Is The Surviving Boston Marathon Terrorist an "Enemy Combatant?"

[JayHawk]

There is NO court or legal precedent for NOT reading Miranda. We are in uncharted waters.

[e.s.]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57580600/boston-bombing-suspect-enemy-combatant-or-criminal/

He is an US citizen - though that may not sit well - and deserves Miranda.

Politely Sir I shout BULLSHIT...

There is also a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before questioning: for example, if the defendant is in possession of information regarding the location of an unattended gun or there are other similar exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)). In 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Richard Allen Davis, finding that the public safety exception applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl later found to be murdered.[8]

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding an exception to the so-called Miranda warning. It established the so-called public safety exception.

Which thanks for saying it doesnt exist because the reading I found goes even further to indicate that the suspects unadvised disclosures MAY be used against them in a court of law....

In 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.[1] Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."[2]

The suspect's unadvised statement was therefore admissible in evidence because "n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[3]

Got the quotes from wiki because it says what the cited links say quite well. But feel free to go to the source and debunk that the SCOTUS ruled on the Public Safety Clause.

 

[JayHawk]

Without the Miranda warning, the court could block his testimony from being used to incriminate him, and he could walk!

Which is of course not what the supreme court ruled... but you know.... it could happen

 

[chance1]

^ TX

Me taking your word for the outcome of an exchange is akin to u taking Ted Cruz's word for the evils of gay marriage

Try to stay real

 

[palbert]

.

U haven't seen my pissy

And legal knowledge combined with a superiority complex with a dash of misquoting

Is pretty niche

Luckily for the rest of us

 

[JayHawk]

There are two parts to the statement you quoted, one which the Supreme Court did rule on, and this particular case which hasn't even gone to court yet.

So what about in a 6-3 decision the SCOTUS ruled on Miranda is confusing?

 

[palbert]

Politely Sir I shout BULLSHIT... ....

I stand educated to the extent that it has been ruled on.

However, New York v. Quarles (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13717772316457971707&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), 467 US 649 (1984), dealt with a criminal event then in progress and an immediate threat to public safety (the whereabouts of a gun at an active shooting); not what we have here, where nothing occured for days after the bombing..

My position that Miranda should be given remains unchanged.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

He only killed Americans.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17791805-outpouring-of-grief-for-third-boston-victim-chinese-university-student?lite

 

[JayHawk]

Yeah I have wavered on that.... seriously.

So you have two trains of thought. IF he was a part of a larger group do they have other memebrs planning other attacks at major events?

Yet there seems to be no indicator of a tie.

Plus if I was a linked cell and KNEW this guy knew my team.... well I would act now before this guy wakes up... plain and simple.

There are a thousand events someone would attack at will. The discussion around here has been the speedway. it is NASCAR race weekend here in KC. The race track offers free parking (so no security and very little staff) and allows patrons to bring in a cooler of their favorite beverage. A cooler that can be wheeled in like a dollie.... or roughly twice the capacity of the backpacks in Boston. And they have no restrictions on what kind of beverage. So no one inspects.

that is just one event in one city.

Even if sports are not for you we have a thing around here called first Fridays.... every gallery, studio or museum is packed because it is free and many artist display their works especially or that day.... it is highly attend and then the people congregate on the Plaza which is a outdoor auto mall type thing with shopping and restaurants.

This is just one city. I can go to any city in the spring and find event after event after event that has little to no security and masses of people.

So ... there ya go... does a lawyer telling his client to shut up trump public safety? IS there another cell? Would the cell even tell a 19yo half hearted follower? So many questions. But if the SCOTUS ruled on a active shooter and information from the suspect netted a terror group elsewhere then everyone would say... "Ohhhh ok"

So do ends justify means?

Plus he is a US Citizen who grew up for the last decade here.... and he was in college. Do you think after alll that american culture he actually knows he has the right to shut the fuck up? I honestly believe that whomever doesn't know they have the right to silence is too stupid to keep breathing any damn way... but that is a personal opinion and shouldnt be a policy stance.

 

[Benvolio]

Miranda v. Arizona was a 5-4 ruling, and the effect was indeed to disallow evidence obtained without warning. That's the first part.

The public safety exception, however, is not indefinite, and derives from a later case, and in this case in particular, it is not known how soon law enforcement must give the warning before his statements are inadmissible. Therefore, there is a danger he could walk on some charges. People rooting to curb the rights of US citizens do not fully realize that.

If they do question him, they may be able to prevent future deaths. It is worth the risk. There is very little chance he will get off. If he does we can ship him back to Russia. In any event, his citizenship will be revoked.

 

[palbert]

In Quarles the concern was an immediate and pressing need to find the gun:

The police in this case, in the very act of apprehending a suspect, were confronted with the immediate necessity of ascertaining the whereabouts of a gun which they had every reason to believe the suspect had just removed from his empty holster and discarded in the supermarket. So long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, with its actual whereabouts unknown, it obviously posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, a customer or employee might later come upon it.

We don't have that circumstance here:

1. Nothing happened for days after the bombing.

2. No accomplices have been implicated.

3. One suspect is dead.

4. One suspect, and his explosive devices, has been restrained to a hospital.

5. No terrorist events have occured since his apprehension.

6. That nothing has occured negatives the concern for public safety.

7. Interrogation while hospitalized and medicated may be viewed as coercion compelling him to testify in a weakened state, during which he may not be able to respond or think rationally, thus excluding his testimony.

.... If the interrogation was deemed unreasonable or shocking, or if the accused clearly did not have an opportunity to make a rational or intelligent choice, the statements received would be inadmissible.

(Justice O'Connor in concurrence and dissent)

8. The greater the time between apprehension and interrogation, without further terrorist events, further diminishes the immediate threat to public safety.

 

[rareboy]

It is a joy to see a real lawyer schooling the fake one.

 

[JayHawk]

Miranda v. Arizona was a 5-4 ruling, and the effect was indeed to disallow evidence obtained without warning. That's the first part.

The public safety exception, however, is not indefinite, and derives from a later case, and in this case in particular, it is not known how soon law enforcement must give the warning before his statements are inadmissible. Therefore, there is a danger he could walk on some charges. People rooting to curb the rights of US citizens do not fully realize that.

However in the same case they ruled that what he said WAS admissible even without Miranda. And are you even remotely of the mindset that this guy will walk? With all the evidence against him even if he never says a single word again.

I understand your precedence argument but unless you are an active shooter or terrorist... which to be honest both are terrorist one is just domestically motivated......unless you are a terrorist and engaged in terrorism activity then your rights will not be infringed.

Miranda isnt a right anyways... the right o remain silent is a right. Miranda is just the SCOTUS ruling that the average American is too fucking stupid to know their rights.

 

[JayHawk]

In Quarles the concern was an immediate and pressing need to find the gun:



We don't have that circumstance here:

1. Nothing happened for days after the bombing.

2. No accomplices have been implicated.

3. One suspect is dead.

4. One suspect, and his explosive devices, has been restrained to a hospital.

5. No terrorist events have occured since his apprehension.

6. That nothing has occured negatives the concern for public safety.

7. Interrogation while hospitalized and medicated may be viewed as coercion compelling him to testify in a weakened state, during which he may not be able to respond or think rationally, thus excluding his testimony.


(Justice O'Connor in concurrence and dissent)

8. The greater the time between apprehension and interrogation, without further terrorist events, further diminishes the immediate threat to public safety.

Again as I have stated before, because of the time involved I doubt it can be used BUT Obama is seeking to strecth the limits in terror cases and they will try. It is precedent they attempt to establish and if it is challenged they intend to see it through the court which in its current composition would probably sway towards the administration and extension of the public safety clause.

 

[JayHawk]

The bombing is just one charge, there are many others that will follow that have to do with procurement, conspiracy, and manufacture of his weapons. If he talks about those crimes without Miranda, there is a chance he could walk on those charges after serving his homicide sentences, should they be less than his lifetime.



Citizenship can only be revoked because of subversion, or concealment of fact or fraud in obtaining citizenshp.

Hmmm one wonders... IF they choose to pursue first degree murder (Which they wont) but supposing they do.... the federal mandatory sentence is life in prison or the death penalty is it not?

 

[palbert]

NOTE: http://www.justusboys.com/forum/threads/401367-Boston-Bomber-May-Never-Be-Questioned

The bomber may never be questioned because of throat injuries.

 

[JayHawk]

NOTE: http://www.justusboys.com/forum/threads/401367-Boston-Bomber-May-Never-Be-Questioned

The bomber may never be questioned because of throat injuries.

Right. ..he will be questioned with pen and paper if he survives and cant speak.

They also say he exhibited unusual behavior that may tend towards a further plot. Who simply goes back to school as if nothing occurred.

the bottom line is until they can ask a single question they wont know the information to be able to trace this to outside groups or more interior groups.

 

[JayHawk]

Nobody knows if the murders were perpetrated by Dzhokhar. We can presume it was him not his brother, but in court it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the bombings it would be first degree, except for the MIT guard shooting, which was probably second degree murder. Without a confession, and because his brother is now dead, it will be difficult to pin the murders directly on him. The must successful prosecution will probably be the terrorism charges, not murder.

SO what your saying is that the video evidence of Dzhokhar holding a back pack, placing the back pack, the back pack then exploding and while everyone is running around in terror walking away casually.... your saying that isnt evidence... oh and if the eight year old boy was in front of the package placed by this animal then that doesnt link him? I find that very hard to believe.

remember when the FBI released the pics and footage they said they had other more damning evidence on video but were not showing it to the world for preservation of the case.

Fuck. I need to get my traffic camera ticket thrown out.

We should find out today what charges are levied.

 

[Rolyo85]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any serious knowledge in US law. But it seems to me that if one type of crime can be excluded from the normal judicial process, if rights can be withdrawn for one type of crime, then it can happen for another. And if it happens to one person, it can happen to ANY person.

There should be NO exceptions to this, or anyone can be an exception.

 

[JayHawk]

You're putting words in my mouth.

Don't you know why defendants are called "suspects" until they are convicted?

Based on what you typed "they will walk after his homocide sentence" what else was I to infer?

Not trying to put words into your mouth, and I do understand what innocent until proven guilty means, I also understand what a preponderance of evidence means, that makes the trial a formality. Have no doubt anywhere in your body mind or soul that this guy will never see freedom again because of what happened during the Boston Marathon.

 

[JayHawk]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any serious knowledge in US law. But it seems to me that if one type of crime can be excluded from the normal judicial process, if rights can be withdrawn for one type of crime, then it can happen for another. And if it happens to one person, it can happen to ANY person.

There should be NO exceptions to this, or anyone can be an exception.

Perhaps. That is what they are doing, stretching the time for the safety clause.

yet again it begs the other question I have asked.... is telling you that you have the right to remain silent a RIGHT or a decision made by a court because people are ignorant of their rights?

If it is a decision to inform the ignorant then the decision can be changed or altered by the same body.