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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby clintonius » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:07 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
clintonius wrote:But the point is moot, as this isn't the charge they're bringing.
Yeah, but, continuing the nitpicky business, it reads like a grenade can be a destructive device can be a weapon of mass destruction. That seems like an incredibly shitty lack of distinction to me. I mean, a grenade and a weapon of mass destruction should be different things under the law, shouldn't they?
Yeah, I think so, though that's a policy decision rather than a matter of statutory interpretation. I believe using the term "weapons of mass destruction" is confusing in this context and generally inflammatory. The confusion in the thread is one good reason use a more appropriate phrase. Your words sum up my feelings pretty well:
jestingrabbit wrote:I feel like the name of the offense is misleading at best, and likely to feed into a climate of fear and misinformation at worst.

On to other posts.

omgryebread wrote:Is anyone actually confused by the charge? Does anyone read the specific charges against Tsarnaev and think "oh shit he used a nuke?!?" Are these people a significant group, or are there less of them than say, people who believe the world is run by lizard-people?

I'm all for accuracy in language, but I think trying to clear up this "confusion" is tilting at windmills.
PolakoVoadar hit the nail on the head. No reasonable person thinks this means Tsernaev used a nuke, though it is plausible that some people now think the explosive devices were much larger than they'd originally believed. The bigger point, as evidenced in this thread, is that people are confused as to what constitutes a WMD, and are concerned that they have inadvertently committed serious offenses by owning antique firearms or getting creative on the 4th of July. These are misinterpretations, but it's hardly reasonable to expect everyone to parse legal language. That's why lawyers are so expensive.

To expand on Zamfir's point, which was correct: Statutes make references to definitions, clarifications, exceptions, and other statutes, and these all must be read in conjunction with one another. It's easy to look at the definition of "destructive device" and assume that your July fireworks or your old blackpowder rifle count as WMDs, but that is flatly incorrect for at least two reasons. TGB covered the first: "The term 'destructive device' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon. . . or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes," etc. That means elephant guns don't qualify, either. These are exceptions and clarifications written directly into the statute. The second reason is that the devices listed are only considered WMDs for purposes of prosecution under 2332a, meaning you must be suspected of committing one of the offenses in 2332a before the "destructive device" becomes a "weapon of mass destruction" in the eyes of the law.

Tyndmyr wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Where are people getting this idea that you can face this charge for "mucking about with fireworks with no real intent to hurt anyone"? First of all, section 2332a only applies if you try to use a weapon against a person or property. By definition, that's not something you can do by accident. Second, fireworks are not destructive devices if they are "neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon." So even if you did take a firework and deliberately use it to kill someone, it would not qualify as a weapon of mass destruction unless you did some extra work in order to weaponize it.
You can totally use a device against property with no intent to hurt anyone. Let's say you're screwing around with fireworks, duct taping them together into some unholy mess with the idea of causing a huge bang. You blast it at the neighbor's barn. Crap. It burns down.

Stupid and irresponsible? Sure. Technically falls afoul of WMD laws? Yeah, probably. Actually on a moral equivalent with smuggling a nuke into a city? God no.
It absolutely does not fall afoul of WMD laws. TGB listed one reason. Every single word in a statute is important, and "against" here means there is a requirement that the usage be deliberate. And again, there's this: "The term 'destructive device' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon." Making a bigger, more badass 4th of July rocket does not make the rocket "redesigned for use as a weapon" in your example.

Tyndmyr wrote:Showing intent to harm property is not that high of a legal standard
And, uh, what is the legal standard? Have a source? If you're making this up as you go along, please stop. I'm all for discussion, but you're touting misinformation as fact, and I'm not all for that. Nobody is arguing that the statute isn't overly broad. It's just not as broad as you think it is.

As a final point: Nothing in these statutes means we found WMDs in Iraq. Again, you have to trigger the change from "destructive device" to WMD via 2332a. More pertinently, these laws have nothing to do with how the military or international organizations would define WMDs. This is a domestic criminal statute with absolutely no authority over or legal relation to any military definitions.

tl;dr -- yes, it's confusing to call these things WMDs; no, your fireworks and rifles will not be considered "destructive devices," let alone "weapons of mass destruction."
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
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Thesh » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:10 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:Has anyone seen this crazy conspiracy theories?


I particularly like the image of the forum post. "Parts of that post from the 15th match up, so let's ignore everything that doesn't!"
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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 » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:14 pm UTC

Does anyone have the actual explanation for the other guys in backpacks? I'm guessing they'll all turn out to be "staff of team ___ from company/organization/whatever ___", but I can't seem to find anything. Snopes actually confirms that both photos of the shredded backpack and the person with it are real.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

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 » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:17 pm UTC

I remember some news organization or another saying in passing that they were police.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Thesh » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:33 pm UTC

Even if they did work for a private security firm, that doesn't actually mean anything. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boston hired private contractors to do security for an event like that.

If they were operating in secret, why would they where clothing with company logos? I can imagine spies in Russia in the 1970s walking into a government office with a CIA cap on.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby K-R » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:41 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
clintonius wrote:But the point is moot, as this isn't the charge they're bringing.


Yeah, but, continuing the nitpicky business, it reads like a grenade can be a destructive device can be a weapon of mass destruction. That seems like an incredibly shitty lack of distinction to me. I mean, a grenade and a weapon of mass destruction should be different things under the law, shouldn't they?

Whether they should be or not, they aren't.

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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:11 am UTC

When terrorists start using chemical or nuclear weapons, then we can worry about updating our laws. But until then, I don't think its a major problem in our laws. For all practical purposes, high explosives is about as bad as it can get.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:26 am UTC

clintonius wrote:tl;dr -- yes, it's confusing to call these things WMDs; no, your fireworks and rifles will not be considered "destructive devices," let alone "weapons of mass destruction."


Constructive Possession is a bitch, though. The whole "can be readily converted" aspect of it is, in addition to very broad, very subjective as well. Constructive Possession has resulted in a shoelace being treated as a machine gun. Incidentally, this is due to the NFA restrictions as well, and it's the same agency(BATF) in charge of enforcing both. So, yeah, the idea that they will interpret the law the way you think seems far from certain.

For instance, a rocket having an explosive charge >4 ounces is explicitly defined as a destructive device in section 921 of the US Code. That actually seems fairly easy for a bunch of people screwing around to hit without actually posing a serious threat to masses of people.

Hell, if this starts being taken more seriously, it could pose a big issue for hobby rocketry.

KnightExemplar wrote:When terrorists start using chemical or nuclear weapons, then we can worry about updating our laws. But until then, I don't think its a major problem in our laws. For all practical purposes, high explosives is about as bad as it can get.


Terrorists have already used chemical weapons. Hell, we had ricin mailed to political figures here in the US this past week. If you don't count that as terrorism, then certainly the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system counted, yes? Mass attacks on civvies with poison gas seems to be a pretty clear cut case of chemical 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 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:01 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:For instance, a rocket having an explosive charge >4 ounces is explicitly defined as a destructive device in section 921 of the US Code.

It is explicitly exempted because it is not designed to be a weapon. As has been stated at least three times now.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:12 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:For instance, a rocket having an explosive charge >4 ounces is explicitly defined as a destructive device in section 921 of the US Code.

It is explicitly exempted because it is not designed to be a weapon. As has been stated at least three times now.


Yes, you keep repeating that. However, you have overlooked the portion just above it, which states that something that can be readily assembled into a destructive device is also a destructive device.

This greatly limits the design exemption, because, frankly, the difference between "that rocket I assembled because it looks damned cool" and "that improvised bomb I want to kill people" is non-existent in terms of material.

Consider, for instance, BATF's policy on launchers. A 37mm launcher is considered a destructive device if you have a shell that can be launched from it that is defined as "anti-personnel". This is a vague categorization, but it explicitly does include non-lethal projectiles as AP, so we're not talking actual hand grenades here, even. However, if you have only shells that are not in this category, it's not a DD, and you're good to go. Same item, different rules. Toss in constructive intent, though, and if they believe that the particular combination of items you have is one that you COULD build an anti-personnel grenade from, and you're back to being screwed.

Destructive Device interpretations in practice are much more encompassing than you think they are, and the lines can be very, very fuzzy indeed.

