MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Should The Boston Bomber Have Been Mirandized? (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/499920/should-boston-bomber-have-been-mirandized/)

 
subego Apr 20, 2013 01:31 PM
Should The Boston Bomber Have Been Mirandized?
Rule 8: yes, he should have been.
 
exca1ibur Apr 20, 2013 01:39 PM
Patriot Act: Title VIII
 
subego Apr 20, 2013 02:02 PM
Knew there was a reason I think that law is shit.
 
reader50 Apr 20, 2013 02:50 PM
Yes, they should have Mirandized him. Whenever they're granted an exception to our rights, they leverage it over time against more groups.

There is sufficient evidence to convict, without cheating. However, Massachusetts does not have an active death penalty law. So a conviction means we'll be putting him up for life. He looks young, so it will be a long stay. I suppose the victims (or next of kin) should make the call if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
 
andi*pandi Apr 20, 2013 02:55 PM
^agreed.

He was a citizen, so he should have been mirandized.
 
subego Apr 20, 2013 03:02 PM
^^I'm anti-death penalty, but it's due to the chance of screw-ups rather than not wanting to kill people.

However, I do support the creation of "beyond a shadow of doubt" as a test for evidence, and should a prosecutor decide to meet that bar, then we can kill you immediately. No appeals.
 
Shaddim Apr 20, 2013 03:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4226932)
^^I'm anti-death penalty, but it's due to the chance of screw-ups rather than not wanting to kill people.

However, I do support the creation of "beyond a shadow of doubt" as a test for evidence, and should a prosecutor decide to meet that bar, then we can kill you immediately. No appeals.
Indeed, I'd get on board for that.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Apr 20, 2013 04:06 PM
I think he should have been and here's why:
You don't have to get him for the bombing. He was involved in a shootout where a cop was killed. With a dozen cops as witnesses and heaps of evidence. Thats a 100% guaranteed conviction. The rest of the things you can just keep piling on top.
 
OldManMac Apr 21, 2013 12:08 AM
He most certainly should have been! Unfortunately, it is becoming more common to be construed as guilty before innocent. Claiming the public safety exemption is bullshit!
 
Snow-i Apr 21, 2013 01:46 AM
It has scary implications that they can arbitrarily suspend individual's rights just by using the word "terrorism" which is so ambiguous that I could call a wayward fart in a crowded mall terrorism and you would not be able to prove me wrong.

Yes. He should have been.
 
Snow-i Apr 21, 2013 01:50 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4226932)
^^I'm anti-death penalty, but it's due to the chance of screw-ups rather than not wanting to kill people.

However, I do support the creation of "beyond a shadow of doubt" as a test for evidence, and should a prosecutor decide to meet that bar, then we can kill you immediately. No appeals.
I've postulated that for capital cases, a separate sentencing trial with a different judge, jury, prosecutor and standard of proof be held to determine a sentence. Executions would be held within a year with limited basis for appeal.

So you'd have to be convicted of capital crime in one trial, then be found guilty of capital offenses in a separate trial with a higher standard of proof.
 
ebuddy Apr 21, 2013 09:44 AM
Patriot Act: Title VIII?

Umm... no. This matter falls under the public safety exception to Miranda as decided in New York v. Quarles in 1984. A rape victim identified her perp who was armed and had run into a grocery store. When the police apprehended the man, they saw an empty holster around his shoulder. The police asked him where the gun was, he told them, the police secured the weapon, and then they mirandized him. The Boston bomber is going to be tried in the US court system. Before they fully interrogate him, he will be mirandized. Trust me. Everyone can relax now.
 
Chongo Apr 21, 2013 01:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by reader50 (Post 4226925)
Yes, they should have Mirandized him. Whenever they're granted an exception to our rights, they leverage it over time against more groups.

There is sufficient evidence to convict, without cheating. However, Massachusetts does not have an active death penalty law. So a conviction means we'll be putting him up for life. He looks young, so it will be a long stay. I suppose the victims (or next of kin) should make the call if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
This is a Federal case correct? It does not matter if Massachusetts has death penalty, he will be tried in Federal court and subject to the death penalty.

My personal view on Capital Punishment is that it should be reserved for criminals like Ted Bundy, a serial murderer who escaped to murder again; or someone already incarcerated and murders inmates. The death penalty in this case will make him a martyr. Time to reopen Devil's Island.
 
cgc Apr 21, 2013 06:59 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by andi*pandi (Post 4226928)
^agreed.

He was a citizen, so he should have been mirandized.
Unfortunately you are correct...we cannot make exceptions for out convenience, we must treat everyone, friend and foe, the same or we devolve to an Animal Farm, "All Animals are Equal...but some are more equal" situation.
 
BadKosh Apr 21, 2013 07:21 PM
No. he should have been killed.
 
