This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

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.

ORIGIN OF THE RULE

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

FRAMEWORK OF THE EXCEPTION

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:23 | 3476201 Oliver Klozoff
Oliver Klozoff's picture

And it will KILL YOU if you breathe in enough of it which ain't much.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6107a2.htm

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:19 | 3476300 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Dichloromethane is pretty nasty, and easily available without supervision. A particularly effective respiratory irritant, and it also acts as a "permeation enhancer", allowing things through the skin that would otherwise not be readily absorbed.

All in all, something that "should" be banned for use by the general Public, but which is not . . . .

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 02:17 | 3476361 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Outlawed right up there with pressure cookers...

and right after they ban scary black guns.

Go   suck   Bloomturd   cock.

Have you ever looked at the damn list of warnings that are required with chemical solvents and strippers these days - they pratically have a damn phoneboook attached to a one-quart can (except for with Linseed Oil - but then common sense and regulation are INCOMPATIBLE).  

 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 05:22 | 3476466 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

BECAUSE of lack of commonsense, combined with a particularly litiginous society ("I'll sue you for everything" mindset), the Manufacturers HAVE to append extensive dcoumentation with mandated text!

Nowadays a simple "Poison- Not a good idea to abuse!" label is just not enough. So, we get the 'phonebook, and no-one reads it. So the entire effort is completely wasted.

I'm not particularly keen on any restriction on the rights to purchase, but with the costs of healthcare rocketing, maybe a little "help" in preventing preventable accidents might not be so bad a thing?

Icidentally, if it wasn't for a very dumb population, commonsense would work just fine (e.g. red light - stop!). Unfortunately commonsense requires a degree of sense - and that's now a thing of the past - seemingly everywhere.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 06:56 | 3476525 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

And where does it stop...

Outlaw all cleaning products with ammonia or bleach?

Outlaw home rust removal on metal objects?

Outlaw green energy (storage)?

Outlaw smoke detectors?

Outlaw McDonalds?

Outlaw power tools?

Outlaw kitchen cutlery?

 

Dead idiots are preferable to a fascist nanny state, the phone-book of warnings would be justifiable if it eliminated litigation risk, but since it doesn't - I would posit that tort reform is preferable to (more) healthcare reform coupled with restrictions on civil liberties.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 23:59 | 3479355 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Should ban guns, Big-Gulps and french fries too, I suppose.

Are you another one of those "government is bad, unless they are doing what I like" guys?

Those people trip me out. "Government bad, bad, bad, but don't touch those union "laws," my mom's SS, my farm subsidies and the local indoctrination center that my kids 'attend.'"

Government is either a cabal of murderous criminals or they are not.      hujel

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:18 | 3475976 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

What about his FBI handlers that put him and them up to it, financed them and supplied the material. Maybe you should wish the same on them.

Look it up, EVERY "foiled" domestic "attack" since 2001,except the Times Square one, was instigated by the FBI using setup patsy stooges.

Even a book has been written called "Manufacturing Terror.". hujel

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:19 | 3475978 DawgAss
DawgAss's picture

If Holder, speaking of ass-holes, had his way, he would have had a drone up is ass in a NY minute!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:04 | 3475530 Popo
Popo's picture

This an absolutely justifiable use of the public safety exception, btw. This is exactly what it's there for. No Miranda necessary at all.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:05 | 3475551 Jim B
Jim B's picture

Agree! As long as we are not sending a citizen to GITMO per Lindsey Loser Grahams recommendation! 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:08 | 3475577 Popo
Popo's picture

The exact scenario they always talk about when describing the public-safety exception is, "Let's say you have a suspect who concealed a bomb on a timer, and you need to question him..."

That's pretty damn close to the scenario at hand.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:18 | 3475641 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

He was hiding in a fucking boat in someone's backyard.  Even if you assume he's guilty (which you do) because MSM says so, Jesus FUCKING Christ.  Throw the fucking Constitution out -- he killed people according to the police!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:24 | 3475679 Popo
Popo's picture

You're misunderstanding the public-safety provision. It IS within the law. You're pretending that they're going outside the law to bring this guy to questioning. The law very carefully provides special exceptions for potential threats to immediate public safety. That's what this is.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:28 | 3475686 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

One word answer:  MOFOPOPO.   And I'll add -- go fuck yourself you fucking Nazi.  I live in a Constitutional Republic.  He's 19.  He was hiding in a boat.  There were hundreds of police surrounding the guy.  Where was the threat tothe public?  Seriously.  

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:28 | 3475700 Popo
Popo's picture

If you're pretending that is represents some brand new incursion of civil liberties, you're an idiot.

This is a long-standing statute to Miranda and this is precisely the scenario anticipated by the statute.

If it bothers you I suggest you mail your Congressman a tea bag.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:31 | 3475718 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Thank you for making my point.  Asshole.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:37 | 3475754 Popo
Popo's picture

And you're a fucking psychic. Because you know with 100% confidence that there are no more bombs?

Tell us all how you know that? Is it your magical hunch? Or is there just a self-righteous stick wedged so deeply in your ass that you think you have the moral high ground here?

You keep refusing to acknowledge THE POINT of the public safety statute.

THE PUBLIC.

Douchebag.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:42 | 3475771 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

No, you are the psychic one.  Because you suspect that he's guilty, you may suspend his rights and burn him alive.  Asshole.  If your moniker is accurate, you are police with a sense of irony and probably contempt for those who question your authority.  You swore an oath.  Lie much fucktard?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:43 | 3475787 Popo
Popo's picture

Burn him alive? Who's doing that?

They're just not reading him his Miranda.

They're not taking him to GITMO.

There's a very real public safety threat here. Do you agree or not? Is that simple.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:45 | 3475799 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

No, I don't agree self-appointed judge and jury.  He was surrounded by hundreds of police.   He was less threat to the public than a drunk driver trying to check out the scene of the police state orgy.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:55 | 3475847 Popo
Popo's picture

Again, you're trying another straw man argument.

No one is "burning" him. And no one is convicting him as a "judge and jury".

You're inventing your own scenario to argue against.

Try to stay on topic.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:58 | 3475870 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Just go fuck yourself (or up arrow yourself, your choice unless one of your superior police officers thinks it violates a law in which case you'll burn in a boat).

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:57 | 3475865 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

You always confirm for me that Liberalism is a mental disorder.  They were of no threat!  They were innnocent and framed.  Disregard that they were carjacking, shootin and throwing bmbs at the police while trying to escape.  That was special effects.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:00 | 3475883 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Fuck the Constitution.  Channel 9 said he's guilty.  I know I was afraid (like you) until they caught him in some guy's backyard.  Glad that your fear is sufficient to toss out 200 years of Constitutional government.  Fuckhead.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:10 | 3475946 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Yeah, Like you suddenly care about the Constittution.  Just admit you love the nanny state.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:15 | 3475956 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I care about the Constitution when it is not convenient.  Anyone who feels otherwise does not understand what it means.  Like you.  How's Hannity's hair tonight?  So sexy.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:30 | 3476007 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"I care about the Constitution when... " it helps me divert an argument.  You don't care about the innocent victims or justice, you care that this incident makes your Barry look bad.  That's all!  He's not bringing peace with the muzzies like people expected.  This story will be quickly spun or just shelved by MSM like Bengazhi.  Either way it's not Barrys fault.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:24 | 3476205 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Blah blah blah. There will be more victims, many more, if you deny the Constitution. You won't bring Justice, just fear and control.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:34 | 3476217 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

But if Hannity and O'Reilly had drunk sex and had a kid and it was raised by Rush, it would fucking ROCK [Hudson]!  It's okay, if it's a three-way.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:15 | 3476291 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I don't know what people are smoking tonight.  I have the village progressive telling me about how he supports the Constitution and people arguing over whether or not "the suspect" should be read his "Miranda Rights", which are not even a part of the fckng Constitution. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:39 | 3476318 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you agree that CNN is always right?  And it's fucking, not fcking.  It's a free fucking country, spell it until you have your fucking way and we have to edit out the "u".

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:29 | 3476015 The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

I care about the Constitution when it is not convenient.

+10

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:54 | 3476114 MS7
MS7's picture

The people on this site who think this guy was framed or that he was trained by the FBI or whatever are not liberals. I don't think the bombers were set up but maybe there is some story behind this that the government doesn't want us to know about. When you allow police to get around the rules it makes it easier for them to conceal things.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:34 | 3476223 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

There are exactly 10 liberals on this website.  9 of them are pretend.  

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:06 | 3476922 DOT
DOT's picture

Missed one pretender there LTER.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:42 | 3475788 Popo
Popo's picture

Burn him alive? Who's doing that?

They're just not reading him his Miranda.

They're not taking him to GITMO.

There's a very real public safety threat here. Do you agree or not? Is that simple.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:46 | 3475802 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Up arrow yourself much mofopopo?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:57 | 3475855 Popo
Popo's picture

Straw man.

