2013 Boston Marathon

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:00 am

brian wrote:I'm presuming he's not being charged with the death of the MIT officer at this time. I imagine they have him dead to rights on that and worst case he does life in a MA prison without possibility of parole.

Well, if he wasn't the one who fired the shot that killed him, he may be able to get out (somewhat) of that one.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:15 am

howard wrote:Ima gunna go soft here, just for a moment.

I have no problem with this kid getting a vigorous, competent defense. (I understand no one has expressed a view contrary to this idea. Self-promotion does not equal vigorous, competent defense.)

1) I think he is guilty (because if you were gonna set up a patsy, you would've done a much better job.) That said, aside from his being present at the murder, there has been zero evidence of his guilt presented to the public thus far. Of course this evidence will be presented, but so far we have seen none of it.

2) I am vehemently anti-death penalty. As part of that viewpoint, I want every criminal to avoid being sentenced to death. Not for their sake; for our sake as a society. When we execute even the most guilty murderer, we are diminished (imo).

Told ya I was going soft.

I agree 100%. The kid deserves the best defense he can get. It strengthens our system for him to be well represented. It also weakens our system to sentence him to the death penalty. That ain't soft. It's much harder to hold back from getting your pound of flesh.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:18 am

Scottie wrote:Here's a question for lawyers et al. And I'm not a lawyer (although I would have made a particularly useful evil one; think about it) . . . And I ask this because I do not know, nor have I seen it addressed in any media reporting. Can Tsarnaev be charged locally (under state or municipal laws) with murder at the same time that he is being charged under Federal laws?

My criminal practice never led me to Federal court, but I believe he can be charged in both state and Federal court, but not for the same thing. Essentially, if he's charged with murder in one court, he can't be charged with murder in another. If there's no specific state law against harming with a pressure cooker, and there is a Federal one, he can be prosecuted for murder on a state level, and for breaking whatever assault with a pressure cooker law is in place on the Federal level.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:21 am

Brontoburglar wrote:
brian wrote:I'm presuming he's not being charged with the death of the MIT officer at this time. I imagine they have him dead to rights on that and worst case he does life in a MA prison without possibility of parole.
Well, if he wasn't the one who fired the shot that killed him, he may be able to get out (somewhat) of that one.

Under Florida law, if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, but was involved in the felony that led to the officer's death (pretty certain that's the case), he can be charged with felony murder. It doesn't rise to the level of First Degree Murder (and therefore wouldn't qualify for the death penalty), but he can certainly be charged with murder, even if he was just there with his brother.

testy boxcar · Post by **testy boxcar** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:40 am

i hope they charge him for murdering his brother, too, since he ran him over. nice little cherry on top.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:53 am

testy boxcar wrote:i hope they charge him for murdering his brother, too, since he ran him over. nice little cherry on top.

I think that under the common law, the felony murder rule did apply to accomplices - even if an accomplice was shot by police during the felony. I don't know if this is still the case.

If nothing else, they surely can prosecute for reckless driving.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:50 am

People are on death row for 30+ years in Florida. Probably because this state is so weird, has a whole bunch of different types of people, and exonerates more death row members than any other state.

Texas has an HOV lane on their death row.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:56 am

govmentchedda wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
brian wrote:I'm presuming he's not being charged with the death of the MIT officer at this time. I imagine they have him dead to rights on that and worst case he does life in a MA prison without possibility of parole.
Well, if he wasn't the one who fired the shot that killed him, he may be able to get out (somewhat) of that one.
Under Florida law, if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, but was involved in the felony that led to the officer's death (pretty certain that's the case), he can be charged with felony murder. It doesn't rise to the level of First Degree Murder (and therefore wouldn't qualify for the death penalty), but he can certainly be charged with murder, even if he was just there with his brother.

Are you sure about that? I thought that you could get the death penalty even if you didn't pull the trigger in that instance, because it involved the death of a police officer. See: William Van Poyck

But yeah, you can be charged with murder if you didn't kill the person yourself BUT it occurred while you were committing a felony.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:57 am

Steve of phpBB wrote:
testy boxcar wrote:i hope they charge him for murdering his brother, too, since he ran him over. nice little cherry on top.
I think that under the common law, the felony murder rule did apply to accomplices - even if an accomplice was shot by police during the felony. I don't know if this is still the case.

If nothing else, they surely can prosecute for reckless driving.

