Page 37 of 58 FirstFirst ... 2733343536373839404147 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 862
Like Tree640Likes

Thread: Explosions at Boston Marathon

  1. #541
    Elite Member southernbelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,578

    Default

    The huge stain is probably lividity, which occurs when blood pools in a dead body.

  2. #542
    Elite Member Kathie_Moffett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    just another freak in the freak kingdom
    Posts
    6,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by southernbelle View Post
    The huge stain is probably lividity, which occurs when blood pools in a dead body.
    That would make sense. If it's where he was run over, I'd think that the car would have crushed his jaw. The stain does resemble examples of lividity I've seen in other photos. It was also said that the redness was burns from a blast device he was wearing, but I'd expect to see more extensive tissue damage too in that case. Anyway, I don't have any doubt it was Tamerlan. He had very distinctive features.

    Everything I read about that guy makes him sound like such a psychologically inadequate, violent, whiny prick. Nobody is talking about his wife and child. I hope they're okay. Apparently he was a wife-beater...no surprise there. Can't say he was inconsistent!
    Brookie likes this.
    Did you know that every time a parent gives in to their kid's whines and buys them candy at the checkout lane, a kitten gets diabetes?-Dlisted
    I dislike groups of people, but I love individuals. Every person you look at, you can see the universe in their eyes, if you're really looking.
    -George Carlin

  3. #543
    Elite Member angelais's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Jon Hamm's pants
    Posts
    12,751

    Default

    According to TMZ the suspect is now able to speak and is answering questions. Yeah, I know we're talking about TMZ here. Just passing along what their version of events is.
    Did you know that an anagram for "Conscious Uncoupling" is "Iconic Uncool Pus Guns"? - MohandasKGanja

  4. #544
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by southernbelle View Post
    The huge stain is probably lividity, which occurs when blood pools in a dead body.
    Good point, Southernbelle. I know I would be livid if my own brother ran over me.
    Brookie, laynes, Sylkyn and 3 others like this.

  5. #545
    Elite Member angelais's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Jon Hamm's pants
    Posts
    12,751

    Default

    Not only livid, but flattened like a pancake.
    Did you know that an anagram for "Conscious Uncoupling" is "Iconic Uncool Pus Guns"? - MohandasKGanja

  6. #546
    A*O
    A*O is offline
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! A*O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Being Paula
    Posts
    30,269

    Default

    I see the civil/human rights bleeding hearts are now fretting that our friend wasn't read his rights correctly when half the Boston police force arrested him.
    I've never liked lesbianism - it leaves a bad taste in my mouth
    Dame Edna Everage

    Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

  7. #547
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A*O View Post
    I see the civil/human rights bleeding hearts are now fretting that our friend wasn't read his rights correctly when half the Boston police force arrested him.
    I'm reading that the issue is whether he will be read his rights NOW before questioning, which now seems like a good thing to do - no grounds for appeals.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  8. #548
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    53,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A*O View Post
    I see the civil/human rights bleeding hearts are now fretting that our friend wasn't read his rights correctly when half the Boston police force arrested him.
    Leaving aside the name calling, that's just not true. It wasn't that his rights weren't read correctly, it's that they have no intention of reading them. At all. It's not about this guy; it's about everyone. It's about the police deciding if you get rights which doesn't make them rights does it? They can be taken away with no oversight. The police have gained nothing by not doing this and it is completely unnecessary. They never needed to do this to convict McVeigh or shoe on plane dude or any of the others over the years.
    olivia, MontanaMama and Karistiona like this.

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

    -- Stephen Hawking

  9. #549
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,259

    Default

    He still has his right to remain silent and request an attorney. He didn't lose that right. However, he did lose the right, via the Public Safety Exception, of having those rights read to him before they start questioning him. Because this guy 1) made multiple unexploded bombs (meaning multiple targets), 2) had a now-dead brother who traveled abroad and met unknown groups who possibly funded this attack and spree, and 3) had an arsenal at his disposal to fight off law enforcement personnel, I think this is a good use of the Public Safety Exception so that we might find out what other danger might be posed by this guy and anyone who worked with him.

