It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev silent after read Miranda rights

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by benrl
 


Kinda like............"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used "AGAINST YOU"!

So in other words, never say anything to the authoritarian figure who questions you! It does not say "used FOR YOU!"!


And? When you're read your miranda rights it's not often because you've just done something heroic. You're usually being charged with an offence, and it is only fair to ensure that you are aware of your rights.

And by NOT speaking, you do not incriminate yourself.




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Its been 404'd, have any other links explaining it?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
Because they didn't read him his Miranda Rights to begin with, almost everything he might have told them or confessed to isn't admissible and likely won't be acceptable as evidence to incriminate him in a court. Now they must start everything from scratch.


Not true. The "public safety exception" is narrow in its application, as defined in New York v. Quarles (where the exception was carved out of Arizona v. Miranda.)

A brief overview: N.Y. v. Quarles Overview

The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.


The application in that case was very narrow: The officer found Quarles in a supermarket after responding to a call about a man fitting a description. Quarles was detained but had an empty holster. The officer asked him where the gun was and Quarles responded. That was the bases of the "public safety" exception ruling.

First, the question was specific. The officer did not ask if Quarles was guilty or if he had killed anyone or accosted anyone. It was specific to the weapon. Second, as soon as Quarles responded with an answer, he was read his Miranda warning.

Now we move to the current case. If the suspect was asked a narrow set of questions that pertained to potential public safety, such as "Are there any more bombs we need to know about", that would fall under the public safety exception.

Where it might get murky is the questioning pressed the narrowness of the rule. If the police pressed the suspect for information on future plans etc, that could be seen outside of the scope of the exception and would be challenged; unless they can prove that the brothers indeed placed bombs in those future places ahead of time.

As long as the polices' questions were narrow to the immediate threat possibly posed by the suspect's alleged actions, they will fall under the exception and will be admissible. Anything out side of that scope will be thrown out (at least I hope an honest judge sees it that way; less they want this to run up to the Supreme Court again).



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I have several thoughts...

If I were in charge of that arrest, and knew I had enough evidence to convict, I would advise
against reading him the Miranda Warning because without the warning he may disclose
information about other potential bombers, or members of his group, under interrogation.
But it would have to be that I KNEW I had enough evidence against him to convict without
ANY of his testimony, because it is a given that anything he said prior to the Miranda warning
while in custody would VERY LIKELY be inadmissible.

Second thought (probably not popular). If you are a US citizen YOU SHOULD KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
They should be taught in school as mandatory curriculum. The Miranda Warning should be
a moot point. Sadly for us TV and movie scenarios are IN LOVE with the good cop-bad cop
scenario of the interrogation room and most people are too ill-informed to understand that all
that nonsense is easily quelled by shutting the hell up.

The last is a public service announcement. If a LEO ever tells you that you have the right to remain
silent...USE THAT RIGHT. There is nothing you can say that will help your situation. Don' try to
show how cooperative your are, or how innocent you are by opening your mouth. You can only
get yourself in trouble...not OUT OF trouble.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
I have several thoughts...

If I were in charge of that arrest, and knew I had enough evidence to convict, I would advise
against reading him the Miranda Warning because without the warning he may disclose
information about other potential bombers, or members of his group, under interrogation.
But it would have to be that I KNEW I had enough evidence against him to convict without
ANY of his testimony, because it is a given that anything he said prior to the Miranda warning
while in custody would VERY LIKELY be inadmissible.


The exception would probably stand if he implicated others involved, though it would receive fierce resistance and probably even a trip to the Supreme Court. Anything he said, so long as it was narrow (meaning it pertained to the immediate safety of the public; i.e., other bombs in place or maybe bombs they dropped through the night after being chased). Those questions and answers meet that exception. Outside of that, implicating others doesn't constitute and immediate threat, though I am sure if he did, the Government will surely fight that it does.

It will be a case at the Supreme Court, I can almost guarantee it. Maybe not in a couple years time, but within 5-10 years it might make its way up there to challenge just how far and wide can the Government use the exception.


Second thought (probably not popular). If you are a US citizen YOU SHOULD KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
They should be taught in school as mandatory curriculum. The Miranda Warning should be
a moot point. Sadly for us TV and movie scenarios are IN LOVE with the good cop-bad cop
scenario of the interrogation room and most people are too ill-informed to understand that all
that nonsense is easily quelled by shutting the hell up.