Add in a ticket for failure to signal a turn.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:04 am

Icepenis wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:
testy boxcar wrote:i hope they charge him for murdering his brother, too, since he ran him over. nice little cherry on top.
I think that under the common law, the felony murder rule did apply to accomplices - even if an accomplice was shot by police during the felony. I don't know if this is still the case.

If nothing else, they surely can prosecute for reckless driving.

Add in a ticket for failure to signal a turn.

A turn to the dark side.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:06 am

Icepenis wrote:
govmentchedda wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
Well, if he wasn't the one who fired the shot that killed him, he may be able to get out (somewhat) of that one.
Under Florida law, if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, but was involved in the felony that led to the officer's death (pretty certain that's the case), he can be charged with felony murder. It doesn't rise to the level of First Degree Murder (and therefore wouldn't qualify for the death penalty), but he can certainly be charged with murder, even if he was just there with his brother.

Are you sure about that? I thought that you could get the death penalty even if you didn't pull the trigger in that instance, because it involved the death of a police officer. See: William Van Poyck

But yeah, you can be charged with murder if you didn't kill the person yourself BUT it occurred while you were committing a felony.

I may be wrong about it, but I'm pretty sure that for the death penalty in Florida, you have to be the principal, and not an accomplice or co-participant.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:08 am

In most crimes I think so, but I thought it may have been different if a police officer were killed.

Of course, I practice law as often as Magic Johnson practiced safe sex.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:28 am

govmentchedda wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
brian wrote:I'm presuming he's not being charged with the death of the MIT officer at this time. I imagine they have him dead to rights on that and worst case he does life in a MA prison without possibility of parole.
Well, if he wasn't the one who fired the shot that killed him, he may be able to get out (somewhat) of that one.
Under Florida law, if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, but was involved in the felony that led to the officer's death (pretty certain that's the case), he can be charged with felony murder. It doesn't rise to the level of First Degree Murder (and therefore wouldn't qualify for the death penalty), but he can certainly be charged with murder, even if he was just there with his brother.

IIRC, Felony Murder applies in Massachusetts, but my Crim Law class was a long time ago. I can't be held accountable for remembering the specifics of which states the laws applied to. And it isn't like I have any way of looking into something like that...

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:56 am

govmentchedda wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
brian wrote:I'm presuming he's not being charged with the death of the MIT officer at this time. I imagine they have him dead to rights on that and worst case he does life in a MA prison without possibility of parole.
Well, if he wasn't the one who fired the shot that killed him, he may be able to get out (somewhat) of that one.
Under Florida law, if he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, but was involved in the felony that led to the officer's death (pretty certain that's the case), he can be charged with felony murder. It doesn't rise to the level of First Degree Murder (and therefore wouldn't qualify for the death penalty), but he can certainly be charged with murder, even if he was just there with his brother.

Thanks, chedda.

Another question, if you don't mind. Tsarnaev can be charged Federally on First Degree (or higher?) murder charges on the death of the MIT officer, though, can't he? As part and parcel of committing an act of terrorism, or some such language?

Plus, didn't they seriously injure at least a cop or two in that "shootout" that resulted in the younger brother allegedly running over the older brother in order to temporarily get away? The number of angles for charging this guy seem to be extraordinary.

Post by **brian** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:10 am

Scottie wrote: Thanks, chedda.

Another question, if you don't mind. Tsarnaev can be charged Federally on First Degree (or higher?) murder charges on the death of the MIT officer, though, can't he? As part and parcel of committing an act of terrorism, or some such language?

Plus, didn't they seriously injure at least a cop or two in that "shootout" that resulted in the younger brother allegedly running over the older brother in order to temporarily get away? The number of angles for charging this guy seem to be extraordinary.

I'll let one of the Swamp barristers confirm it, but I don't think killing the MIT officer would be chargeable as a federal crime. That would be where the state charges would come in. If it were a federal crime, I suspect he would have been charged with it at his arraignment (though I realize they can bring additional charges whenever they want if it were federal)

ETA: I get where you're going with your comment as it being an extension of the original federal crime, but I'm not sure that's how it works. So it would be nice to hear what the lawyers think.

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:16 am

brian wrote:
Scottie wrote: Thanks, chedda.

Another question, if you don't mind. Tsarnaev can be charged Federally on First Degree (or higher?) murder charges on the death of the MIT officer, though, can't he? As part and parcel of committing an act of terrorism, or some such language?

