How should Tsarnaev be handled? Criminal or Enemy Combatant?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I think we should Commission a scientific survey: how many (hypothetical) people who regularly use the term "liberal" as a pejorative are stupid assholes?

(The follow-up, of course, would be how many of the droolers don't understand the word "pejorative" w/o looking it up.)

Probably about the same ratio as the number of folks using conservative or republican as an insult that are stupid assholes.
(hint, it's probably pretty close to one in both studies)

edit to add quote for new page

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I think we should Commission a scientific survey: how many (hypothetical) people who regularly use the term "liberal" as a pejorative are stupid assholes?

(The follow-up, of course, would be how many of the droolers don't understand the word "pejorative" w/o looking it up.)

Probably about the same ratio as the number of folks using conservative or republican as an insult that are stupid assholes.
(hint, it's probably pretty close to one in both studies)

edit to add quote for new page

Not a chance in hell. I wouldn't have wasted my time typing it out had I thought that reflexive rebuttal (which is easily anticipated) would hold any water.

[Kennedy 0]

Really, you think angry politically-polarized hatemongers on the left are smarter and more polite than those on the right?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

(The follow-up, of course, would be how many of the droolers don't understand the word "pejorative" w/o looking it up.)

Typical comment from the arrogant who assume everyone has the same, or better, level of education.

Criminal prosecution is the right thing to do, IMO.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm totally cool standing by the point I made.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

(The follow-up, of course, would be how many of the droolers don't understand the word "pejorative" w/o looking it up.)

Typical comment from the arrogant who assume everyone has the same, or better, level of education.

Way to miss the point.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think we should Commission a scientific survey: how many (hypothetical) people who regularly use the term "liberal" as a pejorative are stupid assholes?

(The follow-up, of course, would be how many of the droolers don't understand the word "pejorative" w/o looking it up.)

actually, I tend to. There are liberals, there are 'liberals', and then there are self proclaimed "I am better than everyone else" LIBERALS, and then there are just people that might be open minded and don't label themselves. I tend to bump everyone into that 3rd group if they actually call themselves that, unfortunately.

It's not because they are the majority of the group. Just the loudest subgroup of the bunch that do a lot of damage and make the rest look bad.

I suspect the same thing happens with conservatives, and with hot dog vendors too....

it's not fair, and I try to see the word and think, wow, that's a liberal portion of hot fudge on that sundae.

forget the term, and observe the actions. People aren't that much different no matter what group they think they are in or try to label themselves as. really

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

Here's the deal - MAN UP on the topic. If you are perfectly willing to murder the suspect in cold blood. Admit it's illegal and wrong, and you are willing to personally TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES of that act - up to and including the death penalty in this case. Don't try to rationalize a vigilante position as anything but exactly what it is.

Beautifully put.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's the deal - MAN UP on the topic. If you are perfectly willing to murder the suspect in cold blood. Admit it's illegal and wrong, and you are willing to personally TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES of that act - up to and including the death penalty in this case. Don't try to rationalize a vigilante position as anything but exactly what it is.

Beautifully put.

Wendy P.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me if you've identified a terrorists who has killed and is attempting to kill police officers, the public, it's against the law to defend yourself?

[wmw999 2,447]

It's not against the law to defend yourself in the face of an immediate specific threat. It's against the law to kill the confirmed perpetrator of any act if they're not specifically threatening you at that particular moment. I.e. with a weapon, pointed at you. Even if you know they're guilty, like from photographic evidence.

You can choose to be a vigilante, and it might even produce an excellent end result. But then you have to take responsibility for your actions. Google Ellie Nesler to see about someone who did that.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[livendive 8]

If the two were actively shooting at police when a civilian shot them, I doubt he'd be charged. Defense of others is generally treated as comparable to self defense.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's the deal - MAN UP on the topic. If you are perfectly willing to murder the suspect in cold blood. Admit it's illegal and wrong, and you are willing to personally TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES of that act - up to and including the death penalty in this case. Don't try to rationalize a vigilante position as anything but exactly what it is.

Beautifully put.

Wendy P.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me if you've identified a terrorists who has killed and is attempting to kill police officers, the public, it's against the law to defend yourself?

Are you full of it, or do you really not get it?
Shooting at the Tsarnaevs while they were shooting at LEOs is worlds away from gunning them down in cold blood while there is no imminent threat or leaving the injured one to die in the boat.

Shooting from the window probably would have been determined to be justified, with a hearty thanks from most folks and a hefty lawsuit from anyone who cared to file against you. On the other hand, shooting them anytime you felt like it would be cold blooded murder and make you no better than them. Take your hate mongering and your bloodlust and shove it. I don't like yours any better than theirs.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

It's not against the law to defend yourself in the face of an immediate specific threat. It's against the law to kill the confirmed perpetrator of any act if they're not specifically threatening you at that particular moment. I.e. with a weapon, pointed at you. Even if you know they're guilty, like from photographic evidence.

You can choose to be a vigilante, and it might even produce an excellent end result. But then you have to take responsibility for your actions. Google Ellie Nesler to see about someone who did that.

Wendy P.

