Skip to main content

Boston appears safe.

  • The so-called second suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will not be read Miranda rights, as the government has invoked a public safety exception that allows unwarned statements to be admissible in court.
  • The Democratic State Assembly Caucus has an informal surf caucus, and they're encouraging you to participate in Earth Day! It's coming up on April 22.
  • How is this supposed to work exactly? Senior leadership in the Boy Scouts is considering a "compromise" that would allow gay scouts, but still bar gay adults from serving in volunteer capacities. So, as long as you're under 18, it's okay to be gay, but as soon as you hit that magic birthday, you become evil gay? I can't even...
  • The New York Times has a more in-depth profile of the Tsarnaev brothers. The transformation of Dzhokhar from a seemingly happy American teenager into the most wanted man in America is shocking and sad.
  • What the...
    A California junior high school has amended its dress code to ban leggings for girls, claiming that they can be a classroom distraction. "Leggings have become popular among girls and many are sheer," said the school's principal. "When girls bend in leggings the threads spread and that's when it really becomes a problem."
  • Ann Coulter says that if Rubio's recently proposed immigration bill passes, it will be the "end of America."

    Noted.

  • The fact that this was felt to be necessary speaks volumes. Problematic volumes.
    Statement of the Ambassador of the Czech Republic on the Boston terrorist attack

    19.04.2013 / 21:27

    As many I was deeply shocked by the tragedy that occurred in Boston earlier this month. It was a stark reminder of the fact that any of us could be a victim of senseless violence anywhere at any moment.

    As more information on the origin of the alleged perpetrators is coming to light, I am concerned to note in the social media a most unfortunate misunderstanding in this respect. The Czech Republic and Chechnya are two very different entities - the Czech Republic is a Central European country; Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

    As the President of the Czech Republic Miloš Zeman noted in his message to President Obama, the Czech Republic is an active and reliable partner of the United States in the fight against terrorism. We are determined to stand side by side with our allies in this respect, there is no doubt about that.

    Petr Gandalovič
    Ambassador of the Czech Republic

  • Always happy to see my home county party, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, win some prestigious Pollie awards from the American Association of Political Consultants.
  • Here's some light reading for you: the sordid and shady history of the man who just became the Chair of the Texas Republcian Party.
    Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri was elected to his position in 2010. "I'm humbled and honored that the delegates to the convention of the Republican Party of Texas have elected me," he said at the time.

    But Chairman Munisteri hasn't always been filled with humility and honor. Far from it.

    From 1997-2000, Munisteri managed the boxer Ikemefula "Ike" Ibeabuchi. In 1997, when Munisteri became Ibeabuchi's manager, the Nigerian national kidnapped his former girlfriend's son, stuffed him in his car, and crashed the car into a concrete pillar. The boy was severely injured and still cannot walk properly. The court determined that Ibeabuchi was trying to commit suicide with the boy in his car, giving him a meager 120 days of prison time and forced him to pay the boy's mother $500,000 in a civil settlement.

    This terrible crime did not deter Munisteri from continuing to manage Ibeabuchi. "Ike has no criminal charges against him, no serious charges ended sticking, just a misdemeanour,' Munisteri, also a practicing attorney told the Vancouver Sun in 1999. "He had an incident with the law, it's resolved and we move on." "Just a misdemeanor" in which Ibeabuchi kidnapped and partially disabled a child.

    "I planned his comeback," Munisteri boasted in a 2006 boxing blog interview. "After the Tua fight, and the injury to the child; he was incarcerated, and no one would touch him. He dropped out of the rankings." No one except for Munisteri that is, who was concerned only with making a buck by pushing Ibeabuchi's career forward.

    That's only the beginning. It gets much worse.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ummm... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, AmazingBlaise, PSzymeczek, viral

    What kind of schedule do you keep that 4am EDT is midday, Dante?

    ;-)

    •  something got screwed up with the queuing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Trix

      so it published as a normal diary, I had to unpublish it, and then requeue it--but I couldn't get rid of the tip jar, which normally doesn't post to frontpage posts.