Plus, didn't they seriously injure at least a cop or two in that "shootout" that resulted in the younger brother allegedly running over the older brother in order to temporarily get away? The number of angles for charging this guy seem to be extraordinary.
I'll let one of the Swamp barristers confirm it, but I don't think killing the MIT officer would be chargeable as a federal crime. That would be where the state charges would come in. If it were a federal crime, I suspect he would have been charged with it at his arraignment (though I realize they can bring additional charges whenever they want if it were federal)

ETA: I get where you're going with your comment as it being an extension of the original federal crime, but I'm not sure that's how it works. So it would be nice to hear what the lawyers think.

For sure. One thing that confuses me is: are there varying levels of charges for killing a law enforcement agent depending on what level of law enforcement he was? That's not phrased brilliantly, of course, it's like trying to mould fog. I'm not in any way suggesting that the MIT officer was a rent-a-cop. But I am curious, what exactly was that guy? Same level as, say, city of Boston police officers? Same or similar training and/or credentials, likely, eh?

Post by **brian** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:20 am

In Michigan (and most states -- MA included I believe), police officers at colleges and universities are considered state police.

So, if he had killed an FBI agent, it would be a federal crime, but killing a campus police officer would (theoretically) be a state crime.

ETA: Throwing a wrench into that though is that MIT is a private university, so that's where things get a little fuzzy for me. In MI, campus police at public universities like the one I went to are state police officers. We don't have very many large private universities so I don't know if the same is true of private schools.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:25 am

brian wrote:
Scottie wrote: Thanks, chedda.

Another question, if you don't mind. Tsarnaev can be charged Federally on First Degree (or higher?) murder charges on the death of the MIT officer, though, can't he? As part and parcel of committing an act of terrorism, or some such language?

Plus, didn't they seriously injure at least a cop or two in that "shootout" that resulted in the younger brother allegedly running over the older brother in order to temporarily get away? The number of angles for charging this guy seem to be extraordinary.
I'll let one of the Swamp barristers confirm it, but I don't think killing the MIT officer would be chargeable as a federal crime. That would be where the state charges would come in. If it were a federal crime, I suspect he would have been charged with it at his arraignment (though I realize they can bring additional charges whenever they want if it were federal)

ETA: I get where you're going with your comment as it being an extension of the original federal crime, but I'm not sure that's how it works. So it would be nice to hear what the lawyers think.

I think that the bombing and the killing of the MIT officer are far enough apart in time that they would not fall together under Federal "terrorism" charges. There may be another angle that makes this crime Federal, but the four day difference is likely enough to not include it in the same activities as the bombing. It is very likely that the Feds will charge him with everything they can, and then the State/Commonwealth will charge him in addition to that. Taken separate from the bombing, the MIT officer's death is probably just a State/Commonwealth charge.

My guess is that the killing of an MIT cop would be treated the same as the killing of a Boston PD officer, or Massachusetts Statie.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:04 pm

govmentchedda wrote:

My guess is that the killing of an MIT cop would be treated the same as the killing of a Boston PD officer, or Massachusetts Statie.

Except that the MIT Cops will be trying to avenge his death by killing him....with science!

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:52 pm

govmentchedda wrote:I think that the bombing and the killing of the MIT officer are far enough apart in time that they would not fall together under Federal "terrorism" charges. There may be another angle that makes this crime Federal, but the four day difference is likely enough to not include it in the same activities as the bombing. It is very likely that the Feds will charge him with everything they can, and then the State/Commonwealth will charge him in addition to that. Taken separate from the bombing, the MIT officer's death is probably just a State/Commonwealth charge.

My guess is that the killing of an MIT cop would be treated the same as the killing of a Boston PD officer, or Massachusetts Statie.

I think I would come out the other way on this. As I remember it, killing someone to escape or avoid detection has traditionally been considered to be "during the course of the felony" for purposes of the felony murder rule. So I would guess that the same reasoning would apply here.

But I don't think that would matter. As I remember double jeopardy, the state and the feds could both charge him with murder, for the same killing, and double jeopardy wouldn't apply. But I have to go deep into the memory banks for that one.