Snow-i Apr 21, 2013 07:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BadKosh (Post 4227031)
No. he should have been killed.
I'm not so certain he'll be able to be in general population in prison...ever. A lifetime there will be worse then the easy out so many of us wished to grant him.
 
OldManMac Apr 21, 2013 08:07 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4226978)
The Boston bomber is going to be tried in the US court system.
Where did you get that information?


Quote
Before they fully interrogate him, he will be mirandized. Trust me. Everyone can relax now.
Where did you get that information?
 
subego Apr 22, 2013 12:06 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by BadKosh (Post 4227031)
No. he should have been killed.
The problem I have here is I don't think you're looking past the immediate result.

Assuming this is the guy, you won't get a whole lot of argument he deserves to be killed, but what about the police putting innocents in danger by being so aggressive.

Remember how in California they kept on shooting up the wrong people during the manhunt for that cop? What you're asking for would double or triple that kind of mistake, right?
 
ebuddy Apr 22, 2013 07:04 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by OldManMac (Post 4227040)
Where did you get that information? x2
Quit being silly. He's not a candidate for the Gulag or for rendition, not even under this administration.
 
subego Apr 22, 2013 02:29 PM
So I hear the rumor he's being charged with WMD.

I start reading the article to see if I can get an idea on how a crock-pot bomb is WMD, and then I see a name we might be familiar with.

Carmen Ortiz.

Carmen "30 years in the pen for violating terms of service" Ortiz.


It makes me sad I have to take up the side of a murderous psychopath against my own government.
 
subego Apr 22, 2013 02:45 PM
Anybody see a reason why it's more appropriate to make this a federal vs. state case?

If you can't bag this guy on multiple 1st-degree charges, you should get your "I represent the man" prosecutor card revoked.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Apr 22, 2013 03:06 PM
Capital punishment is available on the federal charge. More importantly all those post-911 police state charges they can pile on could scare him into talking.
 
subego Apr 22, 2013 03:15 PM
Talking about what? Is there some mastermind involved here? I thought it was kids with a crock pot.

Likewise, once someone is up for the death penalty, you pretty much lose the ability to threaten them with worse.
 
subego Apr 22, 2013 03:20 PM
Let me let everybody in on society's dirty little secret: it exists only because 99.99% of people are interested in maintaining it. If that number was 95%, everything would have devolved into chaos long ago.

The fact is it's just too easy to do something like the Boston Bomber did. The reason it doesn't happen more is, very simply, more people don't want to do it.
 
The Final Dakar Apr 22, 2013 03:29 PM
I'd claim that perhaps this plot was meant to terrorize the nation and not the state, but I don't think I could defend that.
 
Chongo Apr 22, 2013 03:41 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4227206)
I'd claim that perhaps this plot was meant to terrorize the nation and not the state, but I don't think I could defend that.
or get CISPA rammed through Congress like the Patriot Act was after 9/11?
 
reader50 Apr 22, 2013 04:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4227191)
Anybody see a reason why it's more appropriate to make this a federal vs. state case?
I'd been wondering about that. All damages happened in Massachusetts, all injuries were sustained in Massachusetts.

Then I figured it out. The pressure cookers were made in China. Since the crime extended beyond the state border, federal jurisdiction is appropriate.
 
subego Apr 22, 2013 04:28 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4227209)
or get CISPA rammed through Congress like the Patriot Act was after 9/11?
Pretty sure they can win that through constituent fatigue.
 
ebuddy Apr 23, 2013 06:56 AM
Tsarnaev has been mirandized and will be tried in US civilian court.
 
subego Apr 23, 2013 10:31 AM
If a crock-pot is WMD...

Then Saddam did have WMD!
 
andi*pandi Apr 23, 2013 11:56 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by reader50 (Post 4227222)
I'd been wondering about that. All damages happened in Massachusetts, all injuries were sustained in Massachusetts.
It was an international event though.

If it had been Joe Schmo's Run for Cancer, would it a) have been a target, and b) made international news?
 
subego Apr 23, 2013 12:00 PM
Isn't it like in the movies? The FBI helps you, it becomes their party.
 
cgc Apr 23, 2013 01:06 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4227329)
If a crock-pot is WMD...

Then Saddam did have WMD!
It wasn't a crock pot, it was an "assault crock pot".
 
subego Apr 23, 2013 01:25 PM
That's ridiculous.

It's a crock-pot of mass destruction.
 
subego Apr 23, 2013 01:27 PM
If crock-pots are made illegal then only fascist dictators will have stew.
 
Chongo Apr 23, 2013 05:26 PM
Pressure cookers were used, not crock pots.
 
subego Apr 23, 2013 05:40 PM
A crock-pot is just a black powder pressure cooker.
 
