Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Wounded In Serious Condition, Will Get "Public Safety" Exception To Miranda

Tyler Durden's picture

The nightly developments continue as we learn next that Tsarnaev is in serious (or critical according to Bloomberg) condition in the hospital, with a gunshot wound to the neck and leg, and that perhaps just as importantly, he will not get his Miranda warning, instead the FBI is overruling due process and using the "public safety" exception instead.

The wound speak for themselves. Those wishing to learn in what circumstances the Miranda Rights can be overruled, read on.

From the FBI:

The "Public Safety" Exception to Miranda

After 44 years, the Miranda decision stands as a monolith in police procedure.1 Its requirements are so well known that the Supreme Court remarked, "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."2 And, although the Supreme Court has clarified and refined Miranda over the years, its central requirements are clear.3 Whenever the prosecution seeks in its direct case to introduce a statement made by a suspect while in custody and in response to interrogation, it must prove that the subject was warned of specific rights and voluntarily waived those rights.4 The penalty imposed on the prosecution for failing to prove that the Miranda procedures were properly followed is harsh. While some secondary and limited uses of statements obtained in violation of Miranda are permitted, such statements are presumed to be coerced and cannot be introduced by the prosecution in its direct case.5

The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.

Recent and well-publicized events, including the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 235 near Detroit, Michigan, on December 25, 2009, and the attempted bombing in New York City's Times Square in May 2010, highlight the importance of this exception.6 Those current events, occurring in a time of heightened vigilance against terrorist acts, place a spotlight on this law enforcement tool, which, although 26 years old, may play a vital role in protecting public safety while also permitting statements obtained under this exception to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. In brief, and as discussed in this article, police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights. This article discusses the origins of the public safety exception and provides guidance for law enforcement officers confronted with an emergency that may require interrogating a suspect held in custody about an imminent threat to public safety without providing Miranda warnings.


The origin of the public safety exception to Miranda, the case of New York v. Quarles, began in the early morning hours of September 11, 1980. While on routine patrol in Queens, New York, two New York City police officers were approached by a young woman who told them that she had just been raped. She described the assailant as a black male, approximately 6 feet tall, wearing a leather jacket with "Big Ben" printed in yellow letters on the back. The woman told the officers that the man had just entered a nearby supermarket and that he was carrying a gun.

The officers drove to the supermarket, and one entered the store while the other radioed for assistance. A man matching the description was near a checkout counter, but upon seeing the officer, ran to the back of the store. The officer pursued the subject, but lost sight of him for several seconds as the individual turned a corner at the end of an aisle. Upon finding the subject, the officer ordered him to stop and to put his hands over his head. As backup personnel arrived, the officer frisked the man and discovered he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. After handcuffing him, the officer asked where the gun was. The man gestured toward empty milk cartons and said, "The gun is over there." The officer found and removed a loaded handgun from a carton, formally placed the man under arrest, and then read the Miranda rights to him. The man waived his rights and answered questions about the ownership of the gun and where it was purchased.7

The state of New York charged the man, identified as Benjamin Quarles, for criminal possession of a weapon.8 The trial court excluded the statement "The gun is over there," as well as the handgun, on the grounds that the officer did not give Quarles the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona. 9 After an appellate court affirmed the decision, the case was appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.

The New York Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision by a 4 to 3 vote.10 According to the New York Court of Appeals, because Quarles responded "to the police interrogation while he was in custody, [and] before he had been given the preinterrogation warnings…," the lower courts properly suppressed the statement and the gun.11 The court refused to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda and noted that even if there were such an exception, there was "no evidence in the record before us that there were exigent circumstances posing a risk to the public safety or that the police interrogation was prompted by such concern."12 In dissent, Judge Watchler believed that there was a public safety exception to Miranda and that the facts presented such a situation. Judge Watchler noted that "Miranda was never intended to enable a criminal defendant to thwart official attempts to protect the general public against an imminent, immediate and grave risk of serious physical harm reasonably perceived."13 He also believed there was "a very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from a weapon being at large."14 The state of New York appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled on these facts that a public safety exception to Miranda existed. To understand how the Court reached this conclusion and the implications of this exception on the admissibility of the statement and the handgun, a consideration of a summary of the steps used by the Court is important.

The first step toward this conclusion was a discussion by the Court of the relationship between the Miranda requirements and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."15 The Fifth Amendment "does not prohibit all incriminating admissions," only those that are "officially coerced selfaccusations…." 16 In Miranda, the Supreme Court "for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police."17 Thus, Miranda created a presumption that "interrogation in custodial circumstances is inherently coercive" and that statements obtained under those circumstances "are inadmissible unless the subject is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights."18 Importantly, the Court noted that Miranda warnings were not required by the Constitution, but were prophylactic measures designed to provide protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. 19

After providing this explanation of the relationship between the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, the Court explained that Quarles did not claim that his statements were "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist."20 Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed. 21 And, in this regard, the Court explained that the failure to administer Miranda warnings does not, standing alone, make a confession involuntary in violation of the Constitution. 22

The Supreme Court then proceeded to determine whether the Miranda rule was implicated in this case and agreed with the New York Court of Appeals that it was. The Court agreed with the New York courts that Quarles was in custody. As the Court noted, "Quarles was surrounded by at least four police officers and was handcuffed when the questioning at issue took place."23 Therefore, on the facts of the case, the Court found that the Miranda decision was clearly implicated. The Court then referred to the determination by the New York courts that there was nothing in the record indicating that any of the police officers were concerned with their safety when they questioned Quarles. The Supreme Court noted that the New York Court of Appeals did not address the issue of whether there was an exception to Miranda in cases that involve a danger to the public "because the lower courts in New York made no factual determination that the police had acted with that motive."24

The Supreme Court chose to address whether a public safety exception to Miranda should exist. In this regard, the Court held that: "there is a 'public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved."25 Thus, according to the Court, without regard to the actual motivation of the individual officers, Miranda need not be strictly followed in situations "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."26

The Court then applied the facts to the situation confronting them when Quarles was arrested. In the course of arresting Quarles, it became apparent that Quarles had removed the handgun and discarded it within the store. While the location of the handgun remained undetermined, it posed a danger to public safety.27 In this case, the officer needed an answer to the question about the location of the gun to ensure that its concealment in a public location would not endanger the public. The immediate questioning of Quarles was directed specifically at resolving this emergency. Since the questioning of Quarles was prompted by concern for public safety, the officers were not required to provide Miranda warnings to Quarles first. Therefore, the statement made by Quarles about the location of the handgun was admissible.28 In addition, because the Court found there was no violation of Miranda, the handgun also was admissible. The Court declined to address whether the handgun would have been suppressed if the statements were found to be inadmissible.29


The Quarles case provides a framework that police officers can use to assess a particular situation, determine whether the exception is available, and ensure that their questioning remains within the scope of the rule. This framework includes the presence of a public safety concern, limited questioning, and voluntariness.

Limited Questioning

The Quarles Court made clear that only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of the public" were permitted under the public safety exception.35 In U.S. v. Khalil, New York City police officers raided an apartment in Brooklyn after they received information that Khalil and Abu Mezer had bombs in their apartment and were planning to detonate them.36 During the raid, both men were shot and wounded as one of them grabbed the gun of a police officer and the other crawled toward a black bag believed to contain a bomb. When the officers looked inside the black bag, they saw pipe bombs and observed that a switch on one bomb was flipped.