Exactly and it isn't unpopular. We are all taught (well, I was, that ignorance is no excuse for the law) and part of that law is the Constitution. We have the inherent right to not implicate ourselves to a crime nor are we subject to cruel and unusual punishment (especially when you haven't been convicted). Knowing these should be basic as they are the basis of Miranda.


The last is a public service announcement. If a LEO ever tells you that you have the right to remain
silent...USE THAT RIGHT. There is nothing you can say that will help your situation. Don' try to
show how cooperative your are, or how innocent you are by opening your mouth. You can only
get yourself in trouble...not OUT OF trouble.


On a lesser offense, I have told all my friends when they get pulled over and the police officer asks coyly, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" You remain silent otherwise you just gave up voluntarily an admission of guilt (though Dickerson; a case posted earlier; could challenge that).



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
reply to post by benrl
 


Its been 404'd, have any other links explaining it?


heres the right link, but I just noticed you where in that thread, guess you didn't read it back than either?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I understand the public safety exemption now, but questions like "How'd you make the bomb? Are there anymore bombs? Is anyone else involved?" are all questions that indirectly question his innocence. By not informing this man of his 5th and 6th amendment rights, most of the information given, if any, can't be used to prosecute him.

In Quarles case getting information on the location of a gun, based off of a sudden observation of an empty holster, isn't the same as with this case. Unless Quarles answer was "I threw it in a wooded area after shooting somebody," there really isn't much information he can give the authorities to accidentally incriminate himself. In the case of the Boston bombing, any answer to questions similar to the ones both you and I listed, other than him claiming he's innocent, is likely him incriminating himself; Without him being stated his rights, any self incrimination will likely be dismissed in court, and that will likely be all information gathered under the public safety exemption.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
reply to post by benrl
 


Its been 404'd, have any other links explaining it?


heres the right link, but I just noticed you where in that thread, guess you didn't read it back than either?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I remember that thread. I just didn't recall the public safety exemption, as neither the OP nor the CNN article touched on that specific subject too much. After the link "ownbestenemy " posted, I now understand how it works and how it's used. Thanks.
edit on 25-4-2013 by FidelityMusic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Isn't he allowed to chose his own lawyer?

Wonder what lawyer he chose... assuming he is capable of choice after being chemically lobotomized since day 1 of publicized 'capture'



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tropic
Isn't he allowed to chose his own lawyer?

Wonder what lawyer he chose... assuming he is capable of choice after being chemically lobotomized since day 1 of publicized 'capture'


No proof nor claim except your own to that. He is able to from the moment the officers arrived to tell them to bugger off and I am not going to talk to you until I have a lawyer.

All that was reported was that the State was not going to give the Miranda warning; meaning that in the narrow case, things said prior to, can be used in a court of law.

Do though show where he was "chemically lobotomized"........I know its a conspiracy site, but come on.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
So how did media get his written statement that he acted on his own,

before he was read Miranda rights... oops we forgot until after he was given injections, gash in his neck, pen, paper etc




posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I understand the public safety exemption now, but questions like "How'd you make the bomb? Are there anymore bombs? Is anyone else involved?" are all questions that indirectly question his innocence. By not informing this man of his 5th and 6th amendment rights, most of the information given, if any, can't be used to prosecute him.


Correct. But those questions have to be outside of the scope of the 5th Amendment. "Are there any more bombs" cannot be used to indict him on the original charge; it can support, but not be used as sole evidence. Think of it as circumstantial. The questions most likely submitted will be circumstantial in weight.

[quite]In Quarles case getting information on the location of a gun, based off of a sudden observation of an empty holster, isn't the same as with this case. Unless Quarles answer was "I threw it in a wooded area after shooting somebody,"

That would have to be tested and Quarles would probably fail. The questioned presented was "where is the gun"...in which the only answer to be admitted, should be the location. Providing other details would lead to another test of the exception in my opinion.

The questions again will only lead to circumstantial points; any defense lawyer can make that case. Even me as an unwashed citizen can make that case.

