Terrorist Attack at Boston Marathon #11 One Suspect Dead; One in Custody

[CARIIS]

Defense lawyer crap? This is from the prosecutors.

You know what I mean -- this is all a dance now -- both sides. By the time this thing gets anywhere (decade and billions?), the passion heat are gone.

The public has moved on, the media.

In calmer times the notion that they did not read an American citizen their rights , will throw on another 5 years! (that other law thing will be overshadowed by our core notion of right to council, IMO.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

They just can't use the info they got before the rights were read in court. They were within the law when they questioned him before the rights were read.

It's the same with every terrorist. American or otherwise.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

You know what I mean -- this is all a dance now -- both sides. By the time this thing gets anywhere (decade and billions?), the passion heat are gone.

The public has moved on, the media.

In calmer times the notion that they did not read an American citizen their rights , will throw on another 5 years! (that other law thing will be overshadowed by our core notion of right to council, IMO.

Have you read the info on the legality of them not reading him his rights right away?

They were within the law.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-suspect-miranda-rights?c=&page=0

Law enforcement officials only have to Mirandize a suspect if they intend to use his statements at trial. In the Tsarnaev case, however, the federal government is invoking the public safety exception, a Justice Department official told CNN on condition of anonymity. It's a designation that allows investigators to question a suspect before apprising him of his rights when they believe there is an imminent public safety threat.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Actually, and thankfully, I was wrong. They CAN use the statements!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-suspect-miranda-rights?c=&page=0

With the public safety exception, the government is allowed to question a suspect without giving him his Miranda warnings and still use the statements at his criminal trial.

 

[i.b.nora]

I think there will end up being a huge problem for the government around the use of the 'public safety exception'. For instance, what if Dzhokhar actually requested an attorney during that sixteen hour timespan and they ignored his request? What then? Hmmm.

The more I learn about how loosie goosie the 'exception' is, the more I realize how dangerous it is to our Constitutional rights.

 

[lauramags]

At this point, there is conflicting "evidence, eyewitness accounts" as to who and which vehicle reportedly ran over TT...It's that simple, speculation.

He did run over his brother.
There are several LE and witness accounts stating it.

 

[lauramags]

What if you felt afraid with regards to the situation??? Just sayin

Yeh I have always wondered that angle too - I would too - hey your backpack!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

At this point, there is conflicting "evidence, eyewitness accounts" as to who and which vehicle reportedly ran over TT...It's that simple, speculation.

I feel that LE statements are fact.
Not speculation.

Direct quote from Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau:

"We're trying to get him handcuffed. There's two or three police officers handcuffing him in the street -- the older brother. At the same time, at the last minute -- they obviously have tunnel vision, it's a very, very stressful situation -- one of them yells out, 'Look out!' and here comes the black SUV, the carjacked car, directly at them. They dive out of the way, and he (the younger brother) drives over his brother and drags him a short distance down the street."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-details?c=&page=0



Here is a different statement, but he says the same thing:

After a 10-minute firefight, Deveau said, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older brother, moved toward an officer. He was out of ammunition and wounded with a gunshot in his chest. Several officers tackled him, Deveau said. He was handcuffed and on the ground.

"Then the other brother came roaring down the street in the Mercedes and runs over his brother," Deveau said.

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2101501


ETA: I can't find any conflicting "evidence, eyewitness accounts" from reputable sources.
None.

Where is the info coming from?

You say it's just that simple, but is it?

Who are the witnesses? Where are they? Who are they talking to?

Cause I be darned if I can find ANYTHING.

Well besides on blogs or conspiracy sites.
No MSM.

I think it's simple alright.
DT simply ran over his brother.

JMO

 

[KarmaGet'em]

There was a person calling into a radio station that made the claim that it was a police officer. (Not sure if that counts as MSM). However, she said she (or her boyfriend) lived on Dexter street, which, would have been behind the police cars. The car that ran over TT was on Laurel St, headed towards Dexter. My guess is she saw the headlights headed towards her and did not really get a good look at the vehicle.

So, multiple witnesses, including police officers at the scene, claimed it was the Mercedes SUV driven by DT. One witness, not at the most ideal viewing location, say it was a police car.

I think (IMO) she was confused, possibly fueled by preconceived conspiracy theories. (again, JMO) It happens when things are so chaotic.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There was a person calling into a radio station that made the claim that it was a police officer. (Not sure if that counts as MSM). However, she said she (or her boyfriend) lived on Dexter street, which, would have been behind the police cars. The car that ran over TT was on Laurel St, headed towards Dexter. My guess is she saw the headlights headed towards her and did not really get a good look at the vehicle.

