Serious thread about no arrest warrants

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Serious thread over on Daily Paul about there being no arrest warrants, why they were just suspects, why you need one
and can't just arrest someone for suspicion of terrorist attacks without.

http://www.dailypaul.com/282656/where-is-the-arrest-warrant-and-evidence-that-he-did-anything-deeply-disturbing

I'll copy and past some stuff later. But if they had any evidence, they would have gotten an arrest warrant, instead of calling them suspects, and than after the shot them, 'enemy combatants'.

----snip----
Part of the deep problem this country has is a complete lack of knowledge of the basics of our rights and court system. People aren't taught it in schools anymore, and are completely ignorant of what their basic rights are. Witness the answer to the following question.

"Since when does law enforcement have to prove guilt to the public? Isn't that the job of the courts?"

They need at least SOME evidence to go to a judge and get an arrest warrant.

Due process wasn't followed.

You can only arrest someone if you are following them after seeing a crime committed. Otherwise, you go to a judge, state the evidence that makes it seem likely the person committed a crime, and get an arrest warrant.

I have seen no newspaper account of arrest warrants issued or what information was given to a judge to lead him to believe there was a sufficient cause for an arrest warrant should be issued. The fact that they've been calling them suspects the whole time means there wasn't any evidence to get an arrest warrant, because they were called suspects.

Suspects are people you want to question, but you don't know enough to get an arrest warrant yet. YOU DO NOT USUALLY SHOOT AT SUSPECTS. These guys immediately started shooting. Without enough evidence to get an arrest warrant.

This is why he is now suddenly "an enemy combatant". There is no evidence, and no arrest warrant. Due process wasn't followed from the get go. So call them enemy combatant and claim you don't need an arrest warrant. This is the real reason, not "reading them their Miranda rights", which is pretty much small nonsense. They didn't have enough evidence to even convince a judge that they were anything but suspects.
----end snip----

[TaftFan]

I see no need for a warrant. They were armed and dangerous, just having robbed a convenience store and murdering a college cop.

They were being pursued and on the way they even threw explosives onto the street.

This kind of thinking is what makes libertarians look naive.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

This seems exactly right. There wasn't any arrest warrants issued. Or any evidence the public could see - which would have included what was on an arrest warrant.

Names kept changing. They were only suspects.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I see no need for a warrant. They were armed and dangerous, just having robbed a convenience store and murdering a college cop.

They were being pursued and on the way they even threw explosives onto the street.

This kind of thinking is what makes libertarians look naive.

You need no arrest warrant to arrest them for terrorist attacks? That is what he is being held on, "enemey combatant"

And the cops started shooting first.

They had over two days to get that arrest warrant before the first shoot out. It's obvious they were going to shoot them without getting one.

Since when does involvement in a robbery, alleged, make you guilty of another crime a completely different day?

WHERE IS THE ARREST WARRANT for the Boston Marathon attacks? Had more than two days to get one, and if they had enough evidence to begin with, they would have gotten one.

[kcchiefs6465]

I see no need for a warrant. They were armed and dangerous, just having robbed a convenience store and murdering a college cop.

They were being pursued and on the way they even threw explosives onto the street.

This kind of thinking is what makes libertarians look naive.
They didn't rob the convenience store and if enough evidence was available they could have gotten an arrest warrant.

They can order you held on suspicion of murder charges though. I believe they can hold you for what, 48 hours?

ETA: Before charging or releasing you.

[fr33]

They were always suspects. Now I assume he is accused. I'm not sure though because the FBI said he doesn't have legitimate claim to miranda rights.

Whether you disagree with the narrative is one thing, but if a suspect is shooting at you and throwing explosives, I'd say you've got claim to a right of self defense. Maybe they took him to the hospital for good measure.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I see no need for a warrant. .

The fourth amendment to the Constitution says you need one. Are you an American?