      I always write my open threads the night before...

      oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

      Twitter: @DanteAtkins

      by Dante Atkins on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:16:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Derrick Jackson asks if we are "Tough on violence? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral

    in a Boston Globe column that I explore in this brief post to which I invite your attention

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:01:21 PM PDT

  •  Your inspirational message for a Crappy Anniversar (8+ / 0-)

    Republicans represent both sides: the insanely rich and vice versa.

    by Crashing Vor on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:01:28 PM PDT

  •  A meditation for the day, 4/20 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, PSzymeczek

    composed specifically in light of the last week

    in this post which I would be honored should you choose to read

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:02:19 PM PDT

  •  Boston appears safe but the "public safety" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pgm 01

    exception and permissibility of non-warned statements in court make me wonder about the safety of our fair trial system.

    There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

    by srkp23 on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:05:32 PM PDT

    •   Amtrak train 150 was stopped and passengers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, thomask, viral

      Evacuated due to police activity today.

      Boston may not be safe yet.

      I hate the idea of anyone, much less a citizen, being denied Constitutional rights. But since we don't know all the facts, I, personally, am going to withhold judgement until the LEOs tell us that they are positive that everything is ok.

      Miranda exists for a reason. But when you're targeting civilians and LEOs with IEDs, it's not unreasonable to expect that perhaps that society might want to know where else you might have planted other explosives.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:15:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno. I don't buy the logic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        viral

        of the security state. So would the EOs torture him to get info, or what? The "exception" argument starts us down the road to that logic. What is the intelligence effect of not Mirandizing? Does it produce better, more immediate intelligence? How? You cannot force a person to speak truth. In fact, arguably, having an attorney present to explain the benefits of cooperating with LE might aid in getting good intelligence.

        There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

        by srkp23 on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:23:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He still has the right to remain silent. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thomask, PSzymeczek

          They just don't remind  a stressed, likely scared, injured 19 year old kid he does if he doesn't recall after watching hours of American crime tv shows.

          Obviously, this works better with foreign nationals than citizens.

          The effect is is that any reasonably competent attorney is going to tell his client to shut up.  That's why the exemption exists, to speak to the suspects before he gets an attorney.

          Torture? The exemption doesn't allow for torture. If you personally believe these LEOs will torture him, then whether they read him his Miranda rights is actually kind of irrelevant.

          Look, I would never talk to the cops if they knocked at my door "just to ask a few questions" regardless of the topic.  I'd meet them at the station with attorney in tow. That's how suspicious I am about the whole process.

          But I do think that under these circumstances, it's not just feasible but reasonably possible  that the citizens of Boston are still in danger. It's a lousy balancing act we have to do here, but if we don't, and the local mall explodes, how do we, as a society, explain that to the catastrophically injured and the families of the dead?

          But just to be clear, I'm not endorsing torture nor any physical contact at all.

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:51:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  everything is ok (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AmazingBlaise, viral

        Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 GOP Rep. Steve Stockman (TX):"If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted"

        by annieli on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:26:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  the "24" theory of interrogation /nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      srkp23, DrTerwilliker, PSzymeczek

      Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 GOP Rep. Steve Stockman (TX):"If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted"

      by annieli on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:16:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  we've already gone down that road, every day (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      srkp23, viral

      The entire "person of interest" ploy is an attempt by the cops to use statements against people without Mirandizing them. And it happens every day in the US.

      The term "person of interest" does not appear in any US law or any criminal or court procedure.  it was made up out of whole cloth by the cops to entice people into talking who have the legal right to NOT talk.

    •  evidently since 9/11, justice is an optional (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      srkp23, side pocket, PSzymeczek

      feature of the justice system.  They already had the exception of "an excited utterance" if the kid had just started blabbing.  It appears this exception is for people who don't babble and actually expect Miranda protections.

      Question, if this exception is invoked does it mean a judge no longer has jurisdiction or can he reject this use of this exception?  

  •  Spare me another "America will end" pronouncement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    From another right wing loudmouth who doesn't care about America anyway....(Ann coulter).

    If America ended every time Ann and her cohorts said it would then America would be no more!    Hmmmmmm.....

    "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

    by KnotIookin on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:06:58 PM PDT

    •  the America I knew has already ended (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RainyDay, PSzymeczek

      9-11 killed it.  Or more accurately, 9-11 provoked America into killing itself.