  10. #550
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    53,574

    Default

    The article from Mohandas' link

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

    When the law gets bent out of shape for him, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.

    By Emily Bazelon|Posted Friday, April 19, 2013, at 11:29 PM



    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
    Photo provided by FBI via Getty Images

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night. He will have to remember on his own that he has a right to a lawyer, and that anything he says can be used against him in court, because the government won’t tell him. This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.”

    There is one specific circumstance in which it makes sense to hold off on Miranda. It’s exactly what the name of the exception suggests. The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario. And that should trouble anyone who worries about the police railroading suspects, which can end in false confessions. No matter how unsympathetic accused terrorists are, the precedents the government sets for them matter outside the easy context of questioning them. When the law gets bent out of shape for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.

    Here’s the legal history. 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.


    Fine. Good, even—that gun could have put other people in danger. Things start to get murkier in 2002, after the FBI bobbled the interrogation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th 9/11 hijacker—the one who didn’t get on the plane—former FBI special agent Coleen Rowley wrote amemo pleading that "if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal, (an objective I totally agree with), we need more guidance on when we can apply the Quarles 'public safety' exception to Miranda's 5th Amendment requirements." For a while, nothing much happened.

    Then the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was apprehended in December 2009, before he could blow up a plane bound for Detroit. The FBI invoked the public safety exception and interrogated. When the agents stopped questioning Abdulmutallab after 50 minutes and Mirandized him—after getting what they said was valuable information— Abdulmutallab asked for a lawyer and stopped talking. Republicans in Congress denounced the Obama administration for going soft.

    Next came Faisal Shahzad, caught for attempting to bomb Times Square in May 2010. He was interrogated without Miranda warnings via the public safety exception, and again, the FBI said it got useful information. This time, when the suspect was read his rights, he kept talking. But that didn’t stop Sen. John McCain and then Sen. Christopher Bond from railing against Miranda. "We've got to be far less interested in protecting the privacy rights of these terrorists than in collecting information that may lead us to details of broader schemes to carry out attacks in the United States," Bond said. "When we detain terrorism suspects, our top priority should be finding out what intelligence they have that could prevent future attacks and save American lives," McCain said. "Our priority should not be telling them they have a right to remain silent."

    Holder started talking about a bill to broadly expand the exception to Miranda a few months later. Nothing came of that idea, but in October of 2010, Holder’s Justice Department took it upon itself to widen the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling. “Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,” stated a DoJ memo to the FBIthat wasn’t disclosed at the time. Again, fine and good. But the memo continues, “there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

    Who gets to make this determination? The FBI, in consultation with DoJ, if possible. In other words, the police and the prosecutors, with no one to check their power.

    The New York Times published the Justice Department’s memo in March 2011. The Supreme Court has yet to consider this hole the Obama administration has torn in Miranda. In fact, no court has, as far as I can tell.

    And so the FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.” Couldn’t that be just about anything about Tsarnaev’s life, or his family, given that his alleged accomplice was his older brother (killed in a shootout with police)? There won’t be a public uproar. Whatever the FBI learns will be secret: We won’t know how far the interrogation went. And besides, no one is crying over the rights of the young man who is accused of killing innocent people, helping his brother set off bombs that were loaded to maim, and terrorizing Boston Thursday night and Friday. But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.


    olivia likes this.

    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

    -- Stephen Hawking

  11. #551
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,259

    Default

    Correct, Twitchy. The article states:

    There is one specific circumstance in which it makes sense to hold off on Miranda. It’s exactly what the name of the exception suggests. The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Tsarnaev.

    So, in that sense, I think the article is supporting what I said.

    The article is also making the case that Eric Holder has opened up the interpretation of the Public Safety Exception to the point where it could be used for cases where the is not an immediate threat. I understand the problem with that. What I am saying is that even if Holder hadn't done that, this option would still be on the table for the investigators and because of the circumstances of the case, it would be correct to use the Public Safety Exception.

  12. #552
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    50,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A*O View Post
    I see the civil/human rights bleeding hearts are now fretting that our friend wasn't read his rights correctly when half the Boston police force arrested him.
    It's not about being a 'bleeding heart' or that we care about this kid being treated right, it's about the law being applied and rights respected. They shouldn't get to pick and choose, those rights either exist or they don't, it doesn't matter what crime someone commits or how hated a criminal is, it's about the rule of law. Although I guess since you live in a country that has no problem with putting asylum seekers in quasi concentration camps, your perception might be a tad skewed.

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    Leaving aside the name calling, that's just not true. It wasn't that his rights weren't read correctly, it's that they have no intention of reading them. At all. It's not about this guy; it's about everyone. It's about the police deciding if you get rights which doesn't make them rights does it? They can be taken away with no oversight. The police have gained nothing by not doing this and it is completely unnecessary. They never needed to do this to convict McVeigh or shoe on plane dude or any of the others over the years.
    This.
    olivia and faithanne like this.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  13. #553
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Ok, the accounts weren't frozen. The brothers stopped at the 7-11 for gas maybe, maybe not, but the 7-11 did get robbed by someone else. The MIT cop was checking out the scene when something happened. Either he recognized the brothers or the brothers became jumpy and killed him. It looks like it was pure chance that MIT cop and brothers intersected.

    It's all very confusing and contradictory. Unless you're a info junkie, like me, it's very frustrating.
    The events that occurred that night are pretty confusing. The cop was found shot to death in his car, not at the robbery scene. At this point no one knows what prompted the brothers to shoot him. (Supposedly during the car-jacking they mentioned to the person they jacked that they were the ones who had bombed the marathon and shot the cop.) I am also not sure the suspects were at the convenience store at the exact time it was robbed...though it would have to have been pretty close, I'd think, for them to happen to see the suspect on the surveillance tape.

    As for the lack of Miranda, I have mixed feelings. There is no excuse for them not to mirandize him before they question him now, as there's no convincing imminent danger.
    Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

  14. #554
    Elite Member Bellatheball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    17,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    Leaving aside the name calling, that's just not true. It wasn't that his rights weren't read correctly, it's that they have no intention of reading them. At all. It's not about this guy; it's about everyone. It's about the police deciding if you get rights which doesn't make them rights does it? They can be taken away with no oversight. The police have gained nothing by not doing this and it is completely unnecessary. They never needed to do this to convict McVeigh or shoe on plane dude or any of the others over the years.
    How very Libertarian of you!

    I can see both sides to the argument but am increasingly wary of the power our government continues to gain over its people. If exceptions are so easily made in the face of fear, there will never be any absolutes, which means citizens are at the mercy of their government. Scary.



    Lots of things don't seem to be adding up in this story. It will be interesting to see how the dust settles.

  15. #555
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,259

    Default

    There is still a good excuse not to Mirandize him. First of all, it isn't clear who provided him with explosives and guns. Or whether someone was helping him in either the US or from another country. We aren't entirely sure either whether there are more bombs out there that could inadvertently blow up. We are not trying to gather information at this point to aid in his murder or terrorist conviction. Gov. Deval Patrick has already said that there is videotape evidence of Dzhokhar putting the backpack down at the second location, and then walking away before it explodes. There will be testimony from police officers who were in the first gunfight with Dhzokar and his brother. And police officers who engaged with him in the final gunfight. There is already evidence to put him away forever and/or execute him after conviction.

    The reason for questioning him now is to figure out what the remaining threat to public safety is before he clams up and hides behind a lawyer. And that is allowable under the Public Safety Exception. That Exception was not made during the 9/11 era, but back in 1984 (New York v. Quarles), and had to do with a police officer catching a rape suspect who had been identified by the victim as having a gun. When the officer arrested him in a store, the rape suspect had an empty holster. The officer asked the suspect where the gun was, and the suspect stupidly told him it was in a stack of boxes nearby.
    southernbelle, ManxMouse and rollo like this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 7th, 2013, 01:34 AM
  2. Stockholm explosions suicide attack: Swedish television
    By celeb_2006 in forum Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 14th, 2010, 08:05 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 6th, 2010, 10:47 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 12:37 PM
  5. No Boston Marathon for Katie Holmes
    By Honey in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: January 14th, 2008, 11:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •