What would have been the outcome to this had they been held at gunpoint? "No, go away!".
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Boston: One dead, one captured, city re-opened
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
What would have been the outcome to this had they been held at gunpoint? "No, go away!".
Fahrenheit
Banned
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...suspects-miranda-rights-19007093#.UXPgJ7XrzxU
Being question without his rights, look i'm not defending this human scum. I'm not but just cause we don't like em doesn't mean he doesn't have his right.
BronsonLee
Member
Spoilers here
That's what they did. It was all voluntary. You could refuse police entry. Nobody did.
Also heads up, trying to get cute by comparing this situation to Nazi Germany is probably not the best way to get people to take your seriously
While we're at it, he wasn't Mirandized because A: the stuff they're asking is more in vein of 'is there anything else going on' and B: Because dude was unconscious and you can't really Mirandize a KO'ed person
I read earlier in this thread that the house had already been checked but the boat hadn't and that the house was outside the original search area. That being said, you can't believe everything you read in this thread...
Why, in this circumstance? They most certainly didn't have to.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Sorry but I don't care if your sensitive to it. We should use them as an example on how not to do things
dutchguyjack
Member
For as far as I'm concerned, he lost his rights the moment he triggered that bomb and committed an act of terrorism.
Right. They'll want to question him with regards to matters of public safety. They'll want to know if he had accomplices, if there were more plans, if he's a part of a larger group, etc.
That's all the information that they get to mine. They must still, after all is said and done, read him his rights. Nothing was taken away from him. Again, this was established by our courts.
I don't agree with that, but the ACLU disapproves of plenty of perfectly legal acts and vows to investigate them.
That's what the police commish said on Friday.
It's possible they cleared that house/yard and he snuck in afterwards.
He has all his rights and they have nothing to do with Miranda warning. This has been addressed repeatedly in the thread, if you had bothered to read.
That's not how it works, thankfully.
I don't think you are defending him, I also do not compare you to false flag nuts, but I do think you are overreacting to the searches that were done. They didn't round up citizens, they came, checked and went, and as proven by some pictures already even assisted people in what needs they might have had.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Yeah, sure looks like people where being asked when they where forced out at gun point. Also dude still has not been Mirandize.
Also keep bring up the Nazi thing please, just shows you can't argue the point and fall back to that
So use it when we start rounding up jews!
Half and half
Member
Well, fortunately the law still prevails and he is innocent till proven guilty in spite of and indeed because of high emotions.
OH!!
I must have missed the part where he was proven guilty in court
do you have a link to these news?
He's sedated.
Innocent people run all the time... =)
Fahrenheit
Banned
Man people got me all wrong, I think for the most part the cops went on about there work without an issue. And they did great things for the people of Boston, like bringing them food and the what nots. But a few of the cops got out of hand, that video shows it. They should be held accountable and the dude should get his rights.
dutchguyjack
Member
I must've missed the part where I need a court to tell me that a guy throwing bombs at the police and firing a weapon at them, as well as shown on camera to place a bag of explosives in a crowd of people is guilty.
The law here says a man is presumed innocent.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Yup cause its guilty to proven innocent right? We are suppose to be better then this
dutchguyjack
Member
I am aware of that, but then I also stated very clearly that I was speaking from the way I look at things, not the way the law does.
This is why I raised the question earlier of whether we should be calling for this guy's head before he's had his day (or year) in court.
BronsonLee
Member
You know what my favorite tactic is when forcing people out of their house by gun point?
Knocking
So basically, say you're a cop and someone needs medical attention/needs to be brought around. You say Mirandize them before all that takes place? Dude's in bad shape.
OK!
You post a random cellphone video from Liveleak containing one of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of searches being conducted throughout the day. There were over 10,000 law enforcement officers in that vicinity. And you want to nitpick? What are you, bored?
I am pretty sure that this whole even will spawn a slew of "lessons learned" as we call them and training and procedures to go with it. After all this was unprecedented. And if you do something not done before , people fall back on the training and expertise they do have. And if they treat anyone as as suspect then it happens as it did, but still that video you linked does not show anything outrageous to me. if people come in with guns , make sure they know you pose no threat and keep your damn hands up.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Its been what 24 plus hrs since they caught him? Still no rights and i'm still waiting for you to justify why he still does not have them.
So you think the law is wrong?
Actually, the point behind not mirandizing him is that they could potentially extract time-sensitive information out of him before informing him of his right to remain silent. It's a controversial concept but it has legal precedent.
dutchguyjack
Member
There are cases in which it is, and I think that giving the same rights to a terrorist as to a thief shows how broken the system is.
BronsonLee
Member
1: They have 48.
2: He got shot a bunch. And like Gavin said, homeland security stuff. I already explained this to you.
Wait all you like, this has been justified to you by me and others. You're boring now, strawman.
I can see how the whole court system thing can be irritating to people. To hear a mass shooter is caught and subdues in the act, even if it would be on live TV, still be called the alleged shooter all the way up to trial is done can get under ones skin, but it is the way it is.
Do you understand what you're asking?
I think it's good that the law doesn't presume he's a terrorist before he's had a chance to defend himself.
Fahrenheit
Banned
And im ok with that but no one on TV, in newspapers, big name news site is even question the fact a US city was under martial law to catch 1 teenager. I just want someone to stop for a second and face the fact that a lot of peoples rights where violated in this event.
I come on here and people are talking about how crazy it would be to even question the law man with the gun in your face and how we should all love the fact they went door to door
Right. So depending on whether the case is severe enough, the suspects should have reduced rights. Why?
He has the right to remain silent and to get an attorney whether he is mirandized or not. If he says something self-incriminating before the warning is given, it will be inadmissible unless the courts finds that the specific, narrow, reasons for delaying the warning apply. Again, nothing to do with his rights. If anything, not reading the warning can strengthen his position in the court.
The police and the FBI have not gone pursue of the scope that the constitution and our courts have allowed to anyone's knowledge. To our knowledge, law enforcement have done nothing illegally.
They are allowed to not make someone aware of his/her Fifth Amendment rights for a limited period of time in cases of public safety. They are allowed to search homes without a warrant in exigent circumstances. What exactly are you arguing for or against here?
Unless authorities have enough evidence without his statement to incriminate him completely.
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
"Think he got all that, Bob?"
BronsonLee
Member
I've got one question about all this.
HOW DOES BARSTOOLSPORTS.COM KEEP GETTING ALL THESE SCOOPS
LOL, do you understand what WE'RE asking?
I don't follow. I thought I was backing up your statement.
dutchguyjack
Member
I disagree. When you have irrefutable evidence that he is a terrorist (video footage, shoot outs, explosives), the law should no longer protect him.
So if I were to place a nuclear warhead in the middle of New York and trigger it during Rush Hour, I should have the same rights as someone who stole someone's watch?
Fahrenheit
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda-rights_n_3123992.html
First paragraph talks about how they intend to question him before reading him his rights. All of your argument is invalid.
Half and half
Member
Hehe
Yes. Now explain to me why people accused of terrorism should have less rights than those accused of other crimes.
And they planned to, before learning he was in critical condition and decided not to.
Sometimes even the most compelling evidence can fall apart under scrutiny.
- Status