Officers went to the hospital to question Abu Mezer about the bombs. They asked Abu Mezer "how many bombs there were, how many switches were on each bomb, which wires should be cut to disarm the bombs, and whether there were any timers."37 Abu Mezer answered each question and also was asked whether he planned to kill himself in the explosion. He responded by saying, "Poof."38

Abu Mezer sought to suppress each of his statements, but the trial court permitted them, ruling that they fell within the public safety exception. On appeal, Abu Mezer only challenged the admissibility of the last question, whether he intended to kill himself when detonating the bombs. He claimed the question was unrelated to public safety. The circuit court disagreed and noted "Abu Mezer's vision as to whether or not he would survive his attempt to detonate the bomb had the potential for shedding light on the bomb's stability."39

A common theme throughout cases such as this is the importance of limiting the interrogation of a subject to questions directed at eliminating the emergency. Following Quarles, at least two federal circuit courts of appeals have addressed the issue of the effect of an invocation of a right on the exception. In U.S. v. De- Santis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the public safety exception applies even after the invocation of counsel.40 According to the court: "The same consideration that allows the police to dispense with providing Miranda warnings in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel."41

In U.S. v. Mobley, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the public safety exception applied even when the subject had invoked his right to counsel.42 The court recognized that a threat to public safety still may exist even after Miranda rights are provided and invoked.


The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
tsx500's picture

i hope this c-s'er is in serious seriously unbearable pain 

Race Car Driver's picture

> i hope this c-s'er is in serious seriously unbearable pain 

How big of you - asshole.

LetThemEatRand's picture

A 19 year old killed 3 people and seriously maimed a couple dozen.  Asshole?  Yes.  Fry him if he's guilty after a Constitutional jury trial?  Absolutely.  National security threat so Miranda is out the window?  Jesus FUCKING Christ.

Precious's picture

There is no Miranda right anymore. The Quarles case destroyed that. Just figure it out yourself. How can there be a "public safety" exception when a suspect is in handcuffs. That doesn't even pass the laugh test. End of story.

freedogger's picture

The narrative goes that he was out droppping pressure cookers allover the city before being arrested.

Stackers's picture

"Shut up! You dont get a lawyer. You're enemy combatant"

LetThemEatRand's picture

Keeping on ZH topic -- the algos know when you are guilty, like the drones.

strannick's picture

Miranda? CNBC and the police now decide guilt.

derek_vineyard's picture

how do the conspiracists reconcile the fact he was taken alive rather than the certain death they predicted?   i think their paranoid minds will rationalize some deeper conspiracy  (perhaps little men in blue suits will visit them while they sleep to explain)

James_Cole's picture

how do the conspiracists reconcile the fact he was taken alive rather than the certain death they predicted?   i think their paranoid minds will rationalize some deeper conspiracy 

Don't need conspiracy theories at this point, thousands of paramilitary police and lockdown of Boston to apprehend a 19 year old kid? Miranda rights exception for "Public Safety" reasons?

Yep, we've moved well beyond the need for conspiracy theories.  

And one other thing, with the amount of ammunition fired into the boat I doubt the police were hoping to take him alive...but I guess that is a crazy conspiracy theory. Still need a few I suppose. 

AldousHuxley's picture

probably some family issues. Father left family, mother went psycho, kids do crazy things and blame the world.

disabledvet's picture

Yep. Course gotta take the kids alive not so "they can come up with an alibi" but so they can actually say what their motivation was/still is. I look at these things (remotely of course) as a mystery to be figured out. And no...these kids doing this is not "inexplicable." just as anyone who's served in any of these war zones or any of these victims of these Terri attacks. "they could never do such a thing...they're great kids" blah blah blah. Same thing all the time. Of course you have to listen closely to the denial...there is a striking amount of truth in there that in fact these kids did do it by dint of simply "hearing" what is left out. (no mention of hanging out at radical web sites, talking to/with clerics promoting radical ideology. The fact that they already are on an FBI watch list, etc...etc...) great job ZH. Now we discover that unlike the MSM that simply provide cover stories for terrorists thus furthering and encouraging more terrorism this place actually divulges the ridiculous truth of these clowns...that they talk about this stuff before, during and after...that the authorities are not listening...or worse, and that when the manhunt gets underway the use of social information to literally put a stop to the whole thing immediately/before hand?? seems to be ignored.

GetZeeGold's picture




Living on a green card doesn't make you a citizen.....and only citizens get Miranda rights. exception needed.


Set the MSM spin machines to full turbo. All of a sudden they're worried about constitutional rights.....after all they've done to shred them.

samcontrol's picture

good point, i have no green card, don,t live in the US bu yet i fell somewhatt American, and that includes having almost NO rights.

GetZeeGold's picture



I wouldn't expect any rights if I blew the crap out of some people in France....which is why I wouldn't think of doing it.


I could care less what they do to rights seems about right to me.


Screw the whole UN citizen of the world crap. You pull that stunt in west Texas, you'd better hope the cops get to you first.

Ace Ventura's picture

Just FYI, this kid IS an American citizen. The now-dead older brother was the one with the green card. Since the Patriot Act and NDAA, your citizenship status is utterly meaningless. All it takes is for some nameless, faceless constumed-enforcer of the state to 'designate' you an 'enemy combatant'.


Citxmech's picture

GZG - regardless of what you expect, foregners on US soil do get basic protections under the Const.

pods's picture

I love these arguments about "citizen" and "US soil" pertaining to rights.

Cannot remember the boundaries specified or definitions of citizen, non-citizen, or brown man who won't accept FRNs for oil in the DOI?

But we all play the game of looking at rights as privileges and privileges as rights.

Just another day in that happy world of 1984.

We are a fucking empire. Any "rule" can be set aside for the betterment of the empire.

The sooner we all come to accept that little truth these arguments can cease.


James_Cole's picture

When the flag waving goes into full force, make sure to keep a close watch on your rights. 

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

TBT or not TBT's picture

With young male muzzles living in the west they end up angry because the women are liberated sexually and they are NOT. Muzzie males end up a mess because of the way Islam and islamicate cultures treat girls and women. Contact with women I the western world either sets them free or sets them off.

toys for tits's picture

That's the men in black.

Everyone on this site seems to be worried about this denial of the right to be mirandized.

We just have to remember that policies regarding the citizens of the US are made on the spot to fit the occasion.

The precedent allowing the government to intern any race for good reason has never been overturned.  The case is Korematsu v. United States. From the Supreme Court's order:


The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a "Military Area," contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General 216*216 of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed,[1] and the importance of the constitutional question involved caused us to grant certiorari.


It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.


We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Cf. Chastleton Corporation v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 547; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154-5. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. Cf. Ex parte Kawato, 317 U.S. 69, 73. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direct emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.



Some of the members of the Court are of the view that evacuation and detention in an Assembly Center were inseparable. After May 3, 1942, the date of Exclusion Order No. 34, Korematsu was under compulsion to leave the area not as he would choose but via an Assembly Center. The Assembly Center was conceived as a part of the machinery for group evacuation. The power to exclude includes the power to do it by force if necessary. And any forcible measure must necessarily entail some degree of detention or restraint whatever method of removal is selected. But whichever view is taken, it results in holding that the order under which petitioner was convicted was valid.


It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers — and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies — we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

From dissenter Justice Jackson explaining the effect of this order:

But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as "the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic."


Shooting Shark's picture

His peanut butter was better than we thought.

sun tzu's picture

He hasn't gone to trial yet, so he can still hang himself in jail or they can drug him up like they did to the Aurora shooter.

icanhasbailout's picture

recovering their asset to find out what he said and to whom

wee-weed up's picture

Looks to me like the FBI just screwed up...

and gave the perp's lawyers a nice juicy technicality to have the case thrown out - or at least endlessly appealed, ad nauseum.

francis_sawyer's picture

That's prolly why they decided to keep him alive... 2 dead perps & the story would fade away by barbecue season... Gotta keep the story fresh in people's minds, the World Series isn't until October...

smlbizman's picture

they will just bradley manning him.....purgatory....

Chuck Walla's picture

He is a Muslim, unlike any usual "white person", we must understand his rage. (See Maj. Hassan and the boys of Gitmo).  There every good feeling and ritual and belief must be respected and hallowed.


Just last night, Peerless Leader stated: Obama: "When a tragedy like this happens....Don't rush to judgements especially on groups of people."  Pity he doesn't extend this those he dislikes or the 2nd Amendment.



LetThemEatRand's picture

And remember that when "rule of law" is the model proposed as the alternative to Constitutional democracy.

lewy14's picture

Since the Government is just the People, this punk is just someone we all decided to arrest together.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Fortunately, we have branches.  Checks and balances.  Blah blah blah.  CNN, Fox and MSNBC all say he's guilty so fuck him.

Vince Clortho's picture

The "Government" is a bunch of puppets manipulated by a small group of uber-wealthy families and powerful corporations.

The "We, the people" of the Constitution is only a memory at this point.

lewy14's picture

Vince, I was hoping I wouldn't need the <sarc/> tag. Turns out I did.

freedogger's picture

The narrative goes that he was out droppping pressure cookers allover the city before being arrested.

quikwit's picture

No, "public safety" exception can make sense sometimes.  For example, if a suspect is in custody, and it is known that a time bomb has been set to go off in the next 10 minutes somewhere in a public place, the suspect may be interrogated in custody without a reading of Miranda rights to save the public from the time bomb.

Of course, there seems to be no factual basis for the exception to apply here.  But when has that ever stopped law enforcement?

LetThemEatRand's picture

Some assholes here are already saying that he MAY have a bomb somewhere else, therefore no rights.  Pretty easy to see how that exception swallows the Constitution.  Thanks, Hollywood for convincing the sheep that this shit happens.

quikwit's picture

Yeah, if you replace the requirement for hard evidence with "maybe," "plausibly," or "possibly," its as good as gutted.  If you go over to comments section of any mainstream online publication, the baying for blood on mere suspicion and rumor... it's so disheartening to see how little respect for due process our society actually has.

Pool Shark's picture



How many of you here decrying the Public Safety Exception to Miranda have actually taken the time to read the Quarles decision? Do you know what it says, and why it was developed?

How many of you have even read Miranda, Massiah, or Escobedo?

Do you know why the Miranda admonishment was established in the first place?

Did you even realize that a Miranda advisal is not a Constitutional right, but rather a prophylactic rule of evidence?

Seems this discussion could use a little less heat and a little more light... 

quikwit's picture

Law student here - read the cases.  If you re-read my previous comment, you'll understand I have no problem with there being a public safety exception.  I do have a problem with the exception being invoked without the right kind of evidence.  Whether the evidence is at hand can be debated, as some other commenters here have done.

And I do have a problem with the standard of evidence required to invoke the exception.  Each event sets a precedent.  If the exception keeps growing by weaking the evidentiary standard required, it will swallow the general rule.  And when you hear important people like Sen. Lindsay Graham advocate for a complete waiver of Constitutional rights for this US citizen, you have to worry about even little things like mere prophylactic rules.

As for your comment -- so what if it is a prophylactic rule?  Its grounds are still rooted in the 5th Amendment -- it's not some arbitrary procedural crap.  It also is Supreme Court-made law, and cannot be ignored.  And it is odd that you put down the <i>Miranda</i> case as merely stating a prophylactic rule, but so forcefully cite the cases defining an exception to it.

Seems you're the one needing some cooling off...

Popo's picture

Nobody is saying he should have "no rights".

Everyone here is pretty well versed in civil rights and the dangers (and realities) of our government trampling them. Everyone here witnessed the abuse of GITMO and has to live with the invasive bullshit of DHS.

Lets be clear:

These guys were exchanging *gunfire* with the cops. They were throwing explosive devices at the cops. The deceased suspect was found with an explosive device on his person. There is powerful case evidence of them being connected to a bombing which used a timed-explosive which killed and wounded large numbers of people.

The public safety statute was created with exactly this type of scenario in mind. This is not analogous to illegal DHS checkpoints or holding suspects without trial. This is about Miranda rights.

It's hardly an abuse of the public-safety statute to question him about additional explosives in the interest of public safety.

Nor is it an example of conveniently citing special powers to expand the role of government. This was clearly a legitimate threat.

And if two guys shooting at cops, throwing explosives at cops, found with explosives on their person, fleeing in a stolen car ... and by the way, who were photographed at the exact scene of a major terrorist attack .... if that isn't a legitimate enough threat to public safety.... What the fuck is?

James_Cole's picture

These guys were exchanging *gunfire* with the cops. They were throwing explosive devices at the cops. The deceased suspect was found with an explosive device on his person. There is powerful case evidence of them being connected to a bombing which used a timed-explosive which killed and wounded large numbers of people.

And if two guys shooting at cops, throwing explosives at cops, found with explosives on their person, fleeing in a stolen car ... and by the way, who were photographed at the exact scene of a major terrorist attack .... if that isn't a legitimate enough threat to public safety.... What the fuck is?

You're conflating multiple events. The police so far haven't given evidence for the public excemption at the point when he was taken into custody. 

Defaulting to assuming the police did the correct thing when constitutional rights are being played around with is always the wrong assumption imo. Have the police prove they were in the right first, always.

So far CNN is too busy fawning over what a great a job the police did to bother asking any questions. I'm sure they're eager to launch a full investigation into how the police handled this whole affair but *spoiler alert* fortunately the police did everything 100% correct. 

mess nonster's picture

Apparently these kids have been followed by the FBI for years. Could it be that, like so many others, they were set up to do the job?

Could it be possible that the FBI, or other security organs of the govt, ytrained these kids to build bombs, gave them guns and training, and encouraged them to bomb the marathon?

Of course, it all went wrong. Maybe CRAFT operatives were supposed to secure the bombs before they went off. maybe the bombs were not supposed to be live, or were designed in such a way as to be neutralized, but something went wrong.

The kids, set up to be patsies, but possessed of sterner stuff, exploded their bombs and got away. When cornered they faught back, using their training against their trainers.

Of course, they're stil patsies, and we'l never know why, or who's beghind it, but of course gun control is full steam ahead, and you and I have no more Constitutional protections- the objectives of the attack have been accomplished.

lewy14's picture

Don't bother arguing with people possessed of unfalsifiable beliefs.

TheMeatTrapper's picture

Sure he's a threat to public safety - but so is every other meth head, heroin addict, Federal Reserve banker  and murderer. The question is, is he a threat to the national security of the United States? 


Obviously he's no threat to the security of the nation which is what the Miranda exception was designed to account for. 

If they were afraid that there were ticking time bombs laying around, perhaps they shouldn't have let him bleed for an hour or more before moving in to affect arrest. 

azzhatter's picture

Bernanke is a terrorist. Does he get miranda?

LetThemEatRand's picture

Then fucking easy jury trial.  Hope the DOJ doesn't lose a bunch of that clear evidence that made it a no-brainer just before the trial, though.

Henry Hub's picture

***It's hardly an abuse of the public-safety statute to question him about additional explosives in the interest of public safety.***

I don't object to this. It's the electrodes on the testicles that I object to.

percyklein's picture

In an effort to bring some sanity to this thread, I have a new question: where are they going to find jurors for this one -- jurors whose minds are not already made up after watching this stuff and reading about it? Hmmm?

Vooter's picture

"It's hardly an abuse of the public-safety statute to question him about additional explosives in the interest of public safety."

ANSWER THE QUESTION: HOW IS NOT READING HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS GOING TO MAKE HIM TALK? Is this some sort of magic wand thing? "We have chosen not to read you your Miranda you MUST tell us where the bomb is!" LOL...