explosions at marathon

by **eagle216** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:45 am

A person has no constitutional right to have Miranda rights read to them. The rule is simply that IF the prosecution wishes to use the byproduct of custodial interogation on their direct case at trial, such must have been secured after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.

by **twballgame9** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:47 am

eagle216 {l Wrote}:A person has no constitutional right to have Miranda rights read to them. The rule is simply that IF the prosecution wishes to use the byproduct of custodial interogation on their direct case at trial, such must have been secured after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.

No way, really?

by **eagle9903** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:56 am

I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

by **twballgame9** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:01 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

Isn't the second point moot now?

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:02 am

People seem to forget that whatever distinctions they think can be easily carved-out for this case will apply to other US citizens going forward as well. Again, leave your emotions at the door and ask why a military tribunal is even necessary. With the possible exception of expediency, I can't see the added benefit. On top of that, the negative implications on the rights of other citizens going forward far outweigh that tiny benefit. Typical I respect the law unless I disagree with it mentality.

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:04 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

I believe the argument is that he should lose some pretty basic rights of a US citizen because of his actions - which is a scary propostion. Oh and that he didn't wear a uniform, which is relavant in about zero ways.

by **b0mberMan** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:06 am

talon {l Wrote}:

Stay classy, Women’s Blue Chip basketball League.

Yes, how dare they not realize that their would be a bombing in Boston sometime int he future after they had chosen that name.

I guess you applauded the Washington Bullets name change, too.

by **talon** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:09 am

If HJS can call out Nike for their lack of clairvoyance, why can't I diss a women's semi-professional basketball team?

by **talon** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:13 am

Tamerlan's sister's husband:

"he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion"

by **eagle216** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:13 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle216 {l Wrote}:A person has no constitutional right to have Miranda rights read to them. The rule is simply that IF the prosecution wishes to use the byproduct of custodial interogation on their direct case at trial, such must have been secured after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.

No way, really?

My sarcasm meter is in the shop, so I will just assume this is a serious inquiry. The large majority of arrestees in the US are not read Miranda rights. These are simply mundane, run-of-the-mill, arrest to which Miranda rights are just a waste of time and not necessary. Securing a confession via custodial interrogation is simply not needed or worth the effort. In fact, many of these people admit what they did in a non-custodial interrogation setting, to which Miranda is not a prerequisite for use in Court anyway. None of these people are having any constitutional rights violated. Securing a Miranda waiver, which necessarily requires Miranda rights be read, is limited to more significant arrests where the police deem it worthy to invest the time and energy needed to secure a waiver and conduct custodial interrogation. If custodial interrogation is used without a Miranda waiver being secured, the remedy is simply that the prosecutor can not use anything the defendant says on their direct case at trial.

by **angrychicken** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:14 am

The Constitution - pick and choose

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:14 am

talon {l Wrote}:Tamerlan's sister's husband:

"he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion"

Spaz was pouting because others thought he looked sad all the time.

by **2001Eagle** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:14 am

I detest this douchebag, but I have no interest in the government having the power to declare an American citizen, arrested on American soil, an enemy combatant subject to deprivation of the rights accord an American citizen on the basis of a nebulous definition of "terrorism."

by **twballgame9** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:15 am

eagle216 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle216 {l Wrote}:A person has no constitutional right to have Miranda rights read to them. The rule is simply that IF the prosecution wishes to use the byproduct of custodial interogation on their direct case at trial, such must have been secured after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.

No way, really?

My sarcasm meter is in the shop, so I will just assume this is a serious inquiry. The large majority of arrestees in the US are not read Miranda rights. These are simply mundane, run-of-the-mill, arrest to which Miranda rights are just a waste of time and not necessary. Securing a confession via custodial interrogation is simply not needed or worth the effort. In fact, many of these people admit what they did in a non-custodial interrogation setting, to which Miranda is not a prerequisite for use in Court anyway. None of these people are having any constitutional rights violated. Securing a Miranda waiver, which necessarily requires Miranda rights be read, is limited to more significant arrests where the police deem it worthy to invest the time and energy needed to secure a waiver and conduct custodial interrogation. If custodial interrogation is used without a Miranda waiver being secured, the remedy is simply that the prosecutor can not use anything the defendant says on their direct case at trial.

