tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post5236058238094060217..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: "Failing to Mirandize Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not, in and of itself, a violation of his rights. "mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13096776225451306952013-04-27T17:00:31.202-04:002013-04-27T17:00:31.202-04:00Michael,
I'm bemused at your certainty. '...Michael,<br /><br />I'm bemused at your certainty. 'Presumption of innocence' is a right. He hasn't been put before a court and had the evidence tested yet. The evidence so far to me seems to be circumstantial. Video of the suspect carrying a black bag similar in appearance to that damaged by the explosion. Suspicious behaviour. Having an odd name.<br /><br />Further investigation might provide better evidence. For example a bomb fragment with a finger print of the suspect. It's still early days in the investigation.<br /><br />Prosecutors like to have as much evidence as possible to make it difficult for a defence counsel to cast doubt on the entire prosecution case. A confession, particularly if it is consistent with physical evidence not publicly revealed, would be useful.<br /><br />The courts are, and should be, independent of the political process. If you think that politicians have the power to ensure a conviction, then you belong to Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany.<br /><br />Actually, I don't know why the courts waste time and money carrying out trials. All they'd need to do is to ask you for the verdict. You've already given the verdict in the Boston bombing. You gave the verdict in the Colorado Catholic hospital malpractice suit (assuming that the court hadn't dismissed the case on the basis that 7 month gestation twins didn't have the rights of persons), despite my noting on several occasions that the Catholic hospital had an extremely good case and would have won on the facts.<br /><br />There's also no need for appeals courts, because you're also extremely well qualified to point out where the original courts, after hearing all the evidence, have gone wrong.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-81628558996010516952013-04-27T10:01:37.184-04:002013-04-27T10:01:37.184-04:00Ilion:
You hit the nail on the head. Mirandizing ...Ilion:<br /><br />You hit the nail on the head. Mirandizing Tsarnaev is the same as gun control and welfare and global warming abatement and a host of brainless liberal programs. They actually do no help-- in fact they do much harm-- but they are an opportunity to fetish and preen, which, along with acquiring power, is all liberalism is about anyway. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79041564896693387812013-04-27T09:55:33.282-04:002013-04-27T09:55:33.282-04:00Francisca:
I understand, and agree. But he won...Francisca:<br /><br />I understand, and agree. But he won't go free. The political consequences of such would be devastating to the Left, and they know it. <br /><br />There would be insurrection. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88784422806816972882013-04-27T09:18:34.765-04:002013-04-27T09:18:34.765-04:00"Why, then, was Tsarnaev Mirandized?"
B..."<i>Why, then, was Tsarnaev Mirandized?</i>"<br /><br />Because "liberals" are <i>fetishists</i>.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8590631103820652212013-04-27T09:06:03.957-04:002013-04-27T09:06:03.957-04:00I don't know much about this. All I know is th...I don't know much about this. All I know is that I don't want this man to go free because of a technicality. <br /><br />--Francisca S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13879144260970255492013-04-27T08:28:33.538-04:002013-04-27T08:28:33.538-04:00Here is Andy McCarthy, a former Assistant United S...Here is <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346785/obama%E2%80%99s-national-security-fraud/page/0/1" rel="nofollow">Andy McCarthy</a>, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and now a National Review expert on criminal procedures. <br /><br /><i>Most people, of course, realize that this is impossible if Miranda warnings must be given. So the administration rolls out canard No. 1: the “public-safety exception.” The public is led to believe that this exception means agents have at least 48 hours of freewheeling interrogation before Miranda kicks in and the terrorist clams up (upon lawyering up). This is brazenly false.<br /><br />The public-safety exception is an exceedingly limited end-around. It applies only when arrest is accompanied by an immediate threat to public safety. It is not designed to provide the government with an information-gathering advantage against the arrestee. It is narrowly tailored to address the threat that triggers the exception.<br /><br />There is no 48 hours. The exception ends when the threat ends — which, in the view of most courts, happens as soon as the detainee is rendered defenseless. This usually amounts to something closer to 48 seconds than to 48 hours. Moreover, the exception is not a license to do an extensive intelligence debriefing; the pre-Miranda questioning must be tailored to the threat — along the lines of, “Where is the gun?” or “Where are the unexploded bombs?” The public-safety exception does not cover “Where did your brother get terrorist training in Dagestan?”</i> <br /><br />You are out of your depth, doc.<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51930383974799303692013-04-27T08:09:40.541-04:002013-04-27T08:09:40.541-04:00Egnor: "Miranda warnings are an aid to prosec...Egnor: "Miranda warnings are an aid to prosecutors, not suspects, and are not constitutionally required, if prosecutors accept that they cannot use the suspect's statement at trial." <br /><br />Still wrong. The law student writing in the <i>Atlantic</i> specifically states that <i>Miranda</i> protects the Fifth-Amendment rights. Thus <i>Miranda</i> protects the rights of suspects. It's the public safety exception that aids prosecution. <br /><br />And under the public safety exception, un-Mirandized statements can be used at trial. The article specifically mentions that: "What the public-safety exception does -- if and only if a court determines that the exception was properly invoked -- is render Tsarnaev's unwarned statements admissible as evidence where they otherwise would not be."<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com