Braineack

iTrader: (62)

post 441.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Also, do you have evidence of FBI coerced selfaccusations?


Anyways, is it possible that these jihadists are training to tell FBI a bunch of baloney, then clam up once rights are read in order to try to get out of it on a technicallity?

Does it even matter since they already confessed to the crime and FBI wanted to find out more about the very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from weapons being at large?

Also: U.S. v. Khalil and U.S. v. Mobley

Those cases address all your concerns and the Supreme Court has already ruled on them.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

Scott is just bored because SC2 is down.

edit: nm it's back up

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

riviting stuff:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

it's always down on tuesday mornings. but im at work bro.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

I never brought up anything of the like, and I can't really comment on it in any meaningful way.

The point of concern I was bringing up was the offhand mention by a senior congressional aide that the younger Tsarnaev was denied his request for counsel. I don't think the implicit suspension of due process has been ruled on by the justice system.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

It looks like the US v Mobley case is about a 8" shank, and Mobley tried to appeal it saying that "mere possession" of a shank/weapon is a passive crime. How is this related to the suspension/violation of due process?

And US v Khalil is about a bomb, and apparently he said some stuff that was self-incriminating; however, this sounds like it would be a Miranda issue.

e: I don't think the Khalil case can be used to draw parallels to this issue. Tsarnaev is an American citizen, but IANAL so I don't know the minutiae surrounding non-citizens vs green card holders, etc in the justice system.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov...8.93-5091.html

40 F.3d 688 is referenced anytime counsel is denied for the public safety exception of NY v. Quarles.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

That's Miranda's public safety exclusion at work, not due process according to the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Also: U.S. v. DeSantis, 870 F.2d 536

In United States v. DeSantis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “[t]he same considerations that allow the police to dispense with providing Miranda warning in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel.” 870 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir.1989). In reaching this conclusion, the Desantis court emphasized that the guiding policy considerations of Quarles (the disinclination of the accused to disclose information about the location of a weapon and the overriding societal interest in preventing the potential loss of life) applied with equal force after counsel was requested. Ibid. Relying on DeSantis, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion in United States v. Mobley, 40 F.3d 688, 692 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129, 115 S.Ct. 2005, 131 L. Ed.2d 1005 (1995).

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I don't understand.

I find cases that show the courts uphold the public safety exclusion in terms of preventing counsel, but you still say there's a due process violation. This is something you were clammering about.

what is the violation that you are specifically, with evidence, talking baout?

and how is there a 14th amendment violation? he's a citizen, he's being treated as such; he hasn't run for president...yet.

due process of the law, means he has the ability to defend himself in trial, which will happen. so if maybe they assassinated suspect #1, they probably violated that... but you haven't suggested anything of the sort.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

Due process has clauses in both the 5th and 14th amendments.

Miranda warning is not the 5th amendment.

Your last case proves what I was saying... I don't know what you're getting at.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

okay, I think there were 7th, 12th, and 23rd amendment violations too.

If you ask me about them, I wont give you an answer and ill cry like a little bitch when you discuss anything else.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

What are you talking about? I mentioned the violation of due process which is defined in the 5th and 14th amendment. Also, once again with the ad hominem attack.

You do realize that it's possible to have discourse without attacking the people involved, right? I don't understand why you're getting so upset.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

Also, nice dog whistle racism.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yes, once again I ask you specific what evidence you have where there are due process clause violations of the 5th and 14th amenedments without your response.

how can I have discourse if you refuse to have it? I'm getting upset because you hound me looking for specific eveidence on why my pensi is so small and here all you due is say the 5th and 14th rights of #2 were violated but you wont explain how why where what when with what. its ******* annoying as hell.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

when did saying someone is crying a like a little bitch become "dog whistle racism"? Do you have any clue what dog whistle racism means? Do you acutally want me to start using it? cause it can and i will.

When can you explain the 5th and 14th violations, other than saying the words "due process violations"? do you know what due process means?

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

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.

Source: Miranda rights silenced Boston bombing suspect - latimes.com

The right to counsel comes from the Due Process Clause that is found in both the 5th and 14th Amendments. Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Miranda warning informs people of their 5th Amendment rights. The public safety clause allows for authorities to not read people their 5th Amendment rights. It does not mean that people do not have 5th Amendment rights.

The public safety clause cannot suspend 5th Amendment rights. The public safety clause is a part of the Miranda warning.

The mention about dog whistle racism was in regards to this comment: "he's a citizen, he's being treated as such; he hasn't run for president...yet."

That's dog whistle racism.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

Also, I never said that they WERE violated, I said that there is a possibility that they could have been violated and that is a much more interesting take on the unfolding story versus saying that Boston was under martial law.

I mentioned it when I first brought it up: it's an off-hand line in an LA Times article, and I hope it's not true. If it is true, then it can open up a can of legal worms.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Except that I've already posted two court cases that suggest you're wrong here and that the safety clause DOES temporarily deny the right to counsel at the time. He has a lawyer now, after being read his rights, so nothing here has happened outside the norm.

I can post more, but you'll keep discounting them and continue this stupid back and forth.


is it? I was trying to make a joke about the other sections of the 14th where it speaks of voting and running for president and stuff. Maybe a should have made a joke about debt?

that's called sarcasm...

jesus.