Which is why I'm OK with the public safety exception (to a point) but there are some on here who believe that Tsarnaev deserves no rights and shouldn't be tried as an American. That's what I disagree with.

 

Ok, I misunderstood you then. I don't really agree that he shouldn't be tried as an American.

I think you are misunderstanding my feelings on this. I didn't say strip them of their rights. He still will go to trial etc. I never said no trial, or right to defend himself. Never once have I ever said anything of the sort. You and 02Ram for some reason think I believe he should be put in front of a firing squad with no trial. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying let the FBI do what they do to get as much information they can to hopefully save lives and thwart any future attacks that he may know of.

 

Never once said he shouldn't be able to defend himself.

 

Suppose a suspected "terrorist" was in custody...and was innocent. Suppose, also, that that suspect is young, and lived much of his life in another country, so he may not be quite so familiar with the finer points of the US Constitution and all of the rights incorporated in it. The FBI has 48 hours to grill him, sleep deprive him, and coerce any kind of confession that they would like out of him...and they manage to do just that.

 

Now, you say he should be able to defend himself. How is he able to sufficiently manage a defense after having confessed whatever he was coerced to confess to?

I'm not ignoring it. See my response above.

 

Seen it and responded. :thumb:

You do realize after he is read his Miranda rights he doesn't have to say anything and it will not be held against him right?

 

What do you mean it won't be held against him? If he doesn't say anything?

I'm not ignoring it. See my response above.

So then what do you disagree with? Was Richard Jewell found innocent? So it all worked out like it should have. You can't blame the FBI for what was said about Jewell, that was all the media labeling him guilty through the media, not the FBI.

You do realize after he is read his Miranda rights he doesn't have to say anything and it will not be held against him right?

 

Yep.

What do you mean it won't be held against him? If he doesn't say anything?

 

I mean, he doesn't have to answer any questions period.

The Miranda reading does not confer new rights that you never had before they were read. They only serve to make sure you are aware of your rights under questioning.

Suppose a suspected "terrorist" was in custody...and was innocent. Suppose, also, that that suspect is young, and lived much of his life in another country, so he may not be quite so familiar with the finer points of the US Constitution and all of the rights incorporated in it. The FBI has 48 hours to grill him, sleep deprive him, and coerce any kind of confession that they would like out of him...and they manage to do just that.

 

Now, you say he should be able to defend himself. How is he able to sufficiently manage a defense after having confessed whatever he was coerced to confess to?

That is what his lawyers are for.

I don't see Richard Jewell as a great example. He was wrongly accused mainly by the media. Based on what I've read, information leaked that he was a suspect with the FBI and the media apparently ran with it. Jewell sued his former employer for allegedly providing the FBI with false information. They have to follow up on all leads/suspects. And it doesn't bother me if they use a public safety exception as long as they are using it the way it is intended.

 

Do you think that every law enforcement officer 100% correctly follows all of the rules regarding interrogation and a person's constitutional rights 100% of the time?

That is what his lawyers are for.

 

So leave an innocent man completely responsible to get a lawyer good enough to prove his own innocence rather than leaving the court to prove his guilt? That's an interesting take on justice.

Do you think that every law enforcement officer 100% correctly follows all of the rules regarding interrogation and a person's constitutional rights 100% of the time?

Sounds like a topic for another thread.

 

I will say on that matter though, no not all officers follow the rules, but when they are found guilty of not following said rules the person on trial is usually let go or the information is withheld from the trial.

So leave an innocent man completely responsible to get a lawyer good enough to prove his own innocence rather than leaving the court to prove his guilt? That's an interesting take on justice.

 

So you are saying that you think if this guy went to trial and didn't have a lawyer, the judge wouldn't advise him to get a lawyer or they wouldn't assign him one?

 

That would never happen.

Sounds like a topic for another thread.

 

I will say on that matter though, no not all officers follow the rules, but when they are found guilty of not following said rules the person on trial is usually let go or the information is withheld from the trial.

 

I think it's pretty pertinent to THIS thread when you are talking about making a decision to arrest and question someone without affording them all of their constitutional rights.

So leave an innocent man completely responsible to get a lawyer good enough to prove his own innocence rather than leaving the court to prove his guilt? That's an interesting take on justice.

 

Do you think someone guilty of a crime has ever been found innocent?