Picture
Photograph: www.telegraph.co.uk
Editors note: This piece was inspired by an anonymous submission.

At the time of Dzhokhar’s, “suspect number two”, capture, many applauded the work of law enforcement and waved American flags as if justice had been served. However, it’s important to note some of the circumstances that took place, and when they took place, with regard to his rights as an American citizen. While there is quite a bit of grey area concerning being read his Miranda warning and the public safety exemption, we’re going to take a look at some of the events and provide you with a platform for discussion.

If you Google “public safety exemption” (also known as “public safety exception”), you’ll likely be brought to a very well-written but long-winded piece on the FBI’s website. After reading through it, you’ll see that they've done an excellent job justifying the reason for it and backing statements up with sources and facts. One might even begin to believe in the exemption after reading through it. The public safety exemption stems from a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case (New York v. Quarles) where a man was detained for criminal gun possession. Since, law enforcement agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have fought to keep it. On the FBI’s own website, they the exemption a “powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement”.
Picture
Photograph: FBI.gov
To summarize, the public safety exemption provides law enforcement with the ability to question a suspect for specifics when “the public is in immediate danger”. These specifics must be directly related to items that potentially endanger people, more pressure cooker bombs in the Dzhokhar’s case, and the exemption must end when information is obtained and/or the public is deemed safe again. Many people still question how loosely this exemption can be tossed around, or that PODIS (President) has the authority to detain and try a suspect as an enemy combatant should he/she find evidence that they are connected to larger terrorist organizations. In Dzhokhar’s case, together with the DOJ, the President strongly suggested, and recently confirmed, that the suspect would be tried in a court of law and not as an enemy combatant. 

It’s important to note that many of these policies, including the exemption, have been extended and strengthened over time since 9/11. In this time, the exemption has been stretched into grey area to include suspect questioning not directly related to items that could endanger the public and that the questioning can take place at will by investigators. This grey area is what is causing a political firestorm amongst Democrats, Republicans, and everything in between. Some argue that it was “absolutely necessary” to ensure the safety of the public and a “crucial time of imminent danger”. Others argue that the public was deemed “safe” by the Massachusetts state Governor hours prior to capture and so the exemption was no longer applicable by the time the captured Dzhokhar and began what some sources are calling a “16 hour interrogation period”. 

Note: The actual length of questioning has yet to be determined.

There are those on the side of the fence that state it’s “unconstitutional” to refrain from reading a suspect his/her miranda warning but what they don’t understand is that it isn’t in the United States Constitution. It is a right as an American citizen, but it isn’t a constitutional right. And finally, some in the human rights sector call the questioning “excessive” with regard to Dzhokhar’s condition upon questioning. 
If anything, Dzhokhar’s case brought light on the potentially dangerous authority law enforcement and the Federal Government carry with regard to detaining people, including American citizens, and citing the public safety exemption with regard to not reading a miranda warning upon arrest. 

The real question here is where does the grey area end and where does it begin? Does it stop at just “terrorist plots” or does it extend to your local thief? Should a suspect’s condition upon questioning be a determination? Should the questioning sessions be recorded and documented, including those carried out by the FBI, when the exemption is in place? Will the exemption every be defined to include more specifics?


Sources:
Giorgio Andrei
6/10/2013 11:55:19 pm

I believe he should have been read his Miranda Rights at the place of his arrest because the exemption was not really relevant. It is only when the public is in an immediate danger.. Dzhokhar was not a danger at that time because he was in a critical condition, literally clinging to life.

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 12:19:51 am

I think the exemption applied only too clearly.
Bombs had exploded at the Marathon. A massive police and FBI hunt began to try to avert the possibility of more bombs and deaths. On arresting the suspect, the FBI had no knowlege of the potential scale of the bomber's organization or of his arsenal of bombs.

This is a question of public safety, averting possible other deaths. The exemption was totally justified. If the suspect had been miranda-ed straight away and explosions had rocked New York and killed and maimed that were later attributed to the same organization, we would all be asking why the exemption was not used.

Whether or not a lawyer should be able to attend pre Miranda quetionings as a silent witness is a moot point. I think this should be considered.

Obviously the criteria is in the name - public safety. If this was used in the case of a thief ( example in article) there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry and a good lawyer would use it to invalidate the prosecution case.

Reply
Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 12:25:13 am

But the thing is Blake, at the time of his arrest he was still a suspect. He was not a convicted terrorist. The way the police treated him was utterly unacceptable. They wanted to finish him and this was obvious with the so many bullets they fired at him. Do you believe the 'New York' story? Come on, Bloomberg's allegations?!

Blake
6/11/2013 12:42:50 am

He had been arrested as a suspect in a bombing case after a shootout in which more bombs were thrown. Either way, yes he was only a 'suspect' but he was the only possible lead they had on the size, members of the organization and whether more bombs existed and were going to kill people.

Anyone when they are first arrested is only a "suspect".

Here we are talking about the exact time when he was arrested, the information the Feds had at that exact time. Any suspect of a terrorist bombing that has just occurred would have been treated in the same way - public safety!

No, I believe they wanted him alive in order to get information. There was obviously the possibility that he had more bombs or weapons with him, hence the heavy fire. It is still not clear whether these were or were not rubber bullets. The use of flash grenades rather than real grenades shows they wanted him alive.

Re Bloomberg, I have no idea whether New York might have been bombed or not, but it is irrelevant.

Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 01:01:15 am

They could see from their thermal imaging if he was armed or not and since his figure from the helicopter was all black, there were no arms on him. Also, the fact that he did not move, when the owned uncovered the boat, it shows that he was severely wounded. Additionally, the video saying "I'm coming out" is a proof that he wanted to surrender and there was no need for the use of this tremendous force of violence. You keep referring to an 'organisation' and this is so stereotypical. If he wasn't Muslim, would the Feds consider the involvement of an organisation? They didn't mirandise him because they knew his background and his financial status and so they could easily manipulate him. Plus, they wanted to pretend that they have done a 'heroic' accomplishment.

Blake
6/11/2013 01:14:26 am

Its nothing to do with him being Muslim! Its to do with a possible terrorist organisation behind the bombings. Feds did not know whether it was individual, small group, large organization until they had him in custody. Could have been a far right Nazi extremist group, could have been anything. They needed to find out as fast as possible.

Re Thermal imaging, why would thermal imaging have shown up hidden/exposed potential weapons in the boat? It is not Xray.
Why do u think they checked him for an explosive belt?

They did not mirandize him because they needed to find out as much as possible re possible other bombers and bombs. Now we know a lot about his background, life that at that instant would not have been known by the Feds.

Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 01:42:03 am

Any object would show with thermal. Not as visibly as with X-ray, but at least the outline of it could be shown. If they aimed to bomb other places as well the following days, then why did Jahar have a pre-booked ticket for Russia, leaving on the 18th of April? They knew a whole lot of things about him as soon as their name was announced. They've contacted every relative and friend of them before the suspect photos' release. I know for sure. Unless I listen to him with my own ears, I don't believe anything the media tries to sell us. And why did they mirandise him just after the investigator began asking him questions at the hospital? Why did they not do this before the interrogation had started?

Blake
6/11/2013 02:06:42 am

The suspect was found after he had been involved in a shootout in which bombs had been thrown at cops and guns shot at cops. They were going to be very wary regardless of his mom's opinion of him.

Re Thermal imaging, the detail would depend on the nature of the thermal-imaging device. If it was cryogenically cooled than a weapon in his hand might well have been spotted. However from the quality of the images that we have been shown, I do not believe this was the case.

" And why did they mirandise him just after the investigator began asking him questions at the hospital? Why did they not do this before the interrogation had started?"

This is the whole point of this article - the Public Safety Exception. Read the article above or read http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/04/the-scope-of-mirandas-public-safety.html
It is a legal point of view on the use of the Public Safety Exception. It explains it very well and also raises some questions about the length of time that elapsed before mirandisation in this case.

They might well have spoken to all his relatives, but this does not mean that he did not possibly belong to some shadow organisation or have more bombs. Im sure his relatives were surprised to see him throwing bombs at the cops and would not have had any information about that side of his character.

This was a very understandable use of the Public Safety Exception, If he had belonged to a band of Nazis or anarchists with plans to blow up every big city in the US, it would have been useful for the Feds to find out and try to avoid other deaths, and complete stupidity and negligence not to invoke the Public Safety Exception.

Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 03:07:56 am

Where did I mention his mum?!
How do you know that he threw bombs at the cops? Were you there? And even if there are markings on the streets, how do you know that it was not the police who threw explosives. You saw how heavily equipped they were. Have you watched the videos saying "Chill out! We didn't do it!" and "I'm coming out!". The voice is the same in both. It is undoubtedly Jahar's. If you don't believe that he should be treated equally, why are you even on this page? In the old days, everybody was "innocent until proven guilty". Why Jahar doesn't deserve this? And why whenever something similar happens with MORE killings, the perpetrator is always found "insane" to avoid the death penalty? Why is the government so discriminating? What if Jahar did not kill anyone? Even if he is found guilty, maybe his 'bomb' was not death-causing.

6/11/2013 12:28:01 pm

@Blake - While we don't necessarily disagree, do you feel that the general outline, or rules for application, with regard to the public safety exemption should have better clarification? Otherwise, where does it stop and were did it begin?

Debbie
6/11/2013 12:10:55 am

I believe it was excessive. Dzhokhar willingly climbed out of the boat, was not resisting, or fighting back, or trying to run nor did he have weapons. He attempted to surrender calmly. One 19 year old kid against hundreds of trigger happy police. He's not stupid. He was a threat to no-one. I agree with above, he should have been read his rights when he was arrested.

Reply
Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 12:19:56 am

Exactly! I've contacted friends of his and there's a video with him saying "I'm coming out" repeatedly and then thousands of bullets can be heard. His friend told me that it was his voice in the video. I can't quite comprehend how a so-called "extremist Jihadist" would surrender. They are not reluctant to die as they believe they'll enter Heaven. Dzhokhar was not like that and this is evident from many other facts.

Reply
Shelley
6/11/2013 10:36:06 am

Thanks for saying it Giorgio! I also can't quite comprehend how a so-called "extremist Jihadist" would surrender. At the time, the media was saying that he and Tamerlan were wearing suicide vests. I kept thinking if they were wearing suicide vests (or if they were jihadists for that matter) they would blow themselves up. If the stories the media and authorities were telling about their reasoning and their actions were true, the brothers would have killed themselves, not desperately tried to survive!

Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 09:26:21 pm

Thank God, there is a logical person in here! :)
There are a lot of things about them that show that they weren't extremists. When a person is radicalised they never stop talking about their religion or views! Dzhokhar was not like that..
And back to the topic, when they saw that he was not wearing a suicide vest and that he was practically unconscious, why did they still use the exemption?!

Shelley
6/13/2013 11:53:02 am

Great question Giorgio! Why did they use the public exception at that point? Plus, by the time the authorities stated that Dzhokhar could communicate at all while still intubated and in and out of sedation (If he really could communicate - I don't know), enough time had passed that if they had planted explosives or something like that, they would have already gone off. He was no threat at that point. Further, having no escape plan not only indicates to me that maybe they are innocent, but they certainly couldn't be working with a group or the group would have prepared them better than that. This story just doesn't make sense! The biggest tip off to me that something stinks about this story is Dzhokhar's reputation as a laid-back hippie-type who really wasn't interested in religion and certainly not fighting. While CNN and CBS are calling him a militant jihadist, his many friends and classmates, are proclaiming his friendly, gentle nature. And why would a jihadist have so many Jewish friends, by the way?? Not the person the media is making him out to be.

Sophie
6/11/2013 01:02:05 am

Well said, Debbie.
Plus, in my opinion, if he had wanted to harm more people, he'd have done it. They spent the whole day looking for him, they were gonna catch him anyway. So, if he really was a threat to public safety, he'd have committed more crimes. He sure had enough time to so.
Just my opinion.

Reply
Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 01:05:27 am

Sophie, they knew they could locate him at any moment. The whole thing with the lockdown and the army vehicles on the strees was totally over-the-top. The Feds made him look like a 'threat to public safety'. For hours, we could hear on the telly that "Suspect 2 is possibly armed and dangerous". As time was passing the possibility was presented as a fact.

Blake
6/11/2013 01:18:13 am

A good clearly written legal article on the Public Safety Exception
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/04/the-scope-of-mirandas-public-safety.html

Reply
John
6/11/2013 03:04:08 am

At this point. Yes he was a suspect by questioning him they could therefore determine if he was in fact admitting to it and if there was others involved. However I don't fully understand the use of this information against him later or leaking them to the public is a benefit to the public safety. However even as a suspect I would believe it would be important to determine if there was more terror to come and if indeed he was taking responsibility.

I don't necessarily believe that in the state he was in that maybe they could have been putting words in his mouth if what we've heard is true. I would question the use of that information in court.

As with all rules and laws a close eye should be kept on them so that they are not abused and if Dzhokhar had not become a citizen things would be a lot worse legally for him. There are a lot of abuses that America carries out or aid in carrying out so people are right to question. It's a pity people don't question more.

Reply
Emrah
6/11/2013 03:25:44 am

Jahar was still a suspect and the Feds were not sure if they had 'explosives' with them or in other locations, but he was still not given his Miranda rights. James Holmes, though, who killed so many more people and the Feds were sure that he did it and they spent hours before his arrest dismantling bombs at his house , was read his Miranda rights. Was he not a threat to public safety? Or does 'public safety exemption' applies just to someone who is Muslim and not a WASP? JUSTICE IS A JOKE.

Reply
Joker
6/11/2013 06:59:52 am

You actually answer your own inquiry. Either that or you totally contradict yourself OR your understanding of your Miranda rights/public safety exception is off.

I can't tell

Reply
Emrah
6/11/2013 04:58:55 pm

They're rhetorical questions mate. They are used to emphasise my frustration with the different way similar circumstances are handled with. You could see that Holmes was a psychopath from his face, the way he gazed.. Dzhokhar though, tried to surrender. The cops didn't regard this and he was still not given his rights. My belief is that a person who willingly surrenders in longer eligible fpr the public exemption of Miranda rights. It's a human right that is unfortunately violated in the States.

Joker
6/11/2013 10:37:27 pm

My belief is that a person who willingly surrenders in longer eligible fpr the public exemption of Miranda rights. It's a human right that is unfortunately violated in the States.

