Folks be all blowed up in Boston... - Page 22 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-30-2013, 09:19 AM   #421
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

Really? Infowars?
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:24 AM   #422
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
Really? Infowars?
omg Ron Paul did an interview with Alex Jones, discount the entire thing and go sacrfice kittens to Glenn Beck in reparations.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:30 AM   #423
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

I mean, it's your call.

The discussion could go towards something like discussing the FBI refusing the younger Tamerlan's request for a lawyer during his questioning and the implications for the upcoming federal case against him... or you can post a clip from Infowars featuring Dr. Ron Paul.
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:37 AM   #424
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
The discussion could go towards something like discussing the FBI refusing the younger Tamerlan's request for a lawyer during his questioning and the implications for the upcoming federal case against him...
He didnt have to talk, with or without his rights being read. You always have your rights, regardless if anyone reminds you about them or not. he wasnt granted rights, he was reminded of them by a judge, and then he decided he was done lying to police.


or I could have posted some crazy conspriacy crap from Alex Jones...

Also, where do we know his request for a lawyer was denied? and that's fine, police/FBI are allowed to question people without a lawyer/miranda in certain situations (New York vs. Quarles).

Last edited by Braineack; 04-30-2013 at 09:52 AM.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:48 AM   #425
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
He didnt have to talk, with or without his rights being read. You always have your rights, regardless if anyone reminds you about them or not. he wasnt granted rights, he was reminded of them by a judge, and then he decided he was done lying to police.


or I could have posted some crazy conspriacy crap from Alex Jones...

Also, where do we know his request for a lawyer was denied? and that's fine, FBI are allowed to question people without a lawyer in certain situations.
Miranda rights silenced Boston bombing suspect - latimes.com




Quote:
A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule.
It's a Guardian blog, but it makes some fairly cogent points: Report: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer were ignored | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

edit: you do make a good point about the Miranda warning not being necessary because not being read your rights doesn't mean that they have been taken away or suspended; however, straight out ignoring the request for a lawyer/representation doesn't fall under Miranda nor the public safety exemption that was being used in regards to Tsarnaev's Miranda rights being read.
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:54 AM   #426
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

He still didnt have to answer any questions; he lied anyways, so who cares? Because of the Quarles ruling, I don't believe they have to honor his request for a lawyer or prevent self-incrimindation while exercising that window which the point of the miranda rule; to prevent questioning and self-incrimindation post-reading.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:55 AM   #427
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,579
Total Cats: 155
Default

Actually denying the lawyer is common practice under the exemption as long as the line of questioning is pertaining to outstanding threats. If the police are asking about active bombs that might be hidden around the city or any other threats or planned attacks that he might know about that are an immediate threat then they are justified. They are not allowed, however, to start asking him about the Boston Bombings or his involvement because this is not a looming threat to public safety.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:58 AM   #428
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
He still didnt have to answer any questions; he lied anyways, so who cares? Because of the Quarles ruling, I don't believe they have to honor his request for a lawyer or prevent self-incrimindation while exercising that window.
Source that says he was lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
Actually denying the lawyer is common practice under the exemption as long as the line of questioning is pertaining to outstanding threats.
Source/precedent for going against the 5th Amendment.
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:00 AM   #429
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
Source that says he was lying.
He said they were working alone, they said they were going to NY city next.

Source = me.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:03 AM   #430
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
He said they were working alone, they said they were going to NY city next.

Source = me.
I don't see how that's a credible source for claims that Tsarnaev is lying to federal prosecutors.
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:04 AM   #431
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
I don't see how that's a credible source for claims that Tsarnaev is lying to federal prosecutors.
It's called the common sense rule.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:06 AM   #432
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,579
Total Cats: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
Source/precedent for going against the 5th Amendment.
You should probably actually read your own sources because the article you just linked clearly states that this is common practice. They just reference that the law enforcement spokesman had stated publicly that there was no threat as evidence that the FBI was no longer questioning him along those lines. I believe it is much more likely that the FBI publicly stated that the public threat was subsided before they were done questioning him in order to keep the public peace.

The article has no evidence of what kind of questions were being asked by the FBI. They are just making assumptions. I imagine it was all done by the book so that his lawyer cannot destroy them in court. He has a big time defense attorney at his side now.