      And now I'm afraid we will repeat the trick.

    •  America is a very fragile country, donchaknow (0+ / 0-)

      Immigration reform, same-sex marriages, gun background checks, abortion, birth control, dogs and cats living together. Each one of these has or is destined to bring it down when it occurs. We're like the glass-jawed, mobbed-up boxer who goes down in the third round whenever his opponent waves a glove in his general direction.

      I, on the other hand, believe that if we could survive Bush II, we are just about impervious to anything.

      I don't get mad. I get stabby!" - Fat Tony D'Amico

      by sizzzzlerz on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:18:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chewbacca and Chechnya are very different (16+ / 0-)

    entities. I just wanted to clarify that.

  •  the boy scouts new (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    edict sounds like something the catholic church would introduce, they love them some under age gay choir boys.

  •  Okay, fine: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    srkp23, CorinaR, thomask
    The public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger.
    "Trigger" it for its stated purpose, but then don't
    allows the government to introduce the statement as evidence in court.
    Just one more erosion of our rights.

    So if three armed bank robbers out of four were captured, the "public safety exception" could be used in their case, too, because the police or the public might need to be protected from the fourth bank robber at large.

    •  Not quite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nickrud

      The public safety exception still only applies to voluntary statements, and incriminating statements are only admissible to the extent they actually relate to questions relating to the need for public safety.

      More broadly, there is NOT a right to Miranda warnings.  There is a right AGAINST self-incrimination, and the Miranda rule is an application of that.  Any statement can be taken without a Miranda warning, the only issue is whether the defendant has the right to exclude the statement or subsequent discovered evidence at a trial of that defendant.  (Other potential co-conspirators can't rely on the violation of someone else's Miranda rights to exclude incriminating evidence.)  If the police and prosecutors do not expect to use the statements at trial, or do not feel they need to, there's not a violation of the 5th amendment, and no benefit to Mirandizing him in any event.  And Tsarnaev can still challenge the application of the public safety exception to any such incriminating statements.  It's not admissible by the FBI's say-so; it's just not automatically excluded, as it would be if there were no conceivable public safety justification. This is a calculated risk by law enforcement, though the internal guidelines are quite broad and, practically speaking, your average judge might not be so inclined to second-guess law enforcement.  

      I don't think the meme that any lawyer will just tell him to shut up makes much sense, though.  His only play is to cooperate, and if he doesn't, there's no upside in interrogating him anyway.  But the rights are narrower than people think, and it's within the realm of a defensible judgment call.  There's a question about the timing by which his lawyer might persuade him to cooperate, but I think given the time lag between the bombing and now, it's enough time for (a) any other conspirators to have acted, or (b) been long gone.  Nevertheless, I don't see this as a case implicating the first-principle question of whether the public safety exception should exist (yes), or the sub-question of how broad it should be.  Based on what we know, it could go either way, practically or philosophically.  As in your hypo, there are circumstances in which the fourth bank robber might or might not implicate the exception, and for that exception to make perfect sense.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:32:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And? (0+ / 0-)
        The public safety exception still only applies to voluntary statements, and incriminating statements are only admissible to the extent they actually relate to questions relating to the need for public safety.
        "Voluntary statements."  So if a person isn't Mirandized and they offer up information, that's a voluntary statement.
        As in your hypo, there are circumstances in which the fourth bank robber might or might not implicate the exception, and for that exception to make perfect sense.
        "Might or might not."  

        Please explain, if you're willing, how my hypo is not valid.

        •  Your hypo is neither valid nor invalid (0+ / 0-)

          It's incomplete, under both the law as it is, and as perhaps it might be.  The action is over what circumstances would create an exigency circumstance -- is the fourth guy armed?  Was he identified?  What if we don't know if there were a fourth guy, t we want to know whether or not that is the case?  Did the means of robbing banks involve violence, etc.

          Yes, a statement can be both voluntary and un-mirandized.  There's overlap between custody and coercion, but its a Venn diagram. This isnt even over whether he can be asked the questions, but what the consequences are if he answers.  If he's groggy from medication when he's questioned, however, a statement might not be voluntary and the exclusionary rule could still apply.  That's what involuntary can mean in this context.  Where this gets interesting is if someone blurts out "I did it" after being taken into custody but before being mirandized -- the statement is voluntary, but the waiver of Miranda rights, if in a circumstance when they'd have to be waived (not arguendo this circumstance), would not be a voluntary waiver, and so the exclusion from evidence would apply.  

