From EF Beales FDL: Margo Schulter November 23rd, 2013 at 2:58 pm 73 Hello, EF Beall and all. In line with the title of this thread, there’s one alleged conspiracy that may be of special interest: the possibility, raised in earlier related threads, that either or both of the Tsarnaev brothers were deliberately shot by law enforcement agents while in custody — or that the many rounds fired at the unarmed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev while he was in the boat were the result, not of an epic botch where for example one officer’s gun accidentally discharged and the others thought it was a shot fired at them by the suspect, but a deliberate attempt to kill or wound Tsarnaev although he had done nothing to pose an imminent threat warranting the use of lethal force. This kind of conspiracy, if it is what happened, is just as much of a threat to our Constitution and the international human rights framework as the Boston Marathon bombings themselves. One hypothesis presented in an earlier thread is that either or both of the brothers may have shot, while in custody and defenseless, by officers out of “momentary anger.” Such a scenario does not avoid the legal category of conspiracy, but would only, if one or both of the suspects were shot under such circumstances, change the nature of the conspiracy. Shooting an unarmed and subdued suspect in the mouth, as it has been alleged may have happened to Dzhokhar, would be an aggravated assault, very possibly with intent to commit murder. It becomes a worse crime when committed by law enforcement officers, who are supposed to have the training and discipline not to resort to unwarranted force — let alone lethal force — even under provocation. But even if such a shooting were committed by a single officer in a moment of mental imbalance, to cover up such an incident would involve other officers in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. And it may be worthwhile pointing out that under the SCOTUS decision in Tennessee v. Garner, the fact that someone is suspected to be a “fleeing felon” does not in itself justify the use of deadly force. Of course, such near-murderous abuse of a suspect should certainly make inadmissible any alleged statements or confessions attributed to Dzhokhar. Even under the amazingly free reign given to the police before the Warren Court decisions that applied many provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States, including the previously inapplicable (according to Supreme Court law) guarantee against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, confessions extracted by torture or other crude physical force were held to infringe on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — although lots of “third degree” tactics were held to fall short of this level of duress. Yesterday, we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy; today, we confront the possibility that law enforcement officials may have conspired either to use deadly force without any justification in apprehending a wounded suspect, or else in shooting that suspect when already apprehended and totally defenseless, or else in covering up such a shooting committed by an officer, even if in “momentary anger,” which would represent one of the most radical betrayals of our Constitution and system of justice
Posted on: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:54:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015