Folks be all blowed up in Boston...
04-30-2013, 08:30 AM
#423
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 08:37 AM
#424
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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 08:52 AM.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 08:48 AM
#425
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 08:54 AM
#426
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 08:55 AM
#427
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.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 09:06 AM
#432
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.
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:
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."
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 09:14 AM
#435
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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"
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 09:27 AM
#437
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.
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.
Reply
1
1
04-30-2013, 09:28 AM
#438
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.
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.
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).
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.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2013, 09:31 AM
#439
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
You have clearly never debated 
. 
