Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Shit...
Your subtle political humor surpassed even my own! I lay crippled before your mighty wit, begging for mercy! I am unworthy!

[MonkeyHead]

He deserves whatever fate is handed to him, but I pity him.

No he does not. He, along with anyone else who enters into the justice system of any nation deserves the rights accorded to them by said nation. IN the US, this should mean a trial by jury, the right to remain silent, and the right to a lawyer. The trouble is that there are big names pushing for this not to occur. You can not pick and choose which criminals (People are calling him an enemy combatant. Was there an invasion while I was asleep?) get rights under law and which do not. The fact that he was possibly the patsy to his brother is kinda ireelevant - ignorance of the law is not a defence.

[SalmonGod]

ignorance of the law is not a defence.

While there's no way ignorance of the law played any part in this case, I just want to say that I've always felt this is a bullshit argument.  It implies that everyone should be an omni-lawyer.

[MonkeyHead]

ignorance of the law is not a defence.

While there's no way ignorance of the law played any part in this case, I just want to say that I've always felt this is a bullshit argument.  It implies that everyone should be an omni-lawyer.

I respectfully disagree. Most laws that people break are based on common sense or basic human behaviour standards that are (or at least should be) taught from a young age, rather than deeper and more arcane statutes buried under tomes of procedure and precedent. In the cast majority of cases (excepting ones where mental illnesses may play a role) people cannot credibly say "I didnt know I should not have stolen/harmed/whatever".

In the case of this young 19 yr old guy, simply "going along" with what his brother said (which appears to represent a popular opinion being voiced) is a rubbish justification - if that were the case, he damn well knew that his actions were wrong, and should have done something about it.

[SalmonGod]

rather than deeper and more arcane statutes buried under tomes of procedure and precedent.

Except the statement is completely useless in cases where the law is common sense, because no one tries to claim ignorance as a defense for those.  Most of the time I hear that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (the exact phrase I'm used to hearing), it's in contexts involving obscure stuff.

In the case of this young 19 yr old guy, simply "going along" with what his brother said (which appears to represent a popular opinion being voiced) is a rubbish justification - if that were the case, he damn well knew that his actions were wrong, and should have done something about it.

Not that I'm disagreeing with this.  It's just a statement that really bothers me, regardless of context.  The issue here isn't that anyone thinks the guy acted out of ignorance of the law.  It's that his judgment was likely severely compromised.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You know people in the US have it easy when they're being apologists for terrorists.

[alway]

You know people in the US have it easy when they're being apologists for terrorists.

Cool flame baiting, bro.

[Spaghetti7]

They've released a video of the last suspect hiding, for those interested.

[RedKing]

Got a snapshot sent internally at the Bureau that shows an ATF SRT member (kinda like SWAT) was one of the folks who went in and physically apprehended Tsarnaev. Made me proud.

I'm glad they got him, and I'm glad they got him alive. I'm hoping he pulls through (still in critical condition), more for the answers than out of concern for his well-being.

That said, put me in the "apologist" camp. I feel like this kid wasn't a hardboiled, cold-blooded terrorist. Just a guy who was trying to follow his older brother's lead and got in way over his head. Doesn't mean that I don't want to see him prosecuted, and he could quite possibly be looking at life imprisonment in Supermax, if not the death penalty. :-/

[palsch]

Given we don't have any information about a fair few critical points here, maybe hold off on the pointless speculation until more is known?

Not like there aren't a whole mess of juicy debate points still open just based on what we do know.

For example;

What is the status of the house-to-house searches under the fourth amendment? If the police had seen drugs during their searches, would it be legal to arrest those in possession?

At what point would it make sense to read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights? Is it even necessary in this case? Would there be any advantage from not?

Why the fuck is McCain talking about military detention? Have he and Graham finally lost it?

[Akura]

Given we don't have any information about a fair few critical points here, maybe hold off on the pointless speculation until more is known?

Not like there aren't a whole mess of juicy debate points still open just based on what we do know.

For example;

What is the status of the house-to-house searches under the fourth amendment? If the police had seen drugs during their searches, would it be legal to arrest those in possession?

At what point would it make sense to read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights? Is it even necessary in this case? Would there be any advantage from not?

Why the fuck is McCain talking about military detention? Have he and Graham finally lost it?

Can't answer the last one(probably yes), but the first question, probably not. Mainly because they had no reason to think the people searched had drugs to begin with, and the focus of their investigation certainly wasn't anything drug related, but an armed maniac on the loose. I'm not an expert on that, so I'm probably wrong.

For the second one, it would be when(if?) he regains consciousness.

[palsch]

Can't answer the last one(probably yes), but the first question, probably not. Mainly because they had no reason to think the people searched had drugs to begin with, and the focus of their investigation certainly wasn't anything drug related, but an armed maniac on the loose. I'm not an expert on that, so I'm probably wrong.

See, I think is an interesting question.

Let's say that the police searching a house saw some drugs that had been left on the kitchen counter. The police have a right to seize or otherwise act on any evidence of a crime left in plain view, providing they were legally in the position that brought said evidence into view. So the question would hinge on whether they were in the house legally or not, not what purpose they were actually in the house for.

Any such case would depend on whether the house-to-house search was "reasonable" or not, with very little legal guidance on what reasonable is in this context. Also on whether the police were invited in (waving any fourth amendment rights) or not.

It's most likely just a hypothetical, but a fun one to pick over.

For the second one, it would be when(if?) he regains consciousness.

I'm less certain about this one.

From a prosecution point of view, it seems extremely unlikely that any case against the man will be based on his testimony. Not reading him his rights will make any such testimony inadmissible, but not unusable. If the authorities were more concerned about gathering intelligence than evidence then they might choose to question him for a while without letting him have access to legal representation.

In fact, current case law allows for interrogation done for purposes of public safety (such as determining if there are more people acting with the brothers, or if there might be bombs or other materials hidden somewhere) can be admitted despite Miranda. My guess would have to be that there will be a period of such questioning before he is read his rights and the criminal prosecution properly begins.

What I'm less sure about is whether such questioning is really required given it's almost a definite PR hit against the authorities (even if it is legal, makes sense and doesn't violate any rights). I can see potential advantages, but I'm not 100% sure either way.

[Dutchling]

How does denying someone his rights not violate any rights?

I understand it's technically legal, but...

[palsch]

How does denying someone his rights not violate any rights?

I understand it's technically legal, but...

Miranda is about the requirements for your testimony to be used in court against you. Remember that the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. Your words can't be used against you except in very specific circumstances. Those circumstances include you being made aware of those circumstances (eg, being read your rights).

None of this has to do with whether the police or other authorities can ask you questions for other reasons. It's only about the use of such testimony as evidence in your trial.

That said, there are other laws and restrictions that govern interrogation and holding someone without charges. Those are always relevant and will be what determines how the government questions him.

[Zangi]

Why the fuck is McCain talking about military detention? Have he and Graham finally lost it?

I would like to put forth the idea that they have never lost it.  It is the obvious course of action for them.  Deterring from the crazy talk would mean they have lost it.

Meanwhile, the city's mayor Tom Menino has said authorities do not know if they will ever be able to question the surviving suspect.

Dzhokhar, 19, was captured late on Friday after a gunfight with officers that ended the city-wide search.

He was shot in the throat and could not speak because of injuries to his tongue, said a source close to the investigation, preventing police from questioning him.

So...  he probably can't say anything anymore, but... he can still write or type, can he not?