-------------------------------------

Many in here believe that the apparent lack of "safety" involved in the spirit of the exception comes from defendants ability to further harm the public. That doesn't make much sense.

Emrah
6/11/2013 11:03:55 pm

Sorry, still having troubles with my English.
There are videos. I saw them myself and the voice is the same in both. It's common sense that if someone surrenders, it means that he actually gives up.But anyway, Mirandised or not, the confession will not weigh much in court! :)

A
6/11/2013 03:33:56 am

I think federal officials should keep the public safety exemption rule for precarious times. They should be subjected to review after invoking it. It shouldn’t become a misnomer, after all the public empowered them and they should present subjective justification (to court).

I don’t think a confession or self-incrimination should be a part of the interrogation although it is hard to separate the two in some cases.

Also I don’t think the courts should deem such a confession admissible. The judge and jury need to work around damning evidence not a ‘confession’. You can’t start a proceeding thinking “he/she confessed” and work backwards to connect the dots.

Reply
Lyn
6/11/2013 03:43:50 am

Yes. He 'totally' confessed. Come on people! Even a child can see the lie! What stops the Feds from coming up with a fake confession? Piece the puzzle together.. Jahar couldn;t and still can;t defend himself. His older brother dead. His sister-in-law 'hiding' at her parent's house. The uncle being so condemning. Jahar's parents are in Russia and cannot come to the US. His father is ill and his mother is accused of theft. He is practically helpless. Even though he's a citizen he technically doesn't have anyone here.

Reply
A
6/11/2013 03:54:59 am

I think Katherine Russell may very well testify. She has a good team of lawyers by her side. And she clearly witnessed both brothers' after the Marathon bombings and before their capture. You can't really blame her for laying low/ hiding. Public rage is a frightening thing, in the age of the Internet you can't sue anonymous people for defamation and invasion.

John
6/11/2013 04:33:43 am

It's really one of the things that concerns me most. Everything they give out is just like a checklist of what is needed to tie up the case against him. I really feel that miscarriages of justice happen when people rush to condemn a person and all this leaking of info that suits there case just makes it seem like they're trying to justify it all.
When you point out he has no one in America this also makes me think he was more isolated in some ways and therefore we don't know if he could have followed a path to this action.

Lyn
6/11/2013 04:15:50 am

I don't blame her. I believe she did it to protect her daughter from further exposure. I know his friends have given testimonies about the brothers and at times the Feds tried to twist the positive things they said about Jahar and Tam.. Especially Tam cos they wanted to make him look like a 'badass' (excuse my language).

Reply
Lyn
6/11/2013 04:42:48 am

@John
You know what the media does? They release a new piece of 'evidence' and they wait for the message to sink in and people to hate Jahar even more.. Then they stop talking about him. And weeks pass until they do the same again!
You misunderstood me! When I said that he didn't have anyone in America, I meant a relative of his to support him. And his makes it ideal for the gov to put the blame on him. No, I didn't say he was isolated! Actually, he was not at all! He was totally assimilated in the American teen lifestyle and he had many friends!

Reply
John
6/11/2013 06:21:42 am

I said it makes me think that not that you said it. Law stuff hurts my head I think but I did read up some stuff and the link Blake gave and basically while I believe public safety is important and it would be needed to confirm that he was responsible and also if they're were others involved. However the law itself is basically a tool to use when they want and whatever way they see it as it accounts for continuing to ask questions even if they've covered all the public safety questions. This makes it open to be abused by those who use it.

Reply
Lyn
6/11/2013 06:26:47 am

If they care about public safety so much, then why they read James Holmes his Miranda Rights? As Emrah said above, is he less of a threat to the public safety. He killed more people than what Jahar allegedly did

Reply
Joker
6/11/2013 06:47:58 am

A gunman can no longer shoot when captured but bombs can be and often are devices that work on a timer. Also it was already clear that Dzhokhar was part of a team of bombers and it was not known if there were more co-conspirators out there. That's the main reason the public safety exception was used.

Lyn
6/11/2013 05:02:47 pm

I disagree with you. It was not clear that he was part of a team of bombers and is still isn't. Jahar insisted that they were working alone in his alleged confession, which was given before he was mirandised.

Joker
6/11/2013 06:56:27 am

Also worth pointing out.....your Miranda rights always exist. It's only the reminder of those rights that authorities are required to perform.

Jahar didn't need to say anything. It was my understanding that he was fully cooperative until his lawyer told him to clam it.

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 10:22:35 am

"Even if he is found guilty, maybe his 'bomb' was not death-causing."
Im not suire I should be commenting here. I misunderstood the reason for this topic.

Carry on.

Reply
John
6/11/2013 10:55:54 am

Seriously Giorgio. .You say: "Even if he is found guilty, maybe his 'bomb' was not death-causing." Well if he's found guilty 2 people died at the second bomb site but it wouldn't really matter as I'd say both bombs are considered linked. He could get life or death penalty even if no one died due to the number injuries a weapon of mass destruction being used will receive a warranted punishment.

Also I'm all for people being treated fairly from a legal perspective but you can't assume that law enforcement knew for definite what they did or didn't have or if they were linked to a bigger group. I'm less ok with it being taken as a confession due to his condition.

Reply
Giorgio Andrei
6/11/2013 05:08:44 pm

What I wanted to say is that he could still be charged with those charges but not the death-causing part, if it is proven that the bomb he allegedly placed did not actually kill anyone. Also, the term 'weapon of mass destruction' shouldn't really apply here because there was not actually any serious damage to the surroundings. Just a fence was thrown apart and glass shattered. I believe the legal argument should not be based on the maximum damages the pressure cooker COULD have caused, but what it actually caused. This a pretty serious issue. A 'terrorist' or not, we are still dealing with a human life.

Blake
6/11/2013 10:46:05 am

I am very disappointed. You raised a topic of interest.

There could have been valid questions related to the amount of time allowed for questioning. But it has degenerated into a quagmire of sentiments related to nothing, not the law, not his rights, nothing.

Reply
John
6/11/2013 11:03:09 am

It's hard to stay on topic with some of the comments. Wearethelion maybe you could remind people to stay on topic and to look at previous topics that they can express what they want to say as they would fit with some of those topics.
People need an outlet to express what they think.
Don't give up Blake make your points,some people may not have seen the topic yet. From my own perspective I thought your link was good but I'd need more time to read up on this topic properly.

Reply
John
6/11/2013 11:21:25 am

What I did get is that they have the right to keep asking questions even if the safety aspect has been accounted for. Which means its open ended really but I think that any information they would get at this point that wasn't connected to public safety would be challenged more if it was going to be used in court. For example if they established that it was just the two brothers and one is dead other in hospital, well they really wouldn't need to know who was the ring leader because that's not needed for public safety when they were both accounted for yet they could ask it if they wanted because its at there discretion to keep going if they see fit. The whole purpose of the safety rule is so the information can also be used in court and that the information is not thrown out for lack of Miranda. Dzhokhar is treated as a suspect of an act of terror. I know people say innocent until proven guilty but its there job to prove him guilty that requires them to use any part of the law they feel will work best for there case. If he wasn't so ill in hospital I'd say no problem use it, it's a bit open ended so it could be abused a little but I have concerns more about what he said because he was in serious condition rather than whether he was mirandised or not. He might still have spoken due to his condition although any lawyer worth anything would tell him keep quiet.

Reply
Joker
6/11/2013 11:35:02 am

I'm sure his lawyers will try and get it tossed and I think their request for photos indicates that.
I believe there's a good chance it does get tossed. To me the spirit of the exception is to secure the immediate safety of the public. If its used against him then it could be argued that it could jeopardize future suspects willingness to cooperate.
Anyway that's my 2 cents.

John
6/11/2013 11:44:21 am

I also read that this law could be seen as a slippery slope in that one old argue that a person could be tortured if there was a threat to the public, but as you pointed out already the Miranda is a reminder, a person can still stay quiet as per their fifth amendment right if they wish using this law. Terrorism gives it more weight in that they I'd really need to find out if there were more people involved, it actually may be useless as such to public safety in that the person could lie and say there was no one else involved. I do think its more about having a way to use that information later in court. If he was well they wouldn't get it brown out hat easy.

John
6/11/2013 11:52:55 am

That should be thrown out so easy. I hate autocorrect.

Joker
6/11/2013 12:22:23 pm

Terrorism gives it more weight in that they I'd really need to find out if there were more people involved, it actually may be useless as such to public safety in that the person could lie and say there was no one else involved. I do think its more about having a way to use that information later in court.

----------------------

Did you read anything on the New York vs Quarles case its built on? It's total crap and has nothing to do with bombs or terrorism.

Worth pointing out that even though Tsarnaev supposedly indicated that he and his brother were acting alone, it didn't really stop the FBI from investigating possible connections anyway. You're certainly right in that respect. Are we supposed to feel safe because a terror suspect tells the authorities that there are no more attacks planned?

6/11/2013 11:14:03 am

Comment Participants,

Thank you as always for your contributions. We want everyone to work together to piece together details of the topic being discussed and for the comments to be progressive to assist others in seeing the subject matter from all fronts.

With that being said, it is key that the discussion stay on-topic, which is generally the topic the particular blog post is covering. For additional or unrelated discussion, please feel free to post in our forums area of the website. You're also free to create new discussions there at any time!

The subject matter of this particular post is a combination of Miranda warning, public safety exemption, and how it relates to the situation that unfolded in Boston regarding Dzhokhar's capture/arrest. There is an excellent opportunity to openly discuss the above and possibly, find a way to bring about a better outline for the laws themselves.

Please try to stay on topic and if you feel you wish to bring something up that's unrelated, try opening a new discussion on our forums. Again, thanks very much for participating in the comment discussion.

-WEARETHELION

Reply
Joker
6/11/2013 11:26:25 am

I feel good that this reprimand was not directed at me. A first!
For a while I thought I may have been becoming a victim of a WeAreTheLion "podstava"

Reply
John
6/11/2013 11:36:22 am

There's plenty of time yet for you to get one.

Blake
6/11/2013 11:27:55 am

OK John
But I will wait. If wearethelion actually has clean topics up for disusssion, yes. But if their blog posts resemble this - no.
there is no point "Even if he is found guilty, maybe his 'bomb' was not death-causing." sums it up.

Reply
6/11/2013 11:39:44 am

Blake,

We encourage you to be patient with other commenters and understand that some are younger, and some are reading/commenting from other countries where English is not their native language - sometimes things are translated incorrectly.

While this may or may not have been the case in this specific circumstance, we recommend working to communicate around these comments and/or helping the commenter to better understand why you feel it isn't applicable in this particular circumstance.

Thank you for your continued contributions.

-WEARETHELION

Reply
Lyndon
6/11/2013 05:16:43 pm

I think the guy who wrote has not English as his first name. Maybe he wanted to say that the legal work should focus on facts, no matter the level of public outcry? I dunno. Even though it is such a painful situation, it should be considered actually. Blake I believe you should try to be more patient. Many of the people here believe he is completely innocent, so it is natural to have a biased point of view. Anyway. this group I believe was created because it is believed by many open-minded people that Dzhokhar's human rights were violated. If you do not share the same belief, then I'm sorry to ask but why are you even on this page? No offence. I;m just wondering.

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 08:30:17 pm

Hello Lyndon I am here because wearethelion said they wanted full participation, arguments for and against. They said they wanted to move away from the "He loved cats, must be innocent" thinking of the #freejahar tag and really debate the issues with the aim of becoming an org not just for Jahar but for all.

Personally I do not believe that any of his rights were violated, but I am open to new evidence or reasoned argument.

This topic - Public Safety Exception, presence of lawyer during questioning -is the one that can/could/should provoke the most argument and opinions.

The key to the question is whether you think that at the instant of capture the Feds knew everything about Jahar, his bombs, no of bombs,his team (if existed).Personally I dnot, and I beieve they had to try and get information from him as fast as possible.

As stated, I think that the Feds were completely justified in invoking this, as public safety is an obvious priority when bombs are exploding. But what I think is not neccessarily right, :).

Whether it should be possible for them to invoke the Public Safety Exception in any case is another argument. I think yes, as stated above.

The alternative would have been to bow down to the calls of several senators and treat the suspect as an "enemy combattant". This would become de rigeur in cases of perceived terrorism and would be a step back for Rights.

Next part is the form. As stated above i think the presence of a lawyer as silent witness and enforced recording of any questioning would improve the application of the exception. I do not know if the questioning was recorded or not, although I expect it was.

I am sorry if I appear impatient.

Lyndon
6/11/2013 09:12:18 pm

Even if the questioning had been recorded, Dzhokhar was unable to speak because of his neck injury. And by the way not all #freejahar discussions are like what you described. There are mature, civilised and backed with evidence discussions mostly in Twitter. It's up to you to believe what they say is true. Before announcing the identities of the suspects, they would have known many things about them. We, the common people were in a position to know about their lives as soon as they were acknowledged as the suspected perpetrators. I doubt it that the police didn't know many things about them. Tamerlan was interviewed by the FBI in 2011. So he would have had a record. Unfortunately, you cannot claim that none of his rights were violated. He was declined a visit from close friends and family, as well as his lawyers were not allowed to take photos of him themselves. Do they have anything to hide? We are not the government, so we can't know. But most of us here are awakened citizens who believe that basic rights apply to all people regardless of what they are accused of, their background, ethnicity, age, religion and financial status. :)

Joker
6/11/2013 12:11:24 pm

There's plenty of time yet for you to get one.

--------------------

Very true. But I will not stop until the world is safe from exploding frozen ball-point pens.

Reply
6/11/2013 12:20:43 pm

You almost made it one whole day. Almost. =P

-WEARETHELION

Reply
John
6/11/2013 12:29:10 pm

Makes sense to me.


You mentioned above that it could affect future suspects willingness to cooperate and I agree with you there. I actually think maybe people wouldn't have known about this law and well I now know if I was a criminal they could say what they like I still have the right to remain silent, public safety or not, the fact I'm not American would probably interfere with that. The information that has been reported that he said is that his brother masterminded it and they acted alone, so this could be argued as necessary information but 16 hours is a long time. I read somewhere that he also said it was defending Islam but the motive wouldn't necessarily be needed for public safety, once the had established they were the only two involved. I do still question it's use as the person could lie to them so really what does it achieve only to get a reason to not get the information thrown out later. I also read that his requests for a lawyer were ignored, I haven't read anywhere whereby you can't have a lawyers advice under this rule but maybe that's the whole point and I've missed that info somewhere.

Reply
A
6/11/2013 03:41:43 pm

In the spirit of 'Podstava', the authorities may very well have used the public safety exemption to provoke a public reaction against Jahar.

Either way I hope they answer to their methods in court.

Reply
Lyn
6/11/2013 05:21:13 pm

Definitely they did. This could be seen from the over-reaction from the public at his place of arrest. I know for sure that when an arrest is being made and even in lower-scale cases, the public is prevented from entering the area. In Watertown that night, this was not the case. Also, the fact that the media released that the governor got drunk after the arrest. What's the point in revealing this? This looks pretty much like a teenage soap opera.

Blake
6/11/2013 12:18:56 pm

Ok.
Someone planted two bombs at the Boston Marathon.

These bombs exploded and killed people and severed (cut off) legs arms and other bits of lots of other people.

The Boston police and other law enforcement agencies (more cops) studied films and photos and decided there were several suspects.

Some of the suspects handed themselves into the police when their pics were shown.

They were innocented.

The police and the FBI were worried that there would be more explosions, so they used all their men and searched everywhere;

Meanwhile two suspects, who had not handed themselves in, decided to steal a car.

The owner of the car told the police and the police searched for and found the car.

The two suspects in the car did not hand themselves in but took part in an alleged shootout with the police and threw bombs at the police.

One of those suspects drove a car away from the shoot out. The other was dead.

The police hunted the suspect that had evaded them.

The police found that suspect hiding in a boat.

The police arrested that suspect.

The suspect was taken to a hospital.

In the hospital the FBI asked lots of questions of the suspect.

In the US it is traditional to tell a suspect that he has the right to remain silent and to give him the right to telephone a lawyer.

This was not done.

American law allows this not to be done when it is a question of Public Safety.

The FBI thought that there was a risk of more bombs and asked the suspect questions saying it was a matter of Public Safety.

This article asks were the FBI right?
The 16 hours of questioning was it more than should be allowed?

Simple really

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 12:53:42 pm

@wearethelion- K, just saw your post.
In this case I think the Public Safety Exception is more than justified but mandatory. As explained above....
Amendment wanted by me ...I think the presence of a lawyer should be allowed as a silent witness pre Miranda.

I would be surprised if the questioning had not been recorded, but it would be good if this was enforced as legislation.

In a world where terror attacks are becoming common place, the exception is here to stay and rightly so.

I have noted John' s comments that a suspect might give misinformation but it is far better to have the chance of any early information than none at all.

Again re John, legally these statements can be used in court, yes, but that is neither the primary purpose nor the end result. This is about information not conviction of an suspect.

With regard to this case;
I do not think that the confession pre Miranda will be of any importance, looking at the long delays for hearing asked for jointly by defence and the prosecution it would suggest that this case is being plea bargained at this very moment. We are unlikely to see a trial on the WDM etc charges. The confession as reported, will not be relevant in any of the other probable trials.

Reply
John
6/11/2013 01:11:12 pm

I think you might be right regarding plea bargaining. With the evidence put forward, I find it hard to see any other outcome. I do think it was legally sound to use it here, the amount of time questioning him could be due to his health, him requesting a lawyer etc. I can't see that they needed much information from him more than if they acted alone and if there were anymore bombs due to the reported video footage, boat note, admission to Danny. I can't say I'd feel safer because of this law as I said above if you really wanted to hurt people you wouldn't say where there were more bombs. It then strikes me as just another way to gather evidence. You mentioned about terror attacks being common place and the law was needed. Terror attacks have been going on along time and I don't think this law or the holding of people in gitmo or the war on terror will do anything to stop it or lessen the danger the public is in. It is just another way around the law by using the people as a justification it's too open ended to be anything else.

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 01:27:21 pm

"Amendment wanted by me ...I think the presence of a lawyer should be allowed as a silent witness pre Miranda." as stated. Cant give much more protection. ( ok I said commonplace, well relatively common place...)Problem is mass murder and terrorism steps out of the normal and we need to give away rights to let ourselves be protected. These are exceptional cases and hence should not infringe too much on our rights.

A terrorist bomber who can remain silent and be protected on arrest is a threat to all of us.
Id like to see Gitmo disappear, not arguing for repression but for minimum protection.

John
6/11/2013 12:54:28 pm

Joker in response to up further:
Yeah I looked briefly at that case and I think it's what started it all. I think if the information they got under public safety couldn't be used against them then maybe it could provide safety for the public otherwise I dont know why you would talk. I wouldn't be concerned about reassuring the public if I was already criminal enough to set off bombs. Although I watched a video today discussing if they were actually injustice collectors and didn't truly believe in their motive just wanted to be recognised for doing something big. Then a person would talk and maybe leave a note etc. if he was innocent this law shouldn't really affect him because he'd have nothing to tell. It really only affects you if you're guilty and they can use it against you at trial. (That not taking account is medical condition or if he was coerced).

Reply
B
6/11/2013 05:31:05 pm

@wearethelion
I believe you should interfere in the discussion. From what I've gathered from the answers of Joker, Blake etc, I have come to the conclusion that they actually do not fully comply to the "innocent until proven guilty" and Tsarnaev's human rights. The reason why I joined your group because you wrote that you wanted Dzhokhar to be treated equally as every American would have been treated. Here, this belief is questioned by some of the above comments and it practically goes unnoticed by your admins. It's sad to see a pro-human rights page for Dzhokhar being trolled. If these people agree to the way the Feds handled it, they can easily leave this page and go to the pathetic Foxnews or CNN. Thank you.

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 08:40:50 pm

We are discussing legal points. Rights of any suspect where terrorism is involved, and then looking at this case.

If wearethelion feels we should be censored, fine. But i doubt it, because their stance, while pro jahar, is to openly discuss issues raised by this case and stand above the fangirl nonsense.

Reply
B
6/11/2013 08:59:34 pm

Not all of the supporters are "fangirls" as the media keep calling them in order to provoke. The American law, unfortunately, is pathetic and discriminating. At the end of the day, we can all claim that this whole situations has been dealt with completely WRONG. Never again was the social media so heavily involved in something similar , as well as the media, who tried by any means to exaggerate information in order to sell more and more. I don't want you to be suspended. I just want you to understand and respect that most of us in this group believe that Dzhokhar's rights as stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights as well as in the American Constitution have been violated, both at the time of his arrest and during his imprisonment. I'm not very familiar with the American law and the way it treats so-called terrorist attacks, but I know for sure that before a person appears in a court, he is still a suspect and nothing more.

John
6/11/2013 09:33:26 pm

Just to be clear what rights exactly do you say we're broken. Was the capture of Dzhokhar heavy handed, yes in hindsight, I don't know how he survived. But this innocent until proven guilty doesn't work so clear cut. They are trying to prove him guilty, and are working at it from that angle, so they will use any law they see fit for that purpose. Dzhokhar still had the right to remain silent under the fifth, (so I learned by reading up on this), I do have a concern about his medical condition influencing what he said but otherwise I think that this law fits right for a suspected terrorist because this law already exists. The issues I have in relation to Dzhokhar is if they asked anything outside a public safety issue and how it will be used against him.

John
6/11/2013 08:55:47 pm

Honestly This discussion is more in relation to his rights innocent or guilty rather than just declaring his innocence. he is a suspect and you couldn't discuss the use of this law without discussing it from that perspective. If he is innocent but the FBI believe or are trying to prove his guilt then they would still use this law because they believe he's the suspect if he is guilty then we are discussing if his rights are breached using this law or not. I'm certainly not one who automatically believes he's guilty no more than I don't assume he's innocent, nor do I presume he's going to plead not guilty either.
I'm not sure exactly what you took exception to no more than people declaring his innocence. But to discuss if his rights under this law are being breached you have to come at it from both angles otherwise it wouldn't be properly discussed. For example I mentioned the boat note, Danny etc in relation to them not needing to ask him other questions under this law because the already in their minds have an admission and motive so all they would need under this law is if there were others involved. Therefore if they asked anything else if wouldn't count under public safety because they already had the info. Do I know the boat note exists or Danny is telling the truth - no, but to discuss the use of this law I needed to use them.

Reply
B
6/11/2013 09:32:52 pm

I have my doubts John and I believe many people share this thought. If they were so sure about his guilt, why did they push the court hearing so many days later. They claim that they have a video of them placing the bombs. But it hasn't been released. If it's true, then it is the most condemning piece of evidence and I'm pretty sure that the media, who are so eager to increase their revenue, would not hesitate to demand from the Feds to release it. :) You can believe whatever you want and you can stick to the law as much as you like. This is simple common sense that has ceased to exist in America, unfortunately.

6/12/2013 12:07:43 am

@B,

Thank you for your continued comments that help provoke discussion.

With regard to what you've mentioned above, please note that we have added a comment below to help point the discussion toward the topic at hand (subject of blog post) and to try and refrain from making accusations about other supporters/commenters. We'll be monitoring comments with regard to this warning closely.

In addition, we were inspired to create WEARETHELION as a result of the questionable events leading up to, during, and after the capture/arrest of Dzhokhar. Part of those questionable events is the lack of Miranda warning being issued to Dzhokhar upon arrest, how it applies to the public safety exemption, and where it all fits in with an American citizen's rights and his/her human rights.

We've added topics to discuss on our forum with relation to "innocent until proven guilty" and the death penalty, please be sure to check them out. In addition, there are more detailed comment discussions with regard to Dzhokhar's human rights on some of our older blog posts that might be applicable to what you wish to discuss.

Again, thank you for your comments. Please note that we welcome all people with different opinions, it is our hope to dig further into the details of the cases and subject matter presented. Sometimes to do so, you have to be open to opposing views. You don't have to agree with them, but being open to listen to them and willing to respond with what you feel is correct/incorrect is key to forming a solid opinion and instrumental to progress.

-WEARETHELION

Reply
Joker
6/12/2013 11:49:56 am

@wearethelion
I believe you should interfere in the discussion. From what I've gathered from the answers of Joker, Blake etc, I have come to the conclusion that they actually do not fully comply to the "innocent until proven guilty" and Tsarnaev's human rights.

----------------------

Actually you are the one that's not familiar with the meaning of "presumption of innocence". And it's beyond ridiculous that you think that my comments on a message board could violate anybody's human rights. What you are quite adept in is strawman arguments.

Sorry but at least I got us to 100 comments! Hurray!

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 09:31:31 pm

B, i am not saying that all who protest on behalf of Jahar are fangirls.
American law is key to this discussion. In a lot of countries, the right to remain silent does not exist or is limited and in some countries silence is taken as a proof of guilt. The right to a lawyer during all questioning, again, does not exist in a lot of countries.

These rights exist in the US. Here we are discussing the Public Safety Exception, which temporarily takes away these rights.

You say that you think his rights were violated at the time of his arrest and during his imprisonment. These discussion are trying to define which specific rights of Jahar's were violated.

I am not saying that the US system of justice is perfect - far from it. "Suspects" often plea bargain as guilty when they are innocent, because it is easier than fighting the case. The prisons are almost as bad as those in France etc etc

Reply
B
6/11/2013 09:39:42 pm

There are some rights mentioned in above comments by other people. It is a shame really of innocent people pleading just to avoid the death penalty or because they are forced to do so. I believe that this group wanted to campaign against this. If they didn't believe Dzhokhar's case had grey areas, then they wouldn't bother create a group I believe. In Britain, for example, the perpetrators of Woolwich attack were not questioned whilst in hospital even though the police is completely sure that they had done it. We cannot know under which circumstances he was questioned and it is dangerous to assume things. But again, I've watched so many injustices of the legal and federal system over my lifetime, so I believe anything is possible! Peace

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 09:53:19 pm

Peace to you.
Not knowing anything about you, i wonder if you know Amnesty. They have been working for justice for individuals and respect of rights for many years. They are a very good very powerful organization, staffed by very brave people. On their site you can find described some of the worst abuses of rights in any, all countries of the world. If you can define rights of Jahar's that have been violated, these would be good people to contact.

http://www.amnesty.org/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work

John
6/11/2013 10:00:00 pm

I totally understand that this case is particularly strange to me, there have been many wrongful convictions over time and I actually read somewhere can't remember where that innocent people have confessed to crimes even when read their Miranda. I do value innocent until proven guilty as Blake stated in some countries the onus is on you to prove your innocence which is a lot harder. But the fact is this law exists since 1980 and was connected to a gun scenario so bombs could definitely fit in here. I don't think there is any breach of its using it but that the breaches may be connected to the way it used.

For example: if they went outside the scope of public safety in what they asked him and how much is admirable in court due to his ill health.

I do not think the law is as innocent as it is reported to be, it is far more than a way to keep the public save but more a way to get information quickly to keep people safe but to be able to use that information against them.

But it does exist, it hasn't just been used against Dzhokhar.

B
6/11/2013 10:53:14 pm

I'm already a member of the Amnesty! Thanks for sharing it! I currently work on the 'Abolish the Death Penalty' campaign.

6/12/2013 12:01:20 am

B,

Yes, we believe there are many inconsistencies in the case and the information that has been presented. Our interest is to discuss those holes here and on our forums.

Thanks for being part of our movement.

-WEARETHELION

John
6/11/2013 10:02:03 pm

That should be the law is not as innocent.

Reply
Joker
6/11/2013 10:21:13 pm

I'm going to pretty much stay out of this but of course not without a few points.

I have run into many people involved in online discussions regarding this case that don't know the real meaning of "innocent until proven guilty" and how it relates to burden of proof. That might be a good topic for later.

The date of the probable cause hearing was pushed back after the magistrate judge received a joint motion requesting such. Perhaps the many different phases of a criminal trial could be another topic.

One of the biggest complaints I've heard in my online foray into this case centers around the Forum restaurant surveilance video described in the criminal complaint. Many believe that because it hasn't been released to the public that it doesn't exist. And while I don't think a debate over its existence would lead to any kind of intelligent debate, I do believe it offers an opportunity to explore the rules of evidence and specifically, the shaping of public opinion and its effect on a defendants right to a fair trial.

Now I'll retreat back to my sandbox.

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 10:40:14 pm

Joker, good point. I think an article laying out laws of evidence would be a good idea.

A seperate discussion about leaks "sources close to the defence" "sources close to the prosecution", "sources close to the police" should take place. These anonymous leaks have become a weapon used by both sides in most major cases in recent US history. They poison the jury pool and bias public opinion. Lawyers such as Brafman use the media and untrue "leaks" as the major arm in their arsenal. How can these be prevented? What penalties should be given?

Reply
B
6/11/2013 11:00:22 pm

I think the main reason why people, including myself. are complaining that the video has not been released is because is the only bulletproof evidence that they were behind the bombing. I believe this outcry by supporters as well as non-supporters is maximised due to the fact that the media constantly releases new 'evidence' derived from anonymous sources and presents them as facts. Instead of focusing on the criminal complaint, they are more interested in talking about how Jahar loves nutella and pot. They deal more with his mum than the events that led to the shootout and the killing of Tamerlan. Leave the woman alone and talk about the actual crime!

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 10:59:55 pm

B You are doing good. That is very worthwhile, a good campaign to be involved in. It has been great to see the progress made over the last 30 years in the no of countries where it has been abolished..

Reply
Blake
6/11/2013 11:08:45 pm

The civilised world has abolished the death penalty. America, though, who pretends to be the land of 'freedom' has not! Even if a state abolishes it, the Federal government can still enforce it! So, unless the fed gov itself does not abolish it, nothing will change tbh! I don't believe that Dzhokhar should get the death penalty and I think this is another discussion that @wearethelion should consider. I believe in second chances. Call me naive, stupid but I do! After all, we are all humans! And of course, the more 'hardcore' ones say that by executing someone is like you are giving them an easy way out! I don't share this idea but still it is a good argument.

Reply
Joker
6/11/2013 11:32:27 pm

The death penalty and how it relates to the public safety exception in this case is worth pointing out. It's certainly possible he could have used information as a bargaining chip to possibly take the death penalty off the table.

Personally I don't wish to see the government pursue it

Blake
6/12/2013 04:40:13 am

To keep things straight, the post above was not mine although I approve the principles that fuel it.

B
6/12/2013 06:20:22 am

Sorry @Blake it's me that posted. It's just because my middle name is Blake as well, I forgot to write just "B".

6/11/2013 11:53:39 pm

Comment Participants,

Please note the subject matter of the topic. We will not allow for the discussion to continue going in a totally different direction including one which could be considered boarder line "trolling" with regard to "fangirls" and "freejahar".

If you wish to discuss the death penalty, we've created a new forum topic for discussion here: http://www.wearethelion.com/forums.html#/20130612/death-penalty-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go--2665938/

With regard to our stance on "innocent until proven guilty" - it is by law that we support the right of Jahar to be "perceived innocent until proven guilty" by a court of law. Unfortunately, it's hard to hold a court accountable for that right when mainstream media has already blasted the public, heavily in Boston which is where the trial will be held, with somewhat biased and skewed information. This is an excellent topic for discussion so we've created it in our forums here: http://www.wearethelion.com/forums.html#/20130612/what-does-perceived-innocent-until-proven-gui-2665951/

The current subject matter is Miranda law and how it applies to this case. It also includes the discussion of the public safety exemption. Please stay on topic or your post will be removed.

Lastly, this is a neutral discussion board. We are open to people from "both sides of the fence" as long as the conversation remains positive, constructive, and discussional. While our movement was inspired by the questionable events (things we're discussing here) that unfolded leading up to, during, and after Dzhokhar's capture/arrest, we welcome opposing opinions in hopes to gain a greater understanding of the case and how people perceive information.

Thank you as always.

-WEARETHELION

Reply
B
6/12/2013 12:54:56 am

Thank you wearethelion for responding to the observation I made above! Much appreciated! I will not stop roaring until true and fair justice is served! Also, I'd like to apologise for driving the discussion out of topic at times. It's just because I've never participated in a comment session and I didn't know the forums existed. You see, I've got many issues to discuss about.

Reply
Blake
6/12/2013 12:30:10 am

Apologies for the mentions. They were not in any way attempts to troll. We share the same purpose. You want people to be better informed and so do I.

Re @Blake - While we don't necessarily disagree, do you feel that the general outline, or rules for application, with regard to the public safety exemption should have better clarification? Otherwise, where does it stop and were did it begin?

In terms of rules of application, I think the exception is self limiting. A defense lawyer would leap on any over broad interpretation of Public Safety.

As stated I feel this is a much better, more respectful of rights, way to go about things than to name suspects as 'enemy combattants' and subject them to the loss of rights that that would entail. In the immediate aftermath of the bombings, there was big pressure to do this and Im glad that the system did not buckle.

Reply
A
6/12/2013 01:08:03 am

i just read over your post again and I have to say after the lockdown declared by D. Patrick - this exemption seems excessive. I imagine the FBI advised Gov. Patrick to issue a request (order?) for a lockdown to assist them in searching for Jahar. They had enough and more time to go over leads, speak to key witnesses like Danny, search the Tsarnaev residence (warrantless?) etc.

I feel authorities exercised way too much might in this case to start off with and they just progressively got more and more dramatic. There should be an independent review to how many exemptions they availed of in this case. This can't be a precedent for future events.

Also I'd like to point out that the complete lack of transparency of the FBI and their lack of communication to state and local police could very well have contributed to everyone's extreme reactions.

And on the subject of drills, I wonder if the 'shelter in place' order was a drill for a future with chemical weapons. France recently declared that rebels in Syria were using chemical weapons. Just saying we don't have to go there if this is off topic.

Reply
B
6/12/2013 01:14:15 am

Totally agree with you! And this whole drama conducted by the armed forces and the state government was maximised by not reading Dzhokhar his Miranda rights at the time of his arrest. This escalated the public fear created by the lockdown and made many people believe everything that was 'sold' to them by the mainstream media without questioning.

Reply
A
6/12/2013 01:25:10 am

not to get off topic again but the lockdown was really shocking with its violation of constitutional liberties, I mean you have armed military men suspecting regular citizens of what exactly, sheltering a suspect? It seemed like the shelter in place was hardly directed at keeping people in crowded places safe. If that were the case authorities would be deployed in public places and not inside regular people's homes.

Strangely Jahar was found only after the order was revoked and he was found by a regular citizen.

The portrayal of the lockdown as 'voluntary' in the media is also false. No one or rather many people were actually not free to move around during that period. Everyone was forced to comply.

Blake
6/12/2013 01:27:38 am

And what would you have thought if, in place of invoking the Public Safety Exception, they had detained him as an"enemy combattant' as many demanded?

Joker
6/12/2013 01:21:06 am

And on the subject of drills, I wonder if the 'shelter in place' order was a drill for a future with chemical weapons. France recently declared that rebels in Syria were using chemical weapons. Just saying we don't have to go there if this is off topic.

--------------------------------------

Off topic? Nah.

Maybe we can have an "anything goes" topic?

Reply
A
6/12/2013 01:29:27 am

fine ill bring it up when we talk about lockdown. The idea's not that far-fetched for our drill-loving govt.

