Like for real, just yesterday, report was he was NOT a terrorist and living in destitute squalor, with goats and sheep running amok, to now being a terrorist and giving tours of his trailer house that looks relatively well organized, etc. Letting the press be around his bomb making station with chemicals still out?
Like for real, just yesterday, report was he was NOT a terrorist and living in destitute squalor, with goats and sheep running amok, to now being a terrorist and giving tours of his trailer house that looks relatively well organized, etc. Letting the press be around his bomb making station with chemicals still out?
Yeah you would think the FBI would've hardcore tossed this place and confiscated most everything. Especially things like the laptop you can see laying on the table. But they don't seem to give a shit and preserved everything for a media walkabout?
Yeah you would think the FBI would've hardcore tossed this place and confiscated most everything. Especially things like the laptop you can see laying on the table. But they don't seem to give a shit and preserved everything for a media walkabout?
Should already be torn down brick by brick. Dude is some tech specialist with a BOMB making station and chemicals spread out? Like are there any hidden wall areas, beneath floor boards, in the ceiling? Hidden in those shelves with religious material? Behind the appliances?
Or, let’s let the press in and disrupt the crime scene!
Yeah that's exactly my point. I doubt he was recruited as much as he was self-radicalized online and according to him in his dreams. Making life decisions based on literal dreams is pretty kooky on its own, to join ISIS based off those dreams suggests he was probably leaning that way in addition to being crcrazy.
Yeah that's exactly my point. I doubt he was recruited as much as he was self-radicalized online and according to him in his dreams. Making life decisions based on literal dreams is pretty kooky on its own, to join ISIS based off those dreams suggests he was probably leaning that way in addition to being crazy.
Like for real, just yesterday, report was he was NOT a terrorist and living in destitute squalor, with goats and sheep running amok, to now being a terrorist and giving tours of his trailer house that looks relatively well organized, etc. Letting the press be around his bomb making station with chemicals still out?
The word that it's generally better not to talk to cops if you are under investigation has well and truly got around.
In the past I've also posted about exceptions, where not answering (fully and truthfully) is punishable.
Police, judges etc. are generally forbidden from drawing adverse inference from someone not answering questions (fully and truthfully). However there are certain exceptions.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused fails to mention a specific fact that he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention. If this failure occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor.
Of course the exact details will vary between jurisdictions. Note the English and Welsh caution:
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
The Northern Irish caution is very similar, however the Scottish one doesn't mention that. Interestingly in Scotland you are now obliged to tell the police your nationality when arrested (if asked).
Apparently the US 'Miranda', which varies somewhat between jurisdictions within the US, doesn't mention possible adverse inferences:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.
Here's an article providing more detail than Wikipedia. Upon my superficial reading it seems that it is still forbidden to draw adverse inference from failure to answer questions (fully and truthfully) in the US. However, on a tangent which you might find interesting, under various circumstances Miranda can be bypassed:
Since the 1970s the United States has limited the right to silence through several precedents and regulations. Judges became more lenient towards police officers that compromised on the Miranda Rule. The U.S. Supreme Court established in Harris v. New York that evidence inadmissible for lack of Miranda warnings does not prevent the admission of the evidence for other purposes if the admission satisfies another legal admission, such as to impeach credibility. The majority opinion stated that simply not reading Miranda warning does not prevent the use of confession in purpose of establishing the credibility of the witness. In Miranda v. Arizona the confession was used to prove the guilt of the accused, while in Harris v. New York the confession was used to prove the dishonesty of the accused. In 1990, James v. Illinois case, the Supreme Court re-emphasized this point that evidence violated of Miranda may be used to impeach a witness at trial.
the court will not admit testimony in violation of Miranda rule, but might admit evidences obtained in that way, because the latter is under the provision of the Fourth Amendment.
Finally, the Court's decision also established the applicable "Miranda" exceptions, which include:
the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception;
good faith exception;
independent sources exception;
causal link weaken exceptions.
The most important exception is based on public safety and emergency from New York v. Quarles in 1984.The armed rape suspect was arrested at a supermarket - in the absence of reading Miranda the police asked him "Where is the gun," and the suspect pointed to a direction and said “The gun is over there”. The police found a pistol in an empty cardboard box at the supermarket. The suspect then confessed. The accused won at trial because of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the ruling. Justice Rehnquist reasoned in the majority opinion that there is a public safety exception to the rule requiring Miranda rights.
100 percent. At least we've withdrawn more and more from the Middle East as of recent. But as long as we keep supporting Israel we'll just keep being a target too.
The day America leaves the Middle East, you will be back riding horses. You should check who's recently doubled the number of soldiers (up to 2000) in Syria (hint: it's not Israel) (another hint: it is the same country that controls most of the Syria's oil fields)
Like for real, just yesterday, report was he was NOT a terrorist and living in destitute squalor, with goats and sheep running amok, to now being a terrorist and giving tours of his trailer house that looks relatively well organized, etc. Letting the press be around hi8s bomb making station with chemicals still out?
One of my favorite videos is this one where a law professor talks about why you should never talk to police even if you're innocent.
For example he points out that misremembering things can get you in hot water as the police might assume you're lying if you say something that is provable false but from your POV was the G-d's honest truth. Or you might remember it perfectly but another witness misremembers and contradicts your account in which case you might still look like a liar even though you're telling the truth and remembering correctly. To prove his point he reads off a news article about a series of murders and then asks trick questions about it later to show how easily our memory can be manipulated or otherwise left unreliable.
Idk how on earth you can read it that way, reread the statement again. He starts the statement off saying:
clearly the "terrible acts" they're referring to later in the statement is the one referenced in the beginning which can only be read as a reference to the attack.
When did the FBI turn into a media sensitive agenda driven group of fucktards? Someone named Shamshud Din-Jabbar drives a truck with an Issis flag into a crowd killing 10, has explosives in said vehicle, and shoots at people and cops.....It's a fucking terrorist. Why isn't the living quarters torn down? Laptop? We are so ripe for another 9/11 with this group in charge.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
