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  
•       •       •

13380 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 09:13:16 PM
 
2013-04-29 09:15:43 PM

Milo Minderbinder: debug: Milo Minderbinder: It is an aggravating factor at sentencing.

It shouldn't.  Children's lives aren't any more important then anyone elses.  Agruably less so, actually.

Don't forget Mittigating factors like: Whether the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

That's going to be the defenses angle right there to try and avoid the death penalty.  Bet on it.

The point is not importance. Rather, children are generally regarded as more vulnerable, less able to protect themselves, making offenses against them that much more despicable.


Yes, because the adults in the crowd were much better able to protect themselves...

Is it more despicable to kill a child, or the adult(s) that provide everything that child needs?
 
2013-04-29 09:15:45 PM

gblive: Warlordtrooper: gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.

Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.

"When the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel."


Yes, they can continue asking questions, WHILEsomebody else calls his lawyer.  The public safety exception does not mean that they get to refuse the suspect an attorney just that they can continue questing him while his attorney gets there.
 
2013-04-29 09:16:12 PM
Boo farking hoo.  Allah snack bar!
 
2013-04-29 09:27:55 PM

iheartscotch: OBL got a bullet to the head.


and a free burial at sea!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-29 09:27:56 PM

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


I'm not rooting for him but as an American citizen he does deserve his rights.
 
2013-04-29 09:29:36 PM
Even if it's true, they'll argue it was necessary under the Public Safety exemption to the Exclusionary Rule.
 
2013-04-29 09:30:26 PM
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.
 
2013-04-29 09:31:54 PM
Not sure why this is considered news... everyone knows that due-process went out the window back when Homeland Security was first formed.  Should be used it by now.
 
2013-04-29 09:32:03 PM

badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.


And you should know that over the past 200 years, each of those rights has a caveat to them established through jurisprudence of the SCOTUS and lower court rulings.

There's an exception clause to everything.
 
2013-04-29 09:34:36 PM

badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.


A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored
 
2013-04-29 09:38:38 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-29 09:41:20 PM

BullBearMS: badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.

A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored


Just going to leave this here.
 
2013-04-29 09:42:02 PM

BullBearMS: badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.

A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored


Sometimes the police don't care about your rights.  They probably did the same to the Saudi kid.
 
2013-04-29 09:42:28 PM
If they indeed denied a lawyer to him after requesting it, any and all statements he made must not be used against him and any evidence based on what he said is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and disallowed.

The feds need to be spanked.  And this is the case to do it with.  If true, I want him to walk.

Either we all have rights or none of us do.
 
2013-04-29 09:42:30 PM
 
2013-04-29 09:43:00 PM

debug: Milo Minderbinder: debug: Milo Minderbinder: It is an aggravating factor at sentencing.

It shouldn't.  Children's lives aren't any more important then anyone elses.  Agruably less so, actually.

Don't forget Mittigating factors like: Whether the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

That's going to be the defenses angle right there to try and avoid the death penalty.  Bet on it.

The point is not importance. Rather, children are generally regarded as more vulnerable, less able to protect themselves, making offenses against them that much more despicable.

Yes, because the adults in the crowd were much better able to protect themselves...

Is it more despicable to kill a child, or the adult(s) that provide everything that child needs?


Again, GENERALLY, children are considered more vulnerable. In this case, they are much less likely to be able to help themselves after bring injured.

Regarding which is more despicable, most people, as well as all of Western criminal jurisprudence, would say the former.

What is more disturbing, the thought of a child being raped, or an NFL linebacker?
 
2013-04-29 09:43:10 PM

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.



Really? you think the whole world cares enough about this to hunt him down? Why, because he killed and injured Americans? There are parts of this world where he would be a hero, and plenty of placed where a bomb killing three is considered a good day.

Personally I would hate to see him released on a technicality, but I have whenever that happens. If a person's rights have been violated, put the violator on trial, but don't bury evidence or ignore the truth.
 
2013-04-29 09:46:15 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: iheartscotch: OBL got a bullet to the head.

and a free burial at sea!

[i.imgur.com image 609x480]


Invisible one-legged Jesus?
 
