombs are under the public safety doctrine (gets kinda wishy washy about using said evidence against them)

Nobody but anti-death penalty folks are touching this one pro-bono; hell they could give him the death penalty for killing his brother while committing a car jacking let alone everything else.
 
2013-04-29 07:21:31 PM  
There is only one rule when dealing with prison sys... justice system: SHUT THE FARK UP!

/Not defending the bomber nor FBI in this.
 
2013-04-29 07:21:53 PM  
"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."
 
2013-04-29 07:22:30 PM  

orclover: Either hes the enemy or he's just some farking criminal, pick one and treat him as such.


He's some criminal.

Fark you.
 
2013-04-29 07:22:48 PM  

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 citizens
2. They could have planted bombs in the three days and a half free they had
3. They could have been working with others who had bombs and were ready to go
4. They could [fill in]

It was the FBI's job to ascertain it wasn't the case.
 
2013-04-29 07:24:37 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-29 07:24:48 PM  
Well he should definitely at least move after they let him go on the technicality.....
 
2013-04-29 07:25:32 PM  

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 citizens
2. They could have planted bombs in the three days and a half free they had
3. They could have been working with others who had bombs and were ready to go
4. They could [fill in]

It was the FBI's job to ascertain it wasn't the case.


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.
 
2013-04-29 07:25:40 PM  

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 importantly
2. They didn't know if there were other devices about to explode

When 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.


Thank God weaver is here to tell us what information the cops had.
 
2013-04-29 07:25:43 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: GOOD.


Holy shiat, it's you.
 
2013-04-29 07:26:30 PM  

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.


Wrong.
 
2013-04-29 07:26:48 PM  
LL316:
Thank God weaver is here to tell us what information the cops had.

did you bother reading ANY of the news coverage?  oh, right.  cnn.  never mind then.
 
2013-04-29 07:27:06 PM  
It's not as if they're going to let him walk because of that. The state is deciding to throw out anything Tsarnaev says between the time of capture to the time he receives legal counsel. If we was indeed asking for a lawyer and was denied one, legally it's as if Tsarnaev was silent the whole time.

If the prosecution felt they had ample evidence to convict without questioning Tsarnaev, I can see why they would delay giving him counsel to find out if there were more explosives planted elsewhere.
 
2013-04-29 07:27:13 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-29 07:27:45 PM  

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.


They lifted the curfew before they had him in custody...
 
2013-04-29 07:28:20 PM  
I didn't hear him ask.
 
2013-04-29 07:28:31 PM  

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.


more and more people are starting to come around to the idea that if you 'hide' behind your rights then you MUST be guilty.
 
2013-04-29 07:28:33 PM  

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.


What's the point of rights if they can be taken away willy nilly without consequences?
 
2013-04-29 07:28:35 PM  

Weaver95: very unlikely,


How the fark would you know that? The FBI didn't know but Mighty Weaver had figured everything out?

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.


The curfew was lifted because they knew they weren't actively out there, that doesn't mean there weren't other bombs elsewhere. What were they gonna say: 'All of America, curfew!'
 
2013-04-29 07:28:42 PM  
How the FBI has changed. They falsely blamed Pretty Boy Floyd for the Kansas City Massacre and went full retard on hunting down and killing fugitives like Floyd without arrest or trial. Kept doing it into the 1970s against Black Panthers and other similar groups.

Tsarnaev should be happy the cross-dressing racist wasn't in charge of the FBI anymore.
 
2013-04-29 07:29:07 PM  

ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?


we're not rooting of the person we're rooting for justice. you must either be blind or a troll if you think otherwise. Adherence to the law ESPECIALLY by those very people who swore to uphold and protect them is far far more important than the actions of one protaganist no matter how greivous his act may be. If you lose sight of that you lose everything!!
 
2013-04-29 07:29:43 PM  

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."


And, even if he was awarded a larger amount, anything he got would surely be attached to cover (a tiny percentage) of his own civil liability here.
 
2013-04-29 07:30:12 PM  

El_Perro: Wrong.


farking CNN do they say anything true anymore?

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.


You really are starting to slip close to Alex Jones territory, Weav.
 
2013-04-29 07:30:23 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: we're not rooting of the person we're rooting for justice.rule of law



FTFY.
 
2013-04-29 07:31:36 PM  

Tatsuma: Weaver95: very unlikely,

How the fark would you know that? The FBI didn't know but Mighty Weaver had figured everything out?


logic and research has never been your strong suit.

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.

The curfew was lifted because they knew they weren't actively out there, that doesn't mean there weren't other bombs elsewhere. What were they gonna say: 'All of America, curfew!'


again - your position is that the cops lifted the curfew saying there was no threat to the public...but at the exact same time you are saying there WAS a massive threat to the public and that Tsarnaev should have been denied legal council.  i'm telling you that doesn't make any sense.  And if I can figure it out you can bet a defense lawyer can as well.
 
2013-04-29 07:32:21 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-29 07:32:31 PM  
Not surprising, we've been holding people in Cuba for over a decade without trial.  We're not the wonderful idealistic people you all think we are.
 
2013-04-29 07:32:47 PM  
Tatsuma:
You really are starting to slip close to Alex Jones territory, Weav.

says the guy who thinks the boston bombers were using Schrodinger bombs - they're there and they're not, it just depends on how you look at 'em.
 
2013-04-29 07:32:55 PM  

Weaver95: ..but at the exact same time you are saying there WAS a massive threat to the public

There could have been, which is why they tried to ascertain. Again, they had no choice but to lift the curfew once he was caught.