Ad hominem.

This thread is over. Good luck.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:01 | 3475891 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I down arrowed you, mofopopo.  Now arrest me you fucking Nazi fuck.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:10 | 3475944 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yeah, I wouldn't bet on him not going to Gitmo, or some other secret prison.

FUCK PUBLIC SAFETY.  Rights are more important.  And how hard is it to read someone their rights anyways?  Ok, maybe they ask him where the bombs are first, THEN read him his rights (you know, which was the intention of the exception in the first place), but these guys aren't going to read them AT ALL.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:22 | 3475993 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

They love rolling out the "ticking time bomb" scenario, like it ever happens.

But if it did come up...

Then I would do what I had to do knowing THAT I WAS OUTSIDE THE LAW!!

Cunty, Constitution hating cowards!!

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:35 | 3476224 McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

These people who bring up the "ticking time bomb" scenario have seen far too many episodes of 24, which, in retrospect, seems like a program solely designed to make people become accustomed to the government throwing out the rule of law in the name of "public safety."

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:14 | 3476287 Alpha Monkey
Alpha Monkey's picture

Uh... no shit, along with every other show out there that portrays cops "going rogue" to "get the bad guy".  People eat this shit up and it infects their sense of reason.  So... is it propaganda, or art imitating life, imitating art?  Who can say.  I lean towards propaganda.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:37 | 3476228 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

There is a ticking time bumb because I said so.  Now tell me who is posting on ZH!

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:41 | 3476322 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

here's a very real public safety threat here. Do you agree or not? Is that simple.

 

Being a threat to public safety is not grounds for stripping him of his rights. Being a threat to national security is. Can you not grasp the difference between the two, or do you simply wish to pretend that there is no difference?

A murderer is a threat to public safety, yet we do not strip them of their rights. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:52 | 3476334 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

So, ONE PERSON is a VERY REAL Public Safety threat in the home of the TSA and Homeland Security (just for starters!).

Just imagine the fun you'll all be having when they either arrive in droves, or hundreds of "covert operatives" - Suicide Bombers to those in the ME Countries - are told "the time is right" to "do their thing".

Add in the statements in the MSM that this particular individual was on an FBI "Watch List" - and the fact that he did what he is alleged to have done, beggars belief in the "Police State" mentality.

If the "Security Forces" are unable to prevent such an action by an allegedly KNOWN suspect, allegedly "under surveillance", that what exactly is the purpose of Homeland Security and / or TSA?

The more I hear, the more I suspect that these agencies have nothing to do with "real" security, but a hell of a lot to do with "softening up" public perceptions and expectations, in preparation for some very, VERY serious erosions of what used to be known as "rights".

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:40 | 3477030 Vooter
Vooter's picture

"There's a very real public safety threat here."

LOL...again, how does not Mirandizing him address that threat? ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:31 | 3476000 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

your days of reading people's fortunes are over. Nice guess for someone who wouldn't know any better. My avatar (Johnny Cash) has ONE for you!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:45 | 3475793 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Stop with the nonsense. That kind of logic is what put and kept the Nazi's in power. Using "FEAR". "Public safety claims" cannot and should not override human rights.

 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:49 | 3475824 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

You mean the CONSTITUTION. There, fixed it!

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:19 | 3476189 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Thank you

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:40 | 3477022 Vooter
Vooter's picture

HOW IS NOT MIRANDIZING HIM GOING TO MAKE HIM TELL YOU WHERE THE OTHER BOMBS ARE??? What are you, fucking retarded???

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:48 | 3475812 buzzardsluck
buzzardsluck's picture

damn, i can only down arrow popo once for each comment.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:41 | 3476075 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Send his Chechnian Muslim family his medical bills and if he is guilty - let the victims sue those Chechcian mafia gangsters.  I am sure the Saudis will pay.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:46 | 3475808 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

NAZI!!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:59 | 3475868 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

You're misunderstanding the law...versus the simulacra of 'the law' which is in effect in order to replace the carefully crafted ''laws" of the former Republic which has been replaced with a craftily created simulation of same...

the lawyers who have cooperated in so doing are the real terrorists here...and this ZOG government is the real threat to "public safety"...

"special exceptions" are the paving stones to hell.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:08 | 3475564 kito
kito's picture

Why???...because they say so????

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:10 | 3475583 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Kito I got free wood chips today. I am happy about the wood chips (holding knees and rocking back and forth)

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:20 | 3475655 Big Corked Boots
Big Corked Boots's picture

I didn't get MY free wood chips today. I was promised wood chips all week. I am entitled to wood chips, because some of those chips came from my trees, and even though my neighbors have trees as well, I need chips more than they do. I demand wood chips. Now. 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:36 | 3475755 kito
kito's picture

Fonz did you watch the movie????

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:40 | 3475769 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I did. It was freaking soothing. Thank you. Nice break from this nightmare.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:50 | 3475829 kito
kito's picture

So what is on the garden agenda?????

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:43 | 3475772 fuu
fuu's picture

Red and blue Tuinals, lipstick-red Seconals

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:54 | 3475848 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I am growing some transports and industrials in one raised bed and cunsumer discretionary and technology in the other.

what a mess.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:11 | 3475600 Popo
Popo's picture

Because this is EXACTLY what the public safety exception was written for.

This is a guy suspected of concealing bombs on timers. Hell yes you need to question him now and not wait 6 months for a court date.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:59 | 3475863 kito
kito's picture

Slippery slope popo........

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:07 | 3475911 Popo
Popo's picture

Fully agree. Civil rights are precious things. And we should never relive the bullshit of the Bush years.

But a bomb just went off. A bomb on a timer. Built by a guy who had multiple additional explosive devices. (One was found on the dead suspect).

Anyone suggesting that this is not a clear and present danger is naive at best.

But yes. The potential for abuse is VERY high with this provision. But it's there for a very good reason all the same. And this is one of those scenarios where it's justified.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:26 | 3476004 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

You think it ended with the Bush years????????????

Wooooo, Woooo, Whoooo guys, we got one!

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:01 | 3476133 Freddie
Freddie's picture

+100 LOL!

Popo must not have watched Obamo Police State Theater in Massachusetts today.  What a tard the guy is and no - I have not liked Bush/Clinton/Bush?Obama becuase they are the same Mena drug cartel gang.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:32 | 3476220 Oliver Klozoff
Oliver Klozoff's picture

That got a laugh from me Iggy.

Thanks,

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 11:21 | 3476968 Vooter
Vooter's picture

LOL! WHAT IF HE DOESN'T TALK??? How is not Mirandizing him going to make him tell you where the "other bombs" are???

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:15 | 3475624 knukles
knukles's picture

Not like this chap threw a handful of Jergens lotion in a porn theater, FFS

Kudos Tyler
Great reporting and articles
K

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:20 | 3475649 The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

I wasn't evven aware there was such an exception until now.  I think though they should have at least "read him the Miranda" even if he couldn't respond.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:28 | 3475696 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Bullshit. The Constitution must apply to every case, every time.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:32 | 3475728 Popo
Popo's picture

That's never ever been the case. You don't have the right to publish military secrets. You don't have the right to privacy if you're molesting your kids. There have always been limits to civil liberties. Always. And the legal system very carefully accounts for those precise circumstances.

This is very clearly one of them.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:43 | 3475785 Overfed
Overfed's picture

WTF are you talking about? The Constitution is (supposed to be) the supreme law of the land. It applies in every case, all the time, or it ceases to count at all.

What you're saying is that if someone is ACCUSED of something bad enough, then they cease to have rights. Fuck that.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:51 | 3475830 Popo
Popo's picture

It is.

But its far more nuanced than you're pretending.

Why don't you try selling nuclear secrets to a foreign national at your local public park, and see how much the first amendment protects you. Or try beating the crap out of your kids and claiming that you have a right to privacy in your own home.

The Constitution isn't a blunt instrument.

And to be blunt, your understanding of Constitutional law is painfully simplistic.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:58 | 3475862 Overfed
Overfed's picture

That's a total strawman argument. How could selling nuclear secrets be considered exercising First Amendment rights? That doesn't even make sense. At any rate, one would still have the right to a speedy and public trial, and the Fifth Amendment would still apply. Same with assaulting a family member. Your argument holds zero water, dude.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:08 | 3475927 Popo
Popo's picture

Ok, try PUBLISHING nuclear secrets. Does that frame the argument better?

Get it now?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:33 | 3476037 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Doesn't matter. The Fifth Amendment still applies. Or, it should.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 09:48 | 3476698 Popo
Popo's picture

nonsensical.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:47 | 3476248 The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

No. Not really.

See: United States of America v. Progressive, Inc., Erwin Knoll, Samuel Day, Jr., and Howard Morland 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979)

The case was ultimately dropped.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:40 | 3476233 Oliver Klozoff
Oliver Klozoff's picture

Haven't you heard of "Free Speech Zones"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone 

To wit, if free speech can be limited to a "zone" it effectively does not exist outside of it.

You can thank the Democrats for that nifty innovation.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:06 | 3475906 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

...Why don't you try selling nuclear secrets to a foreign national at your local public park, and see how much the first amendment protects you...

apparently the name Pollard means nothing to you...

to be blunt, I'm beginning to suspect that you too are an agent of a foreign power! I don't see any reason we should wait to find out, and risk public security!  What is your precise location?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:08 | 3475935 Popo
Popo's picture

Right, exactly. Was Pollard protected by free speech? No. He wasn't.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:47 | 3476244 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Pollard would be dead by now...after fair trail and execution as a spy and traitor to the USA...by a jury of his peers.

But Pollard was protected from justice by a power far stronger than "free speech" or the Constitution. Pollard is coddled and protected by the 'israel lobby' that runs Amerika.

but you knew that....thanks for playing...you better sit the rest of this one out.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:03 | 3476090 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

Fuck that nuancing shit. Sounds ALOT like banker/lawyer/politician shit to me. Never did meet any of those BLP fucks who were worth the sweat off of my nut sack.

Fuck me running, I heard one other ass hole say that shit - L. PAUL BREMMER! An asshole who talked a lot about NUANCES.

Here's a nuance for you:

THAT WHITE SPOT ON CHICKEN SHIT, WELL THAT IS CHICKEN SHIT TOO!!

There, I just nuanced you!

I think that if I remember from THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, the guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were mostly FARMERS.

I can read and speak plain English and know EXACTLY what those documents say since it was written in PLAIN ENGLISH and not lawyer speak.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:55 | 3476880 Vooter
Vooter's picture

"Why don't you try selling nuclear secrets to a foreign national at your local public park, and see how much the first amendment protects you. Or try beating the crap out of your kids and claiming that you have a right to privacy in your own home."

Name me a spy or a child abuser who hasn't been read his rights after arrest. Go ahead, NAME ONE. What are you, a monkey? You're arguing with your emotions, which is exactly what lazy cowards do. Also, do you actually think that a suspect who isn't read his Miranda rights HAS to talk? LOL...

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:00 | 3475873 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Miranda isn't in the constitution people. It was FUBAR LSD influenced supreme court decision. Shameful.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:48 | 3475821 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The Miranda decision was so fucking stupid it staggers the imagination, Nd yet everybody holds it sacred. Thank you lefty Hollywood writers! An absolutely retarded activist supreme court decision. Full retard.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:04 | 3475903 Renewable Life
Renewable Life's picture

STFU idiot, he won't even be alive in 24 hours, he'll never see a lawyer or his family, they took him alive because some DHS/NSA wannabe bitch from "zero dark thirty" reined in the animals on the scene in time to "take him alive" for interrogation! Once they have there classified info on whether they think he acted alone with his brother or they had handlers, he'll be dead!

Quit your bullshitting debate on law and precident, it's all bullshit now, post patriot act anyway!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:10 | 3475943 Frank N. Beans
Frank N. Beans's picture

fuck, Popo, there was no imminent threat here.  There'd been no bombs go off since Monday.  

But the police can always interpret this law the way they want, apparently.

 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:28 | 3476005 Popo
Popo's picture

They were throwing bombs AT the cops. They were shooting AT the cops. His brother's body had an explosive device ON HIM.

And it's just his MIranda rights. It's not like they shuffled him off to Cuba, or violated his Constitutional rights.

Good lord. There really IS a responsibility to public safety. This isnt like searching bags at the airport. These guys were clearly engaged in continued hostilities and were using lethal force against police.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:21 | 3476191 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Allegedly, friend. Allegedly.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 09:57 | 3476717 Popo
Popo's picture

Well... wait... let's be clear:   Forget about this discussion of "rights" for a minute.   If a man uses lethal force against the police, the police can shoot him and kill him with 100% legality. 

Now you're saying that he "allegedly" used force against the police.  Well.. that's all that's necessary for the police to use lethal force.  I'm not sure what your point is.  That maybe the police are lying?   Ok, but now you're playing a rather philosophical game of "how do we actually know anything".   And even if it goes to trial, how do we know the judge isn't bought and paid for?  And how do we know the doctors in the hospital aren't actually men-in-black?   Etc. etc.

Yes, (allegedly) he and the other suspect were shooting at cops and the cops shot them.    Had the cops shot him in the face and killed him, that would have been their right in that (alleged) scenario.

Now if you're saying that scenario never happened, then fine.  But understand this:  You're actually then advocating the British system where police DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO RETURN FIRE.

I do not advocate such a system, and prefer to have a police force which is armed with deadly force and capable of interceding.   I also advocate a populace which is similarly armed.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:45 | 3476325 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

So anyone who uses lethal force against police should be stripped of their rights? You're a fucking idiot. 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 05:32 | 3476473 Popo
Popo's picture

LE can legally and justifiably shoot and kill a man using deadly force against them.. How's that for "stripping rights"?

Good lord you're an idiot.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 07:35 | 3476563 tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

This is exactly like searching bags at the airport.  The basis of the model is the use of fear as a tactic.  Thanks for the perfect simile as I had failed to make the connection. You'll feel different when some Cass Sunsteinesque "sidewalks on the internet" moderator gets to decide that your ZH comment language poses a clear and present danger that will provoke an imminent lawless action so you're never heard from again.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:50 | 3476865 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Remember, you're a COWARD.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:47 | 3476862 Vooter
Vooter's picture

You are lazy, terrified, and pathetic. You should do the world a big favor by putting a revolver in your mouth and blowing your brains out. COWARD.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:04 | 3475539 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Exception to Miranda = Electrodes to Testicles?

 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:06 | 3475552 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

"we are going to shock your balls. Then you are going to eat them. then we are going to ask you a few questions. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you"?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:27 | 3475693 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

This could crack 9/11 wide o... oh, wait, they did that already.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:18 | 3475638 Ronaldo
Ronaldo's picture

Parley, in pirate talk, Parley!!!!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:04 | 3475542 toxic8
toxic8's picture

Is this a joke? They only read you your rights on the teevee, here they sock you in the ribs

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:06 | 3475549 knicks3005
knicks3005's picture

They should've got Channing Tatum to arrest him.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:38 | 3476055 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

Who's that???

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:07 | 3475553 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

NDAA!

NDAA!

NDAA!

 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:06 | 3475558 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

i guess there could be more explosives somewhere, primed and ready.  just another click in the ratchet wrench twisting individual rights to tatters is more likely though.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:08 | 3475567 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

There most certainly are "sleepers".

Lock and load!

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 01:48 | 3476327 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

There are a shit load of sleepers. They vote for Obama or watch Fox News and think the other side is bad and their side is good. Those are the fucking sleepers in this country. 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:16 | 3475631 Popo
Popo's picture

It's a little different when there's already been a major bombing, and this guy was photographed at the scene, fled, and exchanged gunfire with the police.

It's not like stopping people in airports who "might" have a bottle of liquid in their bag.

This is a guy suspected of concealing bombs in public places. You're saying you wouldn't question him?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:25 | 3475681 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

he needs to be able to talk first. obviously you don't have to read him his rights if he's dead...rites maybe...but not rights. of course "you can throw the bandages out the window" as well as the Constitution and "start pressing on the wound" i guess. i do agree there could be sleeper cells involved. the fact that this kid and his brother had been watched for years by the FBI and they still got away with it...and then had a shootout...and then were still on the run for a while... is not good news.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:45 | 3476856 Vooter
Vooter's picture

"This is a guy suspected of concealing bombs in public places. You're saying you wouldn't question him?"

What if he doesn't talk, regardless of whether you read him his Miranda rights?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:07 | 3475571 autofixer
autofixer's picture

So when they eventually come for you and I, we can expect to be arrested under the exemption and the NDAA never to be seen or heard from again.  Poof!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:22 | 3475664 knukles
knukles's picture

I will bet you that this Bozo gets treated exceedingly well, fairly and entirely within the legal framework, more so than a gang-banger clawing away Granny's purse on the street corner
It is way too high profile and of credible consideration given the vast political divide amongst the various parties to our society
This cannot get fucked up

That being said, what's book on it getting well and truly fucked?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:37 | 3475747 a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

You give them way too much credit.  Hell, they fried Dorner on live TV, setting the fire and then pinning him inside with constant gunfire until he was forced to kill himself.  They could be walking this kid into court and a cop could shoot him in the middle of the crowd and everyone would cheer.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:44 | 3475792 forwardho
forwardho's picture

That being said, what's book on it getting well and truly fucked?

Whats book on US being well and truly fucked?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:44 | 3475797 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

Your posting here on ZH will be the "evidence" used against you. Don't need to give you your rights, since you proved your guilt all ready, to save the taxpayers money, of course.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:09 | 3475574 Sofa King
Sofa King's picture

...this marks the official start of the Police State. I no longer feel safe. I went down to Ground Zero on Sept 12 and felt safer than I do, in bed, in my home, tonight.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:47 | 3475817 Sofa King
Sofa King's picture

Ya'll can throw all the negs in the world at me...doesn't change the fact that this whole thing is wrong in many levels. The last time I ran with the herd on an emotional concurrence of bad policy we wound up in an endless war in Afganistan, an unjustified one in Iran, and have subjected myself to regular questioning of my moral fiber by people who are more likely to be terrorists than I can ever be. Please think before you break out the party hats.

I fear for the response the next time one of the many nut jobs this has just inspired does something, once all the "lessons learned" will be implemented.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:08 | 3475580 GOSPLAN HERO
GOSPLAN HERO's picture

Origin of exception - NSDAP!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:09 | 3475588 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

uhm my guess is that he won't have to testify against himself. there' gonna be plenty of evidence w/o mirandizing...

miranda is moot.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:33 | 3475724 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Still presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, in open court, facing his accusers. Should apply to everyone, no matter what they are charged with.

Sun, 04/21/2013 - 19:02 | 3481605 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

nothing in what i said is contrary to presumption of innocent, just that his confession isn't gonna be needed.

call is a guess, call it a forecast,...

(oh that's right...i already said it was a guess....)

but a violation of his constitutional rights?

i guess not.

but just like my original guess,

maybe this guess is a violation of his constitutional rights.

i'll be sure to bring it up, if they select me for jury duty.

:)

p.s.

both guesses, just to be safe.....

 

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:37 | 3476840 Vooter
Vooter's picture

What are you, fucking stupid? Or just lazy? Your right to have your Miranda rights read to you has nothing to do with how much "evidence" has or hasn't been accumulated. You could videotape yourself murdering someone, handcuff yourself, and then deliver the video in person to the police station, and it wouldn't matter. You would (or should be) Mirandized. It's not that complicated, although it does require one to have the emotional discipline of a normal adult, rather than that of a fifteen-year-old (the latter of which, unfortunately, applies to most Americans)...

Sun, 04/21/2013 - 19:26 | 3481568 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

thought i said that....

saying they don't need his confession to convict.

could have made it simpler....

not sure how though....maybe 'testify' could have been clearer...

:)

oh yeah, by the way, 'should have' miranda read to you? necessary if and only if the prosecution is going to use what you say after your arrest against you....other than in that instance, miranda has no relevancy. just think of it this way:

"your honor, they did not mirandize me...."

"yeah, but they never used anything you said after you were arrested against you."

"oh..."

the police do it prophylactic-ly, to prevent stupid police from blowin the case by askin questions they should not be askin...

and of course you are fundamentally wrong. mirandazing has a specific exception that allows for 'public safety'. look it up. there aint no all encompassing 'should' that governs this case...

oh darn, you mean that i was referring to this case?  silly me to respond to the article.

lazy thinking indeed i am accused of....

rave on dude.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:12 | 3475606 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

So because the "suspect" might have accomplices, thus justifying the reason for the immediate "danger" to the public, they will question him for "public safety" reasons without reading him his rights.

Catch 22

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:15 | 3475623 hankwil74
hankwil74's picture

If by "accomplices" you mean "bombs on timers in other locations", then yes.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:24 | 3475678 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Yes.

"24" introduced the general public to all the "right" reasons to torture, maim and kill.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:41 | 3475776 The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

Yeah I got the hidden agenda of 24 after watching just a couple episodes. I could see clearly where it was headed and stopped watching it. I remember talking to people at work about why and they looked at me like I was some kind of unpatriotic Martian.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:08 | 3475936 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Go watch the movie "swordfish". Travolta is the good guy.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:20 | 3475988 The Second Rule
The Second Rule's picture

I saw it on AMC a week or so ago. Alice in Wonderland surreal. And not in a good way.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 00:12 | 3476172 Freddie
Freddie's picture

TV and Hollywood are for retards. If you watch you enable Operation Mockingbird but they need good little serfs to watch.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:28 | 3476802 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Who the hell is down-voting this guy for saying that TV and Hollywood are for retards??? LOL...cunts....

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 05:34 | 3476475 e-recep
e-recep's picture

and the tv series homeland went on from where 24 left off.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:27 | 3476795 Vooter
Vooter's picture

Oh my god...maybe some of his casual acquaintances ALSO have secret bombs that are ready to go off...and what about THEIR friends??? ARREST EVERYONE!!! NOW!!!

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:13 | 3475611 El Hosel
El Hosel's picture

Justice is very expensive, thats why the Bankers get those large bonuses. Don't do the crime if you can't afford the fine.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:18 | 3475629 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

In my OTHER hobby (drag racing) there is a saying:  Run what you brung and hope you brung enough.

Apparently justice works by similar principles.  If you show up in the legal equivalent of a 96' Geo Metro, you're probably gonna lose.

Explain to me under what circumstances that exception could NOT be invoked by police?  Isn't "public safety" pretty much at the core of everything they are asked to enforce?

 

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:59 | 3475736 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

Asshole!

They used to be called PEACE OFFICERS.

Look like military guys to me. Without the competence or training, but with a unending federally funded budget. Gotta look like a bunch of chipmunks running up a trail, WITH GUNS.

You have to remember one thing, during operation Barbarossa, the front line combat soldiers were greeted by the civilians of the invaded countries who greeted them as liberators.

But then the follow on echelon forces comprised of Gestapo (police) personnel rounded up the newly conquered people's and LIQUIDATED them.

Things to remember:

1. solders fight for the state or each other
2. Police are POLITICAL creatures and ONLY fight for the political system that they thrive off of, they (the police) are no more soldiers then a DOG CATCHER IS A DOCTOR.

Just remember who it is that will shoot American citizens and who won't.

Sat, 04/20/2013 - 10:24 | 3476787 Vooter
Vooter's picture

+1...ran in Super Gas for a couple of years... :-)

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:24 | 3475661 PLira
PLira's picture

This thing is over but many questions remain.

His mother (in the US ), his father and aunt (in Russia) say this guy (the older, dead subject) was being tun by the FBI is troubling.

Was this guy(suspect II, alive) prodded by his older mentor? Possibly and probable as he basically raised him with mom's help.

The big questions are, did older brother run the op on his own or under FBI supervision, which got out of hand or was sanctioned?

This is a big GOOD for increased .Gov surveillance on all latitudes. The fact that they got him alive is hopeful but the FBI is going to be the lead investigators who debrief this guy.

I'm not saying this is a .Gov Op BUT, all aspects need to be evaluated, even from the MSM reports who, BTW, are covering this with such a frenzy that I find indeed propagandist. My local stations have devoted ALL of their news coverage to this one incident. MSM ratings grab or propaganda extravaganza? I find that odd. 3 evening broadcasts with no local news.

Fuck them, give me the weather assholes. Psyops? Perhaps but don't rule it out.

Chances are, the magnificent ego's of the MSM probably overrules and I'm just paranoid but hey, I don't trust anyone without verification.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:30 | 3475703 knukles
knukles's picture

Just because they're indoctrinating you doesn't mean you can't be paranoid
It's called Perceptions Management

And I too was thinking of those "tangential" facts... Curiouser and curiouser

I'd like to chat with you more but that repeat of "Dancing with the Stars" is on where Lindsay Lohan yorks all over herself. I gotta catch it again.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:22 | 3475666 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

You know what really passes me off with most of you folks! It is that the CONSTITUTION is the law of the land. But since we have law makers who make laws and judges who interprete those laws and the executive who enforces those laws. They have GONE AMOK. We have EVERYBODY making shit up, how they see fit.

His did we get here?

For example:

Instead of folks talking about how taxation is WRONG, we have folks talking about who should PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!

Am I taking crazy pills?

Or is this shit really fucked up?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:57 | 3475858 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Crazy pills.

This shit is really, really fucked up.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 23:32 | 3476032 Popo
Popo's picture

Agreed...

Except the Constitution doesn't guarantee your Miranda rights...

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:56 | 3475677 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

As of today, there have been 100 homicides and 441 shootings in Chicago in 2013.

But this kid doesn't get Miranda, because...he's special or different or something? Because um, public safety is involved?

Guys, the police state has arrived.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:59 | 3475878 object_orient
object_orient's picture

It's the ticking time bomb exception. The cops need to question the guy RIGHT NOW because the bomb is about to explode and the hostages will die. But now we have...well, he used a bomb before, so there might be more out there somewhere. And if there are, they might blow up someday. So, public safety exception. Feel safer yet?

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:31 | 3475713 fuu
fuu's picture

Note to self, it predates 9/11 by 20 years.

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 22:33 | 3475723 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Why do I get the feeling like this exception is about to enter common use?

Oh, that's right, because it is.  Yay America.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!