          The point is, however, if you make a claim across time, about how rights are being lost, you can't romanticize the prelapsarian state.  Saying rights never were, or werent what you popularly imagine, that's another story.  

          I think if the FBI won't mirandized him, a question about which I don't have strong feelings either way, it is good that they are public about it and thus force a debate.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:52:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Troubling, but not surprising (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    birdboy2000, pgm 01, viral
    The fact that this was felt to be necessary speaks volumes. Problematic volumes.
     considering Palin thinks Africa is one country, and didn't know the difference between Russia and the (old) USSR.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:12:10 PM PDT

  •  And I assume they've banned the males from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694, PSzymeczek, viral

    taking off their shirts in public... as that could become a problem.

    When girls bend in leggings the threads spread and that's when it really becomes a problem.
  •  Here's hoping that (0+ / 0-)

    Miranda rights decision was procedural and not political.

  •  the legging ban (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caipirinha

    was because the girls were wearing them without skirts, shorts or tunics long enough to cover their rear ends. A 'public decency' kind of rule.

    (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

    by PJEvans on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:14:46 PM PDT

    •  i was just about to post that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, PSzymeczek, viral

      when older folks think of leggings they are thinking about something else.

      these fashion leggings are more like opaque pantyhose that aren't really opaque.

      and since young girls wear very skimpy thong underwear, bending over could reveal more than they are even aware.

      even so, males that age can be distracted by a girl bending over when she is completely covered up...

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:28:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  from what i've seen, they seem to be wearing (0+ / 0-)

      them without underwear.

      the kids, btw, don't call them leggings, they call them yoga pants. the store chain that apparently dominates the market recently had to recall millions of dollars in inventory, because they were embarrassingly sheer. i'm not particularly prudish, but i'm with the school on this one. unless you're going to allow the kids to come to school nude, you're going to have to set some sort of reasonable limits on what does or does not constitute being clothed.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:19:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mirandize or not, he still has the legal right to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    srkp23, DrTerwilliker, PSzymeczek

    shut up and not answer any questions.

    And if he refuses to talk, what then--we waterboard him? Pull out his fingernails? Electrocute his testicles?

    This is starting to sound like a bad Jack Bauer movie.

    •  But who will inform him of his legal right? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

      by srkp23 on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:24:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  if he knows that; after all his childhood would (0+ / 0-)

      not lead him to expect anything except what you listed

      •  but that is precisely the thing . . . . (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wintergreen8694, OLinda, viral

        Most people do NOT know their rights--and that is what the cops are counting on.  If they arrest you and question you, they MUST Mirandize you (except for this now-abused "exception")--at which point the suspect usually shuts up and asks for a lawyer. The cops WANT you to answer questions, so if they label you a "person of interest" that we "just want to talk to", instead of a "suspect", and then question you WITHOUT detaining or arresting you, they do NOT have to remind you that you have the right to not answer questions---and many people will then blab away, mistakenly thinking that if they refuse to answer they are "interfering with an investigation" or "being uncooperative with law enforcement".  The cops, of course, WANT you to think that, and they do nothing to disabuse you of that mistake. And so people talk. As was the intention all along.

        The whole "person of interest who we just want to talk to" thingie, is wholly and solely a way for the cops to try to entice people into talking who have the legal right NOT to talk. It was made up out of whole cloth by the cops specifically to try to get people to talk --the term person of interest" has no legal validity of any sort whatsoever. (And of course it also helps that they must have "probable cause" to detain or arrest someone for questioning, but don't need ANY probable cause to "talk to" a "person of interest".

        Every time I have ever been approached by a cop who "just wanted to ask me some questions", I immediately ask if I am being detained, and if the answer is "no", I follow up with "Then I respectfully decline to discuss my lawful business with you.  Am I free to go?"

        It always pisses them off, but legally, I am in the right.

        •  don't get the idea (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wintergreen8694, OLinda

          that the police MUST give you a miranda warning. They can ask you anything they want beforehand. They simply can't use it in court. The exception is about allowing the statements prior to miranda be used in court.

           And even then, the statements must be demonstrably voluntary and related directly to public safety. For example, they can ask 'where are the rest of the bombs' or 'hwere are your accomplices' but they can't ask 'who trained you'.

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:42:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not so . . . (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OLinda, viral

            If you are detained, they MUST Mirandize you to question you, or they can't use anything you say.

            If you are NOT detained and are just a "person of interest", they do NOT have to Mirandize you, but they CAN still use anything you say. That's why they use the "person of interest" ploy.

            Also, in order to detain you for questioning, they MUST have probable cause first. To question you as a "person of interest", though, they need nothing at all.

            •  also they threaten people of interest (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              viral

              by asking why they refuse to answer questions or even threaten them with arrest for interfering with their investigation.

              Look at the thing the Ramsey family went through after they "lawyered up"

              •  exactly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                viral, entlord

                Many people mistakenly think that they MUST answer a cop's questions. There is no such law--and the 5th Amendment means you don't have to say diddley-doo to the cops, period.

                (With ONE exception---some states have laws that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement if asked.)

              •  If a person of interest isn't covered (0+ / 0-)

                by Miranda, how could they have 'lawyered up'?

                47 is the new 51!

                by nickrud on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:10:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  a slight correction to above (0+ / 0-)

                at any time, your unsolicited voluntary statements are fair game. But it's been well settled law that a specific question that incriminates the answerer must be preceeded by miranda.

                47 is the new 51!

                by nickrud on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:16:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you are right, but again miss the point (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  viral, entlord

                  That is not how the questioning goes for a "person of interest"--that's not the goal yet.  In questioning a person of interest without Mirandizing him, the cops are hoping that you will make contradictory statements that can be shown to be untrue and then used in court against you.

                  The cops won't directly ask a "person of interest" whether they were at the murder scene last night--they'll simply ask where he was last night. And when the answer is demonstrably false, it helps incriminate them in court and also let's the cops know they are on the right track. Remember, you also need probable cause to question someone about something incriminating--but you need NOTHING to ask general questions that nevertheless trip the person up.

                  When the cops really want to directly incriminate you with their questions, they'll detain you.

                  The "person of interest" play is a way to get to that point.

                  •  again, the Ramsey case remains the example (0+ / 0-)

                    to remember whenever dealing with cops.  The poor parents were already practically accused by the time they got a lawyer because of their efforts to assist investigators

            •  You are incorrect (0+ / 0-)

              They cannot use anything you say under any questioning unless you have been mirandized first. That is rock solid, Supreme Court speak. 'Person of Interest' is a term of art, not a legal category.

              47 is the new 51!

              by nickrud on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:09:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think you are actually disagreeing with me (0+ / 0-)
                'Person of Interest' is a term of art, not a legal category.
                That is indeed precisely my point.  And why do the cops use this non-legal term of art?  Because it lets them entice people into "voluntarily" talking to the cops (without probable cause and without being Mirandized) even though those people have the legal right NOT to talk to the cops. And once you "voluntarily" talk, anything you say is fair game as evidence in court.

                Hence the whole art performance by the cops.

                •  is your statement in response to a direct (0+ / 0-)

                  question by the officer? Then it is covered by miranda. If, during conversation, you blurt out something that's incriminating without your statement being a response to a question, then yes it can be used. Of course, if you do this with a couple police officers surrounding you or at a station itself it'll get thrown out by any reasonably competent public defender. The case law is pretty clear.

                  47 is the new 51!

                  by nickrud on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:18:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  not true (0+ / 0-)

                    Miranda ONLY applies if you are being detained. It does NOT apply in any other circumstance.

                    If you are directly answering a cop, then whether it is admissable depends on whether you were being legally "detained" at the time. And that depends largely upon whether the person being questioned is free to leave at any time he or she wants. "Persons of interest" are specifically NOT being legally detained--they are specifically free to leave at any time--hence anything they say is usable in court because it is NOT covered by Miranda.

                    That is why the first question I ask whenever any police officer wants to question me about anything is "am I being detained?" If the answer is "yes", I follow with "I exercise my right to remain silent, then." If the answer is "no", then I follow with "Then I respectfully decline to discuss with you my lawful business. Am I free to go?"  Then the cop has a choice--he can either tell me yes, I am free to go--and I leave--or he can answer no, I am not free to go--at which point I become "detained", and therefore silent.

              •  ah, rereading your comment I see you are incorrect (0+ / 0-)
                They cannot use anything you say under any questioning unless you have been mirandized first. That is rock solid, Supreme Court speak.
                That is ONLY true if you are being detained for questioning. If the cops want to question you under detention, they MUST Mirandize you, or all your statements are inadmissable.

                However, if you are NOT being detained (such as, for instance, the cops "just want to talk with you" as a "person of interest") then (1) you do not need to be Mirandized, and (2) all of your statements are considered to be "voluntary" and they are all usable in court, even if you are not Mirandized. Indeed, that is precisely how the "person of interest" play works.

                •  it's not as cut and dried as you make it out (0+ / 0-)

                  'Custody' is an amorphous term. One officer talking to you in your driveway? Three cop cars and 2 officers actually standing with you? Those are different situations and Miranda will almost certainly apply in the latter even if the cops don't, as an extreme version of custody, put on cuffs. In the first it will depend on the questions asked, although it's likely that most statements would be admissible.

                  47 is the new 51!

                  by nickrud on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  from what i've seen, the average dkos poster (0+ / 0-)

      would fully support any abuse of authority in order to "get to the truth" of this matter. because whatever that might mean, it couldn't ever possibly mean we were setting dangerous precedents that someday some of us might be very sorry about.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:21:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I must've had a bad night. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek, viral

    Today, I'm completely worn out with the stupidity we are forced to witness on a daily basis.
    Go git 'em, ya'll.

    The Great Awakening Is Afire! Think outside the box.

    by franklyn on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:20:19 PM PDT

  •  The End of America? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmazingBlaise, PSzymeczek

    How do we find out if America has written out a will? I'd really like to inherit Glacier National Park, or maybe Grand Tetons.

    I suppose I should really ingratiate myself to America before it kicks off...  

    © grover


    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

    by grover on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:22:25 PM PDT

  •  teen aged girls have legs? Who knew? except (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, PSzymeczek, viral

    teen aged boys of course.

    reminds me of the prudery of the 19th century when piano legs were referred to as limbs and were encased in leggings

    •  well, as posted above, it's not about legs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caipirinha, UntimelyRippd

      it's more like wearing colored pantyhose as pants, and asking girls to keep private parts private, at least when they are in a public place like school

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:33:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  these are not jane fonda's leggings. (0+ / 0-)

      these are "yoga pants": sheer, skintight knitted something-or-others -- as TBM says above me, they're more like panty hose than anything else. when the guy observes that they become very sheer when you bend, he means sheer as in see-through sheer.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:27:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Texas Republican Steve Munisteri (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral

    It sounds like he went to the Karl Rove School of Karl Rovianism.

    Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

    by Icicle68 on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:31:45 PM PDT

  •  POTUS today said Boston bomeber WILL be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    Read Miranda. Please revise diary.  

    "We need a revolution away from the plutocracy that runs Government."

    by hangingchad on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:32:14 PM PDT

  •  MA State Police thermal image released (5+ / 0-)

    They released 5 total pics.

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:36:45 PM PDT

  •  Two recently seen bumperstickers...in NC..... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PJEvans, srkp23, tb mare, NCJan, PSzymeczek, sow hat

    1. Democrats have been cleaning up Republican messes since 1933.

    2. Proud to be everything the right wing hates.

  •  Miranda (0+ / 0-)

    Oh! constitution?............never mind.

  •  Ann Coulter give America a Temporary Reprieve.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694

    Ann Coulter says that if Rubio's recently proposed immigration bill passes, it will be the "end of America."

    I thought that Ann Coulter pronounced the "end of America" when we elected Obama. Looks like we got a temporary reprieve.

  •  Leggings (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek, wa ma

    leggings........ yup...."Only in America".....Oh! wait.....burka!
    Some school principal is a pedophile........

    •  Bridgeport Ct's uniform policy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pgm 01, viral, wa ma
      Last week, with only about 40 days left to the 2012-2013 school year, Central High School announced that they would begin enforcing Bridgeport’s district-wide school uniform policy.

      As the CT Post wrote, “The edict, made during morning announcements Tuesday by Principal Stephen Anderson and sent home to parents by letter, was ordered by the district administration after some board members learned that the district’s 2-year-old high school uniform policy was being ignored at Central.”

      That Board of Education member was Hernan Illingworth…who just happens to be a salesman for Bridgeport based Uniformz, whose website reports that the company is, “the premier local supplier of School Uniforms to the students of the Bridgeport (CT) Public School System."

      Conflict of interest? Not in Bridgeport!
    •  It's going to be tedious replying to every (0+ / 0-)

      one of these comments, but the bottom line (cough) is this:

      Unless you think that only a pervert would insist that the girls not come to school naked from the waist down, you're pretty far from the mark here. The "clothing" in question is only barely that -- it's not significantly more concealing than body paint, and when stretched, less so.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:31:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you think there are more than a handful (0+ / 0-)

        of girls at that school that are deliberately coming to school in clothing that they know is extremely sheer or revealing? I have two daughters in middle school and they and their friends would be mortified if they found out they were wearing something that was see-through and exposing their private parts.

        I think it's silly to think there are enough girls at any school who would intentionally wear see-through clothing that it would necessitate a change in the dress code. If there were a girl wearing something that inappropriate, why couldn't the situation be addressed by having a kind, compassionate adult simply take the girl aside and privately let her know that she's exposing herself and help her understand why that's not okay. The adult could follow up the conversation with a phone call to the girl's parents.

        If a girl were intentionally exposing herself, wouldn't caring adults at the school see that as a symptom of a deeper problem? A change in the dress code won't address that problem.

        The older my girls get, the more I realize how rules like this are unevenly enforced in a lot of cases depending on the status of the students. And a lot of this stuff starts looking like slut-shaming, and in this case, probably a little fat-shaming mixed in.

        I don't like these rules that are based on a belief that there are are a significant number of girls who are going to a lot of effort to dress provocatively in order to distract  the poor, weak boys. I don't know why the adults can't operate from a belief that girls want to make good choices but might need some guidance and that boys are capable of controlling themselves when that's what's expected of them.

        •  Are you kidding me? (0+ / 0-)

          The weird mix of innocence and exhibitionism that defines the fashion "sense" of teenage girls is pretty indisputable. I have no particular insight to the psychology of it, and I'll refrain from sociobiological speculation, but one thing seems clear: There's a certain amount of "daring" involved, and once one or two girls lead the way, others will follow the lead (in much the same way that boys tend to follow one or two alphas in various tests of daring -- tests that are usually either stupidly dangerous, or explicitly antisocial, or both, the antisocial element presumably signaling that the male is not afraid of the big bad grown up males). This particular style of "leggings" is the dominant fashion on college campuses these days -- it has fairly quickly become "normal" -- and that means it will similarly be considered "normal" amongst younger girls as well.

          I'm not quite sure what to say about the male vs female questions you raise. Generally, boys' fashions simply don't do the same things. To the extent that they do, most schools do try to crack down on them, such as the typical "no underwear showing" rules that address the ludicrous style of wearing your jeans below your hips, and rules against sleeveless shirts. I suspect that were a male cycling enthusiast to decide to wear his spandex in class, there would be a pretty quick response, but you wouldn't likely get an official policy unless spandex biker shorts suddenly became the cool thing for guys to wear -- which is pretty unlikely, because guys just do not roll that way.

          This, however:

          I don't know why the adults can't operate from a belief that ... boys are capable of controlling themselves when that's what's expected of them
          ... I can address: You can define "controlling themselves" any way you like, but if it means not being distracted by physical displays of sexual attractiveness, you are in a world of denial. The reality experienced by almost all male adolescents is such that they literally cannot ignore sexual display by females, regardless of whether the female in question has any real sense of what she is doing or why she is doing it. Humans are simply not wired that way. Seriously: You would need to apply aversive therapy to a heterosexual and biologically healthy teenage boy in order to get him to "control himself", if "control himself" means refraining from staring at the spandexed rear of the girl who sits to the left and one row ahead, when he's supposed to be learning prealgebra. This is the biological reality, and no amount of condescending moralizing from people who don't believe it because they haven't experienced it is going to change that reality.

          The left has a real dilemma over this, because it is chic to laugh at dirty old men in texas who think we ought not to have semi-nude teenage girls performing fairly explicit mating displays in front of large crowds of adolescent and adult males, while at the same time it is understood by many that this is the junior form of the exploitation that permeates grown-up popular culture. Pelvic thrusts may indeed be a form of self-expression, but pretending that they express something other than what they actually express is ridiculous. The dancing in Dirty Dancing is, in fact, "dirty" -- it is all about sexual display. "Freaky Dancing" is, in fact, simulated intercourse. It seems like a bad idea to me.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:26:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Disappointed in NY Times article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral

    This profile is called reporting, I guess, but I didn't read anything in there that didn't originate somewhere else earlier.

    Sad when the Grey Lady can only compile information that's already been published about an event without adding something new.

    Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

    by NCJan on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:09:39 PM PDT

  •  Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pgm 01

    Another Day in the Gun Crazy USA

    Please rec this diary up.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:17:30 PM PDT

    •  Somewhat related (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla
      Wal-Mart parking lots can be dangerous – especially if you’re a deer.
      That's the lesson one stag learned after a Pennsylvania man allegedly shot a 10-point buck inside a Wal-Mart parking lot, AP reports.

      Arcangelo Bianco Jr., 40, spotted the deer and chased it around the store’s parking lot before firing several rounds from a handgun, CBS reports. After the deer was killed, he bagged it and brought it to a meat processor.

      “Obviously, we can’t have someone running through a Wal-Mart parking lot shooting at a deer,” Jack Lucas, a wildlife conservation officer who investigated the incident told the Indiana Gazette.

      And the Wal-Mart deer was apparently a beauty. “It was the nicest buck I’ve seen taken in Indiana County in a couple of years,” Lucas added.

      Hunter Shoots Deer In Wal-Mart Parking Lot: Arcangelo Bianco Jr. Shot 'The Nicest Buck' Seen In Recent Years
  •  Wonder why no one has written about what's a (0+ / 0-)

    Happening in west Texas?   I have nr seen anyone on Cale to a report from there on days either.   I have no idea how many people were injured or killed,  who they are, what is happening to help these people or anything....   The only person who seems to have mentioned this other tragedy was our President... As a tag on his last TV speech about the Boston Bmbers.  

    "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

    by KnotIookin on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:26:59 PM PDT

  •  For the lawyers amongst us: (0+ / 0-)
    The so-called second suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will not be read Miranda rights, as the government has invoked a public safety exception that allows unwarned statements to be admissible in court.
    So what happens if he asserts his Miranda rights, versus being read them?  He still has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not engage in self-incrimination, doesn't he?

    Or do they just ship him off to GITMO and let him languish in whatever form of extra-legal custody they have there until he decides to talk?

    I want to know his motivation and whether or not he's a "lone wolf"; whether or not he's planted other devices and all that, but surely there exist ways to obtain that information from him without going all Darth Cheney/Jack Bauer on his ass as much as so many people seem to want that to happen.

    Being a Nation of Laws doesn't mean tossing them out when it's convenient or politically popular as much as that seems to have been the trend since 9/11.  They still managed to successfully prosecute Timothy McVeigh, Ramzi Yousef and Ted Kacsinski (sp?) while remaining within the guidelines set forth that followed the Constitution.  This kid will recover from his injuries in some of the best hospitals in the US and probably spend the next 70 years of his life in an isolated cell in a Supermax Prison wondering whether the Sun and Moon still exist, if he's not strapped to a gurney in Terre Haute to satisfy the blood lust of so many instead.    

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:40:53 PM PDT

  •  Czech Republic / Chechnya (0+ / 0-)

    You know... I made this joke, a few times, in the threads about the bomber manhunt.  The joke was the dimmer of the neocons would want to start a war with the Czech Republic in a case of mistaken identity.  Yuk yuk, gallows humor.

    And then the Czech Ambassador actually, for real, releases this statement?  Good grief.  I would be a little offended that he thinks Americans are this stupid... except, upon reflection, maybe we are.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site