Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

smartcooky said:
Actually, you can, and it has happened, numerous times, since as early as 1991, the early days of the internet.

http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html

http://www.casp.net/sued-for-freedo.../slapp-being-sued-for-first-amendment-online/

http://www.thestar.com/sports/golf/2012/02/02/phil_mickelson_suing_over_internet_postings.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jury...suit-anonymous/story?id=16194071#.UXWSQkqU9nM


Especially, read that last one, because if you go accusing actual people of stuff that they haven't done, this could be what you get!!

"After the Leshers filed their lawsuit in February 2009 against the anonymous commenters, a Texas judge ordered Topix to turn over identifying information about the anonymous posters. Information disclosed by Topix, including Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, or the unique number assigned to each computer, led the couple to a business owned by the husband of a woman who accused the couple of sexual assault in 2008.

 A jury on Friday awarded the Leshers with $13.78 million."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. Very interesting indeed.

Some posters here might find themselves in a little legal trouble if certain parties who were wrongfully "identified" by them start feeling litigious. It's a long shot, but still...

ETA: Who knows? If some Internet sleuths get their pants sued off, then maybe it won't seem like fun anymore and they'll leave the serious police investigation to the pros.
 
Last edited:
Clueless airhead writes "A Poem for Dzhokhar":

you don’t know how to make something, but the instructions are on the internet.

you don’t know how to make sense of this massive parade.

you don’t know how to believe anyone anymore.

you don’t know how to mourn your dead brother.
Click to expand...
 
BenBurch said:
As I understand matters; If you do not Mirandize an arrestee, you cannot use anything he says subsequently to convict him.

It seems to be very unlikely that they need anything he says to get a conviction at this time.

So as long as they exclude anything he says from trial, his rights are not at all violated!
Click to expand...

I'm sure this may have already been answered, but they can ask him the same questions once his Miranda rights have been read. If the suspect repeats the answer he gave, then the information can be used. Of course, the suspect may say something different, but as you mentioned, I doubt they'll need to get his statement to get a conviction.
 
Motion to Appoint Learned Counsel

Defendant, by undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully moves that this Court appoint two attorneys “learned in the law applicable to capital cases” to represent Mr. Tsarnev. See 18 U.S.C. § 3005.

Section 3005 requires that at least one of the attorneys appointed for a defendant who faces a potential death penalty have experience in capital cases. Given the magnitude of this
case, undersigned counsel is requesting that two attorneys with such expertise be appointed. See United States v. Wilson, 354 F.Supp.2d 246 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (appointing two learned counsel); 7 Guide to Judiciary Policy, § 620.10.10(b) (permitting appointment of more than two attorneys in capital case “if necessary for adequate representation”). Undersigned counsel notes that, in the recent case of United States v. Jared Loughner, 11-00187-LABU (D.Az.), two attorneys with capital experience were appointed in addition to a Federal Public Defender’s Office. See also United States v. Eric Rudolph, 00-00422-CLS (N.D. Al.) (appointing three capital defenders, in addition to local CJA lawyers).

Undersigned counsel will submit the names of recommended learned counsel to the Court’s clerk separately.
Click to expand...

His attorney, Miriam Conrad, has kind of an unfortunate address in this context on Sleeper Street.
 
Last edited:
trustbutverify said:
You don't think a valid argument can be made that this type of mass social media "investigation" is fraught with threats to personal privacy and security? Especially considering the character of those "investigators" in the Conspiracy community.
Click to expand...
It may be that a valid argument can be made. Posting pictures of Inspector Clouseau is not a valid argument. Dropping dessicated dingleberries like "Junior G Men" and "the internet kids and their talking dog" is not a valid argument. Straining to draw analogies to being mistaken for someone who was tried for a crime and acquitted is not, in my opinion, a valid argument, though I think it at least it attempts to be.

Maybe you'll be the first to step up and make a valid argument. It certainly would raise the level of discussion.

I'm not familiar with the Conspiracy Community, so if the character of its investigators is an important part of your valid argument, I may need a short background summary to respond intelligently.
 
The Wall Street Journal has a bit more on the carjacking victim:

The victim told police he was driven to a Shell Gas Station on Memorial Drive in Watertown. Inside the car, the brothers "declared to [the victim] that they were the Boston Marathon bombers and would not kill him because he wasn't American," the report said.

When the victim saw an opportunity to flee, he ran to a nearby gas station where he asked the owner to call 911, the report said.

Details Emerge of Alleged Carjacking by Bomber Suspects
Click to expand...


A witness to the shootout in Laurel Street, Andrew Kitzenberg, has a blog post, with photos, describing what he saw. The two brothers stopped their cars outside his house.
 
On "being American", and as a counterpoint to some of the more wild-eyed comments earlier about foregoing due process, there were some interesting comments posted on the article I linked at #2829:

mattschaar: Both the physician's initial question ("How are you feeling?") and the professionals that conducted this hearing -- while still performing the prescribed duties of their position -- is a remarkable bookend to a week perpetuated by terror and fear. Such professionalism suggests that terrorism is merely a violent, fearful reaction to a false premonition of our country that howling voices on both ends of the political spectrum have perpetuated, and I'm extremely proud to see that due process for Mr. Tsarnev has taken the best first step it possibly could. Kudos to them.

Goomb: I felt a genuine pride in my country reading this. I'm comforted that, even in a moment of extreme passion and justified anger, systems are in place to ensure that everyone goes through the same formal, measured, reasoned system of judgment. Yes its imperfect, but it's miles ahead of the mob-ruled stonings and beheadings that have prevailed for much of history and still prevail in some parts of the world.
Click to expand...
 
Peephole said:
How's that? There's no evidence whatsoever at this point that these dudes were politically motivated.

Can we even talk about terrorism at all when people don't claim responsibility for an attack? Especially when it's one isolated event.
Click to expand...

The motivation behind the act is not a factor in the result. An act of terror.

Why does a terrorist need political motivation? There's religion for one....

If they did it because they were picked on at school, is a random public bombing suddenly not an act of terrorism?
 
Shiner;9172792If they did it because they were picked on at school said:
not[/i] an act of terrorism?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it may be terrorism (an act to strike terror into the general public) but it may not be Terrorism (something that triggers a set of legal protocols). I presume that the Patriot act covers what happens once someone is declared a Terrorist.
 
smartcooky said:
People who call themselves "Freedom Fighters" who indiscriminately target civilians are terrorists, whether or not their supporters believe they are freedom fighters. End of!
Click to expand...

You would therefore have to conclude, would you not, that the RAF and USAAF were terrorist organisations?

Theres also the question of what counts as reasonable steps to ensure you dont harm civillians. Is blowing up a bar frequented by members of the armed forces terrorism, even if 80% of the victims are civillians? How about drone strikes that routinely kill and maim civillians? Isnt that also terrorism?
 
zeggman said:
It may be that a valid argument can be made. Posting pictures of Inspector Clouseau is not a valid argument. Dropping dessicated dingleberries like "Junior G Men" and "the internet kids and their talking dog" is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think those were meant as arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom