Looks like Boston Marathon Bombers are caught - Sunil Tripathi & Mike Mulugeta

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And you know he is not how?

If he can nod or shake his head, or tap out letters on a keyboard, then he can make a statement. He only needs to be lucid and aware.

My only point was that the mere fact that he is having difficulty speaking does not prevent him from making a statement.

And you are arguing against this simple point, why exactly?

is sedated

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

is sedated

I read that the first time. And ignored it.

Do you think he will stay sedated forever?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, he IS still getting due process, even if they don't give him his Miranda warnings before asking him is there are other bombs out there.

Bogus and untrue statement! The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York v. Quarles subordinates the detainee’s individual right to “due process” – via “exception” – to the safety concerns, primarily, of the arresting officers.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

My stated positions are not incongruous and I have no trouble with the definition of exception, although you apparently do.

EXCEPTION
1 : the act of excepting : exclusion
2 : one that is excepted; especially : a case to which a rule does not apply.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The circumstances under which the Miranda warning must be given are well defined by the Supreme Court, including the public safety exception [there’s that word again] - when it doesn't have to be given. So, if [And who decides and -- for the big question -- when is that decision supposed to be made? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Precedence says "imminent," not days.] there is still a reasonable danger that these guys hid some unexploded bombs in the Boston area, the Supreme Court has said it is OK to ask them questions related ONLY to the bombs - such as "Do you have any more bombs hidden anywhere? How are they disarmed?"

Once they captured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wasn’t the “all clear” signal given and hasn’t Boston’s mayor announced that the bombers acted alone?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/tom-menino-boston-marathon-suspects-bombings_n_3127215.html?icid=m aing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-nb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D 301872

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And, if the police DO ask those questions and the surviving bomber answers, rather than asking for a lawyer, then his statements about where the bombs are may be used against him.

That is how due process is defined in these unusual circumstances.

You've just explained how “due process” is denied – "excepted" – in unusual circumstances.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

If you have a problem with that, then it is the Supreme Court that is incongruous, not me.

No matter how you spin it, you’re the one that has problems with definitions.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

He absolutely should receive due process. . . . If he surrenders, he will get due process.

≠

Originally Posted by ExNYer

He doesn't have to be Mirandized.

Originally Posted by CJ7

he hasn't been questioned, and charges haven't been filed ... the dude is too fucked up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93I0GQ20130421

Debate Over Delaying of Miranda Warning
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: April 20, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s announcement that it planned to question the Boston Marathon bombing suspect for a period without first reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present has revived a constitutionally charged debate over the handling of terrorism cases in the criminal justice system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/a-debate-over-delaying-suspects-miranda-rights.html?_r=0




.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I read that the first time. And ignored it.

Do you think he will stay sedated forever?

No ass wipe but you were acting like he should be answering questions now .

[NinaBrooke]

why did they do it? any guesses? i can`t find an article on how they caught the second guy, he tried to shoot himself in the head? in the boat?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Bogus and untrue statement!

What part of it is bogus or untrue? You seem obsessed with the distinction of an exception. But due process is what the Supreme Court says you are entitled to get, nothing more. And if the bomber statements can be used even though he wasn't Mirandized, tough shit. He is getting all the due process to which he is entitled.

There are other instances related to hot pursuit that can fuck up you day, too. If the police chase an armed criminal through your house and find you cutting up 10 pounds of heroin, guess what? You still get convicted even thought they entered your home without a warrant.

Once they captured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wasn’t the “all clear” signal given and hasn’t Boston’s mayor announced that the bombers acted alone?

What the mayor said about all clear doesn't mean a damn thing, especially to the federal authorities. The mayor doesn't even control state prosecutors, let alone federal ones. State or federal prosecutors can still try to make the case that there were more bombs out there.
.

Your point - and you can look it up above - is that the "US justice system has already stumbled" because he wasn't Mirandized.

That's wrong on two counts.

First, the public safety exception is part of the US justice system, so it hasn't stumbled even if YOU don't like the public safety exception.

Second, they haven't even spoken to him yet. So there has been no "stumble".

And lastly, regarding your "big" question:

"And who decides and -- for the big question -- when is that decision supposed to be made? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Precedence says "imminent," not days."

The short answer is "the judge".

If the police or FBI question him without Mirandizing him, then they take a gamble. If he makes a statement and they want to use it, then they will have to prove that there was a legitimate public safety exception and the danger was imminent. If they lose the gamble, then the statements are not admissible.

There is no set time for imminence, but obviously, the longer they wait the harder it will be to make the case of imminent danger. But that's why bombs are unique. The case you want isn't Quarles (handgun), it's US v. Khalil (bombs), which involved questioning a wounded suspect at a hospital about bombs that were located elsewhere (sound familiar?).

Bombs can detonate days or weeks later either by timer or by triggering a booby trap. So invoking the public safety exception and proving imminence will be different than for a handgun that was tossed away during a pursuit.

And the ONLY statements that will be admissible are ones made in response to questions about still undetonated bombs. So if they ask him "Why did you bomb the marathon" and he answers, it is STILL inadmissible.

Having said all that, I don't even think they are going to invoke the public safety exception to use any statements he makes to convict him. There is already a tone of evidence to convict him with. They don't need his un-Mirandized statements.

I think they want to question him to get him to make statements about others. Like "who taught you how to make the bombs?" or "where did you get the explosives?"

The "others", if there are any, won't be able to claim a Miranda violation based on the bomber's statements.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your point - and you can look it up above - is that the "US justice system has already stumbled" because he wasn't Mirandized.

That's wrong on two counts.

First, the public safety exception is part of the US justice system, so it hasn't stumbled even if YOU don't like the public safety exception.

Second, they haven't even spoken to him yet. So there has been no "stumble".

And lastly, regarding your "big" question:

"And who decides and -- for the big question -- when is that decision supposed to be made? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Precedence says "imminent," not days."

The short answer is "the judge".

If the police or FBI question him without Mirandizing him, then they take a gamble. If he makes a statement and they want to use it, then they will have to prove that there was a legitimate public safety exception and the danger was imminent. If they lose the gamble, then the statements are not admissible.

There is no set time for imminence, but obviously, the longer they wait the harder it will be to make the case of imminent danger. But that's why bombs are unique. The case you want isn't Quarles (handgun), it's US v. Khalil (bombs), which involved questioning a wounded suspect at a hospital about bombs that were located elsewhere (sound familiar?).

Bombs can detonate days or weeks later either by timer or by triggering a booby trap. So invoking the public safety exception and proving imminence will be different than for a handgun that was tossed away during a pursuit.

And the ONLY statements that will be admissible are ones made in response to questions about still undetonated bombs. So if they ask him "Why did you bomb the marathon" and he answers, it is STILL inadmissible.

Having said all that, I don't even think they are going to invoke the public safety exception to use any statements he makes to convict him. There is already a tone of evidence to convict him with. They don't need his un-Mirandized statements.

I think they want to question him to get him to make statements about others. Like "who taught you how to make the bombs?" or "where did you get the explosives?"

The "others", if there are any, won't be able to claim a Miranda violation based on the bomber's statements.

fwiw, IB & Co, are parroting Beck/The Blaze over the miranda issue

[CJ7]

ok, fine.

after further consideration, step in the suspects hospital room and read him his rights. Today, right freakin now.

lets see how reading a man his rights that doesn't know his ass from the floor because he is knocked out on pain meds holds up in the court hearings everyone is so afraid will be damaged.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your point - and you can look it up above - is that the "US justice system has already stumbled" because he wasn't Mirandized.

That's wrong on two counts.

First, the public safety exception is part of the US justice system, so it hasn't stumbled even if YOU don't like the public safety exception.

Second, they haven't even spoken to him yet. So there has been no "stumble".

By all reports, officials “spoke” to a “cognitively aware” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night as they negotiated for his surrender and arrest. However, the arresting officials with whom he was negotiating somehow didn’t see fit to Mirandize Tsarnaev at that time – an action that could have been accomplished simultaneous with and would have taken less time than hoisting him from the boat and securing handcuffs on his wrists; because, as the government later announced, it never had any intention of Mirandizing him: the U.S. justice system stumbled.

Subsequently, the government made public its intentions to invoke the “public safety exception” – even as other government officials gave an “all clear” signal in Watertown indicating that the time of “imminent danger” had passed: the U.S. justice system stumbled.

Again conveying no “imminent danger” and underscoring previous stumbling decisions to abrogate this citizen’s rights, Boston’s mayor announced the Boston bombers had acted alone – yet, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has still not been Mirandized: the U.S. justice system stumbled.

By definition, the "public safety exception" subordinates an individual’s right to due process to other considerations. So, your assertion that individuals subject to such an exception are "getting due process” – “due process” enjoyed by all other U.S. citizens – is bogus and false. The U.S. justice system can still redeem itself if Tsarnaev is Mirandized prior to further questioning, but this administration has not rescinded its announcement that it plans to invoke the “public safety exception.”

BTW, no matter how you spin it, your other postulates still remain incongruous and irreconcilable:

Originally Posted by ExNYer

He absolutely should receive due process. . . . If he surrenders, he will get due process.

≠

Originally Posted by ExNYer

He doesn't have to be Mirandized.

Originally Posted by CJ7

fwiw, IB & Co, are parroting Beck/The Blaze over the miranda issue

The short answer is "the judge".

FWIW, do not watch or listen to "Beck"; hence, no "parroting" involved. Slate ≠ "Beck"!!!

FWIW, the government is currently using a DOJ memorandum, and not a "judge" to justify its "public safety exception" position. "This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the 'public safety exception.'"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_ rights_the_public_safety_excep tion_and_terrorism.html

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CJ7

ok, fine.

after further consideration, step in the suspects hospital room and read him his rights. Today, right freakin now.

lets see how reading a man his rights that doesn't know his ass from the floor because he is knocked out on pain meds holds up in the court hearings everyone is so afraid will be damaged.

It won't hold up in court.

He has to be alert and lucid.

But I don't think they are going to use his statements against him. they are going to pump him for info on others.

[acp5762]

The suspect might be in bad shape but he's one tough SOB, here's a aerial photo of him getting out of the boat. Doesn't even look like he needed any help.


http://www.nodeju.com/8132/suspect-b...-critical.html

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

By all reports, officials “spoke” to a “cognitively aware” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night as they negotiated for his surrender and arrest. However, the arresting officials with whom he was negotiating somehow didn’t see fit to Mirandize Tsarnaev at that time – an action that could have been accomplished simultaneous with and would have taken less time than hoisting him from the boat and securing handcuffs on his wrists; because, as the government later announced, it never had any intention of Mirandizing him: the U.S. justice system stumbled.
How was he "negotiating" or speaking to the cops? He was shot in the throat and his tongue was damaged. Or had you forgotten? If he can't speak now, how could he speak then? If he was making gurgling noises, how would they know he was cognitively aware?

Subsequently, the government made public its intentions to invoke the “public safety exception” – even as other government officials gave an “all clear” signal in Watertown indicating that the time of “imminent danger” had passed: the U.S. justice system stumbled.
The prosecutors decide (and argue) whether or not to invoke public exception. The "other" government official - the mayor - giving the "all clear' doesn't have shit to say about it. That's twice I explained that.

Again conveying no “imminent danger” and underscoring previous stumbling decisions to abrogate this citizen’s rights, Boston’s mayor announced the Boston bombers had acted alone – yet, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has still not been Mirandized: the U.S. justice system stumbled.
How does the mayor know he acted along and what difference does that make anyway? If there are any unexploded bombs, the public safety exception applies whether he acted alone or with others. BTW - the FBI is hunting a 12-man sleeper cell they believe aided the bombers. Looks like the Boston mayor was an ass.

By definition, the "public safety exception" subordinates an individual’s right to due process to other considerations. So, your assertion that individuals subject to such an exception are "getting due process” – “due process” enjoyed by all other U.S. citizens – is bogus and false. The U.S. justice system can still redeem itself if Tsarnaev is Mirandized prior to further questioning, but this administration has not rescinded its announcement that it plans to invoke the “public safety exception.”

Speaking of "spin", that is ALL bullshit.

Unless and until the prosecutors try to use his statements in court to convict him, there will be no "stumble" of the US justice system, no matter how YOU try to spin it.

And that may be a very long wait. I suspect they are NEVER going to use any or his statements against him. They are going to use them against the people that trained and helped the brothers.

Here is the sleeper cell article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...Yqm6hA.twitter

Or do you think using his statements against the sleeper cell is a "stumble" also?

Where exactly did you get your information about the police "negotiating" with Dzhokhar and that he was "cognitively aware" According to this report, he never responded to the police when they called him out with a megaphone:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...Yqm6hA.twitter

Key quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Henneberry had gone into his garden for a cigarette after police lifted restrictions on people leaving their homes, believing the bomber had left the area. He noticed that the cover over his boat had blood on it and a strap had been cut. He went back into the house to get a stepladder and looked inside.
His stepson Robert said: “He stuck his head under the tarp and noticed a pool of blood and something crumpled up in a ball. Instead of being a hero of the moment and yelling at what we now know was the suspect, he did the right thing and called 911.”
Police immediately evacuated the family and surrounded the house, using a megaphone to tell Dzhokhar to come out with his hands up.
When he failed to respond they opened fire at the boat’s hull. Robert said: “They wound up *shooting a couple of rounds through the boat. He wasn’t going to like that.”
Dzhokhar was wounded by the volley of gunfire and police were able to move in and arrest him. They later released infrared pictures taken from a helicopter showing Dzhokhar hiding in the boat.
------------------------------------------------------------
So he was already wounded BEFORE he got into the boat (there was blood all over it) and then he was wounded again by the volley of gunfire (no indication how they knew that).

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

How was he "negotiating" or speaking to the cops? He was shot in the throat and his tongue was damaged. Or had you forgotten? If he can't speak now, how could he speak then? If he was making gurgling noises, how would they know he was cognitively aware? His surrender was negotiated. He wasn't killed because of some misunderstanding between him and the men who arrested him. Besides, just how do those enumerated injuries impair "hearing"? After all, there's no legal requirement that Tsarnaev read his Miranda rights aloud!!!!

The prosecutors decide (and argue) whether or not to invoke public exception. The "other" government official - the mayor - giving the "all clear' doesn't have shit to say about it. That's twice I explained that. Boston's mayor doesn't control the federal agents, etc., who also "stood down"; hence, you've explained nothing.

How does the mayor know he acted along and what difference does that make anyway? If there are any unexploded bombs, the public safety exception applies whether he acted alone or with others. BTW - the FBI is hunting a 12-man sleeper cell they believe aided the bombers. Looks like the Boston mayor was an ass. Boston's mayor said what he said. Are you denying he said it? Legal precedence requires that "imminent danger" be present to justify excepting due process.


Speaking of "spin", that is ALL bullshit.

Unless and until the prosecutors try to use his statements in court to convict him, there will be no "stumble" of the US justice system, no matter how YOU try to spin it. Tsarnaev was not Mirandized at the time of his arrest, and the government announced it never had any intention to Mirandize Tsarnaev in a timely manner: a citizen of the United States of America. "Stumble" is a mild word considering the injustice.

And that may be a very long wait. I suspect they are NEVER going to use any or his statements against him. They are going to use them against the people that trained and helped the brothers.

Here is the sleeper cell article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...Yqm6hA.twitter

Or do you think using his statements against the sleeper cell is a "stumble" also?

.

[Guest032516]

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never "denied" the Boston mayor said anything. I pointed out that his "all clear" announcement doesn't count for shit. You keep quoting him like he somehow settled the issue.

He also gave the "all clear' BEFORE they found the bomber in the boat. The mayor mistakenly thought the bombers were out of the area. So, when the homeowner found the bomber in his boat, I guess that kind of revoked the "all clear' in any event, didn't it?

The police and prosecutors make the call on whether or not there was a danger to the police or public. NOT the mayor.

Finally, this statement:

"Tsarnaev was not Mirandized at the time of his arrest, and the government announced it never had any intention to Mirandize Tsarnaev: a citizen of the united States of America. "Stumble" is a mild word considering the injustice. "

If they haven't even gotten a statement from him, how exactly has the justice system stumbled? If he does make a statement and it is never used, how has the justice system stumbled? IDENTIFY THE INJUSTICE, IF YOU CAN.

And you also seem fixated on the fact that the government announced in advance it never had any intention to Mirandize him. What difference does advanced intent make?Either there is a public safety exception, or there isn't.

If the prosecutors can make the case that they reasonably believed there were more unexploded bombs (hence an imminent danger), and they ask him specific questions about other bombs, and the bomber then makes a statement about other bombs, then those statements may be used against him, if the judge so rules.

It makes NO difference that the un-Mirandized questions were planned in advance and weren't spontaneous.

The judge will look at the totality of the circumstances and make a ruling as to whether or not there was imminent danger and whether the public safety exception applies and makes the statements admissible.

But, it is never going to come to that. With all the evidence they already have, they don't need his statements.

The feds are going to question him without telling him about his rights because they are hoping: 1) he won't remember his rights from TV shows and 2) he will make statements ABOUT OTHERS.

In fact, I doubt they are going to confine their questions to unexploded bombs either - as the public safety exception requires.

Is THAT the part you have trouble with?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never "denied" the Boston mayor said anything. I pointed out that his "all clear" announcement doesn't count for shit. You keep quoting him like he somehow settled the issue.

He also gave the "all clear' BEFORE they found the bomber in the boat. The mayor mistakenly thought the bombers were out of the area. So, when the homeowner found the bomber in his boat, I guess that kind of revoked the "all clear' in any event, didn't it?

The police and prosecutors make the call on whether or not there was a danger to the police or public. NOT the mayor.

Finally, this statement:

"Tsarnaev was not Mirandized at the time of his arrest, and the government announced it never had any intention to Mirandize Tsarnaev: a citizen of the united States of America. "Stumble" is a mild word considering the injustice. "

If they haven't even gotten a statement from him, how exactly has the justice system stumbled? If does make a statement and it s never used, how has the justice system stumbled?

And you also seem fixated on the fact that the government announced in advance it never had any intention to Mirandize him. What difference does advanced intent make?

Either there is a public safety exception, or there isn't.

If the prosecutors can make the case that they reasonably believed there were more unexploded bombs, and they ask him specific questions about other bombs, and the bomber then makes a statement about otherbombs, then those statements can be used against him.

It makes NO difference that the un-Mirandized questions were planned in advance and weren't spontaneous.

The judge will look at the totality of the circumstances and make a ruling as to whether or not the public safety exception makes the statements admissible.

But, it is never going to come to that. With all the evidence they already have, they don't need his statements.

They are going to question him without telling him about his rights and hope he makes statements ABOUT OTHERS.

Is THAT the part you have trouble with?

You're evidently having trouble with reading since you are repeating the same questions that were already answered at: http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1052725918&postcount=84