Folks be all blowed up in Boston...
#462
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
Also, do you have evidence of FBI coerced selfaccusations?
Anyways, is it possible that these jihadists are training to tell FBI a bunch of baloney, then clam up once rights are read in order to try to get out of it on a technicallity?
Does it even matter since they already confessed to the crime and FBI wanted to find out more about the very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from weapons being at large?
Also: U.S. v. Khalil and U.S. v. Mobley
Those cases address all your concerns and the Supreme Court has already ruled on them.
Anyways, is it possible that these jihadists are training to tell FBI a bunch of baloney, then clam up once rights are read in order to try to get out of it on a technicallity?
Does it even matter since they already confessed to the crime and FBI wanted to find out more about the very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from weapons being at large?
Also: U.S. v. Khalil and U.S. v. Mobley
Those cases address all your concerns and the Supreme Court has already ruled on them.
#466
Also, do you have evidence of FBI coerced selfaccusations?
Anyways, is it possible that these jihadists are training to tell FBI a bunch of baloney, then clam up once rights are read in order to try to get out of it on a technicallity?
Does it even matter since they already confessed to the crime and FBI wanted to find out more about the very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from weapons being at large?
Also: U.S. v. Khalil and U.S. v. Mobley
Those cases address all your concerns and the Supreme Court has already ruled on them.
Anyways, is it possible that these jihadists are training to tell FBI a bunch of baloney, then clam up once rights are read in order to try to get out of it on a technicallity?
Does it even matter since they already confessed to the crime and FBI wanted to find out more about the very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from weapons being at large?
Also: U.S. v. Khalil and U.S. v. Mobley
Those cases address all your concerns and the Supreme Court has already ruled on them.
The point of concern I was bringing up was the offhand mention by a senior congressional aide that the younger Tsarnaev was denied his request for counsel. I don't think the implicit suspension of due process has been ruled on by the justice system.
#467
It looks like the US v Mobley case is about a 8" shank, and Mobley tried to appeal it saying that "mere possession" of a shank/weapon is a passive crime. How is this related to the suspension/violation of due process?
And US v Khalil is about a bomb, and apparently he said some stuff that was self-incriminating; however, this sounds like it would be a Miranda issue.
e: I don't think the Khalil case can be used to draw parallels to this issue. Tsarnaev is an American citizen, but IANAL so I don't know the minutiae surrounding non-citizens vs green card holders, etc in the justice system.
And US v Khalil is about a bomb, and apparently he said some stuff that was self-incriminating; however, this sounds like it would be a Miranda issue.
e: I don't think the Khalil case can be used to draw parallels to this issue. Tsarnaev is an American citizen, but IANAL so I don't know the minutiae surrounding non-citizens vs green card holders, etc in the justice system.
#468
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
Mobley eventually was indicted on two counts involving drugs in the District of Maryland, and proceeded to trial on November 4, 1991. He was acquitted on both counts on April 10, 1992. Having lost the first round, the government came back for a second round. On July 22, 1992, the Grand Jury for the Eastern District of Virginia returned an indictment in one count against Mobley, charging him as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1). Mobley filed a number of pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress for violation of Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny based on Martin's question as to whether there were any dangerous devices or guns in the house following Mobley's election to claim his right to counsel. The motion was denied, under the reasoning that the question fell within the "public safety exception" enunciated in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984).
#470
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
Also: U.S. v. DeSantis, 870 F.2d 536
In United States v. DeSantis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “[t]he same considerations that allow the police to dispense with providing Miranda warning in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel.” 870 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir.1989). In reaching this conclusion, the Desantis court emphasized that the guiding policy considerations of Quarles (the disinclination of the accused to disclose information about the location of a weapon and the overriding societal interest in preventing the potential loss of life) applied with equal force after counsel was requested. Ibid. Relying on DeSantis, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion in United States v. Mobley, 40 F.3d 688, 692 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129, 115 S.Ct. 2005, 131 L. Ed.2d 1005 (1995).
In United States v. DeSantis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “[t]he same considerations that allow the police to dispense with providing Miranda warning in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel.” 870 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir.1989). In reaching this conclusion, the Desantis court emphasized that the guiding policy considerations of Quarles (the disinclination of the accused to disclose information about the location of a weapon and the overriding societal interest in preventing the potential loss of life) applied with equal force after counsel was requested. Ibid. Relying on DeSantis, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion in United States v. Mobley, 40 F.3d 688, 692 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129, 115 S.Ct. 2005, 131 L. Ed.2d 1005 (1995).
#471
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
I find cases that show the courts uphold the public safety exclusion in terms of preventing counsel, but you still say there's a due process violation. This is something you were clammering about.
what is the violation that you are specifically, with evidence, talking baout?
and how is there a 14th amendment violation? he's a citizen, he's being treated as such; he hasn't run for president...yet.
due process of the law, means he has the ability to defend himself in trial, which will happen. so if maybe they assassinated suspect #1, they probably violated that... but you haven't suggested anything of the sort.
#474
What are you talking about? I mentioned the violation of due process which is defined in the 5th and 14th amendment. Also, once again with the ad hominem attack.
You do realize that it's possible to have discourse without attacking the people involved, right? I don't understand why you're getting so upset.
You do realize that it's possible to have discourse without attacking the people involved, right? I don't understand why you're getting so upset.
#476
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
You do realize that it's possible to have discourse without attacking the people involved, right? I don't understand why you're getting so upset.
#477
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
when did saying someone is crying a like a little bitch become "dog whistle racism"? Do you have any clue what dog whistle racism means? Do you acutally want me to start using it? cause it can and i will.
When can you explain the 5th and 14th violations, other than saying the words "due process violations"? do you know what due process means?
When can you explain the 5th and 14th violations, other than saying the words "due process violations"? do you know what due process means?
#478
Source: Miranda rights silenced Boston bombing suspect - latimes.com
The right to counsel comes from the Due Process Clause that is found in both the 5th and 14th Amendments. Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Miranda warning informs people of their 5th Amendment rights. The public safety clause allows for authorities to not read people their 5th Amendment rights. It does not mean that people do not have 5th Amendment rights.
The public safety clause cannot suspend 5th Amendment rights. The public safety clause is a part of the Miranda warning.
The mention about dog whistle racism was in regards to this comment: "he's a citizen, he's being treated as such; he hasn't run for president...yet."
That's dog whistle racism.
#479
Also, I never said that they WERE violated, I said that there is a possibility that they could have been violated and that is a much more interesting take on the unfolding story versus saying that Boston was under martial law.
I mentioned it when I first brought it up: it's an off-hand line in an LA Times article, and I hope it's not true. If it is true, then it can open up a can of legal worms.
I mentioned it when I first brought it up: it's an off-hand line in an LA Times article, and I hope it's not true. If it is true, then it can open up a can of legal worms.
#480
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
I can post more, but you'll keep discounting them and continue this stupid back and forth.
The mention about dog whistle racism was in regards to this comment: "he's a citizen, he's being treated as such; he hasn't run for president...yet."
That's dog whistle racism.
That's dog whistle racism.
that's called sarcasm...
jesus.