EDIT:
Quote:
As law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained in the Los Angeles Times last week, the Obama DOJ was already abusing the "public safety" exception by using it to delay Miranda warnings for hours, long after virtually every public official expressly said that there were no more threats to the public safety. As he put it: "this exception does not apply here because there was no emergency threat facing law enforcement."
They are assuming that these announcements meant that the FBI was actually done questioning him about looming threats and not made to keep the general populace feeling safe.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:09 AM   #433
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

I asked politely, and I provided sources that back my statements; you haven't done the same.

Instead you provide a bandwagon logical fallacy as "proof".
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:11 AM   #434
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

The public safety exclusion only pertains to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda Warning is not the same as your 5th amendment rights.
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:14 AM   #435
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
The public safety exclusion only pertains to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda Warning is not the same as your 5th amendment rights.

What of the 5th amendment are you suggesting has been violated? The part about land and naval forces?

there's nothing there about "when GAMO says so, a lawyer must be provided when asked"
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:19 AM   #436
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

Sorry for not being specific, the due process clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

I'm on my cell phone and posting is hard with SwiftKey.

Hey Braineack, there's no reason to go into ad hominem attacks.
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:27 AM   #437
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,579
Total Cats: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
The public safety exclusion only pertains to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda Warning is not the same as your 5th amendment rights.
Source: For Now, Public-Safety Exception Precludes Bomber's Miranda Rights | The American Civil Rights Union

Quote:
The public-safety exception is for situations where there could be an imminent threat to innocent lives, such as a hidden bomb. The Supreme Court says the Constitution allows such an imminent threat to trump the need for defendants to know their rights, so the police can try to quickly get information to secure the bomb, the loaded gun, or whatever other deadly risk to the public is out there. It's designed to save innocent lives.

This exception only lasts so long. At some point a court would say that there is no longer an imminent threat--that federal agents have had reasonable time to determine if there was still a ticking bomb--and at that point Tsarnaev gets his lawyer.
They had their time and the court intervened when it thought that the exception was no longer valid. All procedures were followed.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:28 AM   #438
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Total Cats: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
You should probably actually read your own sources because the article you just linked clearly states that this is common practice. They just reference that the law enforcement spokesman had stated publicly that there was no threat as evidence that the FBI was no longer questioning him along those lines. I believe it is much more likely that the FBI publicly stated that the public threat was subsided before they were done questioning him in order to keep the public peace.

The article has no evidence of what kind of questions were being asked by the FBI. They are just making assumptions. I imagine it was all done by the book so that his lawyer cannot destroy them in court. He has a big time defense attorney at his side now.

EDIT:


They are assuming that these announcements meant that the FBI was actually done questioning him about looming threats and not made to keep the general populace feeling safe.
I already replied to this, but I found something that goes a little bit more into it versus me just spouting off on a forum: How the Media Have Misunderstood Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Miranda Rights - Adam Goodman - The Atlantic

Quote:
What the public-safety exception does -- if and only if a court determines that the exception was properly invoked -- is render Tsarnaev's unwarned statements admissible as evidence where they otherwise would not be. And even where the public-safety exception applies, the substantive rights that Miranda protects don't disappear: due process is in effect; any coerced statements remain inadmissible; and Tsarnaev may not be denied access to an attorney if he asks for one (though the federal circuit courts have held that questioning may continue for some period of time under the public-safety exception even after the request for counsel, and statements remain admissible).
This is where I'm coming from in my understanding of the public safety exception clause in Miranda.

edit: aaaa you replied

I was specifically honing in on the line that the LA Times just kind of hand-waved over: a senior aide said that Tsarnaev asked for a lawyer multiple times and was denied. I can see this becoming an issue and setting some new legal precedent.

At the end of the day, they have more than enough evidence to pin him against the wall and convict him; however, how the law changes will be interesting. And as much as I hate to be cynical about it, it's always fun to see the FBI come up with new, fun ways to screw up the legal process.
GAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:31 AM   #439
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

what are we even arguing here?

His access to a lawyer before his miranda rights were read to him is to least but concerning to me as the total lockdown of a town and CLEAR violation of 4th admendment rights.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:35 AM   #440
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMO View Post
Hey Braineack, there's no reason to go into ad hominem attacks.
You have clearly never debated .

If you are going to continue, be prepared for ad hominem attacks, non sequiters and "because I'm the admin."
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
In need of base map for stock 1997 brandonbkd MEGAsquirt 0 09-29-2015 12:52 AM
Replacing one tire nigelt Wheels and Tires 7 09-22-2015 01:32 PM
Old guy buys old Miata b&t Meet and Greet 3 09-22-2015 10:32 AM
Bp5a swap NA8 Will_da_beast Engine Performance 1 09-14-2015 08:06 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20 AM.