MIT and Watertown Police dramas, right now. 1 officer killed, 1 at large. Oy.- Page 7

[Luscious]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 10:24am

Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

[suestorm]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 10:35am

Namo for once we agree. No Miranda. Throw that animal in gitmo and give him a military trial not acivil one

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 10:36am

I think you may need to reread the 10 words in my last post more carefully.

[suestorm]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 10:41am

Oh well I knew it was too good to be true. I guess I missed one of your not may I ask why you would want this animal to get any right at all? I'm not looking to start an argument just trying to understand

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 10:43am

I'll address many of these for you:

"where's the guy whose car they carjacked?"
He has released statements, but either doesn't want to be interviewed or has been asked by the police not to.

"Where's the guy who was working in the 7/11 that they held up?"
Misinformation: it wasn't even a 7-11 according to most reports. And what should he say: they didn't rob me? The men saw the MIT cop outside and assumed he knew they were there and that's why he was killed.

"Why wasn't the make/model and license plate number of the car they carjacked ever disclosed?"
To whom? I'm sure the cops knew. Not EVERYTHING is public info.

"Why was it first reported that the 19-year escaped the first shootout by car, accidently running over his brother in the process, and now it's being reported that he escaped on foot."
Because he took the car, ran over his brother and then abandoned the car within minutes of fleeing and went on foot.

"Why would the two brothers shoot an MIT officer dead in an unprovoked attack, and then let the guy whose car they carjacked (and to whom they confessed to being the marathon bombers) go free? Really?"

Part one answered above, the 2nd thing? Who the hell knows. The police aren't mind readers.


Why must everything be a freaking conspiracy? If he dies, we will never know the answers. And even if he lives, it will take years until all the info is made public.

[Luscious]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 10:54am

dramamama... most of your explanations are non-answers and complete speculation and don't even come close to answering my questions. And for the record, I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. Just have a lot of unanswered questions. And I'm not a sheep.

Updated On: 4/20/13 at 10:54 AM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:04am

Whenever I hear anyone questioning why an accused criminal should be given the law's protection, I always think of the wonderful speech from "A Man for All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:10am

No, they just aren't the answers you seem to want. I didn't make up a single thing...just giving you info from the news.

When did I say anything about sheep? (Although I do love me a good MLT, Mutton, Lettuce & Tomato)

[suestorm]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:16am

He wasn't Miranda d. So would you be in favor of him lawyering up and getting free on a technicality? How about osama. Would you have read his rights to him? I'm with obama.. he was smart to have him killed on site without all this political. Bs second guessing.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:21am

It's far too early to know if Dramamamma's responses are correct, but they do reflect what I've been hearing and reading.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:26am

Though I have to say I was really surprised they didn't kill the guy whose car they stole. Of course, I'm glad they didn't, but it was surprising.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:43am

Considering how much inaccurate information has been repeated by ratings-happy media outlets and people just trying to keep other informed, it really shouldn't be surprising that things are unclear and there are unanswered questions.

We don't know what happened. At this point, it seems like the authorities don't exactly know what happened, either- and if they do, they don't have to share everything with the public at this time.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:55am

ALL the legal experts are saying this (no Miranda rights) is a non-issue. Those Miranda rights are about anything he might say as a part of a confession...not info leading to other investigations, etc.

The legal experts are saying they don't even need a confession for him to be convicted.


And yes, its going to be quite some time until all the ducks are in a row. (See what I did there -- Make Way for Ducklings, anyone?)

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 11:59am

******CNN is going to re-run an interview that gives a blow by blow of the events, a timeline of sorts.

Very soon.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 12:16pm

He wasn't Miranda d. So would you be in favor of him lawyering up and getting free on a technicality? How about osama. Would you have read his rights to him? I'm with obama.. he was smart to have him killed on site without all this political. Bs second guessing.

At least know what u r talking about.

he Miranda warning, also referred to as Miranda rights, is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.


The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination

In NO way would O-sammmy meet these qualifications.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 12:33pm

Him not being Mirandized sort of frightens me. If we bend the laws and the right of due process for him, what's to say it doesn't become a more common practice?

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 1:00pm

Be more concerned if they suspend habeas corpus. And it has happened here in Canada in the FLQ Crisis.

[suestorm]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 1:06pm

Like osama these animals are not criminals theyre enemies of the state . Theyre also traders and have committed treason so they do not have rights as an American citizen who is just accused of a crime. You should be pretty safe if you're not planting bombs or flying airplanes into buildings.

If he did this in Russia and got caught he probably would be without his eyeballs and Private parts

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 1:16pm

Russia sounds neat!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 1:20pm

And yet (while the evidence is overwhelming) that hasn't been PROVEN.

And what, exactly, did they trade? I think you mean TRAITORS. (Thud)

[Kad]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 1:36pm

The rules aren't being bent, they're being invoked- it's just a different rule than we are typically used to hearing about. Considering the chaos his actions threw the Boston area into, it seems logical to invoke it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 1:37pm

I think the bigger question is "Should we have a public-safety exception?"

If we shouldn't, then we should ever. And Dzokhar shoudl be Mirandized.

If it makes sense to have a public-safety exception, then the fact that Dzohokhar strapped himself with bombs and killed a university security guy after blowing up a large public event pretty definitively involves "public safety." So no Miranda rights are necessary...if the public-safety exception is a good thing.

But I'm an old ACLU kinda guy, so I say Miranda for a all. Call me lily-livered.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 2:13pm

As I understand it, he's not being read his rights now; that does't mean he won't be.

They are invoking the public-safety option so they can question him about any at-large associates and any possible remaining explosive devices without a lawyer telling him to clam up.

I hope that once that's accomplished he'll be read his rights and brought to justice under the laws of this country.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 2:26pm

My question is now though; so they question him about affiliates at large, other bombs still out there etc. then Mirandize him, is anything he says before being Mirandized admissible in court against him? OR will his lawyer use that to get any incimidating admissions thrown out?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/20/13 at 2:32pm

I believe the FBI has guidelines for what they can ask him pre-Miranda and what they can't.

He'd have to say it again post-Miranda to be admissible in court.