Look, we're not even living in the same country. They started chasing these two and shutting down the whole city of Boston without even enough evidence to get an arrest warrant for the Boston Marathon attacks. The names and faces of the alleged suspects changed the whole night. And you don't shoot suspects, you question them. And you can't arrest suspects without a warrant issued by a judge.

Amendment Four
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[sailingaway]

In hot pursuit you don't need a warrant under many circumstances, also in times of 'insurrection' and whether that was or not, since it was for limited time when bombs were going off and grenades being thrown, I don't think many are going to put too fine a point on looking for the suspect in nearby houses. Now demanding papers of people who clearly were NOT the suspect, that I think is a bit different. And the naked guy may have a complaint, once stripped he really didn't have to be kept standing there naked in front of the crowd while he was interrogated. but some leeway is given.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

They were always suspects. Now I assume he is accused. I'm not sure though because the FBI said he doesn't have legitimate claim to miranda rights.

Whether you disagree with the narrative is one thing, but if a suspect is shooting at you and throwing explosives, I'd say you've got claim to a right of self defense. Maybe they took him to the hospital for good measure.

An arrest warrant is a basic constitutional right. It prevents cops from just shooting anyone they please, and a judge has to review the evidence, and see that it is sufficient.

No judge ever reviewed the evidence to say these two needed to be arrested, as opposed to "questioned". And "questioned" turned out to be shot.

If they didn't have even an arrest warrant for these two, what makes you think there is any evidence that they did it?

The fact that they didn't get one after two days, well BEFORE the events you describe makes the whole thing unbelievable.

[sailingaway]

An arrest warrant is a basic constitutional right. It prevents cops from just shooting anyone they please, and a judge has to review the evidence, and see that it is sufficient.

No judge ever reviewed the evidence to say these two needed to be arrested, as opposed to "questioned". And "questioned" turned out to be shot.

If they didn't have even an arrest warrant for these two, what makes you think there is any evidence that they did it?

The fact that they didn't get one after two days, well BEFORE the events you describe makes the whole thing unbelievable.

You don't need a warrant to arrest


Many times when people are questioned by the police, they don't feel that they are free to walk away from the officer. However, until you've been formally detained (as in a traffic stop) or arrested, the officer can't stop you from simply walking away. However, once the officer prevents you from walking away, an arrest has taken place. Whether the arrest is legal or not depends in large part on whether he or she had "probable cause".

What is Probable Cause?
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorizes police to make an arrest as long as they have "probable cause". The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The idea behind probable cause is to prevent the sort of police states that exist in other countries, where officials can simply round up people they don't like as "undesirables" or "threats" without any justification. This standard is deliberately vague, but over time the interpretation of what constitutes probable cause has become fairly solidified:

Probable cause is established through factual evidence, and not just suspicions or hunches.
Probable cause can be established through observation alone (sight, smell, sound, etc), and includes observations that create suspicion based on a familiar pattern of criminal activity, such as when an officer sees a car circling around an area repeatedly or when someone is flashing their headlights.
Probable cause can be based on information derived from witnesses, victims and informants.
Probable cause can be based on police expertise, such as recognition of gang signs, detection of tools appropriate for committing certain crimes, or knowledge of movements and gestures that indicate criminal activity.
Probable cause can be based on circumstantial evidence that only indirectly indicates that a crime has occurred, such as a broken window.
Who Decides Whether an Officer had Probable Cause?
While probable cause needs to be established before an arrest by the police officer, probable cause can be determined after the fact by a judge. This means that an officer could have in good faith thought he or she had probable cause, but a judge can later determine that there was in fact no probable cause. If this occurs, evidence acquired without probable cause becomes inadmissible in court.

Also, even if it turns out that the police were wrong and a suspect is later acquitted, it doesn't affect the determination of probable cause. Probable cause is extremely important to the police, because even if the suspect is found to be innocent, the finding of probable cause shields the police from lawsuits.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-is-an-arrest-a-legal-arrest.html

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

In hot pursuit .

Yes, and that is explained in the other thread on Daily Paul the difference between arresting someone you just saw commit a crime, versus needing an arrest warrant.

But they won't in hot pursuit over the terror attacks, and they didn't get an arrest warrant over them either. They had plenty of time. That's the reason they're calling them enemy combatants now, because it's a major violation of rights.

This kid is an American citizen. They might charge him with robbing a store - if he really did it, that story now seems doubtful - multiple different versions, but the arrest as a terror suspect or enemy combatant has to be thrown out. Complete violation of due process and all rights.

[TheGrinch]

In hot pursuit you don't need a warrant under many circumstances, also in times of 'insurrection' and whether that was or not, since it was for limited time when bombs were going off and grenades being thrown, I don't think many are going to put too fine a point on looking for the suspect in nearby houses. Now demanding papers of people who clearly were NOT the suspect, that I think is a bit different. And the naked guy may have a complaint, once stripped he really didn't have to be kept standing there naked in front of the crowd while he was interrogated. but some leeway is given.

Huh? I missed a naked guy getting interrogated?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1202842/greased-up-deaf-guy-o.gif

[sailingaway]

Yes, and that is explained in the other thread on Daily Paul the difference between arresting someone you just saw commit a crime, versus needing an arrest warrant.

But they won't in hot pursuit over the terror attacks, and they didn't get an arrest warrant over them either. They had plenty of time. That's the reason they're calling them enemy combatants now, because it's a major violation of rights.

This kid is an American citizen. They might charge him with robbing a store - if he really did it, that story now seems doubtful - multiple different versions, but the arrest as a terror suspect or enemy combatant has to be thrown out. Complete violation of due process and all rights.

What other suspects? THey did have a warrant for the three in New Bedford.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

They didn't rob the convenience store and if enough evidence was available they could have gotten an arrest warrant.

They can order you held on suspicion of murder charges though. I believe they can hold you for what, 48 hours?

ETA: Before charging or releasing you.

I personally think the cops just started shooting, and the story they are giving isn't the real one.

The cops could have easily gotten an arrest warrant if they had the evidence, so that says it all.

They shot one, and are now calling the survivor an enemy combatant to cover it up. Saying it's about Miranda rights is just thinking everyone has drunk so much fluoride water now that they can't see the real reason is constitutional rights. Miranda is a minor court given right. Enemy combatants don't need warrants. Heck, they can even ship them out without trial and torture them. We're never get the truth.

[sailingaway]

Huh? I missed a naked guy getting interrogated?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1202842/greased-up-deaf-guy-o.gif

see for yourself: https://twitter.com/search?q=naked%20guy&src=typd

[BamaAla]

I feel terrible for the naked guy. He was paraded around in front of crowds of people and the footage ran on CNN for 3 hours.

[sailingaway]

Kumail Nanjiani ‏@kumailn 16h
"I have a crazy story for you." - the naked guy who is not a suspect, every day for the rest of his life.
Retweeted 942 times

G ‏@scdistrict now
Poor naked guy from last night -- wrong place / wrong time http://boston.cbslocal.com/video/8790685-naked-suspect-taken-into-custody-in-watertown/ …

Patriot ‏@tnlawgirl 2h
what ever happened to the naked guy arrested last night?

Mandy Nagy ‏@Liberty_Chick 13h
I wonder which morning show will be the first to interview RANDOM NAKED GUY this morning...
Followed by Mike Foote and 8 others

Dan Gordon ‏@Rep_DanGordon 14h
@SeekVeracity Not cool, mang. They should be looking for the bad man, not trying to see #nakedguy junk. #FTP

Doug Mataconis ‏@dmataconis 15h
Most naked guy's do RT @cmdeb: Naked guy has quite the story to tell.

Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew 15h
Naked guy was innocent per @sethmnookin.

✩ Lindsey Kay † ‏@GitRDonePatriot 16h
#Watertown haha the unlucky naked guy already has a twitter page...Oy :/

Mandy Nagy ‏@Liberty_Chick 16h
Glad I wasn't the only one confused for an hr > Watertown aftermath: What happened to the naked guy? http://twitchy.com/2013/04/19/watertown-aftermath-what-happened-to-the-naked-guy/#.UXEHIewOsKs.twitter … via @TwitchyTeam

Eye on Politics ‏@EyeOnPolitics 16h
"He's in the car. I've got his ID on me now." Not sure who they are referring to. Naked guy?

Mandy Nagy ‏@Liberty_Chick 16h
Also, do not answer your door. Unless it's RANDOM NAKED GUY. He's apparently ok.


Eye on Politics ‏@EyeOnPolitics 16h
That naked guy will never, ever defy police orders again.


TwitchyTeam ‏@TwitchyTeam 17h
Watertown aftermath: What happened to the naked guy? http://bit.ly/Zwu32z

Mandy Nagy ‏@Liberty_Chick 17h
To summarize per CNN: Suspect #1 black hat = now deceased; suspect #2 white hat = "terrorist on the loose". NAKED GUY = RANDOM UNLUCKY DUDE

Jim Hoft ‏@gatewaypundit 17h
Mass Police grab guy. Tell him to strip naked. Cuff him. Throw him in car. Interrogate him then let him go. #BadNight NewsBreaker

Jason Linkins ‏@dceiver 17h
In addition, one naked guy picked the wrong night to do whatever it was he was doing,

Mark Dice ‏@MarkDice 17h
Fox News is reporting suspect number one is dead. Who was the naked guy they put in the police car?

Kurt Schlichter ‏@KurtSchlichter 17h
Or just a guy who, like many of us, rejects the tyranny of pants. RT @cshenkel: @meredithdake naked dude may have been an innocent witness

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

So are we all satisfied? That they didn't need to tell the public or judge what evidence they had, They could shut down the entire city of Boston on the birthday of our country with military, shoot two suspects the Boston Marathon bombing, and who were suspects only, killing one, and now declaring the other will have no rights either - if he survives.

All without even an arrest warrant from a judge over the marathon bombings.

Are you satisfied with this?

Because if you are, I have no interest in laying down the floor next to you like the dogs you are.

[TheGrinch]

So are we all satisfied? That they didn't need to tell the public or judge what evidence they had, They could shut down the entire city of Boston on the birthday of our country with military, shoot two suspects the Boston Marathon bombing, and who were suspects only, killing one, and now declaring the other will have no rights either - if he survives.

All without even an arrest warrant from a judge over the marathon bombings.

Are you satisfied with this?

Because if you are, I have no interest in laying down the floor next to you like the dogs you are.

I'm more concerned with first getting all the facts to see if the story adds up like they say it does, because if they really hijacked a car and were hucking explosives at cops, or were even just firing shots, then of course they don't have to have an arrest warrant to apprehend or use deadly force.

[BamaAla]

So are we all satisfied? That they didn't need to tell the public or judge what evidence they had, They could shut down the entire city of Boston on the birthday of our country with military, shoot two suspects the Boston Marathon bombing, and who were suspects only, killing one, and now declaring the other will have no rights either - if he survives.

All without even an arrest warrant from a judge over the marathon bombings.

Are you satisfied with this?

Because if you are, I have no interest in laying down the floor next to you like the dogs you are.

I haven't been watching. What are they charged with right now? Chances are that they are not charged with the marathon at this time and that they (or the living one) is charged with the campus cop and the actions immediately following. They don't need a warrant for this arrest.

[sailingaway]

So are we all satisfied? That they didn't need to tell the public or judge what evidence they had, They could shut down the entire city of Boston on the birthday of our country with military, shoot two suspects the Boston Marathon bombing, and who were suspects only, killing one, and now declaring the other will have no rights either - if he survives.

All without even an arrest warrant from a judge over the marathon bombings.

Are you satisfied with this?

Because if you are, I have no interest in laying down the floor next to you like the dogs you are.

charming.

There are a lot of things in there besides arrest. Arrest is a specific thing. you need probable cause. Not a warrant. You need a warrant to get stuff or to enter someone's home, not take them somewhere else. And if you are in hot pursuit and the bad guy may have run in someone's house that is the classic time when you can enter. But the amount of houses they entered might be unreasonable - except in this case suspect 2 was found in a boat two blocks OUTSIDE the perimeter, so it will be hard to show that. Plus, I wonder how many asked for warrants? I bet not many, and consent is consent.

Locking the city down is nuts. I think DHS pushed that, they are a megalomaniac agency as far as I can see, in all particulars, being wholly unnecessary, what is 'necessary' never enters into their calculations.

[CPUd]

They don't need a warrant. They were seeking the 2 for questioning as a suspect, and the guys took off, using weapons against the police.

Normally, they could detain them for 2 days without charging them, but if they are declared as enemy combatants, those rules don't apply.

The names and faces of the suspects never changed. The FBI gave some photos, the internet gave some names. The FBI gave the actual names some hours later.


Where is the statement that they are being treated as enemy combatants? The internet doesn't count, It needs to come from the DOJ or other official source.

[DeMintConservative]

The fourth amendment to the Constitution says you need one. Are you an American?

Look, we're not even living in the same country. They started chasing these two and shutting down the whole city of Boston without even enough evidence to get an arrest warrant for the Boston Marathon attacks. The names and faces of the alleged suspects changed the whole night. And you don't shoot suspects, you question them. And you can't arrest suspects without a warrant issued by a judge.

Amendment Four
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They started chasing them because of the MIT shooting and the car hijack.

What were they supposed to do? Stop the pursuit because they didn't have a warrant?

[sailingaway]

They don't need a warrant. They were seeking the 2 for questioning as a suspect, and the guys took off, using weapons against the police.

Normally, they could detain them for 2 days without charging them, but if they are declared as enemy combatants, those rules don't apply.

The names and faces of the suspects never changed. The FBI gave some photos, the internet gave some names. The FBI gave the actual names some hours later.


Where is the statement that they are being treated as enemy combatants? The internet doesn't count, It needs to come from the DOJ or other official source.

Lindsay and McCain issued a statement slathering about how he should be treated as such, but I understand they are just not doing miranda under public safety exception carved by SCOTUS which requires targeted inquiry and a limited time frame.

[DeMintConservative]

Locking the city down is nuts. I think DHS pushed that, they are a megalomaniac agency as far as I can see, in all particulars, being wholly unnecessary, what is 'necessary' never enters into their calculations.

Funnily enough they only found him after lifting the lockdown.

Probably lifting it lead to his capture.

[sailingaway]

Funnily enough they only found him after lifting the lockdown.

Probably lifting it lead to his capture.

It did. The homeowner went outside and saw blood on the boat.

[Aratus]

true...

[Dogsoldier]

While were talking about this what about "shall not be deprived of life,LIBERTY, or property without due process of law"?....Now to me I interpret that as they aren't supposed to put someone in jail untill they are convicted of the crime...But I know lots of people who were held in jail for close to a year before there was an actual trial...

[DeMintConservative]

While were talking about this what about "shall not be deprived of life,LIBERTY, or property without due process of law"?....Now to me I interpret that as they aren't supposed to put someone in jail untill they are convicted of the crime...

It'd be hard to convict anyone of a crime if your interpretation was followed. At least anyone guilty of any mildly serious crime, let alone guys like these.

[BamaAla]

While were talking about this what about "shall not be deprived of life,LIBERTY, or property without due process of law"?....Now to me I interpret that as they aren't supposed to put someone in jail untill they are convicted of the crime...But I know lots of people who were held in jail for close to a year before there was an actual trial...


Where does bail (and remand) fit into this interpretation?

[Dogsoldier]

"bail (and remand)"

Where is that?

The only thing I see on bail is that no bail shall be imposed...

[CPUd]

While were talking about this what about "shall not be deprived of life,LIBERTY, or property without due process of law"?....Now to me I interpret that as they aren't supposed to put someone in jail untill they are convicted of the crime...But I know lots of people who were held in jail for close to a year before there was an actual trial...

It depends on what you mean by "put someone in jail". If you're facing a formal charge, you are not free to do as you please. You must appear in court to answer that charge. Unless the prosecutor can show cause that the person may not show up for court, or they pose some sort of threat to the community, they can be released on bond. That's part of due process. If a person can't make bond, they're usually not going to be in detention that long unless they are making legal maneuverings that keep pushing back a trial date. That's also part of due process.

[The Northbreather]

Lockdown. Let me repeat that.

LOCKDOWN

Where do they get the athority to declare LOCKDOWN? This is the question at hand.

Because the ministry of truth adopts it we are to accept it?

These people are out of their collective gourds.

[2young2vote]

How do we know they didn't have a warrant?

[BamaAla]

"bail (and remand)"

Where is that?

The only thing I see on bail is that no bail shall be imposed...

Excessive bail...

Pre-trial detention has been a part of the U.S. justice from jump street and long before through common law.

[sailingaway]

How do we know they didn't have a warrant?

They may have had one but they didn't need one. What is due process varies based on the extent of the infringement on liberty. You are entitled to a speedy trial ONCE arrested, and they have to have probable cause to arrest you. There are different 'processes' which are considered 'due' at different stages.

The lockdown the governor may have had the authority to call, given discretion when there are fluid facts and explosives thrown, but it is at minimum an error of judgment imho. I suspect theater to some extent to show how 'lucky' they were to have so many police and so many military toys -- that it didn't occur to them that the displayed panoply was major over kill for one 19 year old on the loose.

[enhanced_deficit]

I see no need for a warrant. They were armed and dangerous, just having robbed a convenience store and murdering a college cop.

They were being pursued and on the way they even threw explosives onto the street.

This kind of thinking is what makes libertarians look naive.

If you believed incorrect claims, would that make you naive?

Suspects were not involved in robbery as was previously reported

Law enforcement now say that the Boston bombing suspect were not involved in a 7-Eleven robbery as was previously reported.

During a news conference held Friday evening, police said the surviving teen suspect is still on the loose and is an “armed and dangerous” individual but that the robbery at the convenience store was a separate and unrelated incident.

The media had reported early Friday that the MIT officer was killed by bombing suspect’s brothers’ 19-year-old Dzhokhar and 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev during a robbery and that the gun battle which killed the older brother had ensued because of that.
State police say they believe the suspect is still in Massachusetts after fleeing on foot but also say they “cannot lock down” an entire state because of it. Authorities urge everyone in Watertown to resume their normal lives and all city restrictions have been lifted including on area transportation.
It still isn’t clear who killed the MIT officer.


http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14448519-police-say-boston-bomb-suspects-were-not-involved-in-robbery-as-was-reported

[tangent4ronpaul]

Lockdown. Let me repeat that.

LOCKDOWN

Where do they get the athority to declare LOCKDOWN? This is the question at hand.

Because the ministry of truth adopts it we are to accept it?

These people are out of their collective gourds.



The lockdown the governor may have had the authority to call, given discretion when there are fluid facts and explosives thrown, but it is at minimum an error of judgment imho. I suspect theater to some extent to show how 'lucky' they were to have so many police and so many military toys -- that it didn't occur to them that the displayed panoply was major over kill for one 19 year old on the loose.

GDP estimates vary abit, but for Boston go up to about $360 Billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

So that little bit of terrorism/police state theater cost the city about $1 Billion dollars, before factoring in the bill for the paramillitary display.

So far Boston isn't on the list of cities facing bankruptcy - yet...

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/war/news.php?q=1319562351

-t