Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The National Inquirer has an article about how the older brother was into threesomes, and beat his wife, the gossips are going to have a feeding frenzy, and the rag will jump to the top of the charts for news sources.
I just got back from the store and took a quick look, no I don't buy any of that crap.
OK, when the Inquirer jumps in, it goes from the tragic to the ridiculous. I suppose they think with so much nonsense in the bitstream, why not their nonsense? Frankly, just the real stuff is too surreal. Maybe we get TMI about religious crazies. Buddhists ( yes, Buddhists) are massacring Muslims in Burma. You have to think "What if the Buddha were here today, what would his reaction be?" How has a religion failed so massively. Not to be insulting to Muhammad, but his life story isn't QUITE as remote from the worst of his followers, but I never believe any historic figure meant the atrocities that SOMEONE, who is in the grip of pure evil, will claim was " part of the message". The slaughter in Jerusalem by the Crusaders, integral to Christianity? In what delirious mind? I'm not at all antireligious. But I always think those who got the real message live in the shadows cast by those who merely claim that the worst manifestations of civilization are justified by some religion. Picketing and disrupting funerals, justified by the Sermon on the Mount?
As for what the Tsarnaevs do, I try to remember that MOST of them belong to the Chechens who Tamerlan was angry at. Kinky? He was full of rage and directed it at the very things the media might be reporting about his relatives. Frankly, if he'd bothered to direct his actions at ALL toward those who angered him, it might alter the story. But the bystanders at the Marathon were just random strangers. That was irrational and unforgiveable. These people NEVER attempt to attack the sources of sleaze in society. That class of people don't go to public events and make themselves vulnerable. They use their wealth to insulate themselves. Imagine Tamerlan Tsarnaev making an attempt on Putin's life. That'd be pretty heroic, and he wasn't a hero. He was a pathetic angry man.
If you are not under arrest, you will not be read the Miranda Warning, and police can still talk to you!
Until police have begun custodial interrogation, your Miranda Rights have not attached.For example,if the police knock on your door and wish to talk to you about some event or person, you do not have the right to remain silent unless you are in police custody. Or, if you are walking down the street and police stop you to ask you if you know anything about a crime that has just happened, police do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. The test is, if you are free to leave, then you are not in custody and police do not have ot read you your Miranda Rights. The exception to this is that if you feel that speaking about a person or event would incriminate YOU, you may politely decline to answer the questions.
If you have received a request from police to go to the station and answer questions, you have the right to politely decline to go. But, if the police really want to talk to you, they will likely find probable cause to obtain a search warrant, or to arrest you - at which point they will have to read you the Miranda Warning and you may assert your rights. You can request to speak with an attorney before you meet with police, though.
So it appears that if and when the police want to question her and we can assume that they will, if she wants the right to remain silent, she will have to be arrested. So, just as I thought, she is preparing for her chat with law enforcement with her attorney, who we can safely assume, is not advising her client to get arrested in order to remain silent.
The test for "free to leave" is a bit of a broad one. They don't HAVE to arrest you but can detain you and therefore Miranda kicks in.
As for "if they come to the door and ask to speak with you about anything you absolutely have the right to not speak to them and in fact can close the door until they either have a warrant for arrest or search or both. Even if they've got a search warrant you STILL don't have to talk to them. I'm pretty sure about this but since you seem to know more than I please be so good to show me where you're required to talk to anyone any further than identifying yourself?
As for the attorney, all he/she has to do is tell the client to not say a word and request the cops speak through him as the legal counsel.
Done! No need to talk to 'em at all and at this stage she'd be stupid if she did.
Here's the thing, it doesn't matter if she does or doesn't talk right now. If they're going to charge her or go before a grand jury for an inditement they'll do it no matter what she says and in fact anything she does say has a chance of hurting her later.
So many pages to the thread, I don't want to go back and check. But this incident reminds me of Flight 93 where citizen heroism saved a lot of lives. At least two parties helped law enforcement contain the damage. I hope the city government of Boston takes an opportunity to give them some award as the best examples of how to react to such crises from a citizen level. Seriously, I feel certain that somewhere there are dozens of people who owe the fact they are still breathing to these activist citizens who didn't stand back and fear to get involved.