Also, the question of if defendant intent should be taken into account at all is still very much an open question.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:43 am UTC

With just a box cutter and some model rocket engines you can separate the exploding part of a model rocket from the rocket part and get enough explosives to put holes in pavement; average irresponsible teen activity. Replace pavement with people and you have an improvised explosive device.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Xeio » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:05 am UTC

Steax wrote:Does anyone have the actual explanation for the other guys in backpacks? I'm guessing they'll all turn out to be "staff of team ___ from company/organization/whatever ___", but I can't seem to find anything. Snopes actually confirms that both photos of the shredded backpack and the person with it are real.
I'm confused, what significance do random guys wearing backpacks have?

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 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:01 am UTC

The conspiracy theories say they were the actual people who put the backpacks there. I just want to know if they actually are people from Craft (and if yes, if they were employed as security staff or something) or someone else.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:18 pm UTC

Steax wrote:The conspiracy theories say they were the actual people who put the backpacks there. I just want to know if they actually are people from Craft (and if yes, if they were employed as security staff or something) or someone else.
They may not have been employed by anyone. Even if they were security contractors, they very well may be back from deployment and watching the race like everyone else. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find an old guy wearing a Marines hat as well. Doesn't mean the Marines had anything to do with event security or the bombing.

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Chen » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:35 pm UTC

About the whole WMD thing, didn't someone earlier post there is no mandatory minimum sentence for this? If that's correct who cares if you get charged under this is you use fireworks to burn down a barn? Using explosives to harm people or property seems pretty reasonable to fall under "use of weapons of mass destruction". It may clash with our initial thought of weapons of mass destruction, but really any explosive should apply here. The whole WMDs in Iraq has thrown the perception of the term off, but "mass destruction" in and of itself is pretty vague to begin with. Is 3 people and hundreds injured, mass destruction? If not what then? 10? 100? 1000? This seems to be a perfectly reasonable charge for this case and frankly any other case that involves explosives harming people.

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 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:37 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Steax wrote:The conspiracy theories say they were the actual people who put the backpacks there. I just want to know if they actually are people from Craft (and if yes, if they were employed as security staff or something) or someone else.
They may not have been employed by anyone. Even if they were security contractors, they very well may be back from deployment and watching the race like everyone else. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find an old guy wearing a Marines hat as well. Doesn't mean the Marines had anything to do with event security or the bombing.


I'm not implying that their existence had anything to do with the bombing. I'm just wondering what the truth to the conspiracy theory is. E.g. if someone walks up to me and whispers "dude, the boston bombings were totally orchestrated by this military group..." I'd know what to tell them.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby emceng » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:42 pm UTC

Ok, saw on the news a picture of the pressure cooker that was used. I can't find the pic online, except for a few pieces of twisted metal. Anyone know where I could find a pic?
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10329
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby addams » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:32 am UTC

emceng wrote:Ok, saw on the news a picture of the pressure cooker that was used. I can't find the pic online, except for a few pieces of twisted metal. Anyone know where I could find a pic?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/m ... 8#51653588
It is a powerful meme.
I think it is wrong. Still.

Spoiler:
I think it is wrong because people can not out legislate people into being nice.
Nice people don't need a bunch of legislation to prevent them from Blowing Up runners.
Make all dangerous toys illegal and we will not be much safer.

All TV people are enthusiastic about this stuff.
It's their job.
Any harm done?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/m ... 8#51654190

Harm? Not, really. Yet.
Spoiler:
People that were standing in the Wrong or Right place are getting medical care, because Senator Warren says 'they' should have the best possible chance of Recovery.
How does that play to a person that was not a victim of The Bomb?

Each and every person should have the best possible chance of Recovery.

How can a Nation be ok with That?
This person has Money. He will be cared for.
This person was hit by a Bomb. We will have little girls gather money. He will be cared for.
This person was (?) Poor and unknown. Tough Luck. We can't afford that.

What do the Poor and Unknown do? Die?
Sure. Seems that is the Expectation.

I have no problem with The Milk of Human Kindness.
Yet; Something seems wrong about this expression.

The People want to Give.
If, like in Civilized Nations, all The People received good medical care, then the extra money could find a creative, peaceful and socially unifying use. Or; Not.
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 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:18 pm UTC

Steax wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Steax wrote:The conspiracy theories say they were the actual people who put the backpacks there. I just want to know if they actually are people from Craft (and if yes, if they were employed as security staff or something) or someone else.
They may not have been employed by anyone. Even if they were security contractors, they very well may be back from deployment and watching the race like everyone else. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find an old guy wearing a Marines hat as well. Doesn't mean the Marines had anything to do with event security or the bombing.


I'm not implying that their existence had anything to do with the bombing. I'm just wondering what the truth to the conspiracy theory is. E.g. if someone walks up to me and whispers "dude, the boston bombings were totally orchestrated by this military group..." I'd know what to tell them.


I'd probably just look at them like they were crazy. Conspiracy nutters tend not to be overly concerned with little details like facts and logic. Listen to them if you're amused by such things, wander away once they get tiresome.

Anyway, back to the event. Looks like they've been questioning the younger brother, and gotten some info. I'm gonna section this out cause there's a fair bit of stuff that's new to this thread. I'm too lazy to source it, but essentially every major media outlet is reporting on this stuff, so googling should get you more info on anything you wish to know.

How they made the bomb.

Phantom Fireworks keeps excellent records of their sales, and ran the names after the news went public. Turns out, the older brother did indeed buy a DIY mortar package in NH. Obviously, this has materials what went bang. A pyrotechnic device was also found in the younger brother's place. The Phantom Fireworks CEO says that this was probably not used in the bomb, but rather as a test device. His reasoning is that there probably wasn't enough material in the one kit to make the bombs they had.

I have a slightly different interpretation. I agree they probably had test devices, and I definitely agree that the kit sold was not large enough to make all the bombs they used...but it's possible they purchased pyrotechnic devices from multiple sources, being worried about buying too much at one place. Stripping the powder from such devices is really easy, so this is a pretty plausible path to them making the bomb. That said, we don't yet know the composition of the explosive for sure, so this is still not certain.

We do know that they've recovered some kind of circuit board thought to be part of the bomb(I'd assume from an egg timer or the like), and some green hobby fuse. The latter is pretty standard on fireworks, so that might well be were it came from.

Blame

Well, there's some eagerness on the part of politicians to blame immigration. Some would rather blame the usual whipping boy, intelligence agencies. Thing is, I don't see that there's actually that much to indicate in advance that these folks were trouble. The consensus seems to be that they were radicalized online AFTER being here, so that would be a very difficult thing to deny immigration for. Sure, the older brother visited home once, but immigrants visiting home is actually pretty common. Additionally, the russians were once curious about the older brother, but nothing came of it, apparently. Chechnya having a long history of anti-russian issues, that's not necessarily a big deal, especially since it looks like we had no data indicating he was a concern. Even if we'd watchlisted him or the like, I don't know that it would have prevented the attack. I'm not sure what you could reasonably expect these sorts of folks to be flagged on, and I suspect we'd be better served investigating the radicalization process than blaming an agency.

Political Fallout

Well, Bloomberg is saying the constitution must change to give the government more power. He appears to mostly have a beef with privacy, and wants camera proliferation, more surveillance, etc, but this statement makes me a bit twitchy. Cameras are already proliferating, even with constitutional privacy safeguards. The idea that we need to toss out rights in order to make this MORE of a thing is a bit worrying. The broadness of his statement also might mean he has other rights in mind for limitation.

Immigration is somehow being affected, even though, as I said, I don't know how they could have been expected to forsee this when they made the yes/no decisions for immigration. Overall, I'd imagine that the risks from immigrants would be fairly low. I'm not even sure that immigrants are higher risk than any other citizens for terrorism, but if they are, it can't be by all that much. We've got to keep in mind that terrorism is still pretty rare overall. We could entirely shut down immigration tomorrow, and the effect this would have on terrorist attacks would likely be minor. The effects it would have on legitimate activities would be great, though. So, this doesn't seem to be a rational thing...just another case of politicians jumping on a tragedy to use it to further their goals.

Harry Reid introduced S.B. 792 for Sen Lautenberg, a bill that requires background checks for gunpowder purchases. Lautenberg claims that the boston bombing shows a need to regulate explosive materials. Gunpowder is, of course, not explosive by the standard definition. It would also require a permit to make homemade explosives. I can't find the text of the bill yet, but I know that true explosives are already subject to such rules. However, given that the boston bombers already violated rather a number of laws, I doubt that this would have dissuaded them. The bill does not appear to address fireworks purchases, so it's relevance seems even more questionable, as it doesn't even address the route actually used to get the components. Looks like another case of tragedy bandwagoning.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby emceng » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:37 pm UTC

Sigh. And this is the most worrisome thing about the attack. Not that people's deaths weren't a tragedy, but the government is going to make a power grab so that they can 'do something'. This attack would have been nearly impossible to predict, without China-like police intrusion into personal lives. That is not a road we should be going down.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:06 pm UTC

I think the fact that we caught the guys so quickly provides evidence that we already have sufficient surveillance. The more people you attack, the more people with cameras that can catch you.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:47 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think the fact that we caught the guys so quickly provides evidence that we already have sufficient surveillance. The more people you attack, the more people with cameras that can catch you.

When you start an attack during a live broadcast. Of course, the best photos and images of the bombers came from security cameras of private businesses, no? If that's true, we're already living in an age of surveillance, it's just a question of who has it. While I don't trust businesses with the data, I certainly don't want government getting it without a warrant.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

Apparently the suspect was questioned for 16 hours before he was read his Miranda rights. As soon as they were read to him, he stopped talking.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:10 pm UTC

Yup. And nothing he said can be used against him (unless it can be shown that it was a matter of immediate public safety).

The link is misleading. Just because police didn't suspect there was anyone else involved doesn't mean they should abandon that possibility. Or the possibility that there were more bombs. Asking this guy questions about bombs and bombers did not threaten his rights, it threatened the court case they're building against him. I'm fine with a small risk of a reduced sentence if it means potentially saving lives.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Роберт » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:25 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Yup. And nothing he said can be used against him (unless it can be shown that it was a matter of immediate public safety).

The link is misleading. Just because police didn't suspect there was anyone else involved doesn't mean they should abandon that possibility. Or the possibility that there were more bombs. Asking this guy questions about bombs and bombers did not threaten his rights, it threatened the court case they're building against him. I'm fine with a small risk of a reduced sentence if it means potentially saving lives.

So long as nothing from before the warning is used in court... I'm fine with them taking less than a day getting info from a guy who can't talk. It's not like the fact that this guy did bad stuff is tenuous. So the questioning seems totally reasonable. If there's more terrorist cells planning to bomb events on U.S. soil, and he would tell them that if asked, fine.

For all I know he knew his rights already, and is clamming up now that he's been "informed" because he knows that what he says is no longer inadmissible in court.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:29 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Yup. And nothing he said can be used against him (unless it can be shown that it was a matter of immediate public safety).

The link is misleading. Just because police didn't suspect there was anyone else involved doesn't mean they should abandon that possibility. Or the possibility that there were more bombs. Asking this guy questions about bombs and bombers did not threaten his rights, it threatened the court case they're building against him. I'm fine with a small risk of a reduced sentence if it means potentially saving lives.


So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:36 pm UTC

In cases like this it's going to be hard to tell, say, how much evidence he has back at him apartment, or on his computer, etc. All you really know is that SOMEONE has been setting off bombs and killing people. And that should probably stop. So grill him about any other bombs and bombers (which are likely covered under the immediate danger exception the Supreme Court made anyway).

If there's something he tells you that you need for the case, you can always read him his rights and ask again. Very little is risked by questioning him before his rights are read to him. I guess you need to be careful that the pre-Miranda questioning doesn't lead to other investigations, for fear of tainting evidence, but with that precaution, there's not a good enough reason to avoid questioning him.

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 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:38 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Yup. And nothing he said can be used against him (unless it can be shown that it was a matter of immediate public safety).

The link is misleading. Just because police didn't suspect there was anyone else involved doesn't mean they should abandon that possibility. Or the possibility that there were more bombs. Asking this guy questions about bombs and bombers did not threaten his rights, it threatened the court case they're building against him. I'm fine with a small risk of a reduced sentence if it means potentially saving lives.


