They Caught The Times Square Bomber

Freddy said:
It isn't a violation of constitutional rights not to mirandize a suspect. It's a violation of the suspect's rights to try to introduce into evidence any statements that were made before he was mirandized (excluding "excited utterances" and other exceptions, of course), or the fruits of those statements. Here, they questioned him enough to be sure that there wasn't an ongoing threat that he was involved in, and then they mirandized him. I'd say they did it exactly right. They seem to think they got enough from him post-miranda to secure a conviction.
Click to expand...

:D Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. I made that exact point earlier in the thread. Guess you missed it:


KingMerv00 said:
That's not right. Any evidence they've obtained pre-arrest can still be used against him in court. Failure to Mirandize only results in the suppression of confessions and the fruits of interrogations.

Hell, there may even be exceptions to the fruits doctrine. (inevitable discovery etc.)


This dude's not walking anywhere.
Click to expand...


:D I could be a real smart ass and tell you that "excited utterance" is an exception to the hearsay rule not the 5th Amendment. Though, to be fair, it can work as an exception to the 5th in a round-a-bout way because it would allow the cop to testify to what he heard. Indirectly, the suspect could incriminate himself even while under Miranda.

At least I think so...I've never seen that particular combination of facts before. It's an interesting legal question. I should go ask a professor.

As for the rest...

If he meant that the guy also should not be tried in a federal court, then I have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

THIS is what I was upset about.
 
Last edited:
That is particularly disgusting coming from a man who spent time in a prison without rights.
Click to expand...

Of course, the folks who now scream and holler about this awful violation of human rights were the same folks who were chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh" and cheering the very same people who kept the said man in prison without rights.

Obviously caring about human rights is a very delicate matter. If someone joins a terrorist group, all their rights must be carefully protected. If someone is an American airman in the "Hanoi Hilton", meh. They've had it coming.
 
Skeptic said:
Of course, the folks who now scream and holler about this awful violation of human rights were the same folks who were chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh" and cheering the very same people who kept the said man in prison without rights.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how I'm a living exception to your broad brush statement, you should probably retract or modify it.

Yes, I was born after Vietnam, but I'm sure there are many people here who don't match that stereotype.
 
By the way... notice how it was perfectly OK to speculate -- not on this forum, which was very much more careful, but in the media in general -- how the "white man" seen originally moving away from the care was a "tea party" man "upset about Obamacare"? Only the obvious -- that it's a terrorist attack by a Jihadist -- was off-limits as "Islamophobia".
 
Skeptic said:
Of course, the folks who now scream and holler about this awful violation of human rights were the same folks who were chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh" and cheering the very same people who kept the said man in prison without rights.
Click to expand...

evidence?
 
Bikewer said:
With each new revelatation, this guy comes across as even more inept. After making a dry run to figure out where the best location to put his bomb would be, he cleverly parked a getaway vehicle a short distance away.
Then he left the keys to this vehicle in the bomb car....
Click to expand...

I trust you haven't read about the design of the "weapon", considering you bring up such a comparatively minor mistake?

Reportedly he bought 6 to 8 boxes of M88 "silver salute" fireworks; each box containing 36 M-88s, each containing 50mg of flash powder. He also bought 2 fireworks shells and two "ground-based sparklers". Totaling <$100. Fireworks is a bad idea to begin with if you're making a bomb; but he didn't have enough sense to even get illegal fireworks(e.g. M-80 firecrackers containing ~3 grams of flash powder or "quarter sticks" containing ~20 grams of flash).

These low-grade fireworks where then placed next to gas cans, propane tanks and fertilizer, in the hopes of detonating them.

Gas and propane do not contain an oxidizer; it takes careful design to successfully build a thermobaric device that first mixes fuel with air in the right proportion before igniting it. Propane tanks have over-pressure relief valves; without an explosive sufficient to puncture them it's just going to be an unusually energetic car fire. It seems he didn't even manage to set the gasoline or propane on fire, much less puncture the containers.

The fertilizer used was not one capable of detonating(it needs to be almost pure ammonium nitrate; his fertilizer might have contained ammonium nitrate, but if so it also contained enough other fertilizer to prevent detonation). Even if he had obtained pure ammonium nitrate, it's a more energetic and easier to detonate explosive if it is mixed with fuel oil in the right proportion, which he had not done(the mixture is a ubiquitous blasting agent known as ANFO, ~94% AN and ~6% FO). Even if he had made ANFO, it cannot be reliably be set off even with a blasting cap pressed right up against it; idealy you'd want some kind of booster charge like a stick of dynamite.
 
Cicero said:
So we should expect those 1.5 million people who have had their homes foreclosed on in the last few years to follow in Shahzad's footsteps?
Click to expand...
If they have similar religious/political beliefs maybe. It could be retaliation for drone strikes, it could be mental illness, it could be family problems, it could be foreclosure. In all honesty, it could be a combination of all those things. Time will tell as the case unfolds I guess.

Cicero said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...
Sorry "could be a contributing factor." If it's true, it's worth considering in the overall picture of the story, but not for trial.
 
KingMerv00 said:
:D Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. I made that exact point earlier in the thread. Guess you missed it:
Click to expand...

Come on, you expect me to read all three pages of comments before posting? :D.

I was procrastinating from studying last night. I'm not that much of a procrastinator.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
By the way... notice how it was perfectly OK to speculate -- not on this forum, which was very much more careful, but in the media in general -- how the "white man" seen originally moving away from the care was a "tea party" man "upset about Obamacare"? Only the obvious -- that it's a terrorist attack by a Jihadist -- was off-limits as "Islamophobia".
Click to expand...

If only the bomber had been a Hutaree militia member then MSNBC's Contessa Brewer wouldn't be "frustrated" that the bomber turned out to be a Pakistani American.

"I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.

And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Hutaree militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror."

Contessa (soon to be Baroness) Brewer
 
Cicero said:
If only the bomber had been a Hutaree militia member then MSNBC's Contessa Brewer wouldn't be "frustrated" that the bomber turned out to be a Pakistani American.

"I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.

And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Hutaree militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror."

Contessa (soon to be Baroness) Brewer
Click to expand...


People wouldn't assume you're either lying or engaging in CONTEXT FAIL if you would simply provide a link to this quote with both the source and the context. Otherwise...meh.
 
Cicero said:
"I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how, out of fear of "anti-Islamic bigotry" -- which, curiously, never seems to materialize -- folks like in the media think it's perfectly OK to smear and blame and accuse those "evil conservatives" in advance, evidence be damned; just as a preventive measure against Islamophobia, you know.

I suggest that, whenever there's an unsolved burglary somewhere in America, let's have the news report about it end with the announcer noting, "it's probably some Black guy". And whenever the SEC examines some company for financial shenanigans, let them pronounce judgment: "No evidence yet, but we believe it's some Jew stealing our money again".

You know, just to make sure that nobody will, by mistake, accuse a Muslim of this unsolved crime, leading to all this hateful Islamophobia.
 
Unabogie said:
Thanks, now explain what it is you think is wrong with what she said?
Click to expand...


Everything. Why would or should an MSNBC news anchor care about the eventual race identification of the perpetrator of a terrorist act?
 
Skeptic said:
It's interesting how, out of fear of "anti-Islamic bigotry" -- which, curiously, never seems to materialize -- folks like in the media think it's perfectly OK to smear and blame and accuse those "evil conservatives" in advance, evidence be damned; just as a preventive measure against Islamophobia, you know.

I suggest that, whenever there's an unsolved burglary somewhere in America, let's have the news report about it end with the announcer noting, "it's probably some Black guy". And whenever the SEC examines some company for financial shenanigans, let them pronounce judgment: "No evidence yet, but we believe it's some Jew stealing our money again".

You know, just to make sure that nobody will, by mistake, accuse a Muslim of this unsolved crime, leading to all this hateful Islamophobia.
Click to expand...

If Contessa Brewer were around in 716 AD, she would hope that the Visigoth Kingdom would be conquered by the TPP, not Islamic troops from Morocco.
 
I especially like the last part of what she said:
I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way Muslim extremists. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.

And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined a Muslim extremist. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Haitari militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror.

That’s what they were planning to do and they were doing so from far different backgrounds then what this guy is coming from this Muslim extremist. So, the threat is not just coming from people who decide that America is the place to be Muslim extremists and you know come here and want to become citizens kill Americans. Obviously this guy Muslim extremist did.
Click to expand...
So many inventive ways to avoid saying the words "Muslim extremist".

Those words are now politically incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
Everything. Why would or should an MSNBC news anchor care about the eventual race identification of the perpetrator of a terrorist act?
Click to expand...

Because Teabagging Christianists want to use every incident of terrorism carried out by a Muslim as justification for racial profiling, and this is an undesirable thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom