You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
I'm 100% against giving fucking animals that merely resemble humans an ounce of politically correct "human rights", but isn't this just giving him a loophole to get out from whatever sentence he's facing?
I'm 100% against giving fucking animals that merely resemble humans an ounce of politically correct "human rights", but isn't this just giving him a loophole to get out from whatever sentence he's facing?
Miranda Rights preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings, it is implicitly assumed that the suspect would be in a condition to give any statement. So if he is unconscious/in a state where he can't speak/provide any statements then reading it or not will not affect the trial. Also, if the prosecution choices to not use any statements he makes from capture up till when he does or does not get the rights read, let alone any statements, then there should not be an issue with the validity of a case against him.
*Not a legal expert by no means, so please correct if wrong*
And it is not burned at all, which (and this is a complete uneducated guess, and I am willing to admit that) I doubt would be the case if it was the pack that held the bomb.
Depends on what the explosive was. High explosives detonate (which is a rapid decomposition of the material into gas). They don't actually "burn". Low explosives deflagrate, which is more like rapid combustion (think gunpowder).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge
Of the latest bombings
1 How come there was no resistance (almost free fall) when building 7 collapsed under 10 seconds? [Know Mossad operation - dancing Isreali's w bombs in truck]
2 how come the london bombing had the explosions rip the floors upwards?
You should learn basic physics before trying to sound like a Mr.know it all.
Oh the irony of someone playing the physics card when they don't know a damn thing about physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridlock
Oh good! Alex Jones has something to say.
This fucking nutter can see conspiracy in his bowl of shreddies.
Here's one for you Alex...were you actually born? Cause you know, we don't have actual video proof of your crazy ass emerging from the birth canal. And you don't remember it...my god! They wiped your memory!
That's the FBI for you.
The internet is annoying me with this stuff. Reddit was all convinced that they had cracked the case, and named the suspect...and were wrong.
Why?
Because, as much as your bad ass computer is pretty dope...it isn't what the FBI/DHS/BPD/etc. has at their disposal. Aaaand, you don't have all the footage. Aaaand, you don't have cell phone traces and god knows what other patriot act goodies land on their desk when this happens.
So, you take a little drop of bad video off the internet and watch it, and lo and behold! This isn't proof enough.
Fuck! Let's focus on the real conspiracies...roswell, A51, and how many fucking times did Mrs.Jones drop her kid on his head and why wasn't she charged.
I used to have fun harassing Alex Jones until he did an IP block on me so I could no longer post at his site. He couldn't stand me (and a few buddies) constantly bringing up thermite vs Pyrocool and how his site had incorrect information about the use of Pyrocool to control UV radiation.
To this date if you search his site you will still see him talking about thermite, but all references of Pyrocool have been expunged from his site. I wish I would have saved some screenshots of the shit he used to claim so I could bring it up and ask him why he no longer talks about Pyrocool (when it used to be a major component of his thermite theories).
This fucking nutter can see conspiracy in his bowl of shreddies.
Here's one for you Alex...were you actually born? Cause you know, we don't have actual video proof of your crazy ass emerging from the birth canal. And you don't remember it...my god! They wiped your memory!
That's the FBI for you.
The internet is annoying me with this stuff. Reddit was all convinced that they had cracked the case, and named the suspect...and were wrong.
Why?
Because, as much as your bad ass computer is pretty dope...it isn't what the FBI/DHS/BPD/etc. has at their disposal. Aaaand, you don't have all the footage. Aaaand, you don't have cell phone traces and god knows what other patriot act goodies land on their desk when this happens.
So, you take a little drop of bad video off the internet and watch it, and lo and behold! This isn't proof enough.
Fuck! Let's focus on the real conspiracies...roswell, A51, and how many fucking times did Mrs.Jones drop her kid on his head and why wasn't she charged.
the blown up backpack looks like it has some white and gray patches (look to the left side) blow up the picture and dont concentrate on the red circle
edit: it actually looks like the younger brothers back pack
edit2: see
You see, this is just proof of the average conspiracy nut's inability to apply logic: you look at the damage done, you hear about the shrapnel, you see the guy with his legs blown off... it's BEYOND stretching to believe that a backpack containing that bomb wasn't completely obliterated in the blast. It's fucking delusional to think the bag could have survived, let alone be as intact as the one in the picture.
But of course, the conspiracy is nothing without putting together two completely unrelated pictures, so... you put them together and make up a story to go with it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
An interesting counterpoint to all the fooferah, and actually a point not too dissimilar to the one I made on Facebook the other day--about how the only time you really let terrorists win is by being terrorized.
First, just in case it's not utterly obvious, I'm glad that the two murderous cowards who attacked civilians in Boston recently are off the streets. One dead and one in custody is a great outcome.
That said, a large percent of the reaction in Boston has been security theater. "Four victims brutally killed" goes by other names in other cities.
In Detroit, for example, they call it "Tuesday".
…and Detroit does not shut down every time there are a few murders.
"But Clark," I hear you say, "this is different. This was a terrorist attack."
Washington DC, during ongoing sniper terrorist attacks in 2002 that killed twice as many people, was not shut down.
Kileen Texas, after the Fort Hood terrorist attack in 2009 that killed three times as many people, was not shut down.
London, after the bombing terrorist attack in 2005 that killed more than ten times as many people, was not shut down.
"But Clark," I hear you asking, "what about the lives saved?"
There is no evidence that any lives were saved by the Boston shutdown.
"Yeah, but you can't know for sure!"
True. I can't. But in London, Washington, LA after the El Al shootings, and so on and so on and so on, there were not lockdowns, and there were no further fatalities. It's not perfect proof, but it's suggestive.
"Then why the hell do you care, Clark?"
First, the unprecendented shutdown of a major American city may have increased safety some small bit, but it was not without a cost: keeping somewhere between 2 and 5 million people from work, shopping, and school destroyed a nearly unimaginable amount of value. If we call it just three million people, and we peg the cost at a mere $15 per person per hour, the destroyed value runs to a significant fraction of a billion dollars.
"Yeah, maybe…but in this day and age where the federal government is borrowing an extra $3.85 billion per day, a couple of hundred million doesn't sound like much. After all, if we're borrowing money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back to fund Cowboy Poetry Festival and military golf courses, then what's another $200 or $400 million to keep people safe?"
I've got multiple answers:
First, just because you're already two hundred pounds overweight doesn't mean that another bowl of ice cream won't hurt you. It will.
Second, the cost isn't just measured in dollars – it's measured in the degree to which it trains a population to freak out over minor risk and to trust blindly in authorities.
Third, keeping citizens off the street meant that 99% of the eyes and brains that might solve a crime were being wasted. Eric S Raymond famously said that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". It was thousands of citizen photographs that helped break this case, and it was a citizen who found the second bomber. Yes, that's right – it wasn't until the stupid lock-down was ended that a citizen found the second murderer:
Quote:
Second marathon suspect captured, manhunt ends - News - Boston.com
The boat’s owners, a couple, spent Friday hunkered down under the stay-at-home order. When it was lifted early in the evening, they ventured outside for some fresh air and the man noticed the tarp on his boat blowing in the wind, according to their his son, Robert Duffy.
The cords securing it had been cut and there was blood near the straps.
We had thousands of police going door-to-door, searching houses…and yet not one of them saw the evidence that a citizen did just minutes after the lock-down ended.
"But Clark," you protest, "you may not trust the government to decide what's risky and what's not, but I do. If it saves even one life, then shutting down a major city is the right move. That's obvious!"
But the Boston police didn't shut down an entire city. They shut down an entire city except for the donut shops.
Law enforcement asked Dunkin' Donuts to keep restaurants open in locked-down communities to provide… food to police… including in Watertown, the focus of the search for the bombing suspect.
The government and police were willing to shut down parts of the economy like the universities, software, biotech, and manufacturing…but when asked to do an actual risk to reward calculation where a small part of the costs landed on their own shoulders, they had no problem weighing one versus the other and then telling the donut servers "yeah, come to work – no one's going to get shot."
First, I haven't had anyone clearly state if this is a patriot act provision, or normal law.
Effectively, they are denying him a lawyer. That's what they mean when they say they haven't read him his miranda rights. You have a right to an attorney, we'll provide one for you, and you have a right to keep your mouth shut.
So, by not reading him his rights, they are looking to have a conversation with him without a lawyer in his ear saying, "don't answer that". Even worse, "we'll answer that, but we want 20 years max sentence" or some type of horse trading...info for time.
So he'll talk, and get nothing for it. Which, I know, there are tons of people saying "good" , but he should be provided the same rights as anyone else.
Could be worse...in 2007, he'd have been termed an "enemy combatant" and sent to Gitmo.
Pretty sure I've seen a pick of the two navy seals standing around with their backpacks on after the explosion. Maybe it was like a russian doll and there was a bag inside his bag and his bag after the explosion is a fake bag!!!!!!!!
Law enforcement has successfully captured Dzhokar Tsarnaev, and DOJ has announced that Tsarnaev is being interrogated without first being read his Miranda rights because the DOJ thinks that the public safety exception to Miranda applies. Back in 2010, I blogged a lot about Miranda in this setting. Here are a few reminders about the law here:
1) A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his Miranda rights upon arrest. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. The police aren’t required to follow Miranda. Miranda is a set of rules the government can chose to follow if they want to admit a person’s statements in a criminal case in court, not a set of rules they have to follow in every case. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Further, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement can be excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So, contrary to what a lot of people think, it is legal for the government to even intentionally violate Miranda so long as they don’t try to seek admission of the suspect’s statements in court.
2) Even if we assume that the police later seek to admit a statement from Tsarnaev from post-arrest custodial interrogation outside Miranda, a court would allow an initial pre-Miranda interrogation to be admissible under the public safety exception of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). It’s not clear how long the public safety exception will continue to apply: At some point in time, it becomes harder to say that the agents needed to dispense with Miranda in light of the threat to public safety. We don’t have good cases on when that line might be crossed, in part because (fortunately) there aren’t many similar cases. So the longer investigators interrogate Tsarnaev outside Miranda, the more they run the risk that some statements they obtain from him may be inadmissible. But recall that under (1), the government is still free to question Tsarnaev outside Miranda as long as the government accepts the uncertainty of whether those statements would be admissible in a criminal case against him. Assuming that the evidence against Tsarnaev’s many different crimes over the last week is likely to be overwhelming, agents may not need any statements from him for a criminal case. They may simply want whatever intelligence he can provide for use in broader antiterrorism efforts, and Miranda is no impediment in that case. The agents are free to question Tsarnaev outside Miranda to gather intellligence as long as they don’t cross the line into coercing statements from him. See, e.g., Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963).
3) It is true that, under existing law, interviewing Tsarnaev for an extended period without reading him his Miranda rights and obtaining a waiver creates a risk that any incriminating statements made after an extended period may not be admissible in court in a criminal prosecution against Tsarnaev. However, if Tsarnaev does end up making incriminating statements that fall outside the public safety exception, and the government wants to use those statements in court against him, the government has a possible remedy to get the substance of even those statements admitted. At the end of the interrogation, agents can give him his Miranda warnings, see if he will waive his rights waiver, and, if he does, try to get Tsarnaev to repeat his pre-waiver incriminating statements. Because the two-stage interview likely would not be deemed an intentional two-step interrogation technique designed to circumvent Miranda, a court would very likely allow the post-Miranda, post-waiver statement under Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).
UPDATE: I have fiddled with the post a bit to make it clearer.
ANOTHER UPDATE: If Tsarnaev is going to be charged in federal court, the more pressing limit on his interrogation may be the limits imposed by Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See generally Corley v. United States (2009).
I think the whole point in this Miranda thing is that the police want to make sure this whole thing is actually over. Last thing we want is him protected by a lawyer and then out of nowhere his friends we didnt know about start bombing Boston again and the cops cant make him talk.
An interesting counterpoint to all the fooferah, and actually a point not too dissimilar to the one I made on Facebook the other day--about how the only time you really let terrorists win is by being terrorized.
i see his point, but because the fact that there are bombs involved, any high density group around the city could be at risk with potential higher casualties. i think where the OP lost me was when he started putting dollar values to life. 15 million per person per hour, im a bit torn on that line alone.
i see his point, but because the fact that there are bombs involved, any high density group around the city could be at risk with potential higher casualties. i think where the OP lost me was when he started putting dollar values to life. 15 million per person per hour, im a bit torn on that line alone.
He's not putting value to human life, he's putting a value on the economic loss during the lockdown.
"If each person on average were to earn $15 per hour ordinarily, but couldn't earn that money because you were on lockdown, this is what the economic loss would be from that day of lockdown."
thanks for clearing it up, and I do understand that but aren't we still talking economic loss versus potential human life loss?
I know I'm speaking in probability ifs and maybes, but if somehow they knew 9/11 would occur and lock down the World Trade Center, how much of an economical loss would there be and how many lives would have been saved? my argument probably isn't valid in the effect that there's actually no evidence to support it, but that's just what comes to
mind when I think of the lockdown Posted via RS Mobile
A) when the lockdown was happening, they lost track of the guy.
B) when the lockdown was happening, people and businesses were losing money
C) when the lockdown was happening, it was for no reason more than a strange threat. Not a larger one, just a different one.
According to Boston.com, there were 52 murders in Boston last year. On August 12 of last year, three people were killed at 36 Harlem street; shot. 2012 murders in Boston - Boston.com
During the Boston crisis suddenly everyone is paying attention to any crime. Metrotown's food court is locked down because of a suspicious package. Last week? "Oops, someone forgot their bag. Better turn it in to Customer Service" Fire at Pacific Centre--"What's going on, why is everything going crazy?"
The answer? Things aren't going crazy. People are just suddenly panicked and riveted by what's happening. People are actually paying attention. Jon Stewart makes an excellent point; from last Thursday's show, I think. From 1983 to today, there have been fewer than 4,000 terrorism deaths. Because of gun violence, there have been more than 900,000. If we were to look at preventable traffic fatalities (impaired driving, distracted driving, speed inappropriate to conditions) I'm sure we could find four or more people being killed every day.
His point is not that we should be careful or we should be ignorant. His point is that we are paying attention to the wrong things in the wrong way.
Last edited by Graeme S; 04-20-2013 at 04:01 PM.
Reason: added the word 'terrorism' between '4000' and 'deaths'
reports were saying he got into the car and ran over his own brother to get away...
this video shows him running away and his brother getting shot instead....
word around is saying that the younger brother had a normal lifestyle of a teenage kid who went to school and was praised by his teachers and friends etc while the older brother was a dick without friends and tied to terrorist groups, apparently FBI questioned him 3 years ago too and was cleared...
kinda insinuating that the older brother dragged the younger one in on it
no source so take it with a grain of salt
extras: pics
house where he was caught
younger bro tweets
heavy heavy fire, dont think this one has been posted yet, one facing the other side posted like 20 pages ago
Republicans had no problems giving Zacharias Moussoui (the 20th hijacker) a civilian trial and he wasn't even a US citizen. Giuliani even supported the idea.
Why are they making a fuss about calling this guy an enemy combatant?
First to fail !SG evar! Now i have yellow fever...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,482
Thanked 2,431 Times in 475 Posts
I read that the guys boat is now full of bullet holes, and other people had stray bullets fly through their walls, just wondering do police usually compensate people for damage in cases like this or are they out of luck?
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