2013-04-29 09:46:31 PM

bubo_sibiricus: If they indeed denied a lawyer to him after requesting it, any and all statements he made must not be used against him and any evidence based on what he said is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and disallowed.

The feds need to be spanked.  And this is the case to do it with.  If true, I want him to walk.

Either we all have rights or none of us do.


You have an amazing grasp of how the criminal justice system does not work.
 
2013-04-29 09:46:33 PM

hardinparamedic: BullBearMS: badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.

A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored

Just going to leave this here.


Well, I'll just leave the difference between the "public safety exception" and what is being done in this case right here:

In the 1984 case New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court carved out the public safety exception for a man suspected of rape. The victim said her assailant had a gun, and he was wearing an empty holster. So the police asked him where the gun was before reading him his Miranda rights. That exception was allowable, the court said, because of the immediate threat that the gun posed.

The "public safety exception" involved asking one question about an immediate threat.

It did not involve asking questions for days after the local officials had announced that the immediate threat was over and that everyone could once again go about their business.

It did not involve ignoring the defendant's request for council.
 
2013-04-29 09:49:19 PM

badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.


you are watching too many cop shows.
The police are allowed to question you without reading the Miranda WARNING.  They can't use your statements against you, but they can use information obtained.
Example:  "I shot the guy and the gun I used is under my bed"
They can't use your confession, but they can get a search warrant, find the gun, match the finger prints, bullet, ownership, etc and use that information in your trial.

You do not have the right to attorney while being questioned by the police.  You do have the right to have one to represent you at your trial.
 
2013-04-29 09:49:39 PM
A lot of noise was made about when they decided not to charge Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant (which they totally could of)

But what people failed to realize is that they have the ability to question him as an enemy combatant, so long as that questioning and the information garnered from it is kept separate from any litigation.  The enemy combatant aspect can exist completely independent of any criminal cases brought against an individual, its a loophole that allows the government to have its cake and eat it too.

Just because they aren't holding him or intending to try him as an enemy combatant doesn't bar them from questioning him as such; however, he can contest his status as an enemy combatant in federal court.
 
2013-04-29 09:54:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.

you are watching too many cop shows.
The police are allowed to question you without reading the Miranda WARNING.  They can't use your statements against you, but they can use information obtained.
Example:  "I shot the guy and the gun I used is under my bed"
They can't use your confession, but they can get a search warrant, find the gun, match the finger prints, bullet, ownership, etc and use that information in your trial.

You do not have the right to attorney while being questioned by the police.  You do have the right to have one to represent you at your trial.


You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney (It may be a while).
 
2013-04-29 09:55:14 PM
I'm guessing the feds didn't need any of his statements to prosecute him.

They can use everything he said against other people, whether he was Mirandized or not.
 
2013-04-29 10:05:06 PM

badhatharry: tenpoundsofcheese: badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.

you are watching too many cop shows.
The police are allowed to question you without reading the Miranda WARNING.  They can't use your statements against you, but they can use information obtained.
Example:  "I shot the guy and the gun I used is under my bed"
They can't use your confession, but they can get a search warrant, find the gun, match the finger prints, bullet, ownership, etc and use that information in your trial.

You do not have the right to attorney while being questioned by the police.  You do have the right to have one to represent you at your trial.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney (It may be a while).


So?  what is your point?
There is a reason they call it the Miranda WARNING. 
If they don't read you the warning, they can't use any statements you make to incriminate you - but they can use information they collect:

From wiki:  "if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial"
 
2013-04-29 10:08:25 PM

Milo Minderbinder: bubo_sibiricus: If they indeed denied a lawyer to him after requesting it, any and all statements he made must not be used against him and any evidence based on what he said is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and disallowed.

The feds need to be spanked.  And this is the case to do it with.  If true, I want him to walk.

Either we all have rights or none of us do.

You have an amazing grasp of how the criminal justice system does not work.


THIS.
Looks like Milo has been watching too many episodes of law and order.  "Fruit..." has to do with illegally or procedurally incorrect information obtained.  Information gathered in a pre-Miranda warning does not fit that bill.

From Wiki:  if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial
 
2013-04-29 10:08:33 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: So?  what is your point?
There is a reason they call it the Miranda WARNING. 
If they don't read you the warning, they can't use any statements you make to incriminate you - but they can use information they collect:

From wiki:  "if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial"


At this point, I don't think they need his confession to convict him, given the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence and the fact they have him on tape planting the bombs with his brother.
 
2013-04-29 10:10:26 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.



Agreed.  If he asked for a lawyer and was refused he should walk.  What he did was horrendous and I'd like to see him in jail, but as with anyone else, the burden is on the state to prosecute properly.   If the state failed to provide legal council to the accused, then the accused should be set free.
 
2013-04-29 10:10:57 PM

hardinparamedic: tenpoundsofcheese: So?  what is your point?
There is a reason they call it the Miranda WARNING. 
If they don't read you the warning, they can't use any statements you make to incriminate you - but they can use information they collect:

From wiki:  "if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial"

At this point, I don't think they need his confession to convict him, given the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence and the fact they have him on tape planting the bombs with his brother.


Exactly.
That and the confession to the guy they stole the cab from.  Heck, put him in jail for 30 years for the armed robbery of the cab and the hostage taking...as a start.
Throw in another 20 years for shooting at the police officers...
Probably can add another 100 years with all the other things before you even get to the bombing.
 
2013-04-29 10:12:39 PM

TheLalagah: 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.


Agreed.  If he asked for a lawyer and was refused he should walk.  What he did was horrendous and I'd like to see him in jail, but as with anyone else, the burden is on the state to prosecute properly.   If the state failed to provide legal council to the accused, then the accused should be set free.


So says no one anywhere, save for idiots online.
 
2013-04-29 10:14:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: badhatharry: tenpoundsofcheese: badhatharry: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.

These are your rights. The government cannot take them away. Everyone should know them by now.

you are watching too many cop shows.
The police are allowed to question you without reading the Miranda WARNING.  They can't use your statements against you, but they can use information obtained.
Example:  "I shot the guy and the gun I used is under my bed"
They can't use your confession, but they can get a search warrant, find the gun, match the finger prints, bullet, ownership, etc and use that information in your trial.

You do not have the right to attorney while being questioned by the police.  You do have the right to have one to represent you at your trial.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney (It may be a while).

So?  what is your point?
There is a reason they call it the Miranda WARNING. 
If they don't read you the warning, they can't use any statements you make to incriminate you - but they can use information they collect:

From wiki:  "if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial"


My point is that you can remain silent. Don't their answer questions. Granted, if the Saudi national did this instead of cooperating he would probably be in Gitmo getting water boarded instead of going home.
 
2013-04-29 10:23:39 PM
They should've flown his ass to Gitmo for some enhanced interrogation. He is a terrorist and enemy combatant. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a snivelling little Assclown.
 
2013-04-29 10:26:11 PM
1. He doesn't need to be charged,arrested, to be read the Miranda, only "that a person is being subjected to a custodial interrogation if "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." (Custodial interrogation)

2. The public safety exception ONLY applies to direct questions pertaining to the immediate safety of the public.

3. You have the right to request an attorney while you are in a "custodial situation".
 
2013-04-29 10:28:37 PM

Milo Minderbinder: TheLalagah: 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.


Agreed.  If he asked for a lawyer and was refused he should walk.  What he did was horrendous and I'd like to see him in jail, but as with anyone else, the burden is on the state to prosecute properly.   If the state failed to provide legal council to the accused, then the accused should be set free.

So says no one anywhere, save for idiots online.


If I ever find the screenwriter responsible for propagating this particular myth, I'll shoot him on the spot. It is so not true, and it causes so much trouble whenever someone starts shrieking about how ZOMG THE CRIMINALZ GET ALL THE RIGHTS WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS!!!!
 
2013-04-29 10:31:21 PM

legalgus: They should've flown his ass to Gitmo for some enhanced interrogation. He is a terrorist and enemy combatant. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a snivelling little Assclown.


They're already working on that. I saw an article today that said that nowthey might think he  may have been trained. So he may fall under NDAA?
 
2013-04-29 10:45:08 PM

Warlordtrooper: gblive: Warlordtrooper: gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.

Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.

"When the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel."

Yes, they can continue asking questions, WHILEsomebody else calls his lawyer.  The public safety exception does not mean that they get to refuse the suspect an attorney just that they can continue questing him while his attorney gets there.


Actually that is not how all the media has reported information on the "public safety exception" - the media reports appear to state that they do not have to get the suspect a lawyer.  You may want to tell the NYT, Wash Post, CNN, etc. they are wrong..... oh well, we are all on Fark anyway because the MSM regularly is wrong.
 
2013-04-29 10:53:54 PM
All broken up about that man's rights
 
2013-04-29 10:54:32 PM

TheLalagah: Agreed. If he asked for a lawyer and was refused he should walk.


by that logic, if he asked for a diet coke with a twist of lime and they refuse he should walk.

you have no Constitutional right to have a lawyer when the police are questioning you.

you also don't have a right to a diet coke with or without the twist of lime.
 
2013-04-29 10:57:35 PM

austin_millbarge: Maybe you don't get that people want the rule of law adhered to. It's not about protecting this guy, it's about protecting potential innocent people from mouth-breathing lynch mobs who like to knee-jerk into a guilty verdict.


That plus some healthy mistrust of the law enforcement population as a whole. While most are honest and hard working,they have enough power that they need to be kept in check.
 
2013-04-29 10:57:43 PM

fusillade762: After all the bad information that's flown around regarding this case already I think I'm going to reserve my outrage until a clearer picture emerges.


^this
 
2013-04-29 10:59:09 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: All broken up about that man's rights


More broken up about other people's rights. This single guy can be set on fire for all I care on a personal basis, but throwing the book out for one guy just makes it harder for the next guy to get a fair trial.
 
2013-04-29 11:01:04 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: you also don't have a right to a diet coke with or without the twist of lime.

I don't like you, but that is just too funny to let pass without a laugh.
 
2013-04-29 11:01:26 PM
FBI screws up again.  Evidence against the bastard was strong as hell, but no instead of going by the book, they have to get shirty and f**k it up as usual.

\\\  No hope for Amerika.
 
2013-04-29 11:09:19 PM

R.A.Danny: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: All broken up about that man's rights

More broken up about other people's rights. This single guy can be set on fire for all I care on a personal basis, but throwing the book out for one guy just makes it harder for the next guy to get a fair trial.


Joke failed without unfetchable pic of Dirty Harry and the DA.
 
2013-04-29 11:15:49 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: TheLalagah: Agreed. If he asked for a lawyer and was refused he should walk.

by that logic, if he asked for a diet coke with a twist of lime and they refuse he should walk.

you have no Constitutional right to have a lawyer when the police are questioning you.

you also don't have a right to a diet coke with or without the twist of lime.


In fact you do.  It's right there in the sixth amendment.  Judges also agree.  Read Brewer vs Williams.
 
2013-04-29 11:23:10 PM

From Watts vs. Indiana (1949) regarding whether you are obligated to bring a lawyer to someone interrogated under the public security provision:

'To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to the solution of the crime, because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client - guilty or innocent - and that in such a duty he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem.'
 and therefore you are not obligated to if you believe that this will hinder finding out said peril to society.

Nothing wrong there, so let's just all move on.
 
2013-04-29 11:32:29 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.


There is AMPLE evidence of his guilt in a multitude of crimes for which he'll spend the rest of his life in prison.  If they throw out his interrogations, the cases won't be dismissed.

Do you people know how the criminal justice system works at all?!
 
2013-04-29 11:32:43 PM

Tatsuma: From Watts vs. Indiana (1949) regarding whether you are obligated to bring a lawyer to someone interrogated under the public security provision:
'To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to the solution of the crime, because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client - guilty or innocent - and that in such a duty he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem.' and therefore you are not obligated to if you believe that this will hinder finding out said peril to society.

Nothing wrong there, so let's just all move on.


You're not exactly a big fan of rights for Muslims, are you?
 
2013-04-29 11:33:47 PM

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.


No.  If they're suppressed, they're suppressed.  They can't be brought in unless the defense opens the door.
 
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 »






Report