I was being sarcastic, but there are a few people that could afford to read your excellent summary.

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:17 am

eagle216 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle216 {l Wrote}:A person has no constitutional right to have Miranda rights read to them. The rule is simply that IF the prosecution wishes to use the byproduct of custodial interogation on their direct case at trial, such must have been secured after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.

No way, really?

My sarcasm meter is in the shop, so I will just assume this is a serious inquiry. The large majority of arrestees in the US are not read Miranda rights. These are simply mundane, run-of-the-mill, arrest to which Miranda rights are just a waste of time and not necessary. Securing a confession via custodial interrogation is simply not needed or worth the effort. In fact, many of these people admit what they did in a non-custodial interrogation setting, to which Miranda is not a prerequisite for use in Court anyway. None of these people are having any constitutional rights violated. Securing a Miranda waiver, which necessarily requires Miranda rights be read, is limited to more significant arrests where the police deem it worthy to invest the time and energy needed to secure a waiver and conduct custodial interrogation. If custodial interrogation is used without a Miranda waiver being secured, the remedy is simply that the prosecutor can not use anything the defendant says on their direct case at trial.

I think you're wrong. No Miranda = immunity and pizza party for the defendant.

by **angrychicken** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:17 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
talon {l Wrote}:Tamerlan's sister's husband:

"he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion"

Spaz was pouting because others thought he looked sad all the time.

He wasn't sad all the time. He loved dogs, cookies, and naps.

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:19 am

angrychicken {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
talon {l Wrote}:Tamerlan's sister's husband:

"he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion"

Spaz was pouting because others thought he looked sad all the time.

He wasn't sad all the time. He loved dogs, cookies, and naps.

SPAZ DEFENDER!

by **angrychicken** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:22 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
angrychicken {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
talon {l Wrote}:Tamerlan's sister's husband:

"he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion"

Spaz was pouting because others thought he looked sad all the time.

He wasn't sad all the time. He loved dogs, cookies, and naps.

SPAZ DEFENDER!

C'mon. How can you not love Spaz? HE WAS LOYAL!!!

by **eagle216** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:22 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle216 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle216 {l Wrote}:A person has no constitutional right to have Miranda rights read to them. The rule is simply that IF the prosecution wishes to use the byproduct of custodial interogation on their direct case at trial, such must have been secured after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.

No way, really?

My sarcasm meter is in the shop, so I will just assume this is a serious inquiry. The large majority of arrestees in the US are not read Miranda rights. These are simply mundane, run-of-the-mill, arrest to which Miranda rights are just a waste of time and not necessary. Securing a confession via custodial interrogation is simply not needed or worth the effort. In fact, many of these people admit what they did in a non-custodial interrogation setting, to which Miranda is not a prerequisite for use in Court anyway. None of these people are having any constitutional rights violated. Securing a Miranda waiver, which necessarily requires Miranda rights be read, is limited to more significant arrests where the police deem it worthy to invest the time and energy needed to secure a waiver and conduct custodial interrogation. If custodial interrogation is used without a Miranda waiver being secured, the remedy is simply that the prosecutor can not use anything the defendant says on their direct case at trial.

I was being sarcastic, but there are a few people that could afford to read your excellent summary.

As a law talking guy, I can't tell you how many times I have had a client tell me they want to sue the police for a bazillion dollars because they were not read their Miranda rights after a silly misdemeanor arrest.

by **twballgame9** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:25 am

eagle216 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle216 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle216 {l Wrote}:A person has no constitutional right to have Miranda rights read to them. The rule is simply that IF the prosecution wishes to use the byproduct of custodial interogation on their direct case at trial, such must have been secured after a valid waiver of Miranda rights.

No way, really?

My sarcasm meter is in the shop, so I will just assume this is a serious inquiry. The large majority of arrestees in the US are not read Miranda rights. These are simply mundane, run-of-the-mill, arrest to which Miranda rights are just a waste of time and not necessary. Securing a confession via custodial interrogation is simply not needed or worth the effort. In fact, many of these people admit what they did in a non-custodial interrogation setting, to which Miranda is not a prerequisite for use in Court anyway. None of these people are having any constitutional rights violated. Securing a Miranda waiver, which necessarily requires Miranda rights be read, is limited to more significant arrests where the police deem it worthy to invest the time and energy needed to secure a waiver and conduct custodial interrogation. If custodial interrogation is used without a Miranda waiver being secured, the remedy is simply that the prosecutor can not use anything the defendant says on their direct case at trial.