Though Chedda makes a good point that if it were going to be a federal crime, the Feds probably would have included it in the complaint.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:37 pm

Meanwhile, back at the ricin case

U.S. drops charges against Mississippi man in ricin letters case

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:07 pm

howard wrote:Meanwhile, back at the ricin case

U.S. drops charges against Mississippi man in ricin letters case

Oops Wrong guy... Sorry about smearing your name all over the country, while we discussed your mental capacity... Let's not bicker and argue about ooo killed ooo...

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:26 pm

The Sybian wrote:OMFG, guys. Glenn Beck is about to tearfully break this story wide fucking open! He has given Obama an ultimatum. To come clean to the American People about what really happened, or he will on his show on Monday! The only Beck didn't already tell us is that he thinks we should hear it from Obama directly. Apparently the Saudi kid who was initially questioned then later deported is really involved somehow, and Beck knows how and why. And it is bad, bad, bad. The future of humanity rests on Glenn informing us on Monday, and the world as we know it is going to dramatically change.

My prediction, Glenn hopes that since the story resolved, we forget about his big, big claim, and he pretends he never said this.

OK, so Beck came out with his huge exclusive that was so unbelievably enormous that he decided to wait to let Obama come clean. I posted the link in case anyone feels the need to watch, but there is absolutely nothing of note here. Basically, Beck claims the Saudi guy was involved, and that he was given some designation that proves he was an extremely high level terrorist, but the designation was somehow taken away. Beck then goes into detail that the only way the designation can be taken away is blah, blah blah, but there is no way Beck knows the inner workings of National Counter Terrorism Center's procedures for specific designations (yet doesn't even know what NCTC stands for). As always, Beck is completely full of shit. And if DHS does have specific info on terror cells, they sure as hell shouldn't be divulging it to Glenn Beck. Quite frankly, it doesn't even make much sense to me, but here is the link if anyone feels like wasting 16 minutes if their life.

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:55 pm

In a nutshell (nutshell!), the Saudi kid was the mastermind, he is also Bin Laden's son, financed the Cheechandchong guys that went nuts in Boston, was visited by Michelle Obama in a hospital while she deliberately ignored actual American "hero" types, the Obamas are on the side of terrorists, that kid will be on a government airplane back to Riyadh, if it hasn't happened already, just like we snuck the Arabs out of New York in the middle of 9/11, all of the immigration and Homeland Security and documents pertaining to that kid have either been altered or never actually existed, and it's all because Obama is a Muslim that hates America, and the president of the United States is an African Allah-worshiping terrorist who smokes Camels because, well, there's a picture of a camel on the pack and that's just what a guy who is both an Al-Qaeda operative *and* is the President of the United States would do. And global warming.

Did I miss anything?

"Beck Beck Beck Beck Beck Beck Beck Beeeeeeck! Gone!"
/

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:51 pm

So many people are successful at saying anything, no matter how nonsensical, in the service of one simple goal. Attention. Amazing how well attention-whoring pays in today's economy and society. It has not always been this bad.

ETA: Although, if Obama smokes Camels, that would be fucking cool.

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:00 pm

howard wrote:ETA: Although, if Obama smokes Camels, that would be fucking cool.

Newports.

Although I used to love me some Salems. Damn.

I'm closing in on the longest I have gone without a smoke since I was, well, twelve.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:53 pm

Scottie wrote:
howard wrote:ETA: Although, if Obama smokes Camels, that would be fucking cool.
Newports.

Although I used to love me some Salems. Damn.

I'm closing in on the longest I have gone without a smoke since I was, well, twelve.

Menthol. I would have guessed Kools. That's what mom smokes. Soft pack. Yup.

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:23 am

Johnnie wrote:Menthol. I would have guessed Kools. That's what mom smokes. Soft pack. Yup.

(Not the appropriate thread but . . . )

In my twice lived in Korea days . . . First time there I always bought Salems, less than W1000 per pack, about US $.0.60 at the time. And Marlboro Reds. Second time I was in Korea? Couldn't find Salems anywhere. As if they disappeared from the entire country. Probably gone over some business harangue. Easy to smoke that many when they are effectively free. Two bottles of Soju and a pack of Marlboro Reds would run about two bucks. You can see how dangerous that is.

Korean cigarettes are interesting. Zero strength. (66? 0.5? Ring any bells?) Cheap as dirt. Cheaper. They are lighter than anything available in North America. What's the weakest cigarette in America? A Matinee or some thing like that? Korean cigarettes have this perforation across the filter. Air holes. Making a terribly weak cigarette even weaker. I used to put scotch tape over them. And they were still too weak. So then I started snapping the filters off. Even then they had nothing on a good American cigarette.