Shelley
6/13/2013 11:42:23 am

The incredible melodrama of releasing photos of 'persons of interest' for the public to identify, when the FBI already knew who they were, and locking down 2 cities and a suburb to hunt for an unarmed teenager was mind blowing to me - not just in retrospect, but at the time. The further melodrama of the parade and chanting "U.S.A" after such a week of violence - on all sides - deeply disturbs me regarding the hysteria of so many of our citizens. Indeed, the authorities exercised way too much might!

Reply
A
6/12/2013 01:41:50 am

errr Blake are you saying the public safety exemption paved the way for Jahar to be tried in a civilian court? I completely disagree and please qualify how you drew that connection.

Reply
Blake
6/12/2013 01:55:27 am

No, that is not what I meant :)
There were calls for him to have been tried as an enemy combattant that would have left him without a lot of rights. But the White House stood firm and said that he would be tried in a federal court. (How legal it might have been is also a moot point.)

The following is a random report about it

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/tsarnaev-not-tried-enemy-combatant-does-mean-181419272--politics.html

Reply
B
6/12/2013 01:45:10 am

Only some Republican conservative senators wanted him to be tried as an 'enemy combatant'. This not only would have violated his right as an American citizen but it would also affect Obama's administration and political efficiency. They didn't do a 'favour' to Jahar; they basically saved their own skins. But let's not get off topic again! Haha! Blake, I have to admit you confuse me! I can't tell your views. You are sometimes really balanced and favourable to some of my arguments and sometimes you are the exact opposite! No offence mate, but you are perplexing! :3

Reply
Blake
6/12/2013 02:05:12 am

Dont mean to be perplexing. I believe in straight thinking, protection of civil rights, equal rights etc. We happen to have a different view of this case but Im sure we would see eye to eye on an awful lot of other topics/struggles.
Treatment of Rom in Europe, womens rights in the Muslim countries, discrimination against Muslims in European countries, capital punishment, treatment of rape victims by the police and in the US courts etc etc

Reply
B
6/12/2013 02:23:05 am

I believe that we will have similar views on the topics you mentioned. Who knows, maybe by the end of this case you will hopefully change your mind! ;)

John
6/12/2013 01:54:57 am

Ok looking at this another way if they had read him his rights and he chose to remain silent which we've established he could have done under the fifth ( but probably didn't know this). The FBI would be saying we don't know if they acted alone because he has the right to remain silent until we investigate further. I think this was the lesser of laws they could have enforced and its up to his lawyers now to argue what can be used and whether he was well enough to answer.

Reply
We Are The Lion
6/12/2013 12:17:55 pm

Joker,

We've already addressed these with the users in earlier comments. Thanks.

-WEARETHELION

Reply
Joker
6/12/2013 01:14:25 pm

Hey I was just trying to get you to 100 comments. And at the same time I was protecting my "human rights" lol

Reply
AnonymousPoster
6/13/2013 07:09:13 am

I think the questioning of Tsarnaev under the exemption was grossly misused and violated the law. This exemption should not have been used to question him regarding anything but 'immidiate' further threat of a crime in progress and it seems it extended into areas outside that such as his alleged motivations, where they allegedly learned to make explosives etc. Some reports also said he was denied a lawyer when he repeatedly asked and if that was done after the immeidate threat questions had been addressed, I feel his legal rights were indeed violated.

New York Vs. Quarels clearly establishes the legal reasoning of immidiate threat & I also implies the understanding that the crime should still be in progress for it to be used to avoid further crimes in the situation at the present time of the crime. When Tsarnaev was questioned he was detained (though injured) and the other suspect was deceased. This exemption was not used properly according to the law in this case. Stretching the idea to where it would be justified to deny Miranda rights on the basis that they want to avoid cime perpetually does not fit the exemption itself.

Reply
John
6/13/2013 07:46:24 am

1) I agree that any questions outside public safety were outside the public safety law exception, but any good lawyer would make them in admissible. One could argue that knowing how they learned to make the bombs would be needed to know if there was someone showing them therefore part of a wider plan.
2) I agree and think I've acknowledged that I too believe that motivation as such should be outside the scope of this law. However in argument maybe finding out who motivated could explain if it was part of a wider plan.
3) As they were not aware if this was a bigger plot then they could also have not known if the crime was still in play with just accounting for the 2 brothers, this may stretch it a bit.
4) denying him a lawyer I agree could be a breach although I haven't found anything in relation to this yet although Miranda gives you that right to an attorney. There may be something in the amendments.
5) It has been successfully used in the cases of Lafi Khalil and Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, Faisal Shahzad and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Therefore there is more than just the Quarles precedent.
6) Just because there wasn't more than 2 of them and they weren't part of a bigger plot doesn't mean that this law wasn't needed to determine that.
7) There are issues with this case in relation to his health when questioned but I can't see anything wrong with the use of this law in this case leaving aside the fact that it goes against a few amendments which is wrong but the law exists and has been used before successfully.
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=clb

Reply
AnonymousPoster
6/13/2013 06:20:38 pm

Great points. I agree completely that any good lawyer would make questions outside the realm of the exception inadmissible. Though, I still think the idea of a wider plot is outside the realm of this exception once it goes beyond anything regarding the crime in progress itself. The supreme court ruled creating the exception with the Quarles case, so since that is the actual precedent, anything that goes outside the reasoning in that case be argued as flawed even if another judge chose to allow it in my view.

In the Quarles case even the idea that a later crime could take place if the gun wasnt found was still based on the gun from that particular crime in progress being found & used. For the Tsarnaevs, the exception should be valid for asking if there were other explosives immediately...if other participants were in the street or waiting to act immediately... but extending that into a relam of something like "did they belong to an ongoing group?" or "What motivated them" are all outside the exception in my opinion. Allowing officials to streamline crime prevention in a way where potential endless 'what ifs' become the logic and officials have endless rights to choose what those what ifs could be based on anything really instead of the crime at hand, could be dangerous to our balance of power. I am not against crime prevention obviously, but later investigation suitably reveals wider plots. This exception shouldn't replace that existing policy.

You are entirely correct about the attorney, I stand corrected. Even if they told him no at the time, he did get one immediately after being Mirandized.

As for his health, I agree there as well. I suppose the level of medication could be a factor but being in pain isnt a prerequisite for insanity or incapability to answer questions. If he was deemed coherently able to communicate, injuries would be irrelevant. In the end, I still feel this particular use of the excpetion is a violation if his interrogation was used primarily as an investigative tool instead of preventing an immediate threat. Looking forward to seeing how it will be handled in court.

John
6/13/2013 10:16:47 pm

I think this law is seriously flawed. I'm surprised in some of the cases it's been successfully used in. I read somewhere that he requested a lawyer if this is true then it would test whether this law truly shreds your fifth amendment right. I'm surprised the law has not been challenged in its own right because it isn't specific enough, it's too loose in how it can be used. It's more the fact that it has been successfully used before that I believe it's allowed to be used here but the law itself when used in quarles is really just a way to admit evidence that was gained outside the Miranda warning and clever legal work added the public safety aspect to it to give it weight.

Reply
Blake
6/20/2013 04:33:18 am

All interpretations of laws and rights are defined by precedent in a common law system. Hence as you say John "It's more the fact that it has been successfully used before"that makes it legally irreproachable in this case.

Reply



Leave a Reply.



    Archives

    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013