Weaver95: and that Tsarnaev should have been denied legal council

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?
 
2013-04-29 07:33:14 PM  

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.


Using the public safety exception is not throwing out the rulebook.  The exception is a recognized part of the rules.  They used the public safety exception in the underwear bombing case.  The FBI questioned him at the hospital without Miranda about his connections to Jihad, to try to discover information about others who might be planning similar attacks.  The judge ruled that the questioning was proper in a terrorist case like that.
 
2013-04-29 07:33:17 PM  

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.


i893.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-29 07:33:24 PM  

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.


Because they have a tight case on him already? They don't care about a wrap-up confession; they care about additional intel.
 
2013-04-29 07:33:44 PM  

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.


No it does not. Especially not before they have been charged. Even after he's been charged, they can continue to ask him questions and prevent his lawyer, it's just that whatever they get, they won't be able to use in court.
 
2013-04-29 07:33:50 PM  

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.


No he isn't.  He's on video participating in a conspiracy to set bombs that killed a child.  Federal death penalty.  If he's smart he'll get out of everyone's way and die quickly.  There's no reason for him to subject himself to a life filled with 23 hrs a day of flourescent concrete and minimum human contact.  There's also the public safety exception in this instance since it's literally a case involving a terrorst cell of mad bombers.  He's toast.
 
2013-04-29 07:35:01 PM  

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.


Ever heard of Johnny Cochran? He's dead, but his firm still rakes it in from all that bad publicity he got.
 
2013-04-29 07:35:47 PM  

Tatsuma: Do you think the cops need a lawyer every time they go interrogate a witness in cases?


Wrong question.  The proper question is whether the police have to respect a suspect's request to have an attorney present at an interrogation, and the answer in the United States is absolutely yes.
 
2013-04-29 07:35:47 PM  

The Muthaship: FTA- There is zero legal or ethical justification for denying a suspect in custody this fundamental right

Was 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.


The bills of rights is not a list of suggestions.
 
2013-04-29 07:35:58 PM  
There is no good reason to suppress evidence that is obtained illegally.  And I say this as someone who hates cops.

If his rights were violated, then the appropriate remedy is for him to have a claim against the government agents who violated his rights.  Why should the rest of society, for whose benefit the cop claims to be acting, pay the price for the cop's failure to do his job properly?  Why should a court be prohibited from considering evidence and facts in its pursuit of the truth?  The illegal means of obtaining the evidence didn't change the facts.  It didn't change history.  It doesn't make the crime in question any less criminal.

The only reason that courts suppress evidence is to give the cops and prosecution an artificial incentive to follow the law.  But there are other ways of doing that (i.e., punishing THEM that did it), rather than distorting the evidence, hiding the truth, and inflicting criminals on the rest of society.
 
2013-04-29 07:36:11 PM  

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.


I always see that as a viable option.
 
2013-04-29 07:36:17 PM  

ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?


We're not rooting for the bad guy, we are all just secretly glad that there is nothing in this country President Obama is responsible for, so this will be yet another embarrassment that isn't his fault.

Also George Bush, amirite?
 
2013-04-29 07:36:55 PM  
cdn.theatlanticwire.com
Russian solution for terrorism.


Early this morning, Russian forces in the region of Dagestan, in what looks to be part of a post-Boston crackdown on their own homegrown militants. At least five have been killed around the country for having suspected ties to Islamic militant groups.
 
2013-04-29 07:36:59 PM  

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.


/I can't see that.  I don't think anyone but a high priced scumbag lawyer would touch this case, and only on the hopes of getting him off the charges, which is close to impossible.  Maybe if he had been a black football star, he might have had a chance, but this guy is truly farkeld.  They are going to bury his ass deeper than Manson is, and i didn't think that was possible.
 
2013-04-29 07:37:14 PM  

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.


That would be true  if the "public safety exception" to Miranda did not exist. But it does. And what it says is that statements made pre-Miranda  are admissible if they're the product of an interrogation regarding an imminent public safety issue.
The whole point of the  exception is that prosecutors were upset that there were pre-Miranda statements that they couldn't use.

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.


He was arrested at 8:45 PM on Friday, April 19. He was charged on Sunday at 6:47 PM. He didn't get his initial appearance before the magistrate and get assigned a lawyer until Monday morning. The police aren't allowed to hold you for almost 3 days, while denying you access to your lawyer.
Particularly important is when he started asking for counsel.
 
2013-04-29 07:37:17 PM  
It would have been pretty lulzy if, while his rights were apparently being violated, he told them there were devices at every police building in Boston. I doubt he would have been asked many "pre-Miranda questions" after that.

Whatever trial this guy gets will be quite the dog and pony show. Our justice system just isn't really designed to deal with these sorts of situations. We will simply go through the motions, all the while knowing that Dzhokhar's fate was sealed long ago.
 
2013-04-29 07:37:18 PM  

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?


No.  But, if they interrogate a suspect who is in custody, that suspect has the right to counsel.
 
2013-04-29 07:38:00 PM  

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.


All they need a crap ton of fireworks improperly stored in his dorm room to be a danger to the public, unless you don't think burning down part of UMass is a good idea for some reason.  Also the lock-down was only for 20 blocks in Watertown, not the entire Boston metroplex.  A general don't go outside advisory was issued for all of Watertown and neighboring cities but again only a public service announcement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_bombings#Manhunt_and_capture
 
2013-04-29 07:38:11 PM  

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.


Remember the guy they car jacked and told him they were the bombers? Yeah, he isn't getting off.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

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