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  
•       •       •

13383 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
 
2013-04-29 04:49:48 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 04:53:22 PM
But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings

That's some nice reporting there, Glenn. Got an entire article out of an unsubstantiated claim.
 
2013-04-29 05:04:38 PM

scottydoesntknow: But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings

That's some nice reporting there, Glenn. Got an entire article out of an unsubstantiated claim.


In other words, Glenn Greenwald.
 
2013-04-29 05:12:56 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 05:14:12 PM
is this the same as when they didn't read him his miranda rights which turned out to be made up, or when he was arrested on the following tuesday,  or when he was a guy on a roof, or when he was two highschool track runners, or when....
 
2013-04-29 05:17:56 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 05:20:22 PM
Triumph:
Boston bomber case dismissed.


My exposure to Perry Mason leads me to believe this to be true. Suprised TFA didn't mention this.
 
2013-04-29 05:25:25 PM
Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?
 
2013-04-29 05:27:56 PM

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
 
2013-04-29 05:41:40 PM

PreMortem: My exposure to Perry Mason leads me to believe this to be true. Suprised TFA didn't mention this.


Better call Saul.
 
2013-04-29 05:55:47 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.


Which is why it was a terrible idea from the beginning.
 
2013-04-29 06:05:56 PM

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


Because they think they can use it against Obama somehow?
 
2013-04-29 06:19:43 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 06:26:10 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: is this the same as when they didn't read him his miranda rights which turned out to be made up, or when he was arrested on the following tuesday,  or when he was a guy on a roof, or when he was two highschool track runners, or when....


www.databitsnews.com
 
2013-04-29 06:27:24 PM
scottydoesntknow          2013-04-29 04:53:22 PM   But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings That's some nice reporting there, Glenn. Got an entire article out of an unsubstantiated claim.

The source article is pretty clear that the claim comes from a congressional oversight hearing.
 
2013-04-29 06:32:22 PM

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


Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.
 
2013-04-29 06:35:44 PM

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


A government that thinks it's OK to withhold legal counsel from someone in police custody is a far greater threat than any terrorist or criminal.
 
2013-04-29 06:37:49 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 06:44:55 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.


he could go do what Baltar did...start a religious cult and get laid a whole bunch of times.
 
2013-04-29 06:51:48 PM
The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.
 
2013-04-29 06:52:57 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.


He's already been given two public defenders, he doesn't get to choose his own lawyer.
 
2013-04-29 06:53:06 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.


Fruit of the poison tree doctrine...
 
2013-04-29 06:59:56 PM
It doesn't matter if he never says another word - it's not like this conviction is going to fail for lack of a confession.
 
2013-04-29 07:01:37 PM

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.
 
2013-04-29 07:07:16 PM

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.
 
2013-04-29 07:09:11 PM
So, he knew enough about his rights to demand a lawyer, but didn't know that he could remain silent (see the other stories floating around that he stopped talking once he was given his Miranda warnings)?  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
2013-04-29 07:11:33 PM

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...


That would only apply (generally) to evidence obtained as a result of things that he said.  All of the videos, witnesses, forensic evidence, etc., that the feds already have on this guy, independent of anything he has said in his interrogation, would not be fruit of the poisonous tree.
 
2013-04-29 07:12:24 PM

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.
 
2013-04-29 07:13:00 PM
Well, shall we start a pool on who the next nominee for head of the FBI will be?

I'm betting on a female mandrill in heat. She will probably have as much intelligence and sense of right and wrong as the current FBI head does.
 
2013-04-29 07:13:45 PM

El_Perro: So, he knew enough about his rights to demand a lawyer, but didn't know that he could remain silent (see the other stories floating around that he stopped talking once he was given his Miranda warnings)?  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


no, it makes perfect sense.  ever watched Law and Order?  CSI?  those shows either give you flat out wrong information or distort it into uselessness.  cops aren't stupid (brutal and thuggish perhaps, but not stupid), they know a lot of people watch those shows and they know the law.  they know they can push things and most people don't actually know their rights.
 
2013-04-29 07:14:08 PM

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.
 
2013-04-29 07:14:49 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.


Quoting because people can't seem to understand this basic concept.  That your Rights are not something to be ignored.  Either everyone has them (even the people you hate and wish dead) or no one has them.
 
2013-04-29 07:15:09 PM
I am not entirely certain how to feel about this. On one hand there could have been other bombers planning other strikes and the FBI needed to know if more imminent dangers were present.  On the other hand, it's highly unlikely prosecutors will be able to use any statements before mirandizing against him in a court of law, which could seriously hamper prosecution. Cases have been outright dismissed for this sort of thing.

But I have a difficult time seeing this as a violation of the perpetratpr's civil rights specifically. You are protected by civil rights even if you don't know what they are. This, to me, seemed more like a tactical maneuver where the FBI risked future prosecution against the possibility of immediate actionable intelligence to prevent further acts of terrorism or determine if other people were involved in this act. It was a reasonable gambit. However, if a judge rules that pre-Miranda statements are admissible in court, then I would feel sufficiently outraged.
 
2013-04-29 07:15:19 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 07:15:38 PM
Shut up, Glenn Greenwald. The point of denying him his Miranda rights was to determine whether there was another bomb or accomplices in the process of carrying out more attacks. 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.
 
2013-04-29 07:15:59 PM
I thought his mother was acting as his lawyer.
 
2013-04-29 07:16:04 PM

Tatsuma: 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.

He's already been given two public defenders, he doesn't get to choose his own lawyer.


Yes he does.
 
2013-04-29 07:16:05 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.


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.
 
2013-04-29 07:16:08 PM

El_Perro: 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...

That would only apply (generally) to evidence obtained as a result of things that he said.  All of the videos, witnesses, forensic evidence, etc., that the feds already have on this guy, independent of anything he has said in his interrogation, would not be fruit of the poisonous tree.


they don't need anything he said... they just can't use anything either...
 
2013-04-29 07:16:10 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.


Too bad all it means is that anything he said between his arrest and the reading of his Miranda rights can be excluded.

Also too bad that this explanation is going to be ignored in Lenny/Triumph/truthseeker's rush to prove that we're headed for another Third Reich SEE SEE I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO ME?!??!?!?!!?!?
 
2013-04-29 07:16:21 PM

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.
 
2013-04-29 07:17:17 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 07:17:21 PM
Good
 
2013-04-29 07:18:09 PM
Larry H. Parker will fight for him
 
2013-04-29 07:18:18 PM
Maybe we all shouldn't lose our collective shiat in the aftermaths of these attacks. I hope both the Boston PD and the FBI get sued so we can see exactly what laws and rights they saw as guidelines in their rush to "bring justice."
 
2013-04-29 07:18:25 PM

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


in the law, exceptions for one create a precedence that can easily apply to others. This is not about tsarnev's rights specifically, this is about OUR rights.

There, but for the grace of God, go I.
 
2013-04-29 07:18:48 PM
1. Your inviolable right to representation only comes when you are charged as part of an investigation. If you are being interrogated as a person of interest, it does not apply.
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.
3. The youngest Tsarnaev was in critical condition and they were scared that he might die, therefore they asked questions on things.
4. The reason why they interrogated him in the first place without charging him is because they were afraid there were other devices ready to explode
5. Once they ascertained he would survive and that there were no other devices, he was charged and read his rights, and he got to see his lawyer


Nothing wrong happened, it's really simple stop drumming up bullshiat for nothing people
 
2013-04-29 07:19:29 PM

Tatsuma: He's already been given two public defenders, he doesn't get to choose his own lawyer.


Just because he has been assigned public defenders doesn't mean he can't choose his own lawyer.  If he can afford to pay another lawyer, or there is another lawyer who is willing to take on his case pro bono, then he is generally free to switch lawyers at any point (it gets a little more complicated the closer the case gets to trial)
 
2013-04-29 07:19:35 PM
GOOD.
 
2013-04-29 07:20:23 PM
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.
 
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.
 
2013-04-29 07:38:37 PM
"Robert Stansbury was convicted of first-degree murder, rape,, and a lewd act on a child under the age of 14. The morning after ten-year-old Robyn Jackson had disappeared from a Baldwin Park, California, playground, a witness in Pasadena, California, had observed a large man leaving a turquoise car and throwing something into a nearby flood-control channel. The witness called the police, who discovered Jackson's body in the channel. She had been raped, strangled, and struck on the head with a blunt instrument. The police later learned that Jackson had talked to two ice-cream truck drivers, one of whom was Stansbury, shortly before she disappeared. Officers went to Stansbury's home and asked Stansbury to go to the police station to answer some questions concerning their investigation into Jackson's murder. Stansbury agreed and accepted a ride to the station in a police car."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Custodial+Interrogatio n

"The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have also construed this Right to Counsel Clause to mean that an impoverished, or indigent, defendant has the constitutional right to the presence of a court-appointed attorney at critical stages in the criminal proceedings. These critical stages include  Custodial Interrogation, post-indictment lineups, preliminary hearings,, trial, sentencing, and the first appeal of conviction."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/right+to+counsel
 
2013-04-29 07:38:56 PM
Yeah even IF they get the bombs thrown out at trial, dude was party to killing a cop AND tossing explosives at federal and police agents. That alone will get him life.
 
2013-04-29 07:39:41 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.


Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment).  But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.
 
2013-04-29 07:39:41 PM

Tatsuma: 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.


But that doesn't make any sense.  either there WAS a threat or there wasn't.  obviously, the cops did not believe there to be a threat, so they cancelled the curfew.  that means the public safety exception doesn't apply.  they should have gotten him a lawyer.

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?


no, he was in custody at the time.  he had every right to a lawyer and yes, I think there SHOULD be a lawyer in the room any time anyone has to speak with the police.  I know I'm never talking to a cop without a lawyer present.
 
2013-04-29 07:40:32 PM

chrylis: 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.


The better answer is that the remedy of a Miranda violation is suppression during the governments case. If they didn't want to use the statement anyway, the issue really does not matter.
 
2013-04-29 07:40:59 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.


There were other, logistical reasons for not reading him his rights which may well have been in play besides the public-safety reason. One is the simple fact that Tsarnaev was seriously injured, couldn't talk for part of the time and medicated, and couldn't even be READ his rights, much less "voluntarily and knowingly" respond to them. It's very important that the suspect not only be given his rights in a timely manner but that he be able to voluntarily and knowingly acknowledge them. While a defendant won't be released because he was questioned without being given his Miranda warnings, he might be able to challenge his arrest if he was Mirandized and then questioned having "consented" while drugged or wounded. So waiting till he was conscious and alert avoided that whole mess.

Secondly, between his capture and formal questioning, Tsarnaev was certain to encounter many police, doctors, medical personnel, etc., and might or might not tell them things, or be asked questions by them (as innocuous as "Are you allergic to anything" or as incriminating as "Did you set those bombs"). There is another entire raft of case law involving what evidence may be admitted into court and what is considered a "custodial interrogation" when asked of a detained suspect by such people under such circumstances. Again, by not Mirandizing Tsarnaev immediately after his arrest, all these questions become moot--nothing he said is admissible as the fruits of interrogation.

So if he muttered to an ER doctor "Yeah, we set those bombs," there's no issue of whether that falls under the hearsay exemption, or if he said it in the ambulance, it won't be questioned as a custodial interrogation--it's as if he never said it, because he wasn't Mirandized, and so it can't be used for a confession.
 
2013-04-29 07:41:09 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.


IANAL, but there is a zero-percent chance of this happening. They have him on video. They have physical evidence up the wazoo. The have a dead cop with iron-clad evidence of him being involved. They have his confession from during the "public safety exception" phase. They don't NEED one additional word from him to string him up, and there isn't a judge in the country who will stand in their way.
 
2013-04-29 07:41:17 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.


1.  Our Constitutional rights are not "technicalities."

2.  He won't get released just because he didn't get advised of his Miranda rights or wasn't given access to a lawyer.  All it means is that anything he said before being read his rights or after he asked for a lawyer cannot be used against him in court.  That won't matter because it appears there is a great deal of evidence other than his own words that can be used to prosecute him.   This all seems to have been thought through quite well by police and (I hope) the U.S. Attorney, who decided that they had quite enough evidence to convict and it was important to see if they could get him to say whether there was any other immediate risk (booby traps, co-conspirators, etc.).
 
2013-04-29 07:41:36 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.


The same 1-4 apply to the Underwear bomber, Abdulmutallab (who actually  was working with others). But he was only questioned for 50 minutes under the public safety exception.
 
2013-04-29 07:41:50 PM
If the FBI doesn't grant a terrorists request for a lawyer, it pretty much means that you or I could end up in GITMO for jaywalking.
 
2013-04-29 07:43:08 PM

Tickle Mittens: 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.


The public safety exception means they can keep asking him questions and use the answers in court even without a miranda warnings.  It does not mean they can ignore a suspects deliberate request for legal counsel, which he has a right to.
 
2013-04-29 07:43:31 PM

Tickle Mittens: 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 people.  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.


It makes no difference if the bomb killed a child or all adults does it, I mean as far as the law is concerned? I know it makes a difference to some individuals.  Children's lives are not more important than anyone elses.

Also, the bomber is not a "kid".  He's an adult.
 
2013-04-29 07:43:54 PM

Weaver95: Tatsuma: 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.

But that doesn't make any sense.  either there WAS a threat or there wasn't.  obviously, the cops did not believe there to be a threat, so they cancelled the curfew.  that means the public safety exception doesn't apply.  they should have gotten him a lawyer.

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?

no, he was in custody at the time.  he had every right to a lawyer and yes, I think there SHOULD be a lawyer in the room any time anyone has to speak with the police.  I know I'm never talking to a cop without a lawyer present.


Dude shove it w/ the Alex Jones garbage, the curfew was for 20 blocks.  They lifted it cause they figured there wasn't any way for him to be in the area anymore and needed to redeploy the police force.
 
2013-04-29 07:44:32 PM
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.
 
2013-04-29 07:46:33 PM

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.
 
2013-04-29 07:47:55 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.


You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot.
 
2013-04-29 07:48:02 PM

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."
 
2013-04-29 07:48:20 PM

debug: Tickle Mittens: 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 people.  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.

It makes no difference if the bomb killed a child or all adults does it, I mean as far as the law is concerned? I know it makes a difference to some individuals.  Children's lives are not more important than anyone elses.

Also, the bomber is not a "kid".  He's an adult.


It is an aggravating factor at sentencing.
 
2013-04-29 07:48:57 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."


And how long does the public safety exception last?
 
2013-04-29 07:49:56 PM

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 will bet you a ton of money that the FBI knew there weren't any more damn devices by the time they got this mute idiot.
 
2013-04-29 07:49:58 PM

Theaetetus: 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."

And how long does the public safety exception last?


Now that is a good question.
 
2013-04-29 07:50:03 PM
From the Miranda decision:

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed.  The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.
 
2013-04-29 07:50:03 PM
I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.
 
2013-04-29 07:51:20 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.


The same could be said for the lawyer that gets his case dismissed.
 
2013-04-29 07:51:47 PM

Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.


I agree with this.
 
2013-04-29 07:54:49 PM

gblive: Theaetetus: 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."

And how long does the public safety exception last?

Now that is a good question.


The idea that there even is one is theatre.  You actually think that someone involved in an active plot is going to squeal with enough chance that the FBI will get off there ass and stop it in that time?  You are living in fantasy land if you think that Jack Bauer is going to break the terrorist in just enough time to stop a plot that these guys have been planning for months for.  The only way is if the FBI catches them before it happens, everything else is just fantasy.

But by all means get rid of our rights to fulfill your Jack Bauer masteurbation fantasy.
 
2013-04-29 07:56:13 PM
ShadowKamui:

Dude shove it w/ the Alex Jones garbage, the curfew was for 20 blocks.  They lifted it cause they figured there wasn't any way for him to be in the area anymore and needed to redeploy the police force.

yeah, it was just a small violation of everything this country stands for...I mean who REALLY needs the bill of rights?  rules?  we don't need to follow the rules!  there's a war on!
 
2013-04-29 07:56:54 PM
I love how the article writer repeatedly said OBAMA'S DOJ. A little biased there?
 
2013-04-29 07:57:05 PM
Just another fark-up on Fartbongo's watch.  Just remember kiddies, you chose him twice over more qualified people.
 
2013-04-29 07:57:49 PM

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.
 
2013-04-29 07:59:13 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Just another fark-up on Fartbongo's watch.  Just remember kiddies, you chose him twice over more qualified people.


Are you talking about Ron Paul or are you being facetious?
 
2013-04-29 08:00:40 PM
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!! jpg

/ except substitute Moslem guy with white guy
 
2013-04-29 08:04:13 PM

401kman: gblive: Theaetetus: 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."

And how long does the public safety exception last?

Now that is a good question.

The idea that there even is one is theatre.  You actually think that someone involved in an active plot is going to squeal with enough chance that the FBI will get off there ass and stop it in that time?  You are living in fantasy land if you think that Jack Bauer is going to break the terrorist in just enough time to stop a plot that these guys have been planning for months for.  The only way is if the FBI catches them before it happens, everything else is just fantasy.