Uncle Skeleton Apr 23, 2013 06:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4227430)
Pressure cookers were used, not crock pots.
Don't try to put PC labels on everything





(get it? P-ressure C-ooker? Nevermind)
 
Snow-i Apr 23, 2013 08:34 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4227449)
Don't try to put PC labels on everything





(get it? P-ressure C-ooker? Nevermind)
I think the term pressure cooker is derogatory to those in culinary industries. The term pressure cooker indicates that the device cooks pressure, which is patently misleading and offensive towards those who manufacture and sell such devices.

I advise that in all documents, media, and laws that we refer to such devices as high-psi ovens to reduce confusion and discrimination against a large and important sub sect of our society. I also believe that such a group deserves equal protection under the law, and therefore, be recognized as a class of people under the Fair Housing Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and various other mechanisms for reducing discrimination. That is all.
 
ghporter Apr 24, 2013 06:45 AM
It seems that part of the issue had to do with the medical condition the guy was in when they finally apprehended him. And the extended discussion of yes or now to Miranda seems OT have more to do with the diffent criminal jurisdictions involved...some scholars believe that "Mirandized once means Mirandized for all" but this isn't supported by the courts. For each jurisdiction, state, federal, maybe even city, representatives of each usually either are there in person for reading of rights, or each does his/her own.

I don't think the issue was ever "do we bother" but rather "has this already been done enough?" or even "is his answer going to be acceptable in court, while we're concerned that he might have left other bombs lying around..." Either way, this is pretty much academic by now.

I've seen editorial comments about how various news sources detailed how pressure cooker bombs were made. Does anyone see a real difference between a pressure cooker and a chunk of pipe that's big enough to hold all the powder and nails used?
 
ebuddy Apr 24, 2013 07:30 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4227449)
Don't try to put PC labels on everything (get it? P-ressure C-ooker? Nevermind)
:lol: What the hell is wrong with you?
 
BadKosh Apr 25, 2013 01:08 PM
So, they read him his rights, and now he's not talking. Works great.
 
The Final Dakar Apr 25, 2013 01:13 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BadKosh (Post 4227754)
So, they read him his rights, and now he's not talking. Works great.
http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2012/11/mal-what.gif
 
k2director Apr 25, 2013 01:33 PM
A better question is...
A better question is:

Should the government have tried to strip this muslim wacko of his recently-gained U.S. citizenship?

Since he's only been a citizen for 6+ months, he probably lied on his application when asked about various associations/allegiances, and he certainly lied when he pledged to protect to the U.S. The government often cancels naturalized citizenship when it discovers people have lied (sham marriages, unreported criminal records, etc.), so why not do the same here?

That would certainly be justice, and it would let us treat him as an enemy combatant (which he obviously is), and essentially do what we want with him.
 
andi*pandi Apr 25, 2013 01:59 PM
Tim McVeigh also lied about things, I'm sure.
 
k2director Apr 25, 2013 02:30 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by andi*pandi (Post 4227761)
Tim McVeigh also lied about things, I'm sure.
He wasn't a naturalized citizen, now was he?

No, he wasn't.

The law doesn't let us do anything about the citizenship of wackos that were born in the U.S., but it does let us do something about the citizenship of people that weren't born here....especially ones that become citizens and then attack their new homeland just 7 months later.

If you can cancel someone's citizenship because it turns out they entered into a fake marriage to get it, then I think it's reasonable to cancel their citizenship because, 7 months later, they launched a muslim wacko jihad against the country.

Why are liberals so afraid of showing some backbone? Probably has something to do with the bullshit moral relativism that's the heart of modern liberalism.
 
Uncle Skeleton Apr 25, 2013 02:39 PM
If we can prove he did the attack, then revoking his citizenship seems like an afterthought. If revoking his citizenship is a means for gathering evidence that he did the attack, then it means we don't really know he did the attack and therefore we have no basis to revoke his citizenship. So, I don't see the point of trying to revoke his citizenship either way. It makes more sense in the context of green card marriage, because there it's not redundant with a death penalty.
 
andi*pandi Apr 25, 2013 04:01 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by k2director (Post 4227768)
are liberals so afraid of showing some backbone? Probably has something to do with the bullshit moral relativism that's the heart of modern liberalism.
Is this aimed at me, or just any slight excuse to throw hateful partisan bullsh!t? :err:

If we forget our rules, our constitution, just to slaver over a perpetrator like a pack of wild dogs, then we lose our society, and become just like the other packs of wild dogs in other countries, shouting death to America.

Stand up straight and proud, knowing you are not being a hypocrite, that's using your backbone. There's plenty of evidence to prosecute.
 
subego Apr 25, 2013 05:52 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by k2director (Post 4227768)
Why are liberals so afraid of showing some backbone? Probably has something to do with the bullshit moral relativism that's the heart of modern liberalism.
IME, what takes backbone is not pissing on civil liberties.
 
cgc Apr 25, 2013 07:43 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4227799)
IME, what takes backbone is not pissing on civil liberties.
And in my estimation, a backbone means standing up for the Constitution even if it doesn't please you (e.g. right to free speech when that speech is anti-American liberalism).
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2