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
Actually, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, he IS still getting due process, even if they don't give him his Miranda warnings before asking him is there are other bombs out there. Originally Posted by ExNYerBogus and untrue statement! The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York v. Quarles subordinates the detainee’s individual right to “due process” – via “exception” – to the safety concerns, primarily, of the arresting officers.
My stated positions are not incongruous and I have no trouble with the definition of exception, although you apparently do. Originally Posted by ExNYerEXCEPTION
The circumstances under which the Miranda warning must be given are well defined by the Supreme Court, including the public safety exception [there’s that word again] - when it doesn't have to be given. So, if [And who decides and -- for the big question -- when is that decision supposed to be made? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Precedence says "imminent," not days.] 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?" Originally Posted by ExNYerOnce they captured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wasn’t the “all clear” signal given and hasn’t Boston’s mayor announced that the bombers acted alone?
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.You've just explained how “due process” is denied – "excepted" – in unusual circumstances.
That is how due process is defined in these unusual circumstances. Originally Posted by ExNYer
If you have a problem with that, then it is the Supreme Court that is incongruous, not me. Originally Posted by ExNYerNo matter how you spin it, you’re the one that has problems with definitions.
He absolutely should receive due process. . . . If he surrenders, he will get due process. Originally Posted by ExNYer≠
He doesn't have to be Mirandized. Originally Posted by ExNYer
he hasn't been questioned, and charges haven't been filed ... the dude is too fucked up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93I0GQ20130421 Originally Posted by CJ7
Bogus and untrue statement!Your point - and you can look it up above - is that the "US justice system has already stumbled" because he wasn't Mirandized.
What part of it is bogus or untrue? You seem obsessed with the distinction of an exception. But due process is what the Supreme Court says you are entitled to get, nothing more. And if the bomber statements can be used even though he wasn't Mirandized, tough shit. He is getting all the due process to which he is entitled.
There are other instances related to hot pursuit that can fuck up you day, too. If the police chase an armed criminal through your house and find you cutting up 10 pounds of heroin, guess what? You still get convicted even thought they entered your home without a warrant.
Once they captured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wasn’t the “all clear” signal given and hasn’t Boston’s mayor announced that the bombers acted alone?
What the mayor said about all clear doesn't mean a damn thing, especially to the federal authorities. The mayor doesn't even control state prosecutors, let alone federal ones. State or federal prosecutors can still try to make the case that there were more bombs out there.
. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Your point - and you can look it up above - is that the "US justice system has already stumbled" because he wasn't Mirandized.
That's wrong on two counts.
First, the public safety exception is part of the US justice system, so it hasn't stumbled even if YOU don't like the public safety exception.
Second, they haven't even spoken to him yet. So there has been no "stumble".
And lastly, regarding your "big" question:
"And who decides and -- for the big question -- when is that decision supposed to be made? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Precedence says "imminent," not days."
The short answer is "the judge".
If the police or FBI question him without Mirandizing him, then they take a gamble. If he makes a statement and they want to use it, then they will have to prove that there was a legitimate public safety exception and the danger was imminent. If they lose the gamble, then the statements are not admissible.
There is no set time for imminence, but obviously, the longer they wait the harder it will be to make the case of imminent danger. But that's why bombs are unique. The case you want isn't Quarles (handgun), it's US v. Khalil (bombs), which involved questioning a wounded suspect at a hospital about bombs that were located elsewhere (sound familiar?).
Bombs can detonate days or weeks later either by timer or by triggering a booby trap. So invoking the public safety exception and proving imminence will be different than for a handgun that was tossed away during a pursuit.
And the ONLY statements that will be admissible are ones made in response to questions about still undetonated bombs. So if they ask him "Why did you bomb the marathon" and he answers, it is STILL inadmissible.
Having said all that, I don't even think they are going to invoke the public safety exception to use any statements he makes to convict him. There is already a tone of evidence to convict him with. They don't need his un-Mirandized statements.
I think they want to question him to get him to make statements about others. Like "who taught you how to make the bombs?" or "where did you get the explosives?"
The "others", if there are any, won't be able to claim a Miranda violation based on the bomber's statements. Originally Posted by ExNYer
Your point - and you can look it up above - is that the "US justice system has already stumbled" because he wasn't Mirandized.By all reports, officials “spoke” to a “cognitively aware” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night as they negotiated for his surrender and arrest. However, the arresting officials with whom he was negotiating somehow didn’t see fit to Mirandize Tsarnaev at that time – an action that could have been accomplished simultaneous with and would have taken less time than hoisting him from the boat and securing handcuffs on his wrists; because, as the government later announced, it never had any intention of Mirandizing him: the U.S. justice system stumbled.
That's wrong on two counts.
First, the public safety exception is part of the US justice system, so it hasn't stumbled even if YOU don't like the public safety exception.
Second, they haven't even spoken to him yet. So there has been no "stumble". Originally Posted by ExNYer
He absolutely should receive due process. . . . If he surrenders, he will get due process. Originally Posted by ExNYer≠
He doesn't have to be Mirandized. Originally Posted by ExNYer
fwiw, IB & Co, are parroting Beck/The Blaze over the miranda issueFWIW, do not watch or listen to "Beck"; hence, no "parroting" involved. Slate ≠ "Beck"!!!
The short answer is "the judge". Originally Posted by CJ7
ok, fine.It won't hold up in court.
after further consideration, step in the suspects hospital room and read him his rights. Today, right freakin now.
lets see how reading a man his rights that doesn't know his ass from the floor because he is knocked out on pain meds holds up in the court hearings everyone is so afraid will be damaged. Originally Posted by CJ7
By all reports, officials “spoke” to a “cognitively aware” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night as they negotiated for his surrender and arrest. However, the arresting officials with whom he was negotiating somehow didn’t see fit to Mirandize Tsarnaev at that time – an action that could have been accomplished simultaneous with and would have taken less time than hoisting him from the boat and securing handcuffs on his wrists; because, as the government later announced, it never had any intention of Mirandizing him: the U.S. justice system stumbled.Speaking of "spin", that is ALL bullshit.
How was he "negotiating" or speaking to the cops? He was shot in the throat and his tongue was damaged. Or had you forgotten? If he can't speak now, how could he speak then? If he was making gurgling noises, how would they know he was cognitively aware?
Subsequently, the government made public its intentions to invoke the “public safety exception” – even as other government officials gave an “all clear” signal in Watertown indicating that the time of “imminent danger” had passed: the U.S. justice system stumbled.
The prosecutors decide (and argue) whether or not to invoke public exception. The "other" government official - the mayor - giving the "all clear' doesn't have shit to say about it. That's twice I explained that.
Again conveying no “imminent danger” and underscoring previous stumbling decisions to abrogate this citizen’s rights, Boston’s mayor announced the Boston bombers had acted alone – yet, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has still not been Mirandized: the U.S. justice system stumbled.
How does the mayor know he acted along and what difference does that make anyway? If there are any unexploded bombs, the public safety exception applies whether he acted alone or with others. BTW - the FBI is hunting a 12-man sleeper cell they believe aided the bombers. Looks like the Boston mayor was an ass.
By definition, the "public safety exception" subordinates an individual’s right to due process to other considerations. So, your assertion that individuals subject to such an exception are "getting due process” – “due process” enjoyed by all other U.S. citizens – is bogus and false. The U.S. justice system can still redeem itself if Tsarnaev is Mirandized prior to further questioning, but this administration has not rescinded its announcement that it plans to invoke the “public safety exception.” Originally Posted by I B Hankering
How was he "negotiating" or speaking to the cops? He was shot in the throat and his tongue was damaged. Or had you forgotten? If he can't speak now, how could he speak then? If he was making gurgling noises, how would they know he was cognitively aware? His surrender was negotiated. He wasn't killed because of some misunderstanding between him and the men who arrested him. Besides, just how do those enumerated injuries impair "hearing"? After all, there's no legal requirement that Tsarnaev read his Miranda rights aloud!!!!.
The prosecutors decide (and argue) whether or not to invoke public exception. The "other" government official - the mayor - giving the "all clear' doesn't have shit to say about it. That's twice I explained that. Boston's mayor doesn't control the federal agents, etc., who also "stood down"; hence, you've explained nothing.
How does the mayor know he acted along and what difference does that make anyway? If there are any unexploded bombs, the public safety exception applies whether he acted alone or with others. BTW - the FBI is hunting a 12-man sleeper cell they believe aided the bombers. Looks like the Boston mayor was an ass. Boston's mayor said what he said. Are you denying he said it? Legal precedence requires that "imminent danger" be present to justify excepting due process.
Speaking of "spin", that is ALL bullshit.
Unless and until the prosecutors try to use his statements in court to convict him, there will be no "stumble" of the US justice system, no matter how YOU try to spin it. Tsarnaev was not Mirandized at the time of his arrest, and the government announced it never had any intention to Mirandize Tsarnaev in a timely manner: a citizen of the United States of America. "Stumble" is a mild word considering the injustice.
And that may be a very long wait. I suspect they are NEVER going to use any or his statements against him. They are going to use them against the people that trained and helped the brothers.
Here is the sleeper cell article:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...Yqm6hA.twitter
Or do you think using his statements against the sleeper cell is a "stumble" also? Originally Posted by ExNYer
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never "denied" the Boston mayor said anything. I pointed out that his "all clear" announcement doesn't count for shit. You keep quoting him like he somehow settled the issue.
He also gave the "all clear' BEFORE they found the bomber in the boat. The mayor mistakenly thought the bombers were out of the area. So, when the homeowner found the bomber in his boat, I guess that kind of revoked the "all clear' in any event, didn't it?
The police and prosecutors make the call on whether or not there was a danger to the police or public. NOT the mayor.
Finally, this statement:
"Tsarnaev was not Mirandized at the time of his arrest, and the government announced it never had any intention to Mirandize Tsarnaev: a citizen of the united States of America. "Stumble" is a mild word considering the injustice. "
If they haven't even gotten a statement from him, how exactly has the justice system stumbled? If does make a statement and it s never used, how has the justice system stumbled?
And you also seem fixated on the fact that the government announced in advance it never had any intention to Mirandize him. What difference does advanced intent make?
Either there is a public safety exception, or there isn't.
If the prosecutors can make the case that they reasonably believed there were more unexploded bombs, and they ask him specific questions about other bombs, and the bomber then makes a statement about otherbombs, then those statements can be used against him.
It makes NO difference that the un-Mirandized questions were planned in advance and weren't spontaneous.
The judge will look at the totality of the circumstances and make a ruling as to whether or not the public safety exception makes the statements admissible.
But, it is never going to come to that. With all the evidence they already have, they don't need his statements.
They are going to question him without telling him about his rights and hope he makes statements ABOUT OTHERS.
Is THAT the part you have trouble with?
Originally Posted by ExNYer
