Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Steax » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:25 pm UTC

It's remarkable how TV news seems to be so focused on the suspect's personal stories. CNN keeps talking about "they have a worldview of 'Islam' and posted videos of the war in Syria." They neglect to point out that they've been in the US for years, but repeatedly state that one recently became a US citizen last year (on september 11th?). I was tuning in to learn more about yesterday's chase and what actually happened - we learned a lot from scanners and online media but it's not clear what happened to the people/places/things that happened there. Gah.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:25 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm seeing a lot of twitter chatter about this fellow not yet having been read his Miranda rights.

Thaaaat is really not sitting okay with me.

Respectfully, it's a manhunt; you don't stop to read him his rights before you secure him, especially if he's already demonstrated that he's a threat to enforcement agents in pursuit. You capture him, make sure he's stable medically, then read him his rights and start the questioning. At the time of his capture, he may not even have been of sound mind; he looks like he had a bleeding headwound at least.


On a related note, I was wondering how people felt about the door to door searches. I've seen some twitter babble about our rights being trampled as SWAT was going through peoples homes, but frankly, find it to be silly that anyone would suggest in a citywide terrorist manhunt, that your right to personal privacy trumps law enforcements right to ensure a terrorist isn't hiding in your basement.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:29 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm seeing a lot of twitter chatter about this fellow not yet having been read his Miranda rights.

Thaaaat is really not sitting okay with me.

Respectfully, it's a manhunt; you don't stop to read him his rights before you secure him, especially if he's already demonstrated that he's a threat to enforcement agents in pursuit. You capture him, make sure he's stable medically, then read him his rights and start the questioning. At the time of his capture, he may not even have been of sound mind; he looks like he had a bleeding headwound at least.


On a related note, I was wondering how people felt about the door to door searches. I've seen some twitter babble about our rights being trampled as SWAT was going through peoples homes, but frankly, find it to be silly that anyone would suggest in a citywide terrorist manhunt, that your right to personal privacy trumps law enforcements right to ensure a terrorist isn't hiding in your basement.


Well, first off, no warrant or anything is required if you accept a search. No rights violation there. Given the situation, I imagine the VAST majority of people were openly welcoming police trying to find this guy. So, not really a huge rights issue.

Secondly, in life and death scenarios, there's always the lesser of two evil's defense.

Rights are absolutely important, and it's vital that we don't allow rights to be lessened in the wake of this...but SWAT searching for this guy was pretty reasonable, all things considered.

User avatar
chem1190c
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:59 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby chem1190c » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I will say, as someone who rarely watches the news, this whole weeks events have cemented in my mind how utterly fucking useless 'breaking news broadcasts' are.


Fox Affiliate identifies Zooey Deschanel as suspect.


*cough*

Posted by Fox about a half an hour into the manhunt:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... school-as/

A rep for Affleck did not immediately return a request for comment. A rep for Damon and administrators at the school could not immediately be reached for comment.
/at least I'm not a bowl of petunias/
\\current member of the post-pre-hat-queue-mob-mob-mob\\

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:42 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm seeing a lot of twitter chatter about this fellow not yet having been read his Miranda rights.

Thaaaat is really not sitting okay with me.

Respectfully, it's a manhunt; you don't stop to read him his rights before you secure him, especially if he's already demonstrated that he's a threat to enforcement agents in pursuit. You capture him, make sure he's stable medically, then read him his rights and start the questioning. At the time of his capture, he may not even have been of sound mind; he looks like he had a bleeding headwound at least.


On a related note, I was wondering how people felt about the door to door searches. I've seen some twitter babble about our rights being trampled as SWAT was going through peoples homes, but frankly, find it to be silly that anyone would suggest in a citywide terrorist manhunt, that your right to personal privacy trumps law enforcements right to ensure a terrorist isn't hiding in your basement.

You got the order wrong in a severe case like this. You capture him, stabilize him medically, start questioning, and then read him his rights. It sounds messed up for court admissibility, but it's useful to get him to give up info on more threats like where other bombs are placed. He'd be unlikely to give up that information with a lawyer there telling him to keep his mouth shut. (as any good defense lawyer would do)

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Steax » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:03 pm UTC

So okay, the Radical Islamist button has been pushed.

Senator Lindsey Graham (with Senator John McCain) were asking for a military trial of the guy, who is a US citizen:

Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks.