A pack of cigarettes is exactly 10 times more expensive here now. Thank heavens I quit. Players Blend, 20 pack? Eleven dollars. When you think about it, that's way more than minimum hourly wage.

But, oh, how I loved those Salems. Those Marlboros.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:51 am

Scottie wrote:
Korean cigarettes are interesting. Zero strength. (66? 0.5? Ring any bells?) Cheap as dirt. Cheaper. They are lighter than anything available in North America. What's the weakest cigarette in America? A Matinee or some thing like that? Korean cigarettes have this perforation across the filter. Air holes. Making a terribly weak cigarette even weaker. I used to put scotch tape over them. And they were still too weak. So then I started snapping the filters off. Even then they had nothing on a good American cigarette.

Marlboro Ultra lights, at least, also have that perforation.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:02 am

Photo of Jeff Bauman (the individual from the iconic picture and person who ID'd the bombers) giving a birthday present to Sydney Corcoran, another marathon victim.

Pretty uplifting.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:04 am

That's just how he rolls.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:02 am

AB_skin_test wrote:That's just how he rolls.

Perfect.

howard · Post by **howard** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:47 pm

Like Fifth-Rate Marx Brothers, Without the Laughs

howard · Post by **howard** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:55 pm

As Your Attorney, I Advise You That Miranda Is Bullshit

This essay will go behind a paywall in a day and a half.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:03 pm

howard wrote:As Your Attorney, I Advise You That Miranda Is Bullshit

This essay will go behind a paywall in a day and a half.

Very well said. Thanks for the link.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:07 pm

howard wrote:As Your Attorney, I Advise You That Miranda Is Bullshit

This essay will go behind a paywall in a day and a half.

A class I was interested in taking when trying to complete my Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree was Constitutional Law 103 (or whatever number designation). I learned about Miranda v. Arizona, Texas v. Johnson, and a few other monumental cases. The class was taught by a former prosecutor-turned-defender in the Air Force. The one point he drove home, by yelling very loudly, mind you, was "KEEP QUIET WHEN TALKING TO POLICE!" Miranda was a legal speedbump. Always assume your Miranda right before any questioning took place. The police are looking for a suspect. Even if you aren't the suspect, shut your mouth. It is better to spend a night in jail than to babble endlessly and get yourself in trouble.

That article is great. I was confused about all of the fuss surrounding not giving Tsarnaev his Miranda warning. (Hell, the kid was out of it after the flashbangs and bleeding injuries. So if you recited it, you think he could tell what was going on?) People have been conditioned to think that an entire case against you evaporates because cops didn't recite it. It doesn't.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:00 am

So, I know this is very late, but...

What the fuck was Bloomberg doing calling a press conference to announce that Suspect #2 said he and his brother *might* have been heading to Times Square to blow things up?

What was that? Seriously.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:17 am

Nonlinear FC wrote:So, I know this is very late, but...

What the fuck was Bloomberg doing calling a press conference to announce that Suspect #2 said he and his brother *might* have been heading to Times Square to blow things up?

What was that? Seriously.

He figured that now that the story "might" involve New York, it's now become important.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:30 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote:So, I know this is very late, but...

What the fuck was Bloomberg doing calling a press conference to announce that Suspect #2 said he and his brother *might* have been heading to Times Square to blow things up?

What was that? Seriously.

And why is this leading newscasts at all. I generally do not subscribe to the theory that the media shouldn't cover these events because it gives recognition to the offenders, but at this point, there is no reason this should be top news at all.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:28 pm

Giff wrote:
Nonlinear FC wrote:So, I know this is very late, but...

What the fuck was Bloomberg doing calling a press conference to announce that Suspect #2 said he and his brother *might* have been heading to Times Square to blow things up?

What was that? Seriously.
And why is this leading newscasts at all. I generally do not subscribe to the theory that the media shouldn't cover these events because it gives recognition to the offenders, but at this point, there is no reason this should be top news at all.

I was blissfully unaware of any of this. The only reason Bloomberg could conceivably hold a press conference is to crow because the NYPD uncovered the plot and arrested the guys before the Boston bombings occurred. That didn't happen, so STFU.