So many pages to the thread, I don't want to go back and check. But this incident reminds me of Flight 93 where citizen heroism saved a lot of lives. At least two parties helped law enforcement contain the damage. I hope the city government of Boston takes an opportunity to give them some award as the best examples of how to react to such crises from a citizen level. Seriously, I feel certain that somewhere there are dozens of people who owe the fact they are still breathing to these activist citizens who didn't stand back and fear to get involved.
If you are not under arrest, you will not be read the Miranda Warning, and police can still talk to you!
Until police have begun custodial interrogation, your Miranda Rights have not attached.For example,if the police knock on your door and wish to talk to you about some event or person, you do not have the right to remain silent unless you are in police custody. Or, if you are walking down the street and police stop you to ask you if you know anything about a crime that has just happened, police do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. The test is, if you are free to leave, then you are not in custody and police do not have ot read you your Miranda Rights. The exception to this is that if you feel that speaking about a person or event would incriminate YOU, you may politely decline to answer the questions.
If you have received a request from police to go to the station and answer questions, you have the right to politely decline to go. But, if the police really want to talk to you, they will likely find probable cause to obtain a search warrant, or to arrest you - at which point they will have to read you the Miranda Warning and you may assert your rights. You can request to speak with an attorney before you meet with police, though.
So it appears that if and when the police want to question her and we can assume that they will, if she wants the right to remain silent, she will have to be arrested. So, just as I thought, she is preparing for her chat with law enforcement with her attorney, who we can safely assume, is not advising her client to get arrested in order to remain silent.
I don't understand. You said, if the police knock on your door and want to talk to you, you have to, and then you said the opposite.
There's got to be grounds for a search warrant for the apartment she lives in----the one where thebombs were made. I haven't really kept up with all the news, and I don't know if the apartment was already searched or not. But if not, that would be ridiculous. I mean, we all get nearly strip-searched just getting on a plane, and someone carries out a bombing, and they can't search the bomber's apartment or talk to his wife?! I just can't get over it.
OK, when the Inquirer jumps in, it goes from the tragic to the ridiculous. I suppose they think with so much nonsense in the bitstream, why not their nonsense? Frankly, just the real stuff is too surreal. Maybe we get TMI about religious crazies. Buddhists ( yes, Buddhists) are massacring Muslims in Burma. You have to think "What if the Buddha were here today, what would his reaction be?" How has a religion failed so massively. Not to be insulting to Muhammad, but his life story isn't QUITE as remote from the worst of his followers, but I never believe any historic figure meant the atrocities that SOMEONE, who is in the grip of pure evil, will claim was " part of the message". The slaughter in Jerusalem by the Crusaders, integral to Christianity? In what delirious mind? I'm not at all antireligious. But I always think those who got the real message live in the shadows cast by those who merely claim that the worst manifestations of civilization are justified by some religion. Picketing and disrupting funerals, justified by the Sermon on the Mount?
As for what the Tsarnaevs do, I try to remember that MOST of them belong to the Chechens who Tamerlan was angry at. Kinky? He was full of rage and directed it at the very things the media might be reporting about his relatives. Frankly, if he'd bothered to direct his actions at ALL toward those who angered him, it might alter the story. But the bystanders at the Marathon were just random strangers. That was irrational and unforgiveable. These people NEVER attempt to attack the sources of sleaze in society. That class of people don't go to public events and make themselves vulnerable. They use their wealth to insulate themselves. Imagine Tamerlan Tsarnaev making an attempt on Putin's life. That'd be pretty heroic, and he wasn't a hero. He was a pathetic angry man.
I have thought about the fact that the younger brother has stated that it was religious fervor that inspired this horrible attack, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It would seem that the nation and the state of Boston where they were granted asylum, given access to education and welfare benefits, should not have been the likely target.
You're correct and maybe direct the rage at someone that actually is responsible for initiating those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (names of which I'll leave up to the reader's discretion), but to randomly attack innocent people is beyond evil and in fact, way beyond stupid.
This tread moves so quick, but if I follow the conspiracy theorist, are you saying the naked guy is Tamerlan, and he still lives? The autopsy photo had something that stood out to me:
.http://i.imgur.com/0U0ozqt.jpg
Why would they put a bloody corpse on a piece of wood amongst the other junk on the bottom? Where would you find wood in an American Emergency ward or even the Morgue in developed countries? Maybe it's possible someone that looks like him was taken from Iraq - the nose and ears don't really match up to other photos, and lots of foreigners have similar facial features.
And his heart was removed( the aperture between the ribs)..
just a thought..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
