August 21, 2013

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's multiple injuries.

"He was questioned for two days before this hearing, without being advised of his right to counsel. He was also being administered Diluadid, a potent pain killer, every three hours."

13 comments:

khesanh0802 said...

Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? Not me.

khesanh0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

IANAL. IANAD.

I would think the affects of a powerful narcotic like Diluadid could nullify much of what he admitted during his questioning.

Just put him in a room with several FBI agents. They'll kill him, and then self-investigate, find no fault, and that'll be that.

gadfly said...

I am surprised that Jeralyn did not mention the so called "public safety" exception to the Miranda law.

By invoking the “public safety” exception that can be triggered when authorities believe there is a need to protect the public from immediate danger, Tsarnaev could be questioned immediately without being officially warned of his right to remain silent, his right to an attorney, and the warning that anything he says can be used against him in court.

In the end Federal Magistrate Marianne Bowler, not the arresting authorities, administered the Miranda warning.

Levi Starks said...

That's going to be a serious medical bill.
Thank goodness for Obamacare.

stutefish said...

Seems like there's an inherent trade-off between getting admissible testimony for a fair trial, and getting actionable intelligence about a terrorist organization.

Even if nothing he said in these interviews can be used against him in court, as long as it can be used in some way against terrorism I won't be too mad.

I mean, they were always going to have to build their court case against a lawyered-up Dzhokhar anyway. Might as well squeeze him for as much intel as possible before opening that phase of the proceedings.

Cedarford said...

Looks like that fusillade of 60-70 bullets launched by the trigger happy "hero cops" into the boat and walls and through walls of adjacent homes apparantly did have some rounds that hit the Islamoid hiding inside the boat.

That he was later questioned while the poor little jihadi was suffering so does not bother me at all. Not only to find if there were other bombs, who else was involved inc. possibly Tamerlan's Dhimmi wife.
But also knowing that a floor away from Rolling Stone's cover boy, there were victims of that bombing in worse shape, in greater agony. Parents being told that the regraft on their child had failed and he had to have the second leg amputated in 2 hours and if one or both of them could sit in while the amp was done their boy would be less scared.

David said...

He probably isn't so pretty anymore.

I don't feel a lot of pity for him, but why in the world did the police fire 80 plus rounds? They knew where he was. He was not going anywhere. They knew he was injured. There was lots of value in capturing him alive.

Not only is he lucky he wasn't killed, the country is lucky. We might learn something interrogating and prosecuting him.

We might not too. But it's worth the try.

Clyde said...

The little boy that Tsarnaev murdered didn't get any painkillers. Tsarnaev shouldn't have, either.

bpm4532 said...

Dilaudid every three hours? Probably enough to stop the pain for about 2 hours leaving 1 hour of pain. That kind of motivates you to cooperate to make sure you get that next dose.

gk1 said...

If we really lived in a civilized society, Tsarnaev's parent would be collecting his remains by now. He failed this level, he needs to go back and redo it. Nothing personal.

Robert Cook said...

Stupid people! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

The well-known prevalence among among Americans for applauding (or passively accepting) the abuse of subjects under police interrogation--because the subjects are "bad people," don't you know?--reveals how little we understand or value our rapidly diminishing-unto-vanishing civil liberties, (not to mention how little mercy we "exemplars to the world" hold toward our fellow humans).

Even if one believes suspects in custody deserve to be abused--(and the withholding of medical care from injured or sick suspects in custody is as much abuse as is the infliction of pain or humiliation)--because of what one thinks they've done or what they're are accused of doing, even assuming they're actually guilty of the accusations against them, it is always wrong and should be prohibited, and police personnel should always be punished for such breaches.

It does not matter if the suspect is guilty, or if he is the worst human being who ever lived; aside from any humanitarian concerns we should have--as a prominent Republican senator and former candidate for president put it, in repudiating torture: "It's not about who they are; it's about who we are;" that is to say, we should not relish becoming as savage as those we purport to hate for their savagery--there is also the matter of self-protection. Tools that we permit to the authorities will be used against all of us. Even if we don't care in the least for how badly a malevolent human being is treated, there is no way to insure that only truly malevolent human beings end up in police custody, accused of crimes, assumed to be guilty. There is no way to insure that you won't end up in police custody, subject to the not-so-tender mercies we have granted them through our cheers or acquiescence.

Tom said...

That's likely to hurt come conviction time!