But by all means get rid of our rights to fulfill your Jack Bauer masteurbation fantasy.


The question here is what is a legitimate period of time for "public safety exception", not your twisted Jack Bauer fantasy.  Should the period be two days or two years?

You do realize that most other western nations allow suspects to be held for several days for questioning without a lawyer. For example the period in France is four days.  Most other European nations are similar.

An example - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-01-21/france-questions- terror-suspects -wife/123202
 
2013-04-29 08:06:01 PM

gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.


That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?
 
2013-04-29 08:07:38 PM

gblive: You do realize that most other western nations allow suspects to be held for several days for questioning without a lawyer. For example the period in France is four days.  Most other European nations are similar.

An example - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-01-21/france-questions- terror-suspects -wife/123202


From your link:
Ms Brown's French lawyers have confirmed she has been detained but told the ABC it is routine procedure linked to her formal request to visit her husband in jail and there is no suggestion she will be charged.

I believe the law there is that they can be held for 4 days  without being charged, not without representation.
 
2013-04-29 08:10:07 PM

debug: Tickle Mittens: 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 people.  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.

It makes no difference if the bomb killed a child or all adults does it, I mean as far as the law is concerned? I know it makes a difference to some individuals.  Children's lives are not more important than anyone elses.

Also, the bomber is not a "kid".  He's an adult.


Yeah it does, it makes the act that much more heinious and provocative.  Someone will take his case, someone pretty good.  They'll probably try to have the death penalty taken off the table so he can live another 60 years under crushing, inescapable psychological torture; which is sort of ironic given that they theoretically work for the defendant.  But plenty of other good lawyers can go without people calling in death threats at all hours for months.  Also, there's not going to be the least little bit of leniency when it comes to sentencing.  No judge is going to shiat-can their ambitions to be the judge who "let a child murderer off with a slap on the wrist."   The law as written may not care, beyond where a victims status as a minor is specified, but the law at every level is implimented by people.  People don't like child killers.
 
2013-04-29 08:11:29 PM
Holder is completely out of control.
He should resign.
 
2013-04-29 08:11:48 PM

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


You sir don't deserve to live in this country.  I suggest you try another one that doesn't give suspects all the rights we enjoy here.  Hell, go for one that assumes you are guilty and it is up to you to prove your are innocent.  Get back to us and let us know how it went.
 
2013-04-29 08:11:53 PM
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-04-29 08:12:00 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.


Not being Mirandized isn't a ticket for a free release, it just means they can't use the information they used during the trial. There is plenty of other evidence linking him to the crime.
 
2013-04-29 08:12:17 PM

gblive: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-01-21/france-questions- terror-suspects -wife/123202


'
Ms Brown's French lawyers have confirmed she has been detained but told the ABC it is routine procedure linked to her formal request to visit her husband in jail and there is no suggestion she will be charged.

Mr Ruddock says Ms Brown has been helping French authorities for a day.

"In a situation like this, people are obliged to engage their own legal counsel and she was certainly advised well before leaving Australia that on this matter she should take legal advice before she went abroad," Mr Ruddock said.

 Did you even read that article?

I don't believe in any public safety exception because I don't think it really exists as a thing.  There should be no exception when you doing have rights in this country.  The degradation in our rights alone is a worse travesty than any potential false info obtained in under duress in a failed attempt to prevent an attack that is already going to happen.
 
2013-04-29 08:13:13 PM

401kman: I will bet you a ton of money that the FBI knew there weren't any more damn devices by the time they got this mute idiot.


They didn't even know who he was until they got the fingerprints off of his dead brother at 1 in the morning, so no
 
2013-04-29 08:13:29 PM

Weaver95: ShadowKamui:

Dude shove it w/ the Alex Jones garbage, the curfew was for 20 blocks.  They lifted it cause they figured there wasn't any way for him to be in the area anymore and needed to redeploy the police force.

yeah, it was just a small violation of everything this country stands for...I mean who REALLY needs the bill of rights?  rules?  we don't need to follow the rules!  there's a war on!


It's not a violation of squat no matter how much you wanna scream it is.  The lockdown being lifted is 0 proof of anything other than the cops didn't check out a boat when they were looking for him.

Even them having a ton of bombs or unused gunpowder laying around is a serious public danger regardless of if they were armed or not, so yes the public safety rule applies.  The only thing open for debate is how long can you use the public safety exemption and whuppy freaking do if they did go 5 mins over, toss out whatever he said and get on w/ the trial.  He wasn't tortured or enhanced interrogated (aka waterboarded) so you're pretty much just screaming about a minor technicality at best.
 
2013-04-29 08:13:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Holder is completely out of control.
He should resign.


Yes ditch him.  At best he should be making fries somewhere in Ohio.
 
2013-04-29 08:14:18 PM

Theaetetus: gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.

That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?


Once again you bring up a good point.  I believe that there needs to be a clear mass terrrorism event or discovery of a plot with equipment to peform mass terrorism before the "public safety exception" can be utilized.  There also needs to be some maximum timeframe in the number of days.
 
2013-04-29 08:15:08 PM

Tatsuma: 401kman: I will bet you a ton of money that the FBI knew there weren't any more damn devices by the time they got this mute idiot.

They didn't even know who he was until they got the fingerprints off of his dead brother at 1 in the morning, so no


Yes it was over, done with, finissimo.  There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.
 
2013-04-29 08:15:59 PM

Theaetetus: gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.

That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?



You mean like the people being held in Cuba, by our government, for over 10 years now without trial?
 
2013-04-29 08:16:54 PM
I honestly don't see any other outcome then killing him.  I don't think the laws will matter at all.
 
2013-04-29 08:17:00 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Doktor_Zhivago: is this the same as when they didn't read him his miranda rights which turned out to be made up, or when he was arrested on the following tuesday,  or when he was a guy on a roof, or when he was two highschool track runners, or when....


The girl in that commercial is hot.
 
2013-04-29 08:17:30 PM

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


That isn't the question, there are rules, nobody wants this guy to walk, not even the people that will be assigned to his defense. However, it is important that justice be served by the strictest adherence to the law. Anything less just gives people more reasons to hate us.

Having said that, in terms of law, the only thing that could happen is any information gained during that interrogation couldn't be used at trial. Considering the kid threw explosives at cops, attempt to hit cops with a car, and fired automatic weapons at cops, I'm pretty sure they don't need him to say anything to get life in prison.
 
2013-04-29 08:17:48 PM

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


Mostly it's people who are rooting for the values that Americans claim to live by vs people who don't trust those values to keep them safe.
 
2013-04-29 08:18:53 PM

BullBearMS: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 624x265]


Out of commission since 1862 when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

P.S. - Nobody noticed it has been missing for the past 150 years.
 
2013-04-29 08:22:20 PM

Tatsuma: uld 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!'


There are conspiracy theorists out there who think this was a false flag in order to establish martial-law-lite and see how citizens reacted so that one day they can put the entire country on lockdown once we're used to it.

/derpx2
 
2013-04-29 08:24:25 PM

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


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.

But go ahead and miss that point completely and keep thinking people like to see 8 year olds blown up.
 
2013-04-29 08:24:43 PM
This, likely, waters down The G's case, even with the pictures of him being placed at the scene and everything else.

Probably gets the needle out of his arm in a plea deal now, even with killing a cop.  The kid is now probably looking at Supermax for life.
 
2013-04-29 08:25:18 PM
You have the right to remain silent, so shut the fark up, okay? You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, we'll provide you with the dumbest farking lawyer on earth. If you get Johnny Cochrane, I'll kill ya!
 
2013-04-29 08:25:35 PM

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'd call you an asshole for that bullshiat counter-argument but then you'd just default to calling me an anti-semite and go running to the mods like you usually do.
 
2013-04-29 08:26:32 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.


I've fired a court appointed attorney and was given a more competent public defender. The first attorney wanted me to plead guilty to everything, and I said "no, go make a plea bargain". He said he wouldn't so I said I was going to go to the DA and crack my own deal. He said I couldn't do that, and I asked him, "do you want to watch me walk down to the DA's office and do it?"

They assigned me a new lawyer, a good lawyer, who happened to be Jewish, if it matters.
 
2013-04-29 08:26:58 PM

gblive: The question here is what is a legitimate period of time for "public safety exception"


Let's turn to the Supreme Court ruling that created it.

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.

So the "public safety exception" involved asking one question about an immediate danger.

What the Obama administration wants is multiple days of interrogation, despite the fact that the Boston officials had long since publicly declared the immediate danger to be over when they told everyone they were now free to go about their business.

Make no mistake, the decision to strip away Constitutional rights had nothing whatsoever to do with anything happening in Boston. An FBI memo covering this change of policy leaked to the press over a year ago.

there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.

See the difference? The public safety exception was extremely limited and had to do with an immediate threat. The decision from the Obama administration to strip away yet more Constitutional rights had nothing to do with an immediate threat.  That was simply the excuse they used.
 
2013-04-29 08:28:33 PM

El_Perro: So, he knew enough about his rights to demand a lawyer, but didn't know that he could remain silent (see the other stories floating around that he stopped talking once he was given his Miranda warnings)? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


it does if

Boston Bombing :: Miranda rights
as
Sandy Hook :: Second amendment
and
9/11 :: Fourth Amendment
 
2013-04-29 08:30:16 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.


Not sure if anyone has LOL'd at you yet, but that's not gonna happen. All this means is that, at best, anything he may have said may not be used against him. Presumably, they have enough to put him to death or put him away for life.
 
2013-04-29 08:30:21 PM

Theaetetus: gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.

That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?


This isn't even a true representation of what is going on.

In the court case that established the "public safety exception" they did indeed use the information gained before the suspect was read his rights to convict him.
 
2013-04-29 08:33:46 PM
It seems to me he needs to be treated as any treasonous spy or saboteur with potential knowledge of future attacks on the people of the United States. There aught to be some Cold War or World War 2 precedent that would be helpful.

If we insist on treating him like an ordinary criminal, I imagine that there's plenty of evidence outside the interrogation in question that would put him on the (federal) gallows.
 
2013-04-29 08:37:32 PM

smitty04: [cdn.theatlanticwire.com image 614x383]
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.


You know what.....I like these stupid arguments we're having better.
 
2013-04-29 08:37:41 PM

Tatsuma: 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.


An accused has the right to instruct the counsel of their choice. If you're right, it is the first I've heard of it and would mean that a central tenet in the criminal justice has been revoked.
 
2013-04-29 08:38:15 PM

banandar123: Tatsuma: uld 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!'

There are conspiracy theorists out there who think this was a false flag in order to establish martial-law-lite and see how citizens reacted so that one day they can put the entire country on lockdown once we're used to it.

/derpx2


I think that conspiracy theory is rubbish, but it is interesting to see how many media flapping heads were eager to make Obama's political enemies into enemies of the state. Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews blamed tea party anti-tax activists right out of the gate. If the Reichstag ever needs to be burned, those two f*ckers (and others) would happily light the match.

I'm not equating Obama with Hitler, that's absurd- but I can see how Hitler was able to staff up his power base.
 
2013-04-29 08:38:30 PM

BarkingUnicorn: From the Miranda decision:

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed.  The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner. AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't thrown out the Miranda decision... yet. They might be chipping away at the edges of it, but they haven't overturned it yet (and the "public  safety" exception is one of the biggest whacks at the Miranda decision, one the Court should have attached a "reasonable time limit" clause to. Then again, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito aren't the biggest fans of the 5th Amendment).
 
2013-04-29 08:42:03 PM

ClavellBCMI: BarkingUnicorn: From the Miranda decision:

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed.  The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't thrown out the Miranda decision... yet. They might be chipping away at the edges of it, but they haven't overturned it yet (and the "public  safety" exception is one of the biggest whacks at the Miranda decision, one the Court should have attached a "reasonable time limit" clause to. Then again, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito aren't the biggest fans of the 5th Amendment).


It's funny how we've been saying this over and over since Tsarnaev was caught and the DoJ said they weren't Mirandizing him immediately--and yet we're still having to say this.

It is APPALLING how much TV and movie myth has overthrown the public perception of the legal system. Next we'll be hearing that Tsarnaev has to be released because he didn't get the one phone call he was entitled to, or some other "technicality" Hollywood has used over the decades to get criminals onto the street so Charles Bronson could righteously gun them down.
 
2013-04-29 08:43:38 PM

401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.


That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

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.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.
 
2013-04-29 08:44:09 PM

ClavellBCMI: No, your case is not dismissed. The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.


Again, this is not the least bit true. In the Supreme Court case establishing the "public safety exception" the information gained before the miranda rights were read were used to convict.

Bear in mind this was another one of those decisions handed down by five conservative justices and opposed by every single liberal justice.
 
2013-04-29 08:45:10 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.


Other than Chechnya.
 
2013-04-29 08:45:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.


Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

We do not have to destroy the village to save it.
 
2013-04-29 08:45:54 PM

Tatsuma: The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.


No. If you open your mouth and say something before you are charged, it CAN be used against you in court.
 
2013-04-29 08:46:33 PM

doglover: What's the point of rights if they can be taken away willy nilly without consequences?


There are exigent circumstance exceptions in many areas of the law.  But if you want consequences, the court can prevent the prosecutor from using his statements against him in court,
 
2013-04-29 08:47:51 PM
even if he gets out on a technicality, a retard with a gun will offer a solution...

or, he escapes to farkistan... either where the Russians don't like that child killing terrorist shiat, or he lives like Taliban in BFE, where he doesn't have American shiat.

his life will be shiat. I hope he learns real remorse and regret for his actions.
 
2013-04-29 08:48:37 PM

BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.


Where exactly is there ANY thing remotely in violation of the Constitution?

Another terrorist apologist who claims this is against the Constitution when it is NOT.
 
2013-04-29 08:50:04 PM

401kman: You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot


Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans?  I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs.  It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.
 
2013-04-29 08:50:15 PM

BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

We do not have to destroy the village to save it.


Stop feeding the troll.
 
2013-04-29 08:50:58 PM
Asking if there are any other bombs is perfectly fine. Anything beyond that is straight up illegal in the absence the requested attorney. Like somebody said, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions.
 
2013-04-29 08:51:33 PM
Clearly this young lad's civil rights have been abused.
To show that our government isn't a bunch of thugs hellbent on revenge and retribution, he should be released.

/ In The Garden
// During a Bruins game.
/// On Pay-Per-View
 
2013-04-29 08:52:15 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

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.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.


Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?
 
2013-04-29 08:52:39 PM

chewielouie: Tatsuma: The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.

No. If you open your mouth and say something before you are charged, it CAN be used against you in court.


Anytime you volunteer information, then it can be used in court.

In your statement, when is one "charged"?  Is that when the police say "you are under arrest"?
 
2013-04-29 08:53:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

Where exactly is there ANY thing remotely in violation of the Constitution?

Another terrorist apologist who claims this is against the Constitution when it is NOT.


Fifth Amendment.

Heard of it?
 
2013-04-29 08:54:03 PM

401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

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.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?


Stop feeding the troll.
 
2013-04-29 08:54:38 PM

The Muthaship: 401kman: You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot

Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans?  I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs.  It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.


What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.
 
2013-04-29 08:55:08 PM

401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

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.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?


Wrong.
When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.
Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.
 
2013-04-29 08:55:50 PM
You become a citizen. you take MY money in the form of welfare. you bomb a marathon, shoot it out with the
cops,  You, arsehole, forfeit your citizenship, and your rights as a citizen. do NOT pass go, do NOT collect 200
dollars, and NO window seat on your bus ride to hell. I think the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment
as well as public humiliation needs an exception for arseholes like this.  C'mon over- bring yo mama along.
 
2013-04-29 08:55:59 PM

debug: 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.


Great Satan...or Greatest Satan?
 
2013-04-29 08:58:09 PM

401kman: What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.


I don't think it was a week, and they had Boston locked down the whole time so that could have thwarted some contemporaneous planned attacks.  And I'm not for ignoring our rights.  I think the massive expansion of the exceptions to Miranda warning under the current DOJ are terrible.  But, where the risk of great harm to the public is imminent, and the only known source of info about it is at risk of expiring, I don't have a problem with them questioning him.  I also don't have a problem with them being precluded from using those statement against him.
 
2013-04-29 08:58:30 PM
Now, now.  There must be a transcript of the earliest interrogations of Tsarnaev out there somewhere.  Can't we all wait until we see this transcript to determine whether Tsarnaev asked for a lawyer and was refused, and if so, whether the refusal was legit, given whatever exigent circumstances may have existed at the time, under the public safety exception to Miranda?  I'd certainly like to see such a transcript released at the earliest practicable moment.

Until then, all we're doing is conjecturing.  Of course, that's how Glenn Greenwald makes his living.
 
2013-04-29 08:58:38 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Just another fark-up on Fartbongo's watch.  Just remember kiddies, you chose him twice over more qualified people.


Pity none of those people were on the ballot either time :)
 
2013-04-29 08:59:21 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

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.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?

Wrong.
When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.
Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.


I not going to say anything about what you just wrote but it doesn't make any sense to me and I don't care to understand what you mean by it.

Can somebody put up that picture from Billy Madison?
 
2013-04-29 08:59:30 PM

PunGent: debug: 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.

Great Satan...or Greatest Satan?


Satan has been busy taking notes. We humans are *far* more evil than anything Hell could come up with.
 
2013-04-29 08:59:33 PM

BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

Where exactly is there ANY thing remotely in violation of the Constitution?

Another terrorist apologist who claims this is against the Constitution when it is NOT.

Fifth Amendment.

Heard of it?


Yes.  Do you actually understand it?  Do you actually understand what the Miranda WARNING is?
Why don't you read what I quoted from Wiki?

The 5th amendment right is covered by the fact that any info gained in response to an interrogation when the Miranda Warning is not read, is inadmissible in court due to the 5th amendment.

That does NOT mean that the police can not ask you questions without issuing a Miranda WARNING.  Only that they can't use that info against you.
 
2013-04-29 09:01:17 PM

401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

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.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?

Wrong.
When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.
Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.

I not going to say anything about what you just wrote but it doesn't make any sense to me and I don't care to understand what you mean by it.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

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 09:02:06 PM

Theaetetus: The police aren't allowed to hold you for almost 3 days, while denying you access to your lawyer.


In America, yes. Other countries are different.
 
2013-04-29 09:03:22 PM

401kman: The Muthaship: 401kman: You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot

Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans?  I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs.  It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.

What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.


You still have not specified what actual (vs. TV show) rights were ignored.
 
2013-04-29 09:05:40 PM

LessO2: BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

We do not have to destroy the village to save it.

Stop feeding the troll.


gossipsucker.com
Stop having a boring tuna.
 
2013-04-29 09:06:10 PM

The Muthaship: 401kman: What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.

I don't think it was a week, and they had Boston locked down the whole time so that could have thwarted some contemporaneous planned attacks.  And I'm not for ignoring our rights.  I think the massive expansion of the exceptions to Miranda warning under the current DOJ are terrible.

 But, where the risk of great harm to the public is imminent, and the only known source of info about it is at risk of expiring, I don't have a problem with them questioning him.  I also don't have a problem with them being precluded from using those statement against him.


From everything I have heard about these attacks, the 9/11 attacks, and others.  I just don't buy that there is a real scenario here where that kind of questioning will really work.  Nothing I have read or heard by credible sources indicates that these kind of exemptions and usage of "enhanced" methods shows that they work.

To the contrary,  I am inclined to believe that this is just fiction used by those who would inclined to infringe upon our rights.
 
2013-04-29 09:06:20 PM

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.
 
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.
 
2013-04-29 11:36:43 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: You're not exactly a big fan of rights for Muslims, are you?


This is an exemption that comes from 1949 and applies for everyone, not just Muslims, but keep pretending that it's somewhat racist to say that the FBI didn't break any laws by doing what they did.
 
2013-04-29 11:45:08 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: 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?


IF there was reason to assume additional devices were planted putting the public in active danger. I would assume the law enforcement would act the same way to any person that uses these tactics regardless of religious attachment.

The justice system is about the process, if the cops/prosecution have no intention of using the information against him in court to begin with, and there is a legit danger, then there should be some public safety exception, but it should be limited, and the lawyer should be allowed to monitor the questioning via some mechanism.
 
2013-04-29 11:49:41 PM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: 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?!


it would only be interrogations that occurred prior to being provided with a lawyer, any of the evidence that otherwise links the guy to the bombs will still there. If the feds want, they'll give him the death penalty.
 
2013-04-29 11:56:45 PM
I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?
 
2013-04-29 11:57:57 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?


No, we are talking about that case, which has a legal precedent set in 1949 which authorizes this as perfectly legal.

It's just a shiat mix of Glenn Greenwald + The Guardian + Farkers who have no idea what they are talking about

I bet most complaining about this also complained about the search in Watertown.
 
2013-04-30 12:01:22 AM
If this was before they read him his miranda, he's fine and the whiners need to shut up.
 
2013-04-30 12:02:26 AM

Tatsuma: Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?

No, we are talking about that case, which has a legal precedent set in 1949 which authorizes this as perfectly legal.

It's just a shiat mix of Glenn Greenwald + The Guardian + Farkers who have no idea what they are talking about

I bet most complaining about this also complained about the search in Watertown.


Wouldn't be surprised, considering the loads of "ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT ACTION!! PRECEDENT FOR CRUSHING THE CONSTITUTION!! OBAMA MEETING LATER TO DISCUSS MAKING THIS NATIONAL POLICY!! NAZIS SOCIALIST COMMUNIST MONARCHIST MUSLIM SECOND AMENDMENT JACKBOOTS!!" retards that have popped up since then. Everything is a Reptilian Vatican conspiracy to these idiots.
 
2013-04-30 12:05:40 AM

Tatsuma: From non-bindingdicta in a single-judge concurrence inWatts 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.


... not to mention that the Supreme Court reversed the conviction in that case since they tortured a confession out of the guy.
 
2013-04-30 12:05:56 AM

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


FTFY.


thanks. yeah what he corrected!
 
2013-04-30 12:07:07 AM

Tatsuma: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: You're not exactly a big fan of rights for Muslims, are you?

This is an exemption that comes from 1949 and applies for everyone, not just Muslims, but keep pretending that it's somewhat racist to say that the FBI didn't break any laws by doing what they did. to no one since it wasn't actually in a majority opinion in the case.

 
2013-04-30 12:07:23 AM
Thanks to the idiots who read him his rights he stopped talking.  Now if he knows of any other plots, we won't find out until it's too late.

Too bad this guy isn't available.

home.earthlink.net
 
2013-04-30 12:08:31 AM

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.


Yes, you DO have a right to a lawyer when the police are questioning you.  From the text of the actual Miranda decision:

If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.

I didn't write that, the Supreme Court did.

You don't have a constitutional right to the diet coke, though.
 
2013-04-30 12:13:50 AM

SkinnyHead: 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.

Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment).  But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.


What if the answers provided to said questioning ended up having ZERO impact on public safety? (i.e lone wolf or no bombs etc).. will it negate this exception?
Also if what you said is true than why does LE denied the request for counsel (as assumed in TFA) by Jokar if it has no bearing on his  interrogation?

All they had to do was to tell him sure we'll get you a lawyer since you asked but keep in mind what you said so far can still be used in the court of law etc.... Why deny him his lawyer then?

/not lawyer obviously just curious as an ignant citizen
 
2013-04-30 12:14:38 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Wouldn't be surprised, considering the loads of "ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT ACTION!! PRECEDENT FOR CRUSHING THE CONSTITUTION!! OBAMA MEETING LATER TO DISCUSS MAKING THIS NATIONAL POLICY!! NAZIS SOCIALIST COMMUNIST MONARCHIST MUSLIM SECOND AMENDMENT JACKBOOTS!!" retards that have popped up since then. Everything is a Reptilian Vatican conspiracy to these idiots.


Yeppers. Here's a good article about this:

Exception to Miranda Rule Is Rooted in Queens Arrest
By SAM ROBERTS

No straight line connects Benjamin Quarles and Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, or stretches from Bayside, Queens, to Copley Square in Boston, or links a largely forgotten gun charge in 1980 to a terrorist bombing this month that inflicted mass casualties and left three people dead. But one knotty legal thread does tie them together: the "public safety exception" to the Miranda warning against self-incrimination that the police are supposed to issue before questioning a suspect.

The issue is not whether suspects can be questioned before they are warned of their rights, but rather whether the answers are admissible in court. Prosecutors would have to prove that some imminent threat to public safety justified the failure to tell suspects of their right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before being interrogated.

The public safety exception was carved out by Sol Wachtler, the former chief judge of New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, in 1982.
The Court of Appeals upheld lower court rulings that a gun seized by the police was not admissible as evidence because officers had failed to read Mr. Quarles his Miranda rights beforehand. Judge Wachtler dissented. But the Queens district attorney at the time appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled that "overriding considerations of public safety" might warrant questioning suspects without first advising them of their rights.
"I wrote an opinion, later embraced by the Supreme Court, that created an 'emergency exception' to Miranda, allowing the police to defuse a dangerous situation before administering the warning," Judge Wachtler recalled in a 2010 Op-Ed essay in The New York Times. "But resolving immediate emergencies is about as far as we should go in delaying the Miranda reading or creating exceptions to it."

The United States Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in the Quarles case is at the heart of any challenge to the admissibility of Mr. Tsarnaev's acknowledgment to federal agents, before he was advised of his rights, that he was involved in the Boston bombing. (The link between the Quarles case and the Boston attack was reported by DNAinfo.com.)

The Quarles case began in 1980 when a woman flagged down a patrol car in Queens and said an armed man had raped her and then fled inside a supermarket on Francis Lewis Boulevard. He was cornered there by police officers, who frisked him, handcuffed him and, spotting an empty shoulder holster, asked, "Where's the gun?"

Mr. Quarles gestured toward an empty carton of Wisk liquid detergent, where a .38-caliber snub nose pistol was recovered. Then an officer pulled a card from his wallet and read Mr. Quarles his rights.

"From the point of view of a criminal law defense attorney, you're dealing with a complaint that says he was in possession of a loaded weapon and he had an empty holster and that he admitted to police that the gun was his and that he had bought it in Florida, so what's left?" Steven J. Hyman, who represented Mr. Quarles, said in an interview.

"Then I'm sitting at the hearing on whether the statements were voluntary and was the gun properly seized, and an exceptionally honest police officer says they frisked him, handcuffed him, asked him where's the gun and then gave him the Miranda warning," Mr. Hyman recalled. "A case that was clearly a disaster from a defense point of view suddenly had issues."

The rape charge was dropped because the woman never went to court. A State Supreme Court justice said that because the weapon was seized after the suspect had been handcuffed and questioned about its whereabouts, it could not be admitted as evidence.

The prosecutor appealed. The ruling was unanimously upheld by the Appellate Division and then 4 to 3 by the Court of Appeals, but, in effect, was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, 5 to 4, on the basis of Judge Wachtler's exception.

The Supreme Court said the exception would not apply if the suspect was subject to "actual coercion." That was the finding later made by a state justice in Queens who decided - "much to my amazement," Mr. Hyman acknowledged - that a suspect could infer he was being coerced because he was surrounded at the time by a half-dozen police officers.

Mr. Hyman's surprise was reflected in Mr. Quarles's decision to a plea agreement, and he was eventually sentenced to probation.
"I haven't seen him since," Mr. Hyman said. (A Benjamin Quarles, who was born the same year as the defendant and was from Bayside, is listed in official records as having died in 2003.)

Mr. Hyman suggested that the application of the public safety exception to the Boston bombing case might be vulnerable in court. "The whole thrust of the Quarles case is spontaneity, legitimate instinct, not interrogation," he said.

"In Boston there could be some bombs still floating someplace, but it was no longer a situation of immediate danger," he added. "They ask him about accomplices, motives. That's not public safety; that's a criminal investigation. They have a right to ask. The question is, would it be admissible? I believe it is not."

Joanna Wright, a law clerk to a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the author of a 2011 Columbia Law Review article on the public safety exception, said, "I suspect the government would argue that to the extent that Tsarnaev worked in concert with others or had information about potential future attacks, an imminent threat still existed and therefore the exemption was justified."

"The standard Quarles test," Ms. Wright added, "was whether or not the suspect answered questions posed by law enforcement that were 'reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety' and later case law suggests that the danger be imminent for the exception to apply."


All in all, what they did was absolutely legal, the question is whether anything they got from this will actually be admissible as evidence.
 
2013-04-30 12:24:19 AM

SuperNinjaToad: SkinnyHead: 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.

Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment).  But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.

What if the answers provided to said questioning ended up having ZERO impact on public safety? (i.e lone wolf or no bombs etc).. will it negate this exception?
Also if what you said is true than why does LE denied the request for counsel (as assumed in TFA) by Jokar if it has no bearing on his  interrogation?

All they had to do was to tell him sure we'll get you a lawyer since you asked but keep in mind what you said so far can still be used in the court of law etc.... Why deny him his lawyer then?

/not lawyer obviously just curious as an ignant citizen


you are making the assumption that they cared about using the statements in court.
 
2013-04-30 12:24:48 AM

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.



Well said. Bravo.

This is the whole point of the rule of law.

This is a "criminal case", IOW, someone allegedly violated the law, and now it appears that those who we trust as guardians of the law have *also* broken the law... in the name of "Justice"?

The principles of the Rule of Law MUST be upheld - and especially the rights of the accused. When those we have charged and entrusted to uphold and enforce the law violate laws and the rights of the accused, they lose the "moral high-ground", and when we, as a People, allow and accept these actions, we sow the seeds of the disintegration of our society.

We may as well be warring Mexican drug cartels.

Ignoring / abandoning the Rule of Law poses a far greater danger to society than any "terrorist" could hope to achieve.
 
2013-04-30 12:29:24 AM

Tatsuma: Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?

No, we are talking about that case, which has a legal precedent set in 1949 which authorizes this as perfectly legal.

It's just a shiat mix of Glenn Greenwald + The Guardian + Farkers who have no idea what they are talking about

I bet most complaining about this also complained about the search in Watertown.



The "authorities" in your "homeland" aren't constrained by such inconveniences when it come to dealing with the subhumans, I take it?
 
2013-04-30 12:37:40 AM

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.

-=-
I agree. It IS about the rights of the rest of us. As much as I want to see this guy hang, I want it to be legitimate.
The cops have to do their job correctly so this guy doesn't get away with anything... legally.
 
2013-04-30 12:41:20 AM

king_nacho: HideAndGoFarkYourself: 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?!

it would only be interrogations that occurred prior to being provided with a lawyer, any of the evidence that otherwise links the guy to the bombs will still there. If the feds want, they'll give him the death penalty.


uh, that's what I just said.  People are trying to say that the entire case will be dismissed, that's 100% not true.
 
2013-04-30 12:43:57 AM
I didn't read the above comments.   I'm stupid for doing that but this being Fark.com most of it was probably trolling anyway.  So here's a serious comment on how this stuff is going to play out.


There is a two pronged test for when the Miranda Warning must be given.  Custody and Interrogation.

Let's break that down further.

Custody is defined as what a reasonable and prudent person would believe that there freedom to leave has been restricted.   Since Asshole was in a hospital room and confined to a bed it would be impossible for him to leave the presence of LE.  Based off my LE experience and the criminal justice system this was a custody, also add that he was formally placed under arrest anyway.

Second is interrogation.  This is simply being asked specific questions about a criminal act.  Obviously the FBI wasn't consulting him about his opinions on global warming and wanted information about the crimes he has been suspected of committing or was going to commit.

It's pretty clear there was custody and an interrogation.  I'm also certain the FBI agents asking the questions knew that.   Quite frankly they knew that they wouldn't "get away" with anything and were looking for info for counter-terrorism operations.  They did this full knowing anything he said would get thrown in court against HIM, without being read his rights and then specifically waving them.

The FBI could get jammed up with certain information that might nullify anything they find against someone else.  This is known as the fruits of the poisonous tree.  Basically LE cannot benefit from the illegal act unless they can prove they would have found it some other means anyway (not always easy and sometimes impossible).  This is where a lot of dirt bags get off on their crimes.  Not because they are truly innocent but because of technical breach.  It sucks for the victims but is what separates the U.S. from places like Iran and North Korea.

Also none of this will come up in a trial, it won't even be mentioned.  In fact, the suspect simply refusing to ask questions has started to be deemed too incriminating for juries to know about and the issue is just danced around by both sides of the case.
 
2013-04-30 12:51:48 AM

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

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.


No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail..  In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth.  A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.
 
2013-04-30 01:15:30 AM

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

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail..  In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth.  A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.



Conversely, a "good" prosecutor, will do THEIR best to obfuscate the truth to favor conviction once charges have been laid.

This is the problem with an adversarial "justice" system. Once the accused has been charged and an attorney is in place, it becomes a battle of who can  present the best case before the jury.

"Truth" is irrelevant.
 
2013-04-30 01:16:39 AM

WireFire2: The FBI could get jammed up with certain information that might nullify anything they find against someone else. This is known as the fruits of the poisonous tree. Basically LE cannot benefit from the illegal act unless they can prove they would have found it some other means anyway (not always easy and sometimes impossible). This is where a lot of dirt bags get off on their crimes. Not because they are truly innocent but because of technical breach. It sucks for the victims but is what separates the U.S. from places like Iran and North Korea.


There are a couple of other wrinkles that make this irrelevant.

1. Inevitable discovery. If the police can show they'd have found the evidence anyway, then the "fruits" are admissible. In this case, they've got the other brother, Tamerlan, who's rights are not at issue here (he was too dead to make it a problem). They were going to search his home and effects anyway, so regardless of what Dzhokhar told them, if they found it as a result of their totally legal and entirely separate search of Tamerlan, then it's admissible.

2. Unrelated evidence. If any warrants were based on other evidence and NOT on Dzhokhar's interrogation--any other probable cause--then it is entirely admissible and it wouldn't matter what the "fruits" of the interrogation revealed.

3. Subsequent interrogation. Since Dzhokhar has been given his Miranda rights now, and has a lawyer, if he's asked about anything and provides information which leads to a totally lawful warrant that leads to the discovery of evidence--that evidence will be admissible.

No matter how bad people want to believe in the Hollywood "Technicality = instant release" it's just not going to happen. IF he said anything before he was Mirandized, and IF they ignored his request for a lawyer--it means almost nothing except that his lawyer will have to file a few more motions to have a little more excluded before trial.
 
2013-04-30 01:16:43 AM

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

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail..  In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth.  A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.


Yes, we all are. However, providing him with a lawyer, as the law requires, and following whatever other procedures are required by law is the proper and necessary way to proceed. There seems to have been some confusion as to whether or not someone we really despise or think might be really dangerous might not be entitled to protections under the law. Do you think an exception to the rule of law should be made in this case? How about the next case? How about your case?
 
2013-04-30 01:39:04 AM

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

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail..  In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth.  A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.

Yes, we all are. However, providing him with a lawyer, as the law requires, and following whatever other procedures are required by law is the proper and necessary way to proceed. There seems to have been some confusion as to whether or not someone we really despise or think might be really dangerous might not be entitled to protections under the law. Do you think an exception to the rule of law should be made in this case? How about the next case? How about your case?


I am in support of whatever avenue brings the truth to light.  Might sound like heresy to those who grew up with the U.S. justice system, but I am in favor of period of police questioning without a lawyer present.  You are most likely to get the truth in that instance.  Much more often than not It will help to exonerate the truly innocent and convict the truly guilty.

This whole fiasco is exactly why I wanted for him to be killed during capture.
 
2013-04-30 02:22:45 AM
www.ragetrolling.com
 
2013-04-30 03:24:40 AM

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.


Nowhere on this planet?  You don't think there's anywhere on this planet where a guy who blew up some American civilians wouldn't be treated well?
 
2013-04-30 03:26:23 AM

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


It seems that way to you because you're incapable of understanding why anyone would disagree with you about anything, therefore you're left assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil.  That's why.
 
2013-04-30 03:33:04 AM

LL316: Thank God weaver is here to tell us what information the cops had.


Translation I have nothing of value to add, so I'll just insult someone at random.
 
2013-04-30 03:44:38 AM
Good luck, the Feds answer only to their congress budget comity for next year's funding.

Now being detained in a Federal facility he can be transferred to any location of choice and "buh-bye"

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen[13][21]) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity"

AKA - no rights, for any citizen, on any soil, for any reason under the auspice of terror.

but you morons keep "voting" for them...
 
2013-04-30 03:51:03 AM

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




I know, right? We should use our emotions exclusively. That is the only way to ensure our safety in the future.
 
2013-04-30 05:01:00 AM
Sigh....... let me put it this way, 'Merica - If you deny one person, just ONE person, their basic rights to a fair trial, access to legal help, etc etc., then you're no better than the kangaroo courts set up by the taliban.

Just remember what it is you're supposed to be fighting for; freedom, wasn't it?

However much you hate what they've alleged to have done (and - remember - it's only alleged until proven in a court of law), whether it be terrorism, child murder or whatever, then you should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure they get that fair trial.
 
2013-04-30 05:07:59 AM
So, almost everyone here is still screaming about how the authorities are crushing rights and throwing away justice. Do any of you, besides Tatsuma, know if this "interrogation" happened after they grilled him for possible locations of more bombs and any other accomplices (which constitute immediate threat and must be dealt with quickly), or do you all think that that was the horrible Constitution-destroying law-crushing act that will make him walk back to his homeland free and unfettered? Because I've read this entire thread and no one save for Tatsuma has said anything about what exactly went on and is going on, all I see is frantic frothing about jackboots and imperialism and government destroying rights.
 
2013-04-30 05:27:49 AM

Tatsuma: 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.


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.


When I think Alex Jones, I also think Weaver95. I like 'em both btw.
 
2013-04-30 06:44:21 AM
He still had the right to remain silent.  Although I doubt that would be easy when you have trained interrogators "working" on you.
 
2013-04-30 07:27:59 AM
I'll be one of the first to jump on law enforcement and the government for abusing an individual's Constitutional rights...but this is much ado about nothing.

Before everyone gets up in arms, there is a Public Safety Exception to Miranda.  If law enforcement feels there's a threat to public safety they don't need to mirandize a suspect to ask those questions.  In this case, it was unknown if there were any other co-conspirators, if any other bombs were set up...etc.  Of course, if they asked questions outside the scope of public safety those questions and any evidence acquired would be tossed (fruit of the poisonous tree).

Doesn't really matter...the government has plenty of evidence without talking to the kid.  Physical, eyewitness, etc.
 
2013-04-30 07:34:01 AM
This is the kind of fark up that can occur when you let Bush appointed lawyers remain in the DOJ, when they should've been purged on Jan 21, 2009.

I would hope they have enough evidence, other than his un-lawyered-up confession, to bring a conviction....barring any other major fark ups.  Perhaps they need the services of Marsha Clark.
 
2013-04-30 07:48:02 AM

PoRL: Sigh....... let me put it this way, 'Merica - If you deny one person, just ONE person, their basic rights to a fair trial, access to legal help, etc etc., then you're no better than the kangaroo courts set up by the taliban.

Just remember what it is you're supposed to be fighting for; freedom, wasn't it?

However much you hate what they've alleged to have done (and - remember - it's only alleged until proven in a court of law), whether it be terrorism, child murder or whatever, then you should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure they get that fair trial.


Okay, I'll bite.  The key words in your post are now in bold.  He is not on trial yet.  The entire Miranda process / right to an attorney speech is about ensuring that anything the suspect says to police can be used against them in court -- i.e. that you cannot coerce a confession and use it to convict them.

That's not the scenario here.  Why?  Because if you have enough information to convict a suspect regardless of what they tell you, and if you don't plan to use anything they tell you against them, then the same concerns regarding interrogation do not apply.  Yes he has a right to counsel to help him prepare his defense against the charges based on the other evidence they've obtained, but he does not have a right to counsel to help him avoid a public safety based interrogation.  If he'd simply kept his mouth closed when they asked their questions they couldn't have tortured him, but nothing obligated him to speak.  The cops decided they wanted the information more than they wanted an admissible confession, and that was their choice to make.

Now, if they try to use ANYTHING from their talk with him (prior to the arrival of the magistrate) in court I'll have major due process concerns.  But I suspect they won't say a word about it as they don't want to hurt their conviction.  The case will be built on video tape, public tips from the video tape, forensic evidence, and the testimony of the cops who found him, etc.
 
2013-04-30 08:21:12 AM

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.


he could have taken the same plane as the ricin guy, to save money.
 
2013-04-30 08:24:30 AM

ciberido: 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.

Nowhere on this planet?  You don't think there's anywhere on this planet where a guy who blew up some American civilians wouldn't be treated well?


You constantly want a dialogue with me. Great!

Here's a question for you (given the improbability of my hypothetical situation):

If there is indeed a place... How will he get there?
 
2013-04-30 08:52:57 AM

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


What we're rooting for is our own damned legal rights.  You'll miss them when they're gone.
 
2013-04-30 10:11:34 AM

gblive: 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.


Not sure whether you're implying that something said on CNN is authoritative enough to refute a claim, but if somehow you are, I'll direct you to Obama's most recent comments on the topic.
 
2013-04-30 10:20:38 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: 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.


If the defendant testifies at trial that he didn't do it, that opens the door.  A confession that is suppressed because of a Miranda violation can still be used for impeachment.
 
2013-04-30 10:45:46 AM

The Southern Dandy: This is the kind of fark up that can occur when you let Bush appointed lawyers remain in the DOJ, when they should've been purged on Jan 21, 2009.


Actually managing to blame Bush in 2013. Impressive. Really impressive.
 
2013-04-30 10:47:22 AM

SuperNinjaToad: SkinnyHead: 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.

Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment).  But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.

What if the answers provided to said questioning ended up having ZERO impact on public safety? (i.e lone wolf or no bombs etc).. will it negate this exception?
Also if what you said is true than why does LE denied the request for counsel (as assumed in TFA) by Jokar if it has no bearing on his  interrogation?

All they had to do was to tell him sure we'll get you a lawyer since you asked but keep in mind what you said so far can still be used in the court of law etc.... Why deny him his lawyer then?

/not lawyer obviously just curious as an ignant citizen


Whether the public safety exception is justified will be determined objectively, by what was known to law enforcement at the time of questioning, not by the answers given by the suspect.  And when a suspect requests an attorney during questioning, that usually ends the questioning.  They hardly ever actually provide one during questioning, because lawyers will always tell them to stop talking.
 
2013-04-30 11:19:17 AM
The suppression of evidence under Miranda is one of the dumbest, most asinine rules in modern American law (and that rule has a LOT of competition).

Of course, Farkers recite the Miranda suppression rule like gospel. So well-trained!

Suppressing evidence hides the truth. The evidence doesn't cease to exist, but we're expected to join in the mass delusion that it somehow vanished. It's yet another example of the core principle of Statism -- governmental dictates must always trump reality.

Suppressing evidence also punishes society -- it allows known and provable criminals loose to harm more people.

It also does nothing to solve the actual problem of cops violating people's rights. They have immunity from the people whose rights they violate (unless it's so severe that even the State won't protect them).

When a cop violate's someone's rights (which occurs hourly), the appropriate solution is to let the victim sue the cop.

Let the evidence of criminal guilt be heard, but make the one who violated the accused's rights be the one to pay for his actions.

Everything about the current Miranda-immunity regime is exactly wrong. As usual.
 
2013-04-30 11:57:40 AM

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

Because they think they can use it against Obama somehow?


Yeah! Civil rights violations are OK as long as our guy is doing it.

Duh!
 
2013-04-30 12:05:08 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.


This seems to be the pattern so far.
 
2013-04-30 12:09:08 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.


The fact that so many people can't grasp this concept blows my mind. Have a little farking foresight people.
 
2013-04-30 12:13:12 PM

Warlordtrooper: 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.


I think we're going to need to translate it into 'text speak' for people to get it these days.
 
2013-04-30 12:15:46 PM

debug: 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.


Oh come on now everyone knows that Obama fixed all that. Hope and change you know...

/keep telling yourselves there's a difference between republicans & democrats
 
2013-04-30 12:20:24 PM

BullBearMS: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 624x265]


Yes :(
 
2013-04-30 12:32:09 PM

skiinstructor: You become a citizen. you take MY money in the form of welfare. you bomb a marathon, shoot it out with the
cops,  You, arsehole, forfeit your citizenship, and your rights as a citizen. do NOT pass go, do NOT collect 200
dollars, and NO window seat on your bus ride to hell. I think the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment
as well as public humiliation needs an exception for arseholes like this.  C'mon over- bring yo mama along.


You miss the point.
 
2013-04-30 12:41:15 PM

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

It seems that way to you because you're incapable of understanding why anyone would disagree with you about anything, therefore you're left assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil.  That's why.


To be fair, there are people who are rooting for the guy who killed the 8 year old.
 
2013-04-30 12:41:50 PM

Tatsuma: If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.


Incorrect in every particular, Counselor.  Not a single assertion is correct.

Stunning, even for you.
 
2013-04-30 12:43:19 PM

Tatsuma: He's already been given two public defenders, he doesn't get to choose his own lawyer.


Also incorrect, but only in the conclusion.  He can choose his own lawyer at any time.
 
2013-04-30 12:43:24 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.


Oh god...the Derp...it hurts...

So you're cool with the government disappearing / torturing an american citizen with no due process? You're cool with just taking their word on it? Can't see any possible downsides or ways this might be abused in the future?

Some might say anyone who is willing to abandon our constitutional rights to be saved from the 'terrorists' is a sniveling little coward.
 
2013-04-30 12:47:05 PM

Ambivalence: I am not entirely certain how to feel about this. On one hand there could have been other bombers planning other strikes and the FBI needed to know if more imminent dangers were present.   On the other hand, it's highly unlikely which is why prosecutors will be able to use any statements before mirandizing against him in a court of law,


Fixed, for you.
 
2013-04-30 12:51:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: Too bad all it means is that anything he said between his arrest and the reading of his Miranda rights can be excluded.


Other than the fact that it can be included, you're spot on here.

Aside from the many inaccurate assertions of what Miranda means, has none of the GED lawyers in the room ever heard of the concept of the admissibility of "statements against interest"?

Sheesh.
 
2013-04-30 01:00:23 PM

El_Perro: But, if they interrogate a suspect who is in custody, that suspect has the right to counsel.


A right that must be affirmatively asserted.  If a suspect in custody sings without benefit of having asked for counsel pre- (or post-) being Mirandized, that's all admissible, for any purpose.
 
2013-04-30 01:07:56 PM

Theaetetus: The same 1-4 apply to the Underwear bomber, Abdulmutallab (who actually  was working with others). But he was only questioned for 50 minutes under the public safety exception.


A good point, but one that is mitigated, I think by the different scenarios: Captain Underpants intended to be a suicide, pretty good odds that his attempt was a one-off.  The Tsarnaevs had already exploded 1 + x bombs, and x was still a variable (and the fact that they were carrying multiple bombs with them in the initial chase leads to an inescapable conclusion that more bombs were possible).  I think a more extended period, especially since the suspect could not speak, will be viewed as justifiable by the courts (and there will be more than one).
 
2013-04-30 01:19:25 PM

Gunslinger013: Yeah! Civil rights violations are OK as long as our guy is doing it.


I'm sure you complained bitterly about the Patriot Act, too.
 
2013-04-30 01:34:04 PM

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: Gunslinger013: Yeah! Civil rights violations are OK as long as our guy is doing it.

I'm sure you complained bitterly about the Patriot Act, too.


I absolutely did. I'll never forgive Bush for it. I can't decide what's worse - Bush enacting it or Obama picking it up and running with it.
 
2013-04-30 02:09:51 PM
Anybody remember this guy, before he turned into Bush 2.0?

We must fight Terrorism only "with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process, in checks and balances and accountability." Thus, he thunderously vowed, "We must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake."

While you listen to the Democratic party shills make excuses for Obama taking the Bush civil liberties violations and pushing them even farther...

While the right wing crazies claim we haven't pushed them far enough...

Remind yourself of what Obama was saying back when we as a nation voted him into office. The rule of law is what we voted for, but it's damn sure not what we're getting.
 
2013-04-30 02:25:51 PM

Gunslinger013: I absolutely did. I'll never forgive Bush for it. I can't decide what's worse - Bush enacting it or Obama picking it up and running with it.


Geez. How am I supposed to troll you if you won't co-operate?
 
2013-04-30 02:34:47 PM

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: Gunslinger013: I absolutely did. I'll never forgive Bush for it. I can't decide what's worse - Bush enacting it or Obama picking it up and running with it.

Geez. How am I supposed to troll you if you won't co-operate?


Haha, my bad, man :)
 
2013-04-30 03:50:33 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: ciberido: 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.

Nowhere on this planet?  You don't think there's anywhere on this planet where a guy who blew up some American civilians wouldn't be treated well?

You constantly want a dialogue with me. Great!


Well, in most threads I disagree with most of what you say, but you seem to have valid points to make here and there, and even when I disagree with you, which is often, there's generally some sort of logic connecting most of your points, so, yeah.  You're sort of in the "honored enemy" category.

As far as how he'd get there, I don't know, private plane taking off from a private airport, maybe?  I really don't know how feasible that is.  How hard would it be to smuggle a wanted felon out of the USA and to, say, Jamaica or Côte d'Ivoire if you were a really rich guy who owned his own private jet?
 
2013-04-30 03:54:23 PM

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

It seems that way to you because you're incapable of understanding why anyone would disagree with you about anything, therefore you're left assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil.  That's why.

To be fair, there are people who are rooting for the guy who killed the 8 year old.


Ok, fair enough, but why?  I mean, short of "Death to America," why would anyone support this guy?  Am I missing something?

And even if you hated America and wanted to see it destroyed, why not attack the White House or the Pentagon or some more military target?  Why blow up a footrace except for bonus evil points?
 
2013-04-30 04:15:18 PM
Shocked, I am sho--oh yeah, no I'm not.

I heard on NPR that they interrogated him for 16 hours before they read him his rights. So some people already knew about this. But I am never going to agree with Glen Greenwald about anything, not in a million years. I mean, look at his face. If that's not punchable, it doesn't exist.
 
2013-04-30 04:37:22 PM
And no one could answer my question, only continue with the derprage. Good to see that no one actually cares or pays attention to what's going on, only screams at imagined phantoms.
 
2013-04-30 05:11:38 PM

ciberido: Ok, fair enough, but why? I mean, short of "Death to America," why would anyone support this guy? Am I missing something?


I really don't know why either. I just can't climb into that mindset. It's too farked up.

Maybe I'll start reading the twitter and see if I can figure it out
 
2013-04-30 07:21:04 PM

Tatsuma: The Southern Dandy: This is the kind of fark up that can occur when you let Bush appointed lawyers remain in the DOJ, when they should've been purged on Jan 21, 2009.

Actually managing to blame Bush in 2013. Impressive. Really impressive.


Perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
 
Displayed 322 of 322 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report