This is all assuming that the court will view Quarles in a very narrow aspect; as it should. But that isn't always the case. What ever judge hears this case can take it on their own to broaden the scope to admit answers as admissions. This would be a travesty; even in light of what this young man is accused of doing. It would also set dangerous precedents.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by tropic
So how did media get his written statement that he acted on his own,

before he was read Miranda rights... oops we forgot until after he was given injections, gash in his neck, pen, paper etc



Probably because he was an idiot and just gave it up. He should have only answered the pertaining questions of immediate threats; to that, to protect the exception, he should have requested a lawyer and shut up.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
I am going to upset a few people when I say this:

At first I was all for his miranda rights that was right up until he has only been a citizen for a matter of a few months.

I am all for calling the kid an enemy combatant.

It would be a different story of they were born here and lived all their lives of course their rights should not be denied.

But this guy?

I don't want to see anymore 8 year old little boy's die holding a sign " people should stop hurting themselves" perish in a barbaric act like the Boston Bombing.

I honestly wouldn't care if Tsarnaev was waterboarded.



Good for you for speaking your mind. I did the same and was nearly water boarded myself.
Did you see that the mother was on "the list" also? My feelings are that she tainted her sons. So how does she feel being responsible for what happened to her boys and the end results? It is sickening that any parent would teach their child to hate.

edit on 26-4-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
I am going to upset a few people when I say this:

At first I was all for his miranda rights that was right up until he has only been a citizen for a matter of a few months.

I am all for calling the kid an enemy combatant.

It would be a different story of they were born here and lived all their lives of course their rights should not be denied.

But this guy?

I don't want to see anymore 8 year old little boy's die holding a sign " people should stop hurting themselves" perish in a barbaric act like the Boston Bombing.

I honestly wouldn't care if Tsarnaev was waterboarded.



Sets bad precedent for you and me to not Mirandize him at all, seeing as how he is a citizen.

also, regarding "couple of months ago" comment...he came here when he was 8 or 9, so, citizenship or not, he was Americanized. I tend to side with the Ex-CIA specialist who was on PBS a couple of nights ago with bob woodward. he said that thos had more to do with assimilation than anything else. probably more so on the older brother, who regained his young roots in Chechnya after travelling there amd ended up identifying with the radical islamic currents in their independence movement. the younger brother, who had identified more with america from his advantage of being so young when he arrived was dragged into it by a surrogate older male figure: the older brother.

Mexicans have an expression: "Ni de allí, ni de allá" (from neither here nor there) which is felt by most second generation and younger first generation immigrants. They are too assimilated to the new culture to fit in in the old one, but still maintain (per family context) aspects of the old one culture or deviating ethnic physiognomy (so, different bodily features that deviate from the new country's norm).

That's why crime perpetrated by Mexican immigrants is low, but crime by second or third generation Mexican-Americans is high.

That's why Asian-American friends of mine (second or third generation) are asked "where are you from?"

That's why second generation Haitian-Americans tend to assimilate in the Black community.

That's why Italian food in the US is not the same as it is in Brazil or Argentina and none are the same as it is in Italy.

That's why my great grandmother, who came to the US from Quebec in her 30s spoke no English, but her daughter, my grandmother only understood some French growing up, and why my mother and her siblings just know the words to Frere Jacques.

This is not meant to be sympathetic to the alleged bomber or defend actions taken, this is meant to explain the immigrant in broader terms and show how the general concepts of assimilation and identity apply to the immigrant and immigration process.

I'm sure there is some way to compare this bombing and the two Chechen brothers with the 1919 bombing purportedly carried out by the Italian immigrants Sacco and Vanzetti. It's too late to do that from where I'm standing...it'd be interesting though.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I think hes been adviced not to talk, or write.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


"Sets bad precedent for you and me to not Mirandize him at all, seeing as how he is a citizen."

The presumption of innocence is not limited to citizens. The Bill of Rights makes no mention of "citizen."

I find it interesting that the media is saying that his mother "cannot accept that her sons are guilty." I saw this twice in the New York Times. What happened to the presumption of innocence?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
that's weird.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Maybe next time there's a big public event, they'll do a quick looksie and have someone check in on the resident folks on the old terror watch list in the area....hmm????



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthEvolves
 



What happened to the presumption of innocence?


The LAW presumes innocence...the press presumes guilt.

The guy was in a shootout with police, so it does tend to erode his credibility, just a bit....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join