Looks like Boston Marathon Bombers are caught - Sunil Tripathi & Mike Mulugeta

Although I favor the exception clause, your excuse is weak, law enforcement could make the same case about a cache of guns that may/may not cause some future unknown mass harm...............almost any excuse could be made up if that is the argument

I think the exception clause in this case can be applied because of his suspected/known affiliation with a recognized terrorist organization, not just because he "may have dropped a live bomb" or not.

That's the stupidest thing you've ever posted on here. What if in his getaway he had dropped a live bomb or left it in someone's garage or stairwell, and some kid comes along and gets blown up by it?

I'm glad we've got sane people making these decisions and not nut cases like you! Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

Although I favor the exception clause, your excuse is weak, law enforcement could make the same case about a cache of guns that may/may not cause some future unknown mass harm...............almost any excuse could be made up if that is the argument
Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I wouldn't stretch it that far. Many suspected criminals probably have weapons stashed away somewhere. They should be Mirandized.

But this guy and his brother were all over the suburban Boston neighborhoods, and known to have pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs. The public, especially those living in those neighborhoods, need to know where they are.

A kid playing in his back yard or a vacant lot wouldn't know to call the bomb squad. Boom!!!

That's the stupidest thing you've ever posted on here. What if in his getaway he had dropped a live bomb or left it in someone's garage or stairwell, and some kid comes along and gets blown up by it?

I'm glad we've got sane people making these decisions and not nut cases like you! Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

You are wrong here. If we start making exceptions when it suits us then it will get around to each of us sooner or later. Prosecutors take laws and stretch them as far as they can. The perfect example is the RICO act which prosecutors use all the time in cases for which it was never intended. If you don't realize what a real threat this is to our rights you should read up.

It's your stated positions that are incongruous, and you're obviously having trouble with the definition of "exception." Originally Posted by I B Hankering

My stated positions are not incongruous and I have no trouble with the definition of exception, although you apparently do.

The circumstances under which the Miranda warning must be given are well defined by the Supreme Court, including the public safety exception - when it doesn't have to be given. So, if there is still a reasonable danger that these guys hid some unexploded bombs in the Boston area, the Supreme Court has said it is OK to ask them questions related ONLY to the bombs - such as "Do you have any more bombs hidden anywhere? How are they disarmed?"

And, if the police DO ask those questions and the surviving bomber answers, rather than asking for a lawyer, then his statements about where the bombs are may be used against him.

That is how due process is defined in these unusual circumstances.

If you have a problem with that, then it is the Supreme Court that is incongruous, not me.

Ultimately, there won't even be a question about due process if the police never use his statements against him. There is a mountain of evidence already available to convict him, including video tapes and - I would imagine DNA and/or fingerprints on unexploded bombs and weapons and possibly even on parts of detonated bombs.

The bomber could tell the cops where an unexploded booby-trapped bomb is and the police might never use the statement against him in court.

Due process rights are not violated in the abstract. The prosecutors have to try to introduce the statement in court, the bomber's lawyer has to object and then the prosecutors have to invoke and prove the public safety exception so the judge can rule it admissible (or not).

If the prosecutors never even try to use it, then no harm, no foul. This becomes an entirely hypothetical discussion.

IB, the suspect has a hole in his neck and a fucked up tongue, he couldn't speak or answer a question if he wanted to ..

The End

Although I favor the exception clause, your excuse is weak, law enforcement could make the same case about a cache of guns that may/may not cause some future unknown mass harm...............almost any excuse could be made up if that is the argument Originally Posted by Whirlaway

They can TRY to make up an excuse, but they will fail to make it stick.

The exception only applies if the police can show that they reasonable believed that danger was imminent. If they just routinely ask every perp "Are there any guns/bombs hidden around here" as they are cuffing him, then the exception will not apply.

It is a difficult thing to show. If that wasn't the case, then every day you would read in the papers about some lawyer challenging evidence the cops got by asking a suspect about thrown away weapons prior to Mirandizing him.

I think the exception clause in this case can be applied because of his suspected/known affiliation with a recognized terrorist organization, not just because he "may have dropped a live bomb" or not. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No! That doesn't fit the public safety exception at all.

It can't be based merely on an affiliation with terrorists. The danger has to be imminent. Unless you are pretty sure the guy just planted bombs on behalf of the terrorist organization, then the public safety exception does NOT apply.

If that wasn't the case, then you could arrest someone affiliated with Al Qaeda while he was sleeping in his home and you could skip the Miranda warnings merely because he was affiliated with AQ. THAT would be a failure of due process.

IB, the suspect has a hole in his neck and a fucked up tongue, he couldn't speak or answer a question if he wanted to ..

The End Originally Posted by CJ7

He can write the response.

Not The End.

Is sedated

Having said all that, I don't think the public safety exception is going to apply in these circumstances.

Too much time has passed. The police have already entered and searched the apartment where these guys lived and searched any vehicle they might have owned.

If they tossed a bomb out into the street, then somebody would have spotted it by now or it would have gone off.

Not that it matters much. Even if he said, "I hid a bomb in the bushes next to the house that had the boat trailer", I don't think the cops will need to use that statement in court.

There is already a mountain of evidence that will convict this guy. They don't have to use the public safety exception statements.

He can write the response.

Not The End. Originally Posted by ExNYer

and you know he is capable of writing how?

You are wrong here. If we start making exceptions when it suits us then it will get around to each of us sooner or later. Prosecutors take laws and stretch them as far as they can. The perfect example is the RICO act which prosecutors use all the time in cases for which it was never intended. If you don't realize what a real threat this is to our rights you should read up. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Well, they first recognized the public safety exception a quarter century ago.

So, where is the wave of abuse? Clearly, judges are not fooled, regardless what the prosecutors might try.

he hasn't been questioned, and charges haven't been filed ... the dude is too fucked up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93I0GQ20130421

and you know he is capable of writing how? Originally Posted by CJ7

And you know he is not how?

If he can nod or shake his head, or tap out letters on a keyboard, then he can make a statement. He only needs to be lucid and aware.

My only point was that the mere fact that he is having difficulty speaking does not prevent him from making a statement.

And you are arguing against this simple point, why exactly?

And you know he is not how?

If he can nod or shake his head, or tap out letters on a keyboard, then he can make a statement. He only needs to be lucid and aware.

My only point was that the mere fact that he is having difficulty speaking does not prevent him from making a statement.

And you are arguing against this simple point, why exactly? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Im merely replying to IB, IMO the link I posted above pretty much tells the story.

feel free to argue all you want about the "if, ands or buts"

feel free to argue all you want about the "if, ands or buts" Originally Posted by CJ7

Arguing ifs, ands and buts is a specialty in the Sandbox.