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 72
    More: Asinine, FBI, interrogations, Mirandize, multiples, citizen's arrests, fundamental rights  
•       •       •

13375 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2013 at 7:10 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-29 06:19:43 PM
30 votes:
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 06:35:44 PM
18 votes:

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 05:27:56 PM
10 votes:

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 06:32:22 PM
8 votes:

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 07:17:17 PM
7 votes:
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 07:14:49 PM
7 votes:

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 05:25:25 PM
4 votes:
Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?
2013-04-29 05:12:56 PM
4 votes:
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 07:18:48 PM
3 votes:
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 06:51:48 PM
3 votes:
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 06:37:49 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-04-30 02:09:51 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-04-29 09:13:16 PM
2 votes:
2013-04-29 07:29:07 PM
2 votes:

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 07:27:06 PM
2 votes:
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 07:13:00 PM
2 votes:
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 07:09:11 PM
2 votes:
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 07:07:16 PM
2 votes:

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 06:26:10 PM
2 votes:

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 04:53:22 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-04-30 12:51:28 PM
1 votes:

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 12:43:24 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:15 PM
1 votes:

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 11:57:40 AM
1 votes:

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 05:01:00 AM
1 votes:
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 12:43:57 AM
1 votes:
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 12:37:40 AM
1 votes:

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 12:24:48 AM
1 votes:

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 12:08:31 AM
1 votes:

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 12:07:07 AM
1 votes:

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.

2013-04-29 11:15:49 PM
1 votes:

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 10:59:09 PM
1 votes:

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 10:12:39 PM
1 votes:

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 08:50:58 PM
1 votes:
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 08:45:54 PM
1 votes:

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 08:45:52 PM
1 votes:

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 08:38:30 PM
1 votes:

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 08:26:58 PM
1 votes:

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 08:12:17 PM
1 votes:

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 08:11:53 PM
1 votes:
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
2013-04-29 08:06:01 PM
1 votes:

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 07:56:13 PM
1 votes:
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 07:48:57 PM
1 votes:

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 07:44:32 PM
1 votes:
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 07:43:31 PM
1 votes:

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 07:41:17 PM
1 votes:

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 07:40:32 PM
1 votes:

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 07:37:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:35:47 PM
1 votes:

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 07:35:47 PM
1 votes:

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 07:33:24 PM
1 votes:

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 07:33:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:30:23 PM
1 votes:

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



FTFY.
2013-04-29 07:28:33 PM
1 votes:

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 07:27:13 PM
1 votes:
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 07:25:40 PM
1 votes:

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 07:24:37 PM
1 votes:
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 07:22:48 PM
1 votes:

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 07:22:30 PM
1 votes:

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 07:21:31 PM
1 votes:
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 07:20:34 PM
1 votes:

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 07:20:23 PM
1 votes:
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 07:19:29 PM
1 votes:

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 07:18:25 PM
1 votes:

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 07:18:18 PM
1 votes:
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 07:16:04 PM
1 votes:

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 07:15:09 PM
1 votes:
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 07:13:45 PM
1 votes:

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 06:44:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:56 PM
1 votes:

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 05:55:47 PM
1 votes:

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 05:41:40 PM
1 votes:

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


Better call Saul.
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report