I’m so impressed in the way Dzhokar Tsarnaev was captured alive by professional law enforcement. The Federal and State and local law enforcement performed as if they had done this several times before (which they haven’t) using the knowledge they acquired from intensive terrorism training. Think about this when you prefer low property taxes over training for such events; this is an item tax protesters put into the debt column. I don’t think we will ever see a large city like Boston and the surrounding communities being put into a lock down ever again. Perhaps many of you got to see a rare picture of Boston without traffic. I give a lot a credit to the people who complied and stayed indoors, rather than try to confront the suspect. Then again, this is another situation where a lot of the homeowners in Watertown probably had guns but were afraid to confront a nut case who might have had more firepower than they did and was not fearful of using it. When I saw the overwhelming amount of law enforcement on the scene, I deviously thought about those blowhards who brag that they want to buy the baddest guns on the planet to fight off a tyrannical government coming for their guns. Good luck with that. Wasn’t it heartwarming to see all those clapping and cheering for the first responders as they were leaving the area?
Now that the subject is caught and recuperating from his wounds the controversy will begin over giving him his Miranda rights and a civilian trial. It’s primarily a Federal case because terrorism (possible international terrorism involvement) so the feds will use the “public-safety safety exception” to ask Dzhokar the obvious questions such as who else was involved, are they any more bombs and why they did it. After 48 hours, he will have a lawyer, and his Miranda Rights read to him but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he will clam up. What he says prior to him being read his Miranda Rights can be used in a court of law. That ruling is far below his constitutional rights, so I don’t know why people aren’t satisfied with that. . I hope the Atty. General doesn’t give in to those who want him tried in a military court. Justice would be served if he was tried in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I agree with a pundit who said that the scene of the people cheering law enforcement and shouting”USA USA” is not what the terrorists of the world wanted to see. Boston doesn’t have near as many cameras as New York, but I bet as soon as the City Council meets; a lot more will be ordered. Cameras are a deterrent to terrorism because I just can’t imagine that the two Boston Marathon bombers thought they would ever see their pictures splattered on the nightly news. True, they weren’t the sharpest terrorist in the world because they stayed in the vicinity not knowing our capability of putting together video from citizens and store owners.
5 comments:
Let me say that I think the officials involved did a spectacular job. They are to be commended, but sadly, many of the federal officers are going to be furloughed...but I digress.
There is some chatter over on Facebook about this guys and his Miranda Warning. I'd like to clear up a little confusion about the Miranda Warning. Many folks think it is a requirement adjacent to an arrest. It really is more of a procedural or policy thing. Law Enforcement can arrest folks all day long and not read them their 'rights'. Here's why (and I am going to copy and paste straight from Wikipedia because they have a simple, clear explanation):
"The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial."
In other words--You can chat the criminal up all you want without have explained his rights, but you can do zip with the information you obtain. In that regard, yes, it is required. It’s required after the ‘if’. IF you want to use the information you obtained, then your detainee must have been advised of his right not to speak to you and why. It became 'policy' in LE to do this. It saved losing all the hard work of a case for a few words and a minute of time. It's just the smart thing to do and it is absolutely a 'cover your ass' kind of policy.
So why would you not Mirandize someone who is detained, if your goal is to get information you could use? I understand where Lindsay Graham is trying to go, but I think to do so would be hindering the future work of the investigators.
The internet and cell phone cameras have shrunk the world...
That's all true but the Feds came up with the "public safety exception" where they can question him up to 48 hrs. without reading him his Miranda rights AND that info can be used against him. Best of all worlds.
Here is another case:"In the 1984 case New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court carved out the public safety exception for a man suspected of rape. The victim said her assailant had a gun, and he was wearing an empty holster. So the police asked him where the gun was before reading him his Miranda rights. That exception was allowable, the court said, because of the immediate threat that the gun posed."....The feds can say they fear more bombs out there or other terrorist.
Absolutely,we do not want to lose this guy for violating his constitutional rights.
Good point ,how quickly we forget about the sequester.
Lindsay Graham wants everyone at Gitmo like Susan Collins because they must think there are magical powers there..The Christmas Day bomber was given his Miranda rights and kept talking and then found guilty in a Fed court.
As Tom Freidman said " call phones and the Internet have made the world flatter."
April 21 (Reuters) - The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, who was seriously wounded and unable to speak, is awake and responding in writing to questions from authorities, according to a Tweets by ABC and NBC news networks.
Post a Comment