BAA Member, Local Sub-Elite who ran 14:53 at BAA 5k arrested for looking like Boston Bomber

lol

poster 677 wrote:

neighnotney wrote:

Sorry, dude, but what do you think led to his being released? His being open and honest? No, it was that they found the record of his passport. I'm not saying he has to conceal his identity. But he doesn't have to tell them all about himself and his roommates and his life and his family and his living situation and his entire background and why he was there and where he was going, etc.

You made a dumb remark and should just own it. Trying to backtrack makes you look childish.

This is very weird. Not exactly sure what was a dumb remark. Not talking to the police is not really a novel concept for someone in custody. It's pretty much what every criminal defense lawyer will tell you. Second of all, not backtracking. Not talking to the police and "remaining silent" does not mean that you literally shut your mouth and don't say anything--didn't know that anyone thought that by "remaining silent" I meant that he wasn't actually allowed to say anything.

neighnotney wrote:

didn't know that anyone thought that by "remaining silent" I meant that he wasn't actually allowed to say anything.

Really?

Say wha? wrote:

neighnotney wrote:

didn't know that anyone thought that by "remaining silent" I meant that he wasn't actually allowed to say anything.

Really?

Really! And you should have quoted the entire sentence because it's a little deceiving quoting it the way you did (I clearly gave more detail in the full sentence).

Thanks for the link! Was an interesting read even though this discussion thread about it sucks.

xenonscreams wrote:

Running around a soccer field for fifty-minutes? Sure hope he changed directions.

Or what would happen? You ran around one for 40 minutes the other day and survived.

neighnotney wrote:

Say wha? wrote:

Really?

Really! And you should have quoted the entire sentence because it's a little deceiving quoting it the way you did (I clearly gave more detail in the full sentence).

You're either a bad troll, or a good idiot.

Say wha? wrote:

neighnotney wrote:

Really! And you should have quoted the entire sentence because it's a little deceiving quoting it the way you did (I clearly gave more detail in the full sentence).

You're either a bad troll, or a good idiot.

Cool. A bit blown away by all this negative feedback! The only thing I'll apologize for is perhaps appearing to stand in judgment of Dan's actions. I know how hard it would be in that situation to not just give every single detail to the cops to prove that you're innocent, and not sure I'd do any different. I would hope I would, though.

That said, I still stand by my posts. Fact is, silence is better. You guys can go on and on about how suspicious it is, or what not. The literal fact, complete utmost and total fact of this situation is that his speaking had nothing to do with his release. His release was due ONLY and I REPEAT ONLY due to the finding of his passport. For goodnesssakes all his speaking led the cops to go to his house! You act like speaking did him some good. Um, no.

I was talking to my aunt in Watertown that night and she said it was pretty tense. Had cops in her yard, offered some of them food/drink and they accepted.

Here is a question, though. at the time of Dan's run, wasn't it still like 12 hours before the shootout with the younger guy in the boat? That all happened later that day, right? I feel like all of that was happening at like 6:00-9:00pm, not at 3 in the morning.

neighnotney wrote:

The literal fact, complete utmost and total fact of this situation is that his speaking had nothing to do with his release. His release was due ONLY and I REPEAT ONLY due to the finding of his passport. For goodnesssakes all his speaking led the cops to go to his house! You act like speaking did him some good. Um, no.

How did they find out his name?

neighnotney wrote:

You obviously have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested for being silent. Being silent is not evidence of guilt.

Salinas v. Texas says hello.

SCOTUStroll wrote:

neighnotney wrote:

You obviously have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested for being silent. Being silent is not evidence of guilt.

Salinas v. Texas says hello.

Well I say hello to an inapposite case. This is easily distinguishable on its facts . The guy went to the police station, was not in custody at all, answered the police's questions, and then, when asked a specific question about bullet casings, decided to remain silent. That silence was used as evidence against him. Note that there was no custody here, so no requirement of Miranda warnings (as there must have been in Dan's case here).

So THAT'S why you continue to argue despite being so wrong. You're a law student!

Welcome to the big leagues ... LETSRUN LEGAL.

Quenton Cassidy Lives wrote:

A BAA Member wrote:It's well known that Dan Harper is crazy. The guy has no personal life whatsoever. Nice guy, but running that morning is more indicative of his borderline personality disorder and unhealthy relationship with running. It's sad because the guy could be in medical school and instead runs crazy amount of mileage and gets marginal returns.

You just described a sizable percentage of LRC posters, at least at some point in their lives.

Exactly my point yesterday.

Rund al'Thor wrote:

So THAT'S why you continue to argue despite being so wrong. You're a law student!

Welcome to the big leagues ... LETSRUN LEGAL.

Definitely not a law student. Hooray for "internet anonymity" as the fake criminal defense attorney said earlier. Can someone please point me to how I am "so wrong"? Still not getting it. Maybe I am very dense. If so, please help.

Otherwise, I can't understand why everyone is so eager to talk to the cops! It clearly did no good here. Again, remaining silent does not mean he is not allowed to give them his name. That was, in fact, helpful. Why you guys think that answering the cops' questions was helpful, though, is beyond me.

Great post, and I agree for the most part. I think it is wise to have an ID during the aftermath of an attack. We just have to be careful that we don't subject ourselves to a police state where we HAVE to have ID at all times. The terrorists win if we go into shut-down mode.

You don't think answering the question, "Do you have a passport?" Was helpful?

neighnotney wrote:

Rund al'Thor wrote:

So THAT'S why you continue to argue despite being so wrong. You're a law student!

Welcome to the big leagues ... LETSRUN LEGAL.

Definitely not a law student. Hooray for "internet anonymity" as the fake criminal defense attorney said earlier. Can someone please point me to how I am "so wrong"? Still not getting it. Maybe I am very dense. If so, please help.

Otherwise, I can't understand why everyone is so eager to talk to the cops! It clearly did no good here. Again, remaining silent does not mean he is not allowed to give them his name. That was, in fact, helpful. Why you guys think that answering the cops' questions was helpful, though, is beyond me.

Should he have lawyered up?

Seeing as the cops weren't cutting him any slack, had made up their minds, overly eager to make an arrest just due to his unfortunate resemblance to the suspect, he almost got charged. Good fortune his passport turned up.

I would have done that - know what it's like to be wrongly accused of an offence.

Oh my goodness ... I posted on this thread under "Runner Patrol" "Runner Number One" or whatever, and this one.

I am a defense attorney and I don't know why my other post was deleted. But here goes.

Answering the cop's questions is exactly what got Dan out of this situation. He was behind the 8-ball so to speak because he was acting suspicious - running with no shirt, no ID, near a threatened building, in the early morning after a shootout with terrorists, while one of them was still on the loose. And he fit the description for the one that was still alive and unaccounted for. Being "stopped" by the cops was completely legitimate.

He was "detained" (placed in the control of the cops) because he had no ID in those circumstances. The cops ask him questions looking for "reasonable suspicion" that he's the suspect. They got answers and eliminated that possibility because he spoke honestly with them. If he'd been evasive - or if he'd remained silent, which is one way of being evasive - they would have found reasonable suspicion and arrested him.

If that happened, he'd go to jail. If he didn't talk then, there's no way he'd be bailed out on personal recognizance, so he'd be held until he could have an arraignment and a bail hearing and assigned counsel. With a Friday morning arrest, that hearing might have taken place on Friday ... or it might have taken place the following Monday morning. And if you're a terror suspect, there's no way you're getting out on bail until someone convinces the court that you're not the terrorist (with evidence). Given all of these circumstances, saying JUST your name probably wouldn't even do that, because they would still be suspicious as to why you didn't answer the other basic questions they'd asked.

I've been to hearings where people identify themselves and then refuse to speak, even to their attorney - cops, judges, and the prosecutors don't like it, and if the arrest is legitimate (i.e. based on reasonable suspicion, as it would have been here) then they're not going to let you go until the process plays itself out. "The process" can take weeks or months, during which time ... he'd be in jail.

You have plenty of rights as a suspect. It's not always a good idea to exercise them - because the state has the authority to totally screw you when you choose to. This isn't a very republican/libertarian/whatever approach, but it's reality. Do you think people go to jail, get imprisoned, or get sued because they want to?