OK, I understand the aspect of taking matters into your own hands, BUT lets suppose that instead of killing both of them with your 308 sniper rifle from the 4th story window of your apartment, you, open the window, and yell: Hey you fucking terrorists, muslim scum bags, and they raised a pistol at you up there in the window and even fired a bullet that missed etc. Now would you have just cause to shoot them dead.

Now the whole city of Boston was in lock down indicated that 2 guys were threatening the whole of the city. I don't buy the aspect you have no right to take them out, when you and everyone else was under the threat of their violent behavior.

Besides it was pretty clear the cops were pretty horrible marksmen that they could have used a little help.

I gather anyone who might have shot them dead would have gained a hero's party. Not a ticket.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

If the two were actively shooting at police when a civilian shot them, I doubt he'd be charged. Defense of others is generally treated as comparable to self defense.

Blues,
Dave

The last article I read on the topic is that they only had one gun, which older brother was carrying. They tried to get the gun from the dead cop, but didn't know how to release it from the holster. Older brother was firing at the cops when he ran out of ammo and got tackled. So apparently little brother was unarmed when he drove the stolen SUV through the blockade to get away.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

Okay, but who knew that at the time?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[oldwomanc6 52]

Quote

Okay, but who knew that at the time?

No one did.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[rickjump1 0]

Take them out for the simple reason there was plenty of evidence they could have been wired. These guys had already proved they had taken Basic Bombing.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me if you've identified a terrorists who has killed and is attempting to kill police officers, the public, it's against the law to defend yourself?

let's be specific since you stated one scenario (guy shots the felon while felon is in gunfight) and then tried to say it's ok to shoot the felon while unconscious and bleeding in a boat.

1 - During fire fight, Tsarnaev is shooting at cops and citizens - go ahead and shoot him. Thanks, saved lives. But, seriously, you think you can shoot him when the cops failed?

2 - Tsarnaev is bleeding and helpless in the boat - swallow your outrage and don't shoot him, get the cops instead who have a duty to arrest him and not kill him passively or directly.

Those are your legal options. You take the other road, thanks for removing the threat. Sorry, but you also have to go to jail as well.

simple enough?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Turns out there was some nefariousness afoot.

Tysarnaev was Mirandized after 16 hours of interrogation when a federal magistrate, on her own, went to the hospital and Mirandized him.

News is also coming out that Tsarnaev on several occasions asked for a lawyer and was told he couldn't have one. Note: jurisprudence has been fairly consistent - when a person asks for an attorney questions stop until a lawyer is there to assist a defendant. Period. Not only did the Department of Justice not advise tsarnaev of his right to counsel, if true it means that the federal government actively DENIED him his rights upon request.

This is a whole new level of "what the fuck?" Actively blocking the right to counsel until a federal magistrate jumped in??? This is some serious bullshit.

Welcome to the new American way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 801]

With this and the illegal searches of houses - the feds have most certainly established precedence for future legal process.

[Kennedy 0]

I'm sure you're familiar with New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). While I disagree with SCOTUS allowing the statement to be admitted as evidence at trial, I don't have a problem with asking questions that would be excluded during trial about imminent dangers (like guns in playgrounds, somewhere children can find them, etc). The sticking point for me is the one you mentioned: what to do when they specifically ask for a lawyer. Everything in my head says STOP. SCOTUS on the other hand says public safety outweighs the normal procedure of reminding arrestees of Miranda in some instances, but that only matters when you are worried about statements being admissible in court. Do you know of any federal case law outside of FISA that covers denying access to counsel for questions not related to charges?

eta
http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/24/the-bogus-public-safety-exception
I thought this article laid it out clearly and accurately, but did not mention #2's specific request for counsel

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Well, apparently those nasty Democrats you named are ensuring his rights.

Apparently they were not. In fact. They were stomping them flat.

[Url]http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/tsarnaev-right-to-counsel-denied[/url]

Even Chemerinsky can't find an argument to support this shit.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

As you know, this questioning occurred well after the governnment said there is no further imminent danger. It wasn't asking, "where are the other bombs." It has been GREATLY expanded to involve matters where there is no immediate or further remote threat.

And - when a person asks for a lawyer, the questions STOP. Period. "You'll get a lawyer if the government is nice enough to let you have one" is not how it works.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

As you know, this questioning occurred well after the governnment said there is no further imminent danger. It wasn't asking, "where are the other bombs." It has been GREATLY expanded to involve matters where there is no immediate or further remote threat.

And - when a person asks for a lawyer, the questions STOP. Period. "You'll get a lawyer if the government is nice enough to let you have one" is not how it IS SUPPOSED TO work.

FIFY. I agree, especially when it is a American citizen, accused of criminal conduct on US soil and safely in US custody.

What grinds my "hypothetical situation" gears is wondering what they would have told him if he'd told them to fuck off until his lawyer arrived.

Can you think of any case law that allows investigators to continue questioning a person in custody if they have no intention of introducing the conversation as evidence? I can't. But since it isn't an inadmissible evidence issue, where does it fall?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mistercwood 287]

I'm unclear on the timeline - was this before or after they'd decided whether or not to go with criminal rather than combatant? If it was still up in the air that could explain the rationale behind it. It's still messed up as hell though...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.