Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[newyorkguy]

The police chief in Watertown Mass told CNN that a helicopter-mounted thermal imager was used to verify that the second Marathon bombing suspect was in a boat in a Watertown backyard and that he was alive, moving. The Watertown Chief said shots were exchanged with the suspect as officers moved in. A police negotiator, in the second floor of the home overlooking the boat in the backyard, then attempted to get the suspect to surrender. Which he finally did. Chief Ed Deveau said officers ordered the suspect to stand up and open his shirt because they feared he might be wearing an explosive device. He was not. Link

 

[Travis]

So what happens if they extract confessions and all sorts of other information without Mirandazing him then realize none of it can be used in a trial?

Do they then dispense with the trial and inter him indefinitely without one?

 

[Rat]

So what happens if they extract confessions and all sorts of other information without Mirandazing him then realize none of it can be used in a trial?

Do they then dispense with the trial and inter him indefinitely without one?

Once again, I can almost guarantee that if they inter him, it will be indefinitely.

 

[newyorkguy]

So what happens if they extract confessions and all sorts of other information without Mirandazing him then realize none of it can be used in a trial?

They have other evidence. But I saw on CNN a couple hours ago that they may not arraign Dzhokhar Tsarnaev today at any rate because he may not be able to talk. That is because of the gun shot wound he suffered to the neck. So he is apparently not talking. He may also be heavily sedated due to the surgeries he undoubtedly had for his gun shot wounds.

Two other things about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:

In the initial confrontation with police his older brother was shooting at cops and they were shooting back. According to Watertown Mass Police Chief Ed Deveau, the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, ran out of ammunition and then charged at officers. Several of the officers tackled him, took him to the ground and attempted to handcuff him. While this was going on the younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, got behind the wheel of the stolen SUV and drove head-on at police. The officers subduing Tamerlan Tsarnaev, jumped out of the way but Tamerlan Tsarnaev was run over by his brother, and dragged a short distance down the street. Chief Deveau said that they, police, believe that was what killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, he was run over by his brother. (The doctors at the hospital where he was taken said he died of cardiac arrest.)

The other thing is, some of the police interviewed said they were struck by the fact, the brothers apparently had "no endgame." They planned the attack, made the bombs, acquired the backpacks, etc. What then? What were they going to do AFTER the bombing? Did they just assume the police would be unable to figure out who did it?

In line with this, I keep wondering about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lying under the tarp in the boat in the back of a Watertown house on Friday. What was his plan? He was alone. He had no food, no water, no transportation. He was seriously injured. He apparently lay in the boat hour after hour like an injured animal. What was he going to do next? In fact, if the homeowner had not discovered there was someone in the boat, in all likelihood, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would've bled to death overnight.

There are reports Dzhokhar Tsarnaev went to college classes on Tuesday, the day after the bombing, and even went to a party that night.

Very strange episode.

 

[newyorkguy]

They just replayed the video on CNN of the final confrontation with the younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as he lay under the tarp in the boat in the back of a Watertown house on Friday evening.

Earlier Watertown Police Chief Ed Deveau said that the police negotiator was in the second floor of the house with a bullhorn.

As they replayed the video you can hear the police negotiator calling, "Come on out on your own terms...Come out with your hands up...We know you're hurt...You will not be harmed..."

 

[ravdin]

So what happens if they extract confessions and all sorts of other information without Mirandazing him then realize none of it can be used in a trial?

Do they then dispense with the trial and inter him indefinitely without one?

See my earlier post. Miranda doesn't work in the real world like it does on Law & Order and he's not going to get off on a technicality if he's not read his rights.

 

[Spockette]

Once you've bombed a public area killing and maiming several people, you forfeited any rights or concerns that this country should honor after you have taken advantage of whatever benefits drew you here to begin with. I say screw it, I don't care what happens to the guy.It won't be a good ending regardless of what kind, where it's done, or how they decide to dish up justice.

NO. This is the whole point of having rights. They are to protect people who have only been accused, not convicted.

You are advocating lynch law.

Innocent until proven guilty. Sure, I expect he's guilty, but it hasn't been proven yet.

You don't sound much like a skeptic to me.

 

[Jodie]

I think it would be unwise to jettison the concept of innocent until proved guilty unless you quite like the idea of Judge Dredd stomping around the streets. One may forfeit rights on conviction in court but up until that point the principle of innocent until proved guilty should remain. The alternative makes it far too easy for those of ill will to start dropping all sorts of things between the "Once" and the "you forfeit all rights"

I guess driving through neighborhoods and dropping bombs off on the street and hiding in a boat in someone's backyard wasn't a tip off? I believe they got the right person.

 

[Rat]

I guess driving through neighborhoods and dropping bombs off on the street and hiding in a boat in someone's backyard wasn't a tip off? I believe they got the right person.

I also believe that they got the right person. I disagree that a person gives up all rights. Indeed I don't believe that a person can give up rights. If they can, I would say that they aren't rights.

 

[Jodie]

NO. This is the whole point of having rights. They are to protect people who have only been accused, not convicted.

You are advocating lynch law.

Innocent until proven guilty. Sure, I expect he's guilty, but it hasn't been proven yet.

You don't sound much like a skeptic to me.

If the guy confessed and was caught escaping what makes you think there is any doubt we have the right person? There is no doubt, the guy is a foreign immigrant that came here, I assume for a better chance at getting an education since he was in college, and blew up pedestrians. He forfeits any rights he might have had being a law abiding non citizen.

I'm skeptical of people who get lost in the details looking at bark on the trees in the forest when plain common sense will suffice.

 

[Jodie]

I also believe that they got the right person. I disagree that a person gives up all rights. Indeed I don't believe that a person can give up rights. If they can, I would say that they aren't rights.

I think rights are earned and shouldn't be automatically bestowed in a case like this, there was a confession and multiple witnesses. Coming over here to take advantage of what our society offers and then blowing us to kingdom come for who knows what reason, he forfeits.

 

[Rat]

If the guy confessed and was caught escaping what makes you think there is any doubt we have the right person? There is no doubt, the guy is a foreign immigrant that came here, I assume for a better chance at getting an education since he was in college, and blew up pedestrians. He forfeits any rights he might have had being a law abiding non citizen.

I'm skeptical of people who get lost in the details looking at bark on the trees in the forest when plain common sense will suffice.

I'm going to look at the bark on the trees. Has he lost his right to religious freedom? The right to freedom from torture? The right to a fair trial? The right of freedom of speech? I'm going to assume that you think he has forfeited the right to life, and presumably the right of freedom of movement. In what sense are any of these 'rights'?

 

[newyorkguy]

I think rights are earned and shouldn't be automatically bestowed in a case like this, there was a confession and multiple witnesses.

The trouble is, if you abrogate rights in cases like this, where nobody cares about the defendant, you set a precedent that can be used in other cases.

What's the rush to see this guy convicted? He's not going anywhere!

 

[Jodie]

What about the victim's rights to continue a life that wasn't his and his brother's to take? Or those that are now left handicapped? What about those people's rights not to suffer from the pain of recovery or the family and friends who are left grieving, what about their rights? You are only looking at half the picture.

 

[Jodie]

The trouble is, if you abrogate rights in cases like this, where nobody cares about the defendant, you set a precedent that can be used in other cases.

What's the rush to see this guy convicted? He's not going anywhere!

As I said previously, the details of this don't really concern me since any outcome for this guy will be bad. I have no sympathy for him.

 

[Vermonter]

I don't really have any handy saying for this.

While I agree that in this situation that they could temporarily suspend reading his Miranda rights, there is no reason for this to become the status quo. In this case, there was a very specific reason for doing so - public safety concern. What if he had a bomb on him and was waiting for a chance to go out in glory? What if there were other bombs littered elsewhere? These questions would have needed immediate answers.

That said, he is still protected by the basic rights of being here lawfully. If we (collectively speaking) deny suspects basic rights because we don't like them, then where can that lead? Personally, I think he's guilty, but he is still considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such. Anything less would be ala carte justice. Modern, civilized nations should not be so willing to give into hot-blooded vigilantism just because we don't like the guy. Fix him up, give him a fair trial, then convict him and let him rot in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Jodie]

Why not just send him home to Russia and let them handle it as they see fit? If he forfeits his rights here then he doesn't need to be here.

 

[newyorkguy]

What about the victim's rights to continue a life that wasn't his and his brother's to take? Or those that are now left handicapped? What about those people's rights not to suffer from the pain of recovery or the family and friends who are left grieving, what about their rights? You are only looking at half the picture.

Well now we know Senator Graham wasn't talking to himself!

What about the rights of victims? What about the rights for everyone that our democracy is founded upon? We throw those all away for what? And what do we gain? A faster conviction?

We've just co-opted everyone's rights, including yours, in the process.

 

[newyorkguy]

Why not just send him home to Russia and let them handle it as they see fit?...

You're aware Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen? I believe in a system of justice not a system of brutal revenge.

Would it surprise you to know, CNN reported earlier, there are some Christian websites that are offering prayers tonight, both for the victims and for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

 

[Jodie]

No, I didn't get that he was a citizen but even so, if I kill someone then I don't deserve my rights as a law abiding citizen. If I can't play fair why should I expect fair treatment?

Not really surprised, but I wonder how generous they would be with their prayers if it was one of their family or friends that was hurt or killed?