So, multiple witnesses, including police officers at the scene, claimed it was the Mercedes SUV driven by DT. One witness, not at the most ideal viewing location, say it was a police car.

I think (IMO) she was confused, possibly fueled by preconceived conspiracy theories. (again, JMO) It happens when things are so chaotic.

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me. I have been searching and searching.

I agree with you. I think she's confused.

I think it's clear, DT ran over TT by reading accounts from at least 3 LE officers.

Thanks again!

 

[CARIIS]

I was not refering to the public safety stuff. That, in 10 years will wash out IMO. One of the core deals in our county is right to council - peroid!

It was actually a brillant plan. He babbled before Miranda, got out the big stuff Miranda, poof silent. The game there playing IMO, is muddle everything up .

Get the public safety vs Mirando rolling and we got another 5 years. AS we have already seen noone can agree on which is accurate interpretation and the interrelationship betwwen the two..

But the role of time IMO is vital here.

If we went out on the street and asked 25 people if they knew Miranda and then asked 25 more what Public Safety deal is, awareness about the later is much less.

If we asked do you have the right to council most would beleive that they violated his rights and by then the fact that he is a AMerican citizen , no different than any of us , that will ring even truer!

So in 10 years I would imagine a bunch of people who believe it to be such a core part of America would get hung up that. Throw in a couple of legal experts, in a decade, that murkey up Public safety vs Miranda and IMO - poof!

everything he said prior to Miranda not allowed in. There was some strategy here - the abruptness of his ceasation of talking was instant.

This kid is an AMerican citizen, by all accounts bright, collage history which he perfromed well for several year certainly knows right to council. By all accounts he assimilated well for quite a peroid of time over here.


He watched American television! SO the notion that he did not know about it until it was read to him , strikes me as kind of impossible.

But, IMO, in all liklihood all of this is moot .............there is no question about his guilt , its on tape, he has admitted it simple!

We can see all the complicated crap that is gonna waste the courts time and years and years just by a couple of the following:

Have you read the info on the legality of them not reading him his rights right away?

They were within the law.

Tsarnaev: Right to Counsel, Not Miranda, Is the Key violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings - namely, that prior to the magistrate's visit to his hospital room, Tsarnaev had repeatedly asked for a lawyer,

denying him the right to a lawyer after he repeatedly requests one is another thing evirtually unheard of for the "public safety" exception to be used to deny someone their right to a lawyer as opposed to delaying a Miranda warning ntirely: as fundamental a violation of crucial guaranteed rights as can be imagined

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/tsarnaev-right-to-counsel-denied

And there is a blurred thing here
the longer investigators interrogate Tsarnaev outside Miranda, the more they run the risk that some statements they obtain from him may be inadmissible.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me. I have been searching and searching.

I agree with you. I think she's confused.

I think it's clear, DT ran over TT by reading accounts from at least 3 LE officers.

Thanks again!

Here is the description of the shootout from the police that were first at the scene.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/14/watertown-police-officers-how-the-tsarnaev-firefight-went-down/
The video on this page is interesting to listen to. From their accounts, TT was still alive and shooting after the empty police car coasted towards TT and DT.

 

[noodled1]

Ok I've searched and searched and can find nothing in MSM that says DT did not run over TT.
In fact, everything in MSM that I can find says he did.

I'm a stickler for facts.

I think the fact that DT ran over his brother has been well established.

There is none from a reputable source.

The only places that are stating TT wasn't run over by his brother is the sites that cater to the conspiracy fringe.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I was not refering to the public safety stuff. That, in 10 years will wash out IMO. One of the core deals in our county is right to council - peroid!

It was actually a brillant plan. He babbled before Miranda, got out the big stuff Miranda, poof silent. The game there playing IMO, is muddle everything up .

Get the public safety vs Mirando rolling and we got another 5 years. AS we have already seen noone can agree on which is accurate interpretation and the interrelationship betwwen the two..

But the role of time IMO is vital here.

If we went out on the street and asked 25 people if they knew Miranda and then asked 25 more what Public Safety deal is, awareness about the later is much less.

If we asked do you have the right to council most would beleive that they violated his rights and by then the fact that he is a AMerican citizen , no different than any of us , that will ring even truer!

So in 10 years I would imagine a bunch of people who believe it to be such a core part of America would get hung up that. Throw in a couple of legal experts, in a decade, that murkey up Public safety vs Miranda and IMO - poof!

everything he said prior to Miranda not allowed in. There was some strategy here - the abruptness of his ceasation of talking was instant.

This kid is an AMerican citizen, by all accounts bright, collage history which he perfromed well for several year certainly knows right to council. By all accounts he assimilated well for quite a peroid of time over here.


He watched American television! SO the notion that he did not know about it until it was read to him , strikes me as kind of impossible.

But, IMO, in all liklihood all of this is moot .............there is no question about his guilt , its on tape, he has admitted it simple!

We can see all the complicated crap that is gonna waste the courts time and years and years just by a couple of the following:



Tsarnaev: Right to Counsel, Not Miranda, Is the Key violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings - namely, that prior to the magistrate's visit to his hospital room, Tsarnaev had repeatedly asked for a lawyer,

denying him the right to a lawyer after he repeatedly requests one is another thing evirtually unheard of for the "public safety" exception to be used to deny someone their right to a lawyer as opposed to delaying a Miranda warning ntirely: as fundamental a violation of crucial guaranteed rights as can be imagined

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/tsarnaev-right-to-counsel-denied

And there is a blurred thing here
the longer investigators interrogate Tsarnaev outside Miranda, the more they run the risk that some statements they obtain from him may be inadmissible.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

IMO the FBI was well informed of the ins and outs of the public safety exception before they decided it was appropriate to use it. I'm sure the Feds have great legal counsel to advise them on such matters.
It's not like they did it on a whim.

The exception is on the books regardless if we agree with it or not.

 

[CARIIS]

Can you please provide your NY Times link?

I am trying and it was from the police chief - I thought I cut and paste it in my word thing but it is not there!
I was wrong as far as death cert it did mention dragged and "A vehicle". Our fun stuff here is I think it was the rolling LE SUV and everyone reported it was younger brother in Mercedes.

It would be neat to find the damage to both vehicles undercarriage to determine if the instensity of the situation did not get this messed up!

They are both evidence - if anyone knows how to figure out a way to see what the damage to both that would be interesting.

Trying to get clarity on this end will keep efforting to do so!

 

[CARIIS]

This is why I hate these cases. Public fury and fear rises to the point where otherwise rational people call for unacceptable methods like torture, police brutality, and the like.

I'm also extremely uncomfortable with the lack of explanation for the delay in charging. The government should not have the right to indefinitely detain people without having to officially produce evidence for it, no matter what the crime.

Disturbing all around.

It is and it isnt. All of us slueths are familiar with the legal system game delay delay delay,

Which makes the system not a justice system (guilt innocence) but a legal system - huge differance IMO!

 

[CARIIS]

BBM: Wasn't it mentioned previously that he made a statement saying he would be seeing his brother soon? My thoughts were more on the line that he may be refusing to eat and harming himself. How does this support any argument against the death penalty though, if his goal is to join his brother in "paradise".

Yeh, I recall that too but have not been able to find it!

(saying he would be seeing his brother soon? )

 

[CARIIS]

Of course it's illegal. But that doesn't prevent people wishing for it.
Nobody said it would or should be done. But I can certainly understand the rage and emotion that would make it seem ok for some. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
If the poster above thinks it would be "sweet", he or she has a right to feel that way. This is America. We are free to have thoughts and express them.

And I have never made assumptions about who is angry, how people feel, etc.
I know people are angry and IMO they should be.
We all should be.

Nobody here has said they are going to beat the carp out of DT. But IMO if that happens to him, many of us would not lose sleep over it.

Do I think those who are guarding him should beat him up? Nope.
Do I think those who are questioning him should torture him to get info? Nope.

But, I have the right to say if it happened, I would not feel sorrow for him. If I said I would, I would be lying.

Someone saying he deserves to he tortured is not the same thing as saying we think he SHOULD be.

I refuse to address the child abuse statement because its apples to oranges. There is a huge difference.

JMO

IMO, although understandable to some degree, this whole notion of lets torture him etc is bewildering. By that I mean, we would all agree doing so is a human rights issue.

It is the exact reason we use to justify being all over the place killing someones brother, sister, friend or spouse or whomever.

So, IMO, all this rhetoric is identical to what other nations are doing.
In the big picture it is identical to African Americans being unable to drink from the same fountain, or the KKK activities. IT is not civil behavior, and what we as a nation condemn many others for.
Hypocritical, IMO

 

[CARIIS]

How do you know he didn't do this?

That is true huh!