We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama Administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Diadem » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:51 pm UTC

clintonius wrote:The cops are trying to get this guy to tell them where he has planted explosives. If he were Mirandized, he would almost certainly demand a lawyer. Any lawyer worth his/her salt is going to tell their client not to answer any questions regarding the locations of bombs, because of how condemning that admission would be. He's much more likely to give up the information if he doesn't have to do against the advice of counsel.

Is this really the case? This guy is highly educated, and clearly has been planning this for a while (you don't produce that many bombs in a single afternoon). I would be extremely surprised if he hadn't looked up his rights in case of an arrest. Heck, everybody's seen at least 1 hollywood movie where these rights are read out, haven't they?

Are people in general really that much less likely to talk if they've been read their rights?

By the way, a question: Is reading out Miranda rights necessary, or is it only necessary that the person is provably aware of them? Imagine a law enforcement officer, who's read the Miranda rights to dozens of people during his career. Then he himself is arrestd and they fail to read him his rights. Does that make his testimony inadmissible, or will the judge go "Meh, it's pretty clear he knew them anyway"?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:52 pm UTC

Steax wrote:So okay, the Radical Islamist button has been pushed.

Senator Lindsey Graham (with Senator John McCain) were asking for a military trial of the guy, who is a US citizen:

Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks.

We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama Administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option.


Yeah, I saw that earlier. We gave Timothy McVeigh a fair trial, we should give this joker a fair trial.

Diadem wrote:
clintonius wrote:The cops are trying to get this guy to tell them where he has planted explosives. If he were Mirandized, he would almost certainly demand a lawyer. Any lawyer worth his/her salt is going to tell their client not to answer any questions regarding the locations of bombs, because of how condemning that admission would be. He's much more likely to give up the information if he doesn't have to do against the advice of counsel.

Is this really the case? This guy is highly educated, and clearly has been planning this for a while (you don't produce that many bombs in a single afternoon). I would be extremely surprised if he hadn't looked up his rights in case of an arrest. Heck, everybody's seen at least 1 hollywood movie where these rights are read out, haven't they?

Are people in general really that much less likely to talk if they've been read their rights?

By the way, a question: Is reading out Miranda rights necessary, or is it only necessary that the person is provably aware of them? Imagine a law enforcement officer, who's read the Miranda rights to dozens of people during his career. Then he himself is arrestd and they fail to read him his rights. Does that make his testimony inadmissible, or will the judge go "Meh, it's pretty clear he knew them anyway"?


Reading out Miranda Rights is necessary... and in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to further ask "Do you understand your rights??", and receive a "yes" answer.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby SlyReaper » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:53 pm UTC

Goes without saying, but treating him as an enemy combatant legitimizes what he did. Treating him like the deranged lunatic that he is, surely that's the best way to deal with this?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:08 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm seeing a lot of twitter chatter about this fellow not yet having been read his Miranda rights.

Thaaaat is really not sitting okay with me.

Respectfully, it's a manhunt; you don't stop to read him his rights before you secure him, especially if he's already demonstrated that he's a threat to enforcement agents in pursuit. You capture him, make sure he's stable medically, then read him his rights and start the questioning. At the time of his capture, he may not even have been of sound mind; he looks like he had a bleeding headwound at least.

Respectfully, you do not know what you're talking about, or at least not what everyone else was discussing.

The problem isn't whether he's read his rights before being secured, it's whether he's read his rights beforebeing questioned.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:16 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Goes without saying, but treating him as an enemy combatant legitimizes what he did. Treating him like the deranged lunatic that he is, surely that's the best way to deal with this?


Its all sorts of bad public relations if we did that. Sending the message that "Because you're a Muslim, you're not a Citizen anymore" is extremely worrying to me. I just say... send him to Federal Court for capital punishment. (Massachusetts doesn't have a death penalty anymore)

gmalivuk wrote:The problem isn't whether he's read his rights before being secured, it's whether he's read his rights beforebeing questioned.


Almost there. The Miranda Rights are an extension of the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself


The Miranda Warning is there to prove that you understand your 5th Amendment Rights. Everything you say after the Warning has been given out is proof that you weren't compelled. Our courts have a system for throwing out evidence that was obtained illegally: the Exclusionary Rule.

The issue here, is that there seems to be a hole in the 5th Amendment by nature of this "Public Safety Exception", which means that evidence isn't going to be excluded in a trial.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:24 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Derek » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:17 pm UTC

Steax wrote:It's remarkable how TV news seems to be so focused on the suspect's personal stories. CNN keeps talking about "they have a worldview of 'Islam' and posted videos of the war in Syria." They neglect to point out that they've been in the US for years, but repeatedly state that one recently became a US citizen last year (on september 11th?). I was tuning in to learn more about yesterday's chase and what actually happened - we learned a lot from scanners and online media but it's not clear what happened to the people/places/things that happened there. Gah.