So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?


I think the chances of him ever bombing anything again are pretty nil. And his chances of living any kind of life in this country are also screwed (if he doesn't get killed by vigilantes). So he would most likely just go back to russia.

So my opinion on that eventuality would be "...so?"
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:39 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Yup. And nothing he said can be used against him (unless it can be shown that it was a matter of immediate public safety).

The link is misleading. Just because police didn't suspect there was anyone else involved doesn't mean they should abandon that possibility. Or the possibility that there were more bombs. Asking this guy questions about bombs and bombers did not threaten his rights, it threatened the court case they're building against him. I'm fine with a small risk of a reduced sentence if it means potentially saving lives.


So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?

And then it would be up to the jury to decide that.

Edit: Ninjaed by Belial. Also, there's a chance he'll turn around his life so he can die in prison in peace.

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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?


The exclusionary rule is very vicious. By the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree", if they start an investigation based off of what they learned in the interview... the full results of that investigation will have to be tossed out if the pre-Miranda interview is deemed illegal.

Really, the prosecution is only hurting themselves by holding back the Miranda reading.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:44 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?


The exclusionary rule is very vicious. By the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree", if they start an investigation based off of what they learned in the interview... the full results of that investigation will have to be tossed out if the pre-Miranda interview is deemed illegal.

Really, the prosecution is only hurting themselves by holding back the Miranda reading.

The price we pay for safety, if we have to toss some evidence, so be it. No big loss.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Роберт » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:49 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?


The exclusionary rule is very vicious. By the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree", if they start an investigation based off of what they learned in the interview... the full results of that investigation will have to be tossed out if the pre-Miranda interview is deemed illegal.

Really, the prosecution is only hurting themselves by holding back the Miranda reading.

Not necessarily the full results:
The tainted evidence is admissible if:
it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).

The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.


So if they discover a bomb before it goes off and diffuse it, the bomb would have been discovered anyway. If they find someone else connected to the the case, they can interview them as a witness.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:25 pm UTC

Well, he and his brother shot a cop in cold blood, swiped a vehicle, verbally admitted to being the bombers to a witness they let go, and got in a big shootout/vehicle chase with the law.

I would imagine that there is a surplus of evidence in this case. It is vaguely possible, I suppose, that with this evidence they could tack on a few additional life sentences or the like, but honestly, it's unlikely that he's ever going to walk free again. The only thing it MAY do is save his life, as telling the cops about bombs might help the defending attorney frame it as his older being the primary actor, with the younger one kind of getting dragged along. Honestly, even that is gonna be a challenge, though. I'm not seriously worried about this resulting in an aquittal or erosion of rights. Getting additional evidence admitted should not be a huge concern.

Nah, legal overreactions on the part of the legislative branch are MUCH more concerning and plausible.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Роберт » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:32 pm UTC

I think we all agree about this specific case and were responding to:
So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:37 pm UTC

Ah, it that case, the imminent danger clause should make it mostly a non-issue. I really don't see the current boundaries as putting law enforcement in an untenable position or unduly endangering rights of the defendent.

And seriously, just about everyone does know the miranda rights. I'm sure exceptions already exist, but phrases like "pleading the fifth" have a lot of cultural traction.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:03 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I think we all agree about this specific case and were responding to:
So here's the question... what if the circumstantial evidence against him was otherwise weak? If the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights for 16 hours meant that, in all likelihood, he would be acquitted?

The answer is the same as when Gideon v. Wainwright established the right of the accused to always have counsel. Those that are treated unfairly are let free. Yes, this included known and convicted criminals, murderers and the like. The fact that one would tempt the public with the same arguments the states gave is disappointing, to say the least.

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

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:14 pm UTC


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 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:20 pm UTC

....oof. I was really hoping that wasn't the same kid. Ooof.
Sexts From The Void wrote:i struggle to maneuver on a chessboard of dicks

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:45 pm UTC

It's probably unrelated, though.

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 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:58 pm UTC

Last seen on March 15th? That's a pretty long while back. Hopefully forensics will figure out a rough date of death.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests