Poll_Blind could give less of a shit about the exact moment he's read his Miranda rights.

[Poll_Blind]

Really guys. What the horse fuck.

Seeing as this guy and his brother not only helped dozens of people into wheelchairs, and a handfull of people into the great hereafter (including a little boy, goddamnit), and seeing as what bombs they didn't use to blow up the Boston Marathon they decided to play SpyHunter with, throwing them at the Boston Police last night...

I mean, given all that and more, does the unusual scrutiny of whether this void has already been read his rights or whether they're going to wait until he has enough blood in his circulatory system to nod without losing consciousness matter?

Does anyone out there seriously think this particular guy is in danger of being misled into incriminating himself?

PB

[Dorian Gray]

1. No...

I agree with you. I think other people are under a misapprehension about what being read the Miranda actually means.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Yup. nt

PB

[randome]

5. No...

I think other people want badly to believe that law enforcement's sole purpose is to abuse us all. And a disconnect rings in their heads when they can't understand what a stand-up job they performed the last few days.

[Dorian Gray]

11. If they don't mirandize him, they can't use anything he says to prosecute him

if they care more about potential bombs or other information rather than prosecution, that's up to law enforcement. He can still lawyer up or refuse to answer.

[randome]

18. Exactly. Some think using the exemption is equivalent to waterboarding or something.

[Fumesucker]

61. Do you wonder why people have that perception of law enforcement so often?

I think it's because for most practical purposes in many people's lives that's just what law enforcement does, abuse us.

[randome]

91. Far more people have a good encounter with LE than suffer abuse.

If it was the opposite, we would be engaged in a civil war right now. For the most part, our system works. It will never be flawless.

[Fumesucker]

93. I've had both very good and absolutely horrible experiences with LE myself

In particular there was an experience with my daughter where she ended up with a drug conviction on her record without ever being charged or convicted of anything to do with drugs, she only found out when she went to get a concealed carry license several years later and was denied because of this supposed drug conviction. It eventually came out that she had made some officers angry one night as a teenager because she was less than perfectly obsequious to them and evidently they took revenge in this manner.

The only thing that saved her from having that on her record for the rest of her life is that in the meantime she had married the son of the #2 man in the local Sheriff's Dept and her father in law moved heaven and earth to find out what happened, it took him pulling every string that a well connected and popular high ranking police officer could manage in order to get to the bottom of the situation and have the fake conviction expunged, she would never have been able to manage it on her own.

Essentially our police in many locations in this nation have no effective oversight whatsoever and they do exactly as they wish.

The problem is old enough that there is an ancient Latin phrase to describe it .. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchers?

[freshwest]

44. +1

[BainsBane]

2. I don't see the point of not giving them

How does that help their case? The kid knows his rights. Anyone who watches a cop show knows them. All it does is jeopardize the prosecution.

[Poll_Blind]

7. It jeopardizes the prosecution...IN AN EPISODE OF MATLOCK. In this case, in THIS case...

...it doesn't mean much. Now, I'm sure the police, FBI, whomever is guarding this dude is going to follow whatever legal procedures they need to, including reading him his rights.

But the scrutiny on the reading of the rights, as though it were important in some way in this case, is farcical.

PB

[randome]

10. There is a SCOTUS-approved 48 hour exemption for public safety reasons.

Some want to whine about how terrible it is that law enforcement is using this exemption to question the suspect about other bombs he may have hidden.

[BainsBane]

20. okay, so the exemption means they can question him

can they use that in a prosecution against him? I'm guessing not. I see your point about additional bombs.

[randome]

22. Apparently they cannot use anything he says against him during this period.

Not knowing what kind of medical shape he's in, I can see the need for a maximum of 48 hours.

[BainsBane]

27. That's what I figured

I doubt he's capable of talking much right now. I'm sure he's in surgery as we speak.

[cthulu2016]

32. Cite it. You think it exists so you should be able to settle this quickly.

Show the case where SCOTUS says that is so and you win.

[randome]

45. You already saw the Quarles link but here it is again.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=467&invol=649

Of course your position is that it doesn't apply. I'm not here to argue or to 'win' anything but I think LE is doing the same amazing job they have been doing for the past few days,

I'm not here to prove I know the law better than they do.

Contact the ACLU if you think his rights are being violated.

And I don't agree with Poll_Blind's sentiment about not giving a shit. I think it's important that the suspect have his rights protected. I'm comfortable thinking they are.

[dems_rightnow]

87. You win!

Good job.

[Yo_Mama]

71. Explain how?

I think if you try to explain how, you'll realize that it in no way jeopardizes the prosecution.

[cali]

4. I could. It's about preserving rights- and not just his.

aside from that, and I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, and I realize the horrors he's perpetrated, but there's this small part of me that has some compassion for him. I did not feel that toward his older brother.

[Poll_Blind]

13. IMO, there are scores of victims in the hospital right now who are more deserving.

And some who won't be lucky enough ever to leave a hospital.



PB

[Gravitycollapse]

17. I find it disgusting that you are using that kids photo in such a manner.

Shame on you.

[Poll_Blind]

31. Dead Eight Year Old > His Murderer. Deal with it. nt

PB

[Gravitycollapse]

34. That suspect has rights and priveleges afforded to him. One of them is innocence...

until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Poll_Blind]

37. You didn't read my OP: The guy may not even be conscious yet. nt

PB

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Your OP has nothing to do with your gross exploitation of that childs photo.

To try and appeal to some hatred you think exists within me.

[Poll_Blind]

46. Still didn't bother to read my OP. It's not arguing for his deprivation of rights, it's...

...pointing out that clock-watching about when he's been read his rights is nonsensical because he's probably not even conscious.

PB

[Gravitycollapse]

50. Again, not talking about your OP. I'm talking about your disgusting use of that child's photo.

[Poll_Blind]

53. Eat it. On ignore forever. If you knew how short that list was, you'd feel special. nt

PB

[Gravitycollapse]

59. Like I give a single shit. Have a great life.

[cali]

23. there certainly are, but

one can be sad about the ruinous end to this kids live, condemn him for what he's done and have compassion for his victims. that's not really paradoxical.

[Mojorabbit]

38. Well said. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

39. A lot of people cannot comprehend what you just said...

precisely because it requires them to reconcile their animalistic hatred with the rights and priveleges afforded us from our legal system.

[BainsBane]

24. prosecution and rights are about us as a people

How we administer justice shows who we are as a people. It's not about the accused. The same is true for torture and the death penalty. Imposing such punishment damages our society as a whole. Denying rights for him contributes to an erosion of all our civil liberties. Now, I'm not saying that is being done in this case. I'm talking about the general point you miss in your anger toward the bomber.

[Honeycombe8]

19. I have no compassion for him. His soul is lost. But we obey the laws for all our sakes.

It's about preserving the rights for all of us. Defense lawyers for scum criminals serve a purpose for us all, which is to make sure that law enforcement and the courts abide by the rule of law in observing the rights given to each of us in the law.

Whether the guy is guilty or not is not the point.

Ted Bundy wasn't worth mirandizing, but he had to be, because that's the law of the land. We are all entitled to that.

[suffragette]

95. Very well stated, Honeycombe8

And the more exceptions are adopted, the less consistent and equal our rights become.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. I agree, Cali.

I can't get past the fact that he is only 19 and probably very impressionable. And I do fear that if he talks before being read his rights, that anything he says can be thrown out in a later trial.

[randome]

26. No one here knows him. He may be every bit a monster as the acts he perpetrated.

[Blue_In_AK]

63. Perhaps,

but that's not what I'm hearing in the media from the people who do know him. The older brother was maybe a little off, but the 19-year-old seemed to be just a normal kid, from what his friends and teachers have said. I am glad he's alive, and hopefully we will learn more about what led to these acts.

[Yo_Mama]

75. There is a public safety exception rom Miranda penalties under certain circs

That's included with Miranda rights.

This is a very obvious case in which public safety is of concern.

There are public safety exemptions or exceptions to most of the Bill of Rights. So, police can't come into your house without a warrant, but if a policeman hears gunshots and screams, the police officer is allowed to break in - in the cause of protecting life.

This is not a strained interpretation of the public safety provision, so no one's rights are being injured here and it sets no bad or new precedent.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

Whenever the prosecution seeks in its direct case to introduce a statement made by a suspect while in custody and in response to interrogation, it must prove that the subject was warned of specific rights and voluntarily waived those rights.4

Now the penalty for not following Miranda procedures is that statements gained from the non-Mirandized statements cannot be introduced in court, and evidence developed from those statements will be thrown out. The public safety exception just means that evidence gained from such questions can be introduced in court.

That's really the only "teeth" that Miranda has, but those are big teeth.

However in this case there is tremendous evidence accumulated before arrest combined with the physical facts of the arrest and the prosecution does not need to rely on any of these statements to do anything except possibly protect the public, so the authorities would have to be crazy to immediately read the guy his Miranda rights. No, instead they are going to ask questions about other bombs and materials out there. Stuff like that.

There's a reason why the public safety exception exists, it exists to protect other people's rights, and they are not doing anything odd or illegal here. They took him to the hospital for medical treatment, so questioning will be limited anyway.

Even if a judge later found that their questioning crossed the acceptable line, all it would mean wouldevi be that his answers to those questions, or any evidence found on the basis of those questions, would not be admissible. It would not contaminate all the other evidence.

If you stop and think about what law enforcement priorities are supposed to be, failure to allow the public safety exception would force cops to ask those questions any way. At all stages of any investigation or arrest, public safety is supposed to be preeminent. It isn't always, but it is supposed to be. The courts are not going to create a situation that forces cops and prosecutors to abandon prosecutions in order to protect the lives of others.

[MaineLinePhilly]

6. Same people who complain about torture

I for one don't care if people who are conspiring to kill innocent American citizens are being tortured. ITS WAR!! ITS UGLY!!! I've never worn the uniform and have always said I don't need to know everything my government does. I appreciate the fact that this is an open society and whatever is done to allow me to continue having freedoms, keep doing it. So yeah...I don't care his miranda rights won't be read.

[HiPointDem]

12. what a horridly ironic post.

[Mojorabbit]

40. I know right! nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. "At least there is symmetry". - Zathrus n/t

[Shivering Jemmy]

15. His rights will be read

We are following the law with him.

[Poll_Blind]

35. I have no doubt that they will. nt

PB

[RedCappedBandit]

49. whatever is done to allow me to continue having freedoms

Oh boy.

[Apophis]

57. Wow.

You sure you're on the right website?

[freshwest]

74. FR's hamster died again.

[Skittles]

58. sorry but that is just sick

no due process? Why bother living in America?????

[Solly Mack]

92. Snort

[Amonester]

8. And I bet they even didn't run to give blood to help save their victims.

No.

High-fived instead.

[cthulu2016]

9. Well, that speaks volumes about poll_blind

Thanks for the update

[Zorra]

14. Exactly ~ add Zorra to the rolls of those could give less of a shit. nt

[DirkGently]

16. I give a shit this "exception" appears to be broad policy.

“It looks like to me they’re trying to find this middle ground between saying the Constitution applies with full force and the Constitution doesn’t apply,” says Sam Kamin, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Sturm College of Law in Denver who has written about terrorism interrogations. “It seems to be a deliberate strategy.”

“There are exceptions to Miranda and that is one of the ways in which we conduct our interrogations of terrorism suspects, it’s what we did with Abdulmutallab, it’s what we did with Shahzad,” Holder said. (See video below)

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/experts_obama_admin_pioneering_more_robust_use_of.php

It matters if the administration has taken the position that people accused of anything characterized as possible terrorism all fall within what was initially deemed to be a case-by-case, emergency measure automatically.

That is, arguably, a radical interpretation of the law, and within the category of other anti-constitutional executive shenanigans rationalized by the "war on terror."

So, yeah. Really.

[Poll_Blind]

28. I am not talking about broad policy, I am talking about the unusual FIXATION as to...

...whether this particular suspect has been read his Miranda rights yet even matter, at all, in any accounting of anything.

We're not talking about George Stinney here, ya know?

PB

[DirkGently]

42. It matters when we modify civil protections over terrorism.

This is a big part of the conversation we've been having since Bush. Do we need to lower the bar on Constitutional protections in order to deal with terrorism? When? By how much? We've started down a road where the Executive interprets the law differently when terrorism is involved, and we need to keep paying attention to the question.

Every time something horrendous happens, people say every kind of "Screw that guy, he did ____." Okay. But we think everyone we arrest did something.

If we're going to decide that in certain cases we're so sure, or the crime is so bad, that we don't need to worry about the accused being treated as though they might not be guilty we need to at least pay attention to how and when we're doing that.

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. Fuck the 5th Amendment! 'Murika!

[Poll_Blind]

29. Didn't read my message. nt

PB

[Arctic Dave]

30. I do.

The law is the law.

It was for these times, not when it suits us.

Call me old fashion.

[Poll_Blind]

33. Did you read my op? This guy may not even be conscious yet. That's the point. nt

PB

[Arctic Dave]

36. If a person is unable to respond then the question is moot.

But without a doubt I believe the Miranda Rights need to be adhered to. No exceptions.


If we become accustomed to "bending" the law then all we do is give the people who do these thing credibility.

[Poll_Blind]

43. We do NOT disagree. My point was there have been a flurry of articles...

...regarding whether or not he's been read his Miranda rights, as though the guy weren't in a hospital bed right now being given transfusions to replace all the blood he's lost. I'm saying the strange clock-watching about when he gets those rights read to him is nonsensical given his situation.

I'm not arguing for his deprivation of rights.

PB

[Arctic Dave]

52. I think you called it by "clock watching".

I am really uneasy with the renewed feeling of rule breaking is OK being posted lately.



Stick to the rules. It is always better in the long run.

[Poll_Blind]

62. Clock watching- while not taking into account they guy is probably unconcious.

That's my key point. He's not in a jail cell sipping coffee while the warden makes him jump with each billy club bounce off the bars as he walks the halls- the guy's in a hospital bed, probably drugged and unconscious.

Point being, he could be like that for the next 48 hours, I have no idea. There have been articles making a huge point of his rights not having been read yet and I find it chimerical given the circumstances.

PB

[Arctic Dave]

66. I would assume there is a pre-determined point.

I would think there have been other circumstances where this happened.



I would hope they would be as stringent as possible.

[flvegan]

47. Do let me know when it's all about Poll_Blind, would you?

Until then...

[GitRDun]

48. All that matters for me is the law.

From what I understand, with the exception, you can question him for 48 hours with no Miranda rights, anything you get is admissible in court...period.

IF that means we may get info that saves lives I am OK....pretty simple.

[Poll_Blind]

51. I'm saying the guy is probably not even CONSCIOUS to respond to whether they've been read at all. nt

PB

[GitRDun]

60. I think 48 hours starts when he is able to answer questions. nt

[Zorra]

65. +1

[davidpdx]

80. Yes, that is the same point I've been making

Reading someone who is unconscious is not a proper reading of the Miranda rights.

Saving his life was probably a higher priority as they would eventually want to go through the Miranda rights and find out at the very least: 1) his motive and 2) whether anyone else was involved.

[markiv]

54. all of his rights should be respected

because it's food for defense lawyer and appeals if they dont

an innocent person, cornered, might panic and run

but what's up with the HAND GRENADES??

most innocent people, falsely accused, wouldnt know where to find hand grenades to aid their escape, they're bad for home defense, because they blow holes in your yard, and send patches of sod flying onto your neighbor's cat

this guy's goose is cooked, and will make a small enough meal for the victims as it is

do it by the book, throw away the key and let us all forget the sad fact he was ever born

[Poll_Blind]

56. Didn't read my OP. Of course they should be respected, and they will be. nt

PB

[Zorra]

55. It's astounding how naive the average American is with regard to the justice system.

"Officer O'Malley, did you read the defendant his rights?"

"Yep, I surely did yer honor".

"Thank you, officer."

Does anyone here seriously believe that a terrorist bomber who was captured by excellent police work in front of the entire world watching on tv and listening to scanners is gonna skate because the cops didn't read him his rights? OMG! sigh...All those bridges I could sell tonight.


Not. Going. To. Happen. Ever.

Please, put your minds at ease folks. I'm sorry I find this so hilarious, but no, just no.

[Poll_Blind]

64. I have to agree. As you and I think at least one other person pointed out, people...

...aren't understanding the significance of this- or lack of it.

PB

[Zorra]

69. Yes, and besides, this is the crown jewels for both the DA .and the FBI

Neither the DA or the FBI are going to blow this case.

Dzhokhar can talk, or not. They can question him until they can't talk anymore, and he is not required to respond. He can request an attorney if he wants. It's just that with the public safety exception in place, they don't have tell him these things.

Someone in Dzhokhar's position is most likely going to be in a state of shock, or semi-shock, especially if he is injured. He may not even know or care if they read him his rights or not. With the public safety exception in place, the cops are going to bend the law, and Dzhokhar, like a gumby doll, and no one will ever know. Interrogations are not held in open court. They will ask him every leading question under the sun. The public safety exception is basically an open ended rule free for all for the cops, and any information the cops get out of him can and will be used against him.

Once the cops arrest you and have you hidden away from curious eyes and minds, it's totally your word against theirs. And your word automatically becomes moot for all practical purposes at this time.

Yeah, the public safety exception is definitely a deadly threat to our rights, but it is what it is, and we can scream and yell all we want, but it won't do any good.

Anyone who seriously wants to change it should be prepared to engage in effective non-violent revolution.

[cthulu2016]

67. Cute that you think it hilarious, but can you answer this?

If it is so trivial, why not spend those 20 seconds reading it?

If a meaningless formaility, what is it that is gained by making a point of not reading it?

[Poll_Blind]

68. Only helps if he's conscious to acknowledge. nt

PB

[Zorra]

70. In this case, they don't want to. The public safety exception makes it so they are not required to.

Dzhokar is not required to say a word. He can request a lawyer. It's just that under the PSE, the cops don't have to tell him this.

What is gained under the PSE is that if a suspect is not aware that he does not have to say anything, and that he has the right to a lawyer, (after a time) and then gives the cops his life story, they can use everything he tells them against him in court. No Miranda necessary.

Here's the bottom line:

The police, under the public safety exception, can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety.

And Dzhokar definitely could have information that's of urgent concern for public safety.

[Luminous Animal]

72. Rights apply to all or they apply to none. That is why I give a flying fuck.

[LAGC]

76. +1

No matter how heinous the crime, if it happens on American soil its a criminal justice issue, not military. Period.

We follow the rule of law because we are civilized, unlike the terrorists and reactionaries.

[Recursion]

78. And this applies to all: they have 48 hours with no Miranda to figure out if there are others

working with him. That's literally what this is for. And what he says would have a very difficult time making it into court; this is like a parallel investigation to figure out if there are more people going to blow stuff up, first.

[snot]

77. I find this OP hurtful, over-the-top and otherwise inappropriate,

since I value my fundamental human rights, as I do those of my fellows, and hope other Du'er's do, too.

[davidpdx]

81. I think if you get past the harshness of his post & read through the entire thing it does make sense

The guy was badly injured, possibly unconscious. If he died, he there is no way the authorities would have gotten much information. Getting him to the hospital was important to actually save his life. As long as they don't question him without Miranda rights and they do it within 48 hours it will hold up. It may take 24 hours to actually get him in good enough condition where he is lucid. His injuries were from the shootout the day before so you have to look at the possibility of an infection or other complication.

I personally would have said this differently if I had been the OP.

[snot]

82. Thank you for your courteous reply.

But the OP assumes the guilt of the suspect; and that is the opposite of what our system of justice requires.

[davidpdx]

83. The OP assumes his guilt, but can't definitely prove it. That's a flaw in his argument

Like I said, I wouldn't have said what he did in the way he did it. I'm glad the guy was caught and I'm pretty sure they got the correct person (I'm not going to state whether he's guilty or not because that's the job of a jury). No matter what I believe he should get medical care first and foremost. Once he is able to, I believe they should Mirandize him and give him the option of talking or asking for a lawyer.

[snot]

88. Agreed.

[davidpdx]

79. One thing I don't think many people are considering is how badly he may have been hurt

If he was hurt badly it may have been a more immediate priority to get him to the hospital. We don't know what state he was in when they finally did take him into custody (I'm sure we will know eventually). I heard that his injuries were likely from the night before in which case you are talking about the possibility of an infection. Keeping him alive was a high priority.

Reading him his Miranda rights would do him no good if he couldn't understand them or was close to dying. Now again note in the first two sentences I said "may". No one really does know, but it is possible.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. The danger is the precedent.

No, delaying reading this guy his rights is unlikely to have any negative effects *if it doesn't set a precedent*.

The reason it's a cause for concern is that it risks making it more likely that other people don't get their rights read, and a slippery slope.

But *if* it stops here then it's probably not much of a problem. That's a big "if", though.

[Poll_Blind]

85. When they arrested this guy, from what I read, he was basically half dead.

I have no idea why people keep missing this because my OP is short: The guy may not still be conscious, he's in the hospital and had lost a lot of blood. There was also the indication from something I read earlier that his injuries may be infected.

Point being, I'm not talking about denying his rights, I'm talking about the fixation on exactly when his rights will be read to him in a situation where he may not even be conscious to hear them.

PB

[Donald Ian Rankin]

86. And provided it doesn't result in people who aren't half dead getting their rights late that's fine.

It may well not - "is he able to hear/understand me doing it" is a good, solid line to draw, not part of a slippery slope.

My view is that since police violating people's rights is such a hot-button issue that even a technical violation of those rights, even when a) the spirit of those rights is totally respected and b) observing the letter of those rights is clearly daft, is not a complete non-issue.

I think the police clearly made the right call, but I'd be happier if it weren't a call police on the spot were called on/allowed to make, and "only read people their rights if they are conscious" were an official, recognised policy.

It's also worth making clear that I'm not an American, I don't know the letter of the law here, and if that's *already* an official policy then observing it strikes me as absolutely fine, and there's no cause for control. But the little I've read leads me to guess that that's not the case?

[Cal Carpenter]

89. "This particular guy" is an American citizen

committing crimes on American soil. The tragic details of this particular crime notwithstanding.

The foundation of civil rights is that we don't get to pick and choose when they are applied.

[treestar]

90. Not on the grounds you give

Does not matter what the person is accused of. We should not let the charges themselves be something that affects a person's rights. Like the accusation of child molestation - it is at first, an accusation only, like any other crime, no matter how heinous we find the crime itself, it is a matter of evidence that the accused committed it. We should not say some crimes are so horrible that the mere accusation is enough to make the person somehow more likely to be guilty.

But if the delay is allowed under law, which I understand it is, pursuant to case law, then this delay is not a problem.

[TheKentuckian]

94. Law is not about this or any "particular guy", whenever it does it is eroded.

Going on about what a particular person did is not material to the discussion, it is actually a distraction.

When Miranda is read should be the same regardless of accusation be it petty theft, unpaid tickets, grand theft, assault, rape, murder, acts of terrorism, or whatever you can imagine.