I think they're trying to look for a motive. In these kinds of cases they always look at the suspect's background for an explanation or a warning sign. Usually they can find something like a history of mental illness, social isolation, etc. But these guys don't look like your typical case. It sounds like they were good students and generally likable guys, there were no signs that they were going to do something like this. So "they were muslim" is all they've got to work with, even though there is no evidence that they were remotely radical

And I am curious why they did it, but I don't think Islam is the reason.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:44 pm UTC

Unfortunately, it's enough of a reason for all too many Americans.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Diadem » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:55 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Its all sorts of bad public relations if we did that. Sending the message that "Because you're a Muslim, you're not a Citizen anymore" is extremely worrying to me. I just say... send him to Federal Court for capital punishment. (Massachusetts doesn't have a death penalty anymore)

Isn't that sentiment just as worrying? This is a crime by a Massachusettsian, committed in Massachusetts, on other Massachusettsians. What possible justification is there for the federal government to step in and overrule their justice system? I generally don't care much for state rights, but this seems a pretty open and shut case. Why should the federal government get to force the death penalty on state that doesn't want it?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:09 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Its all sorts of bad public relations if we did that. Sending the message that "Because you're a Muslim, you're not a Citizen anymore" is extremely worrying to me. I just say... send him to Federal Court for capital punishment. (Massachusetts doesn't have a death penalty anymore)

Isn't that sentiment just as worrying? This is a crime by a Massachusettsian, committed in Massachusetts, on other Massachusettsians. What possible justification is there for the federal government to step in and overrule their justice system? I generally don't care much for state rights, but this seems a pretty open and shut case. Why should the federal government get to force the death penalty on state that doesn't want it?


But the suspect probably violated Federal Law, which means he should be tried in Federal Court. Terrorism is a federal crime. IIRC, states don't necessarily have laws on Terrorism, so if they wanted him tried on that, they have to take him to Federal Court.

BTW: Federal Courts do offer additional protections for the suspect. The Defense can ask for a Change of Venue, and move the trial to nowhere-town Utah or Alaska. Over there, they can get a truly unbiased jury. So they'll probably want this case in Federal Court. I doubt an unbiased jury can be gathered anywhere on the East Coast...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby addams » Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:22 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Diadem wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Its all sorts of bad public relations if we did that. Sending the message that "Because you're a Muslim, you're not a Citizen anymore" is extremely worrying to me. I just say... send him to Federal Court for capital punishment. (Massachusetts doesn't have a death penalty anymore)

Isn't that sentiment just as worrying? This is a crime by a Massachusettsian, committed in Massachusetts, on other Massachusettsians. What possible justification is there for the federal government to step in and overrule their justice system? I generally don't care much for state rights, but this seems a pretty open and shut case. Why should the federal government get to force the death penalty on state that doesn't want it?


But the suspect probably violated Federal Law, which means he should be tried in Federal Court. Terrorism is a federal crime. IIRC, states don't necessarily have laws on Terrorism, so if they wanted him tried on that, they have to take him to Federal Court.

BTW: Federal Courts do offer additional protections for the suspect. The Defense can ask for a Change of Venue, and move the trial to nowhere-town Utah or Alaska. Over there, they can get a truly unbiased jury. So they'll probably want this case in Federal Court. I doubt an unbiased jury can be gathered anywhere on the East Coast...

There is no such thing as an Unbiased Jury.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:23 pm UTC

That is the most succinct and concise thing I think I've ever seen you say addams.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Belial » Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

Also, killing him will definitely resurrect his victims.

I mean, half of them are already back since we killed his brother, right?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:25 pm UTC

And let's be honest, it's REALLY not fair to stop at having resurrected just the left half of a victim.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Brace » Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:30 pm UTC

Hey, it's an even four if you count the cop who was shot later. Unless there's a variable weight to things. Maybe the 8 year old is weighted at 2, followed by the women at 1.5, the cop at 1.2
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm seeing a lot of twitter chatter about this fellow not yet having been read his Miranda rights.

Thaaaat is really not sitting okay with me.

Respectfully, it's a manhunt; you don't stop to read him his rights before you secure him, especially if he's already demonstrated that he's a threat to enforcement agents in pursuit. You capture him, make sure he's stable medically, then read him his rights and start the questioning. At the time of his capture, he may not even have been of sound mind; he looks like he had a bleeding headwound at least.

