Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 270 posts

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#171

Post by bubblelamp »

lbarrow wrote: post #114
hncommenter13 wrote: post #36

You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial. Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment wrote: "Importantly, though, it would not have vi…

Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose. The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as "enemy combatants". They weren't arrested p…

Bush still living rent free in your head eh? Your post might be taken more seriously by those who know and follow politics if you acknowledged that Obama didn't just carry on with many of Bush's policies, but enacted new laws that make Bush's interpretations pale in comparison.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#172

Post by itstriz »

jhaglund wrote: post #132
geuis wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Tsarnaev and his brother did not plant bombs as of the current moment. They are SUSPECTS in a criminal investigation in which one or more parties planted bombs. Be VERY, VERY careful before you throw out that distinction. One day you may find yourself arrested for something you did or didn't do, only to find public opinion very much against you based on little more than hearsay.

Ya know, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but blury pictures of them dropping a bag, a witness description, a car chase where they threw bombs out the window, a shootout where one brother got hit with shrapnel of his own pressure cooker bomb, etc. Let justice do its blind thing but it's OK for us to state the obvious. They did it.

I'm getting the feeling the defense is going to have a hell of a time finding an impartial jury.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#173

Post by to3m »

baddox wrote: post #136
mtgx wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What pisses me off most about fanatic gun owners who talk about their rights and being able to protect themselves in case the "government goes rogue", is that they seem to be very apathetic, or even supportive of measures such as this or of government infringing other rights like the 4th amendment, the 1st, the 5th, 6th, etc. You'd think that the people so worried about the government going rogue would be the first t…

Be careful. That kind of rhetoric is one step away from, and seems to be intended to imply, the claim that the pro-gun position is itself invalid or less valid because of other positions held by some of its proponents, which is textbook fallacy.

"Be careful"?! I have to say, that sounds rather menacing!

I think the argument is specifically about how the positions they hold are inconsistent. This says nothing about the positions themselves. Doesn't even imply it, to my eyes!

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#174

Post by analog »

A1kmm wrote: post #163
analog wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy is already a crime. Your cucumber example wouldn't attract a response because nobody actually cares enough to prosecute it. For example if your cucumber was made of solid goal then you would become a target of preventive action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

IANAL, but I believe that in most jurisdictions conspiracy requires two or more co-conspirators (i.e. the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime means two or more people agree or plan for a crime to be committed). Attempting to commit a crime is also a crime in many jurisdictions, and only requires one person - maybe a prosecutor could convince a court that Derbasti was going to steal something, as demonstrated in a H…

Yup, conspiracy was just the first example that came to mind. The actual class of crimes is inchoate offences (found after some brief googling).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#175

Post by analog »

Derbasti wrote: post #168
analog wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lucky for people planning crimes I guess, unlucky for the rest of us. Edit: Your claim that this is limited to mainly English speaking countries is not even true. "Most nations prosecute inchoate acts (such as conspiracy and incitation) in their domestic criminal law." https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/jilp/articles/1-1_Ste... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense

As far as I can see, most jurisdictions require some action beyond mere thought or talk. Two guys talking over their beers at a bar is not enough. At least that is what the German Wikipedia is saying about European law.

Well sure, you'd have to actually be seriously planning to commit the crime to be prosecuted for it.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#176

Post by paulhauggis »

itstriz wrote: post #172
jhaglund wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya know, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but blury pictures of them dropping a bag, a witness description, a car chase where they threw bombs out the window, a shootout where one brother got hit with shrapnel of his own pressure cooker bomb, etc. Let justice do its blind thing but it's OK for us to state the obvious. They did it.

I'm getting the feeling the defense is going to have a hell of a time finding an impartial jury.

We wouldn't want them to be confused with the facts.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#177

Post by youngerdryas »

geuis wrote: post #104

I said this on reddit a couple hours ago. I don't care if he murdered 100 men, he still deserves the same rights as any of us. If we don't treat the worst of us the same as the best, what can the rest of us expect?

He has the same rights as any of us. The government chose to slightly jeopardize their prosecution, confession may be inadmissible, in the interest of public safety.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#178

Post by analog »

pyre wrote: post #127
mtgx wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some really twisted mental gymnastics there. Torture is bad, because it's torture. It doesn't matter if you're a criminal or a human-monkey. How can they get away with it for so long? At least they didn't say torture is legal "because he's not a white guy", but their logic here is not that far off from that.

They are also getting away with it because the torture isn't of the "strap electrodes to his genitals" variety, which most people would immediately reject. Stuff like "loud music," "putting a holy book in a toilet," or "make him think he's drowning," don't evoke the same sort of immediate reaction. If the administration were openly performing at "Inquisition" levels of torture, there would be massive public outcry.

Actually the Spanish Inquisition used similar methods, including waterboarding [1]. Certainly some of the US prisoners have been tortured to death [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Torture

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim)

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#180

Post by Goladus »

m_d wrote: post #169
anigbrowl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For heaven's sake. Assuming that they have arrested the correct person, he and his brother had a stack of tactical explosives that they were throwing around with abandon, as well as having bombed a major public event with loss of life and a huge level of injury. Of course the public (via its designated law enforcement agents) has a legitimate interest in establishing whether all possible explosive devices have been f…

Assuming that they have arrested the correct person This is not something that you get to assume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

To be fair, this was probably just a matter of phrasing on his part. Instead of using the word "assume" (triggering a pithy response) he should have stated this:

    If the man the police have arrested is indeed 
    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man implicated in the 
    bombings...
Post reply on HN