I was being sarcastic, but there are a few people that could afford to read your excellent summary.

As a law talking guy, I can't tell you how many times I have had a client tell me they want to sue the police for a bazillion dollars because they were not read their Miranda rights after a silly misdemeanor arrest.

Some who may post on this board, methinks.

by **eagle9903** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:25 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

Isn't the second point moot now?

I'll assume so from your post, I haven't read much.

by **twballgame9** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:26 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

Isn't the second point moot now?

I'll assume so from your post, I haven't read much.

He was indicted.

by **eagle9903** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:27 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

I believe the argument is that he should lose some pretty basic rights of a US citizen because of his actions - which is a scary propostion. Oh and that he didn't wear a uniform, which is relavant in about zero ways.

that is scary and stupid. If I were to blame nospace and gallopingghost would I be in the ballpark?

by **eagle9903** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:28 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

Isn't the second point moot now?

I'll assume so from your post, I haven't read much.

He was indicted.

this is more efficient than reading the news, thank you.

by **cvilleagle** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:33 am

"You lose your right to a trial by committing acts of terrorism" pretty much does away with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:45 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I don't want to read a bunch of posts that are likely wrong. Is the argument that he has already lost the possibility for a fair trial due to police action (in which case as mentioned there has not yet been harm and admissibility and not rights violation is at issue) or that by deeming him a foreign combatant or whatever and giving him a military tribunal he will not receive a fair trial in the same way he otherwise would?

I agree with the second, not the first.

I believe the argument is that he should lose some pretty basic rights of a US citizen because of his actions - which is a scary propostion. Oh and that he didn't wear a uniform, which is relavant in about zero ways.

that is scary and stupid. If I were to blame nospace and gallopingghost would I be in the ballpark?

1/2 ain't bad. You still win the washer/dryer.

by **RegalBCeagle** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:07 am

Anyone else bothered by how some of the media is portraying the 19 year old? Some are portraying him almost as a victim. That he was brainwashed by his older brother, and that we should in some way feel bad for this evil little prick. CNN's lead is "This person just took his brain" and "Uncle: My nephew was brainwashed." I don't care what influence his older brother, or Allah, or whoever else may have had on him. He still walked into a crowd of innocent men, women, and children and knowingly dropped a bomb by their feet. I hate to bring politics into it, but it's essentially the liberal media pimping this shit out. Disgusts me to no end.

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:16 am

RegalBCeagle {l Wrote}:Anyone else bothered by how some of the media is portraying the 19 year old? Some are portraying him almost as a victim. That he was brainwashed by his older brother, and that we should in some way feel bad for this evil little prick. CNN's lead is "This person just took his brain" and "Uncle: My nephew was brainwashed." I don't care what influence his older brother, or Allah, or whoever else may have had on him. He still walked into a crowd of innocent men, women, and children and knowingly dropped a bomb by their feet. I hate to bring politics into it, but it's essentially the liberal media pimping this shit out. Disgusts me to no end.

I believe the media is reporting that his friends and relatives are saying this...which is kinda their job. I don't see anyone but the people making those statements implying he is the victim.

by **twballgame9** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:17 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
RegalBCeagle {l Wrote}:Anyone else bothered by how some of the media is portraying the 19 year old? Some are portraying him almost as a victim. That he was brainwashed by his older brother, and that we should in some way feel bad for this evil little prick. CNN's lead is "This person just took his brain" and "Uncle: My nephew was brainwashed." I don't care what influence his older brother, or Allah, or whoever else may have had on him. He still walked into a crowd of innocent men, women, and children and knowingly dropped a bomb by their feet. I hate to bring politics into it, but it's essentially the liberal media pimping this shit out. Disgusts me to no end.

I believe the media is reporting that his friends and relatives are saying this...which is kinda their job. I don't see anyone but the people making those statements implying he is the victim.

Agreed. Regardless, it is hardly surprising.

by **eagle9903** on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:24 am

I'm on the phone with someone from Arizona right now. Between this interaction, mattheeagle and nospace I am getting the impression that there may be a problem.

explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Re: explosions at marathon

Who is online