Jihad in Boston: Death Penalty for Bomber?

[Jdsizzleslice]

Also, does anyone have a problem with this guy not being read the miranda rights?

No. Treat him as a Terrorist.

[patches70]

Thank God! Now we can finally get back to our regular schedule of rapes, muggings and murder.

Also, does anyone have a problem with this guy not being read the miranda rights?

Haha, he's been ruled a "national security threat". National security threat my ass. Now that he's been labeled as such, we can now be secure in the fact that any revelations that may come from his eventual torture interrogation will never be revealed to the public. Due to national security issues.

No. Treat him as a Terrorist.

I can understand the sentiment, truly I can. But there is one problem in this line of thinking. The guy is an American Citizen.

Now, this might not mean much anymore to our "please keep us safe under any conditions" mentality that we currently seem to have, but as an American citizen this guy has certain rights, like "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

So, there is that.

[Phatscotty]

[Jdsizzleslice]

Where'd you find this?

[patches70]

At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.

Then, of course, what is the definition of terrorism? Cannot it, depending on who you are targeting, be loosely defined? (in the age of redefinition). Is there any difference between who deserves miranda rights when it comes to a foreign terrorist or a domestic terrorist?

[saxitoxin]

Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.

Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour. I have no idea what he thinks he's accomplishing with his periodic lunatic act; he already has tough guy street cred, I really wonder what he thinks these bursts of anger accomplish.

[Phatscotty]

At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.

They unloaded 30 shots in the boat didn't they? We don't know for sure his wounds were from this morning....or do we?

[Phatscotty]

Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.

Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.

thank you mr toxin. That really clears it up. Everybody at my place just learned something!



Do you know if that originated in the Patriot Act?

[saxitoxin]

Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.

Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.

thank you mr toxin. That really clears it up. Everybody at my place just learned something!



Do you know if that originated in the Patriot Act?

No, it was Supreme Court ruling from 1984:

Facts of the Case - After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.

Question - Should the Court suppress Quarles's statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights?

Ruling - No. The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1213/

- so they can ask the Chechen things like "are there any bombs or booby traps around here?" or "is there another bomb about to go off?" before they Mirandize him but they are not allowed to ask "where were you on the day of the Boston Marathon?" or "did you do it?"

[patches70]

At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.

They unloaded 30 shots in the boat didn't they? We don't know for sure his wounds were from this morning....or do we?

I don't know any of the circumstances of Dzhokhar's arrest, only that he was taken alive. I was just doling out a shot at the LAPD for their handling of Dorner a couple of months back, who as you know wasn't taken alive. Nor did the LAPD seem very interested in taking their former comrade alive anyway.

[codeblue1018]

At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.

They unloaded 30 shots in the boat didn't they? We don't know for sure his wounds were from this morning....or do we?

I don't know any of the circumstances of Dzhokhar's arrest, only that he was taken alive. I was just doling out a shot at the LAPD for their handling of Dorner a couple of months back, who as you know wasn't taken alive. Nor did the LAPD seem very interested in taking their former comrade alive anyway.

Patches, lol, Dorner chose his demise; clearly it wasn't law enforcement that caused his death; he could have surrendered numerous times and chose to be a coward and run. Dorner's statements of not being taken alive came to fruition no doubt, hardly law enforcements fault. The majority of law enforcement officers want one thing; an arrest especially in the case of the Boston Bomber; their intent isn't hitting the streets, gearing up wanting to kill someone mate.

[codeblue1018]

Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.

Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.

thank you mr toxin. That really clears it up. Everybody at my place just learned something!



Do you know if that originated in the Patriot Act?

No, it was Supreme Court ruling from 1984:

Facts of the Case - After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.

Question - Should the Court suppress Quarles's statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights?

Ruling - No. The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1213/

- so they can ask the Chechen things like "are there any bombs or booby traps around here?" or "is there another bomb about to go off?" before they Mirandize him but they are not allowed to ask "where were you on the day of the Boston Marathon?" or "did you do it?"

Miranda warnings only apply when both "interrogation and custody" exist; when one is missing, Miranda isn't needed. One can be under arrest and questions CAN be asked without invoking Miranda in certain circumstances.

Interviewing is the process of obtaining information from people who possess knowledge about a particular offense, as part of the process of investigation.

Interrogation is designed to match acquired information to a particular suspect to secure a confession.

[Phatscotty]

Can this power/exception be abused? Used with malicious intent?

[Night Strike]

At least the Boston PD is a tad bit more competent than the LAPD. The LAPD would've shot the kid dead before anyone could have gotten any answers from him.

They unloaded 30 shots in the boat didn't they? We don't know for sure his wounds were from this morning....or do we?

The home owner saw the boat cover disturbed. He then looked in the boat and saw a puddle of blood and the suspect at the other end of the boat, I think asleep, and called the police. What I thought was interesting was that it happened right after the press conference that said the person had not been located and may have slipped out of their perimeter. Turns out where he was found was outside their perimeter by only 1 block, and he had probably been there most of the day.

[codeblue1018]

Can this power/exception be abused? Used with malicious intent?

Anything can be abused; the reason why we have search/seizure Supreme Court case law is due soley to officers who meant well but ultimately violated personal rights. If and when in doubt, mirandize; problem is, a lot of Leo do not know when it's "actually" needed.

[Woodruff]

Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.

Aren't you the one who just a couple of hours ago stated:

I hope he got shot in the balls, and the victims get to spit in his face

It seems that you didn't really care about whether he was actually a terrorist then...

[pearljamrox2]

[DoomYoshi]

More people die from diarrhea. 200 is nothing. We should lockdown all towns when ribfest comes around.

[DoomYoshi]

Its a wonder the police can catch this guy, but still can't get the guys who don't stop at stop signs. You people really need to reprioritize.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thank God! Now we can finally get back to our regular schedule of ignoring nearly all rapes, muggings and murder.

FTFY

[BigBallinStalin]

If lived in Boston, I think I would hit the streets and have a blast driving the empty roads. Seriously, how often do you see this?


It would be different if these guys were shooters sniping innocents along the streets or if the police were warning of additional bombs planted in various locations around the city. But shutting down life for 4+ million people just because there's a suspect or two on the run seems to be giving the criminals exactly the attention they crave.

Secondly, what kind of idiot criminals would remain in the city where they planted the bombs? You'd think any criminal in their shoes and possessing half a brain would've fled the state, if not the country, by now.

I know, right? I wonder what was the economic cost of declaring (essentially) martial law... because that should be factored into the costs of that terrorist act.

Spend a few hundred, build a couple bombs (small expense).
Kill 3 people and injure about 150, have a major US city shut down for 4 days or so (large cost).

In strictly monetary terms, terrorism is more cost-effective than conventional warfare/US counterinsurgency ops.

[notyou2]

TO ARMS! TO ARMS!

May I borrow your mute button?

[Woodruff]

Okay, per the miranda rights, don't we have to be sure that the person is in fact a terrorist? I'm not doubting the official story, but are we 100% sure he is the bomber? Do we have to be 100% sure? or do we not? Just asking some questions.

Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about the established public safety exception (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point ... ptions.pdf) that Eric Holder said would be used to determine if there were additional bombs laying about before Mirandized questioning began ... not John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham's super-weird comments about terrorism and the "law of war" ... John McCain is literally becoming more insane by the hour.

thank you mr toxin. That really clears it up. Everybody at my place just learned something!



Do you know if that originated in the Patriot Act?

No, it was Supreme Court ruling from 1984:

Correct. A year which seems highly appropriate.

I have no problem at all with officers being able to ask questions "in the interest of public safety" and being able to act on the answers to those questions. In fact, I would expect them to do so (it never hurts to ask, right?). But it seems to me that this is a sidestep around the whole intent of the Miranda Warning.

[Phatscotty]

Hopefully the guy has been read his rights by now?

Anyways, how about the death penalty?