Respectfully, you do not know what you're talking about, or at least not what everyone else was discussing.

The problem isn't whether he's read his rights before being secured, it's whether he's read his rights beforebeing questioned.

No, that's not the problem at all. Miranda rights can be waived if the suspect holds information that poses a risk to public safety. The nature of questioning him isn't to gather incriminating information, but to discover if there are any more threats to the public. Or, as Belial said; nothing he says is admissible until he's been read his rights. I sincerely doubt the case would hinge upon anything he says between being apprehended and being brought to trial.

EDIT: Miranda Rights are, as I understand, not some magical incantation that ensures everything from this point on is conducted ethically. It's to ensure that the suspect knows they are entitled a lawyer, and thus, anything they say from this point on is admissible as evidence against them. They can choose to say nothing, and they can choose to request a lawyer.

Dzhokhar and his brother didn't shut down the entire city of Boston for lack of evidence linking him to the bombing.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby morriswalters » Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:25 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Also, killing him will definitely resurrect his victims.

I mean, half of them are already back since we killed his brother, right?

No let's don't kill/execute him. Let us put him in a 8 by 10 room for the rest of his natural born life. At whatever it costs to do that. It might have to be in segregation seeing how any number of prison groups will want to pay their respects. Let's see, separated from the human race for the rest of his life, he's what, 19, that is certainly humane. Perhaps we could send him to Norway, we could ask. Barring that we can always hope that modern technology or medicine will cure him magically and make him safe to release. Now sarcasm aside, what is it that you want to do that can be done now? The victims are dead, they can no longer be hurt, not by them or anyone else. What do you suggest for the living? Whatever we do we should stuff a sock in John McCain and Lindsey Graham's mouths while we are at it, they are both ruled by their fear and their politics.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:31 pm UTC

Massachusetts doesn't do the death penalty anymore, so why is it even an issue?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:50 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The problem isn't whether he's read his rights before being secured, it's whether he's read his rights beforebeing questioned.
No, that's not the problem at all.
That's the problem others have been discussing, which is why your pointing out that at the end of the manhunt they had to secure him as their top priority, instead of reading him his rights first, was irrelevant to what others have been discussing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The problem isn't whether he's read his rights before being secured, it's whether he's read his rights beforebeing questioned.
No, that's not the problem at all.
That's the problem others have been discussing, which is why your pointing out that at the end of the manhunt they had to secure him as their top priority, instead of reading him his rights first, was irrelevant to what others have been discussing.

Looking at the other... 3... comments made on the topic, mention of questioning him prior to reading his rights to secure public safety was mentioned. What I said wasn't remotely off topic, considering I wasn't suggesting secure him in lieu of questioning him, but rather, forgoing his Miranda Rights to ensure there aren't additional bombs is perfectly legitimate. And, as I said, the case against him isn't going to hinge on what he says between now and his trial, so whether or not he says stuff that would be useful but inadmissible is sort of moot (to address Belials point).
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby PolakoVoador » Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But the suspect probably violated Federal Law, which means he should be tried in Federal Court. Terrorism is a federal crime. IIRC, states don't necessarily have laws on Terrorism, so if they wanted him tried on that, they have to take him to Federal Court.

BTW: Federal Courts do offer additional protections for the suspect. The Defense can ask for a Change of Venue, and move the trial to nowhere-town Utah or Alaska. Over there, they can get a truly unbiased jury. So they'll probably want this case in Federal Court. I doubt an unbiased jury can be gathered anywhere on the East Coast...


I really have no idea, so help me here: what is the legal definition of Terrorism? Is a lunatic perched on a clock tower shooting random people terrorism? If a school shooting happens, and the maniac goes on the loose, instead of killing himself or whatever, is it terrorism?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:41 pm UTC

Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:00 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Massachusetts doesn't do the death penalty anymore, so why is it even an issue?


The hypothetical is if he is sent to Federal Court, and thus tried outside of Massachusetts.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby clintonius » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:34 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
clintonius wrote:The cops are trying to get this guy to tell them where he has planted explosives. If he were Mirandized, he would almost certainly demand a lawyer. Any lawyer worth his/her salt is going to tell their client not to answer any questions regarding the locations of bombs, because of how condemning that admission would be. He's much more likely to give up the information if he doesn't have to do against the advice of counsel.

Is this really the case? This guy is highly educated, and clearly has been planning this for a while (you don't produce that many bombs in a single afternoon). I would be extremely surprised if he hadn't looked up his rights in case of an arrest. Heck, everybody's seen at least 1 hollywood movie where these rights are read out, haven't they?

Are people in general really that much less likely to talk if they've been read their rights?

By the way, a question: Is reading out Miranda rights necessary, or is it only necessary that the person is provably aware of them? Imagine a law enforcement officer, who's read the Miranda rights to dozens of people during his career. Then he himself is arrestd and they fail to read him his rights. Does that make his testimony inadmissible, or will the judge go "Meh, it's pretty clear he knew them anyway"?

In general, yes. It's a lot harder to override the the explicit advice of your own attorney than it is to simply go along with the requests of the police, especially if they keep assuring you that they aren't questioning you about everything, and only need to know where the bombs are. I'm afraid I don't have data to back that up, but I know a bunch of lawyers (and am on the way to becoming one myself).

The answer to your second question comes from the text of the Miranda decision itself: "accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right." This statement may not contemplate the arrest of lawyers or police officers, but the language is plain. The Miranda warnings are a procedural safeguard. Procedure applies across the board, and I seriously doubt that courts would be willing to make exceptions, even when it's clear that the defendant had been exposed to the Miranda warnings before. People with prior arrests receive the Miranda warning, for example.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Angua » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:19 pm UTC

If they do question him without reading him his Miranda rights under the public safety exemption, what happens if he requests a lawyer anyway? Does he still have a right to a lawyer even if he hasn't been officially informed of such?
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Darryl » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:19 pm UTC

Angua wrote:If they do question him without reading him his Miranda rights under the public safety exemption, what happens if he requests a lawyer anyway? Does he still have a right to a lawyer even if he hasn't been officially informed of such?

Here's an FBI.gov article on the Public Safety Exception.

It appears that, yes, should he ask for a lawyer, they are required to either get him his lawyer or a public defender, and would have to cease questioning. Specifically,
...statements obtained by the government under the public safety exception cannot be coerced or obtained through tactics that violate fundamental notions of due process.

So, should the accused asked for a lawyer during public safety questioning, any further questioning would fall under the exclusionary rule, as well as anything found as a result (as part of the "fruit of the poisoned tree" reasoning).
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Steax » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:29 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Goes without saying, but treating him as an enemy combatant legitimizes what he did. Treating him like the deranged lunatic that he is, surely that's the best way to deal with this?


As far as I know, the term "enemy combatant" means "a member of the armed forces of a country at war with one's own". Maybe we can expand that definition to add "tribe" or "organization" as well, since the "war on terror" had the US go against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I'd be baffled if they could be treated a combatant.

And apparently their definition for terrorism goes like this:

LA Times Article wrote:“The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans,” the senators said. “We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now."
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
Wednesday
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:31 pm UTC
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Wednesday » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:45 am UTC

The terms "party to the conflict" or "unlawful combatant" will probably be brought out in the near future. The former sprung up in 1949 with the Geneva conventions, George W. Bush pulled the other one out of his ass to get around the whole prisoners of war thing when he was convinced every arab man was a member of the Taliban, but the Taliban wasn't the army of a state, and technically that disallowed him from calling them an enemy combatant, which would have provided the prisoners with the rights outlined in the Geneva articles.
Sexts From The Void wrote:i struggle to maneuver on a chessboard of dicks

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby firechicago » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:54 am UTC

Unlawful combatant comes out of the Geneva Conventions. The term that the Bush administration used was "Enemy Combatant." Another example of the Bush administration's genius for taking terms that have specific technical meanings and using them in ways that were technically correct while twisting their connotations beyond recognition. c.f. "Preventative War" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

User avatar
Wednesday
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:31 pm UTC
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Wednesday » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:00 am UTC

While you're technically correct (thanks for making me look this shit up, I don't remember as much as I thought I did from class) the standing definition was twistfucked manipulated by Bush in 2008 from the historical to the historical + oh, yeah, the Taliban too because we hate them so they shouldn't have rights. It more or less allowed him to say whatever the fuck he wanted because he's the president, the president, fuck you, he's the president. Obama then changed it back when he became president in 2009 because duh.

So uh, yeah, what you said, but with more swearing and old memes.
Sexts From The Void wrote:i struggle to maneuver on a chessboard of dicks

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:15 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331


I can't really see how you can say that B applies unless you establish some motive, and considering the two C clauses, its clear that this is domestic terrorism.

But it really does just return us to the question of motive, which apart from "He says his worldview is muslim on a social website, muslims have an assumed motivation for terrorism ("they hate our freedom" etc)" there doesn't seem to be anything out there that addresses motive atm.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby firechicago » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:20 am UTC

Yeah, the Geneva Conventions have two clear categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are governed by the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants are essentially criminals, and they should be tried as such under the laws of the detaining country. The Bush administration created this third category of "enemy combatants" who were neither lawful nor unlawful combatants, and therefore they weren't protected under either the Geneva Conventions or American law. It sounds like the real legal terms but actually it completely defeats the point of the legal distinction.

Similarly, the Iraq war was supposed to be a "Preventive War" which sounds like the "Preemptive War" that just war theorists cite as one of the examples of a good reason to go to war. But actually "Preventive War" is a completely different concept, one which just war theorists have specifically singled out for condemnation. And nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are all Weapons of Mass Destruction, which magically makes the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons into evidence that he might have nukes any day now.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby addams » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:29 am UTC

Brace wrote:Hey, it's an even four if you count the cop who was shot later. Unless there's a variable weight to things. Maybe the 8 year old is weighted at 2, followed by the women at 1.5, the cop at 1.2


What have you been reading?
Where did you get those values?

The poster above is bothered by The Double Speak.
When the names are translated, the names do not come through with the Emotional Impact of the original. Right?

It is, just, A War to End All Wars, every time. Right?

Spoiler:
Do you ever feel disappointed, we did not go out in a Blaze of Glory?
The Scientists and The Militaries and, nearly, Everyone! Worked Together to NOT do something.

We held back from destroying ourselves and each other.
For This?! Crap.

That is such a selfish perspective.
Today. Today, Around the Planet there are amazing moments taking place.

We are Billions strong. Only six. Or; Are we, now, eight?
Many, many of us are Happy.
Many, many of us are Loved and Cared for like treasured Pets.

Where did that personality with The Global Perspective go?
There was an EarthQuake? In China? Seventy? That is a lot.

Seventy is one of those numbers.
When there are 10,000 dead, it shifts Reality all around.
Even five hundred will do it.

But; Seventy. What will The Chinese People do?
shhh. I bet they do it in Chinese. shhh.


I know people sound horrible. They are.
Unless some of you can show tentacles, You will be assumed to be Human.

Humans in large groups are called People.
Each one undergoes a transformation from Human to People.

Moving from Me Status to We Status.
Is is a chosen change as well as a physical change.

Math Guys? Please, explain it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:26 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:Goes without saying, but treating him as an enemy combatant legitimizes what he did. Treating him like the deranged lunatic that he is, surely that's the best way to deal with this?


Its all sorts of bad public relations if we did that. Sending the message that "Because you're a Muslim, you're not a Citizen anymore" is extremely worrying to me. I just say... send him to Federal Court for capital punishment. (Massachusetts doesn't have a death penalty anymore)


Strictly speaking, it ain't cause he's Muslim. It's because he almost certainly blew up a lot of people.

Now, that's worrying enough. I don't really like the idea of stripping citizen rights pre-trial...I'll accept it if it's necessary in an urgent situation, of course, but once apprehended, that would no longer seem to be the case. I see no particular reason why we can't give him a perfectly fair trial like any other citizen.

Granted, the amount of evidence here is likely overwelming. I would be astonished if he were found innocent, but hey, the trial is a right for all.

I do want to find out more about the reasoning, though. I believe it's been claimed that the uncle of the two said that "someone radicalized them". The big question, of course, would be "who?". That's the interesting part. Are they radical, well, duh. Are they muslims? Well, it would appear to be so. But why, exactly, did these two guys head down this unusually violent path? That's the bit I want to know.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Steax » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:51 am UTC

I find their actions to be rather odd. Usually previous extremist islamists have no issues with dying for their cause, and, frankly, the original bombings could have been much more devastating to do as such an attack. Additionally, given the location and conditions, pulling off a larger suicide attack could have been very easy; unlike trying to smuggle something on an airplane or into a crowded office building, getting more explosives into a position that could've hurt more people would be easy during the marathon. Couple this with the way the bombs were positioned to give high visibility to TV cameras and media, and their attempts to flee the police for hours... It doesn't seem to fit what I'd imagine that sort of attack would be. It's as if they wanted to survive all that and witness the effect it did on people.

Of course, this is all just speculation (and me wondering to myself).
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests