Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10680017)
I would not be overly surprised at a possible plea agreement. There really is no defense that I can see. "My brother made me do it" is not a defense.
|
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 10680020)
When there is significant public pressure, incl a MA senator, for the death penalty, I'm not sure where the incentive for a plea bargain would come from. :confused:
|
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10680017)
I would not be overly surprised at a possible plea agreement. There really is no defense that I can see. "My brother made me do it" is not a defense.
A plea agreement!!! My that sounds highly likely. Is the case against him weak? A little short of evidence perhaps? They catch a terrorist. The evidence is mountainous and you suggest a plea? |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by Nokoman
(Post 10680037)
A plea agreement!!! My that sounds highly likely. Is the case against him weak? A little short of evidence perhaps?
They catch a terrorist. The evidence is mountainous and you suggest a plea? |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by Nokoman
(Post 10680037)
A plea agreement!!! My that sounds highly likely. Is the case against him weak? A little short of evidence perhaps?
They catch a terrorist. The evidence is mountainous and you suggest a plea? |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10680041)
Interestingly enough, he wasn't charged under the terrorism statute. No terrorism charge. Period. I suggested nothing and only stated possible reasons that a plea could, though perhaps unlikely, be offered.
|
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by Nokoman
(Post 10680053)
It's now perhaps unlikely. :)
|
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10680054)
One can be surprised at the unlikely actually happening. I seem to recall that was basically what I said, that I would not be surprised if it happened.
Well Dakota, it looks like you have all the bases covered. Setting yourself up nicely for an " I told you so." This is like an each-way bet in a two horse race. How about tossing in that you feel very strongly he could be found guilty or not guilty ?? |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by Nokoman
(Post 10680063)
We are now leaping between "perhaps unlikely" to "not being surprised"
Well Dakota, it looks like you have all the bases covered. Setting yourself up nicely for an " I told you so." This is like an each-way bet in a two horse race. How about tossing in that you feel very strongly he could be found guilty or not guilty ?? "I would not be overly surprised at a possible plea agreement. There really is no defense that I can see. "My brother made me do it" is not a defense." |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10679965)
They are. The Supreme Court says so. Is there a risk that the rule could be abused in some cases? Sure, but certainly a valid use in this case in my opinion.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...miranda-rights |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10680065)
Clearly you have forgotten the text of the original post. Let me refresh your memory. Stop reading more into it.
"I would not be overly surprised at a possible plea agreement. There really is no defense that I can see. "My brother made me do it" is not a defense." |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 10680068)
Actually, the Supreme Court didn't say so, however, the Obama administration has intepreted it as such.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...miranda-rights New York vs Quarles, upheld by SCOTUS. That was the case in which SCOTUS ruled that public safety can take precedence over Miranda, and overruled 3 lower courts in the process. Not much of a leap at all to know that public safety was a serious consideration in Boston, far more so than in NY vs Quarles. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/649 |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10680074)
I don't read The New Republic. I do, however, occasionally read Supreme Court decisions.
New York vs Quarles, upheld by SCOTUS. That was the case in which SCOTUS ruled that public safety can take precedence over Miranda, and overruled 3 lower courts in the process. Not much of a leap at all to know that public safety was a serious consideration in Boston, far more so than in NY vs Quarles. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/649 |
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Oh FFS.
|
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 10680082)
Clearly you didn't read it very carefully if you think the "narrow exception" due to "imminent threat" granted in this decision equates to 16 hours of questioning of a suspect.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:28 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.