the international animals in the very heart of moscow. harbor to washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture. new iteration continues to pour out about the other plans of the boston terrorist intent to carry out if they hadn't been caught but despite this new information republicans are saying that so far starting have had it was read his miranda rights too early in the interrogation process republicans right or should have have been read his miranda rights even earlier also the tragic explosion in west texas should be a wake up call for all of us join us the importance of effective regulation some people it's not that way i'll talk with one of those people coming up and later in

the show your take my take live segment your chance to call in and ask a question or make a comment while on the air. you need to know this new reports reveal the dzhokhar star and have the surviving boston marathon bombing suspect either stopped talking to investigators after he was read his miranda rights or wasn't read his miranda rights until after he'd much said everything he had to say and republicans are jumping on these revelations to justify either even further fudging of the constitution when law enforcement officials first captured the nineteen year olds are to have last friday president obama announced the federal investigators would not immediately read him his miranda rights and only when someone is arrested arresting officers are required to remind them of their right to not incriminate themselves and to be represented by

an attorney the fifth amendment right against self incrimination is among our most important constitutional protections because it protects us from abuse of and by the one single institution that we have empowered to imprison and even legally kill us our government but in certain situations for example when an individual in custody knows the whereabouts of a ticking bomb the supreme court has ruled the police can interrogate that individual before reminding him or her of their miranda rights this is the cost so-called public safety exception invoked by president obama on friday although a judge eventually read dzhokhar the start of the miranda rights warning on a monday if the i use the interim period before he was read his rights to interrogate the suspected bomber now that sarti has gone silent some republicans are arguing that he was mirandized too soon and i simply see earlier this afternoon mike rogers chairman of the house permanent committee on intelligence called the decision to reid's already have his rights dangerous and bad policy. when you're

talking about weapons of mass destruction this is very against and we better err on the side of public safety but to have the court affirmatively push their way in is a i think it's wrong and b. would have given the f.b.i. the time that they needed given the circumstances it's confusing it is horrible god awful policy and dangerous to the greater community and we have got to get to the bottom of this and we've got a person right now but can never be too soon for him. doesn't appear a minute of his most basic constitutional rights and says might happen tonio attorney and host of ring of fire welcome back. good are we treating our rights for security what a ben franklin said about that what we're really not i think if you look at this if you look at this case first of all a judge at some point is going to be able to review all the cumulative elements of what occurred now you know. we've always had we've always had exceptions

to when you mirandize people there is as you point out the exigent circumstances of the community at risk is the possible is it possible that if you were involved so once you get past that threshold once the resting officer the rest of the agency says everything's safe you know it's time to mirandize and they should go forward with it now this republican monitor of they did it too soon it was just absolutely the dull brain exactly the same dull brain argument you would expect from these are people who would extend this to where we have a hybrid and honestly this is what the republicans really want to accomplish these these naysayers these people that are just screaming about this miranda what they want tom is a hybrid something in between how we treat a regular american citizen and this citizen who we try to characterize is an enemy combatant because once you do that then all the other things go in place where we can put him away in a cell no questions asked that's where republicans would love to take us and

fortunately for me he understands the danger of that he's a constitutional professor he seems to understand the dangers of take it too far in this situation but might he not i mean if the if the if the. standard here is. is there an imminent danger. the exigent circumstance you're talking right is there an imminent danger and and we can establish that that was determined fairly early on you know when this kid basically said no we had no more bombs you know there's no more not there's nothing taken out there you know that was established presumably in the first hour or so it isn't isn't it reasonable to say that we've already started stretching this thing too far and that we've seen so many holes. drilled in our fourth and fifth amendment rights. in the two that protects against the government invading our homes invading our lives or even taking our lives i'm

frankly concerned about this well i think we should be concerned because you still have to have republican congressmen and people from the intelligence agencies saying gee we just did this we did we did this too soon that is a very scary message but the truth is here's here's where if the government messed up here's what they here's what they've done they've taken an individual a defendant that probably the facts are overwhelming from a standpoint of criminality from the standpoint of did he commit this crime yeah it's going to be pretty easy to get there but the real issue comes down to what do we do with them now had if the government overreached what you're going to have an appellate court would say is he overreached and you know what they're going to lose the right to be able to proceed with the death penalty kind of charge in this case they're going to the fence is going to argue that the conduct of these officials has interfered with the ability for the prosecution to go forward with the death

penalty because they're going to take some of the some of the things he said creatively they're going to say take some of the things they that he did creatively and they're going to they're going to use that they're going to use that as a defense against the prosecution and one thing that really stands out in your mind is once he was read once he was told listen you have the right to remain silent you have the right to have an attorney present and all anything you say can be used against you after he did that after he was given that right he showed up so a judge looking in that that says look that's information that tells me maybe he was very low information about what his rights were the argument is you know he maybe didn't understand the right he was young he was under huge pressure he simply didn't understand what was he was a user. injured he was medicated he didn't understand what's happening around him and so these things that he said without being mirandized can actually work against

the state's right to be able to proceed with. a death penalty kind of prosecution i mean just in a kind of a real world scenario isn't it reasonable to assume that he was mirandized he was told he could have a lawyer he indicated that he could not afford one one was assigned to him presumably quite quickly that a lawyer would have immediately advised him shut up a note saying i mean that's that's just like kind of lawyer want to want in a criminal case is not well it is but in this case i think what was so important is here he was spilling he was talking and talking and giving him all these details about the connections between what he was doing and the ideologies behind it which was a problem for him to begin with and i never should have said that you know he was talking a lot in that all of a sudden he's mirandized and immediately they come back into the room and he won't say anything that that tells the judge a lot about maybe what transpired so this is if you really think about it ultimately this comes down to

a judge that hears the facts tries to weigh the facts in says did the did the government overreach in this situation i think once you get past the reasonable argument on exigent circumstances on the safety exception you look at the time frame of that you look at what a reasonable government investigator or the f.b.i. might have done it and you look at the reasonableness of the conduct a judge is going to say you know what you might have overreached here now and the same is speaking of the fourth and fifth amendment this is all about the fifth member of the fourth amendment our right to privacy a variation of the same the right to be secure in our in our persons our papers our our our residence. the president had threatened to veto cispa you know if it came down the line and he's sort of right and. and yet now we discover that the justice department has been apparently in a free willy nilly basis at least with regard eighty and t.

we know of saying yeah go ahead spy on these people no problem is this just like cosmetic song and dance was this like yeah i'll veto it for the base or for the or for the. know oh yeah his talk about it is if you look at it if you look at his president's conduct he gave these people immunity understands my voice people were they were right in your they were right in your home they were right on your telephone your computer on your mobile phone they were right there doing everything that is contrary to the fourth amendment there's no question any any pressure to look at and say yeah this is an absolute absolute bastardization of the fourth amendment as a matter of fact you may recall tom the lawsuits were brought ok in the lawsuits were very well pled i read about i read a couple and they were very well put and they said here's what you've done wrong and they said that you know to these communications companies and the only way out was to get the president and this administration to give them immunity in the

question becomes at what point does this does this president put his constitutional law professor hat back on and say you know what sometimes it's just too far the fourth amendment does matter and they they ran rampant the intrusion of these companies was rampant and i don't think they had i don't think the average public understands exactly exactly how far they went in allowing the government into your home yeah so what can we do about this. well i think with this administration it's been it's been very clear that you can do very little understand the the lawsuits that were brought in this case the pleadings that were that the government saw that the regulatory agencies saw they were very clear there was nothing equivocal about it this president that listen this immunity did not take place without this president knowing about it in participating it in

furthering it and that's why the bush administration policies exactly but what's so shameful about it is then he comes out he gives us this suggestion that she will she wear this is what i'm this is what i'm doing sis and i'm the guy that's going to protect your right to privacy it is shameless it's shameless and it's fraudulent and once you understand the to obama's here you start understanding what we've been contending with not just in this term but last term as well so what can we do about it we can wait for the next presidential election and hope for better ok mike babbin tonia thanks for joining us tonight thank you zone coming up republicans and their big business allies love to tell us that regulations hurt employers and stifle growth i say this guy thinking fourteen innocent people died needless deaths in the city of west texas last week and ask us and peterson why he doesn't want to do what's necessary for having more workplace disasters at this but. let me let me

i want to know what no let me ask you a question. here on this board it's never been a debate we have our nights out. the truth is that it's a bad thing there's a gap here it is a race with the idea we talk about the name and we. you know sometimes you see this. story and it seems so for lengthly you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know how hard it's welcome to the big picture.

here is mitt romney trying to figure out of that thing that we americans call i don't. i'm sorry. did i hear what. you said. you know what that is my chair so you want us to feature it on the liberal press. usually. you know we're going to distract us from what you and i should care about because their profit driven industry that's all the fish unless that garbage you call that breaking news i'm having martin and we're going to break the fat. looking pretty dumb in the field that well you won't find it here if you're looking for relevant stories unique perspective from tough questions dark.

in screwed news that massive fertilizer plant explosion that killed fourteen people and injured hundreds more in the city of west texas last wednesday wasn't a random tragedy it was apparently a direct result of thirty years of poor funding poor oversight and intensive lobbying by the fertilizer industry all of the plant was storing over thirteen hundred and fifty nine the allowable amount of ammonium nitrate the same material timothy mcveigh used to blow up the alfred p. murrah building in oklahoma city its management never notified the department of homeland security just two years ago west fertilizer companies ownership reported to the environmental protection agency that there was quote no risk of fire at their west texas plant oh sure the cash strapped occupational safety and health administration last inspected the facility in one thousand nine hundred five and

although mobil stay in federal agencies cited the plant for various safety problems in recent years it remained open. a time bomb waiting to blow up but here's the worst part of the story according to sunlight foundation the agricultural retailers association and the fertilizer institute lobbying groups they represent companies like west fertilizer have spent two point nine million dollars and fourteen point four million dollars respectively over the past fifteen years begging congress to gut fertilizer factory regulations the disaster in texas should be a wake up call to all of us of the importance of effective regulation the dangers of corporate governance well everyone except austin peterson director of production of freedom works and editor of the libertarian republic dot austin welcome back thanks for having me take a look at this clip. it

seems to me that this is the problem with your libertarian philosophy that when disasters happen then we react rather than preventing the disasters in the first place it's tough to say i mean you don't always have too much prior restraint on people tom you want to let people be able to go out into the marketplace and take risks for two hundred years or six of the problem is we're living in your world right now tom you understand we have a hyper regulatory state and we have all of these agencies that are yes we do and we have all of these agencies that are one hundred sixty seven years i really have to show. them by giving them a good debate and i want to tell you right now there are five different agencies that were responsible for oversight of this company and none of them reported the issues that they had to osha who was supposed to be managing this in my libertarian paradise there might be some that would be more sparse saying what we're taking care of that wasn't big enough when no what i'm saying is that there is no responsibility when you have

a state who is supposed to take care of things because if you think of the bible. you just just a minute ago you were saying you have five agencies that are supposed to respond. they didn't report it you are saying that the. nanny state. what i'm saying is that if you think that someone else is going to take care of your problems or you tom and what do you have an excuse to take care of for yourself what i'm saying is if you know what i'm saying is that we have both ways if you want to you know you have either you have regulations by the state either you have somebody who oversees oversees these things so you actually is an x. and they are doing i want people in my government who understand what ammonium nitrate is and i want them looking over this so they didn't do it they failed and look at the angle planning board of waco they failed to and what are they do they put schools and homes right next to the government so not only so now you're saying dead not a not great so now you're saying not. why did the government not do enough regulation but they also didn't do enough there and what i am saying is they did too much regulation tom because when you have way too much regulation there is an end once

every sixty seven years there is because i knew it was a lot of regulations are easy when people understand the rules they follow them but when they are way too many rules and regulations nobody can reduce comp it's like a boss a company i know that is going to follow the law when there isn't i understood the more corrupt a state this. to these rules know they did this early on in condors day the a's re gay there they were regulated too they gave them to the department of texas they were supposed to handle it but they didn't report it to osha the state had plenty of opportunities report this to osha so this was no one did rick perry fall as well as a breath of barack obama's followers if the da just apparently because there was a charge with regular case here and i try so just one of the ones were they fail you want a more competent government know what i would like. competent regulatory i want are the people who are responsible to be held in negligence for failing to hold up to the standards that any insurance company would hold right now because it's something i love. the insurance company well the incident they inspect as well because they know that the government's going to do

a time when you know that the nanny state is going to take care of you i don't know how to do it yes if you have faith and if the insurance companies that insurance company believe that if the insurance can then you know they did the genius of the waco zoning board designed to allow schools and nursing homes right next to a chemical plant in the genius of central maine that's a really good question and it's and it's a great example of why cities like portland oregon that are well planned have high property values high quality of life good urban planning make make decisions don't put high schools and hospitals and extra fertilizer plants off central i mean you're right we do we mean it was just a failure that's right they were they were not they were not all that smart you know rick perry appointed so idiots to this thing apparently because we failed tom these are your buddies that failed in the game and my buddies and the government right if we so you know i get your argument we need better central planning and we need government agencies that are better at regulating all right so how do we get that all right well i'm just i'm just going to tell you right now that there really

is no way to do it in your world right now because i'm telling you the more the case of how do we do it in your world where there is none of this well what you don't know you just can't have a utopian society tom you have to have a realistic viewpoint and if there wasn't capitalism there would have been no fertilizer plant in the first place so this is a trip absolutely because no centrally planned society can possibly create a pricing to that and that would allow for this kind of thing to exist so if you want that's necessarily true if you listen it could've been a cooperative you don't need capitalism you could have a call on producing results and if i want to know do you believe you really believe that this is not going to move the horse has nothing to do with no never be put in any danger whatsoever and we of course and we are out of time austin thank you tom up next we genuinely are. thank you very much heated debate. about the rest of the news last week or last month excuse me a witness in an ongoing federal class action suit against the new york city police

department played a tape recording of an n.y.p.d. deputy inspector ordering an officer under his command to target young latino and black men for random searches or recording shed new light on a controversial topic and the subject of that class action suit new york city's stop and frisk program for its supporters stop and frisk which allows police officers to stop question and search any individual they suspect of breaking the law is an essential tool for fighting crime and keeping communities safe from violence to its critics stop and frisk is a gross and racist violation of civil rights according to your chapter of the a.c.l.u. the american civil liberties union of the four point four million stop and frisk related incidents during michael bloomberg time as mayor quote eighty six percent of people stopped were black or latino and for those who oppose the n.y.p.d. these policies these statistics are evidence of

a deeply flawed and unfair criminal justice system joining us now is noted diaz activist with the revolution club and stop mass incarceration network know it you're welcome to the program. thank you for having me tom thanks for joining us a manhattan judge just dropped charges against you the other day what were the charges what happened. so i was facing two years jail time for a case that goes back to october of two thousand and eleven which was the first in a wave of protests called by cornell west and carl dix for people to put something on the line to begin to stand up against this stop and frisk policy i was actually not there committing civil disobedience but i was sort of you know identified by the police and dragged out of the crowd and targeted for the role that i have played in that neighborhood and in the movement to stand up against you know illegal and illegitimate policy and you know there was they went out of you because you're just as i was saying yeah someone who is also well known

a neighborhood where we were protesting i interrupted. no sign i was then also arrested in an unrelated incident at a high school where youth who were marching for trayvon martin chanting we want justice were then sent it upon by police who were saying that they were going to take everyone to jail who didn't get out of the area quick enough they threw a fourteen year old through a window at a bank and then they also went to arrest another woman and when they ordered people to leave the area when this was happening i refused to do so i was also arrested for it and then they put these two together to say that there is a pattern of behavior on my behalf that i'm someone who does no good and really to send a message to that when people do stand you know with these youths who are under attack all the time and who plays a role in leading in this fire and others to stand against something that they hold so dear like stop and frisk that this is what happens to you and we were allowed to

send another message by building a fight to drop all those charges and there was a huge victory for people when when all the criminal charges were dropped last tuesday. and that's a good thing yeah stop and frisk what's it like what's it like to live in a community that feels like it's continually under siege by the people who are supposed to protect us yeah well i mean you know you threw out some of the numbers a draw important for people to really know because like a lot of times you just hear it and it's anecdotal and you know really see how widespread it is you know nine hundred times every day this is happening like you said over eighty five percent black or latino it's who are being targeted and this argument that it's about going after and preventing crime getting guns off the street is alive by their own data that they've that they've revealed which is that you know over ninety percent of these cases people are are charged with nothing and they're given no legal or legitimate reason for being stopped and often thrown

against walls and then in many. these cases too they end up in far worse than just having people's rights violated you know you have kids who never go who never go home and who are taken from their families and murdered by police because they're treated like a generation of suspects and criminals and then to have a little bit of flavor to it you know you know just imagine every time you walk home or walk to school or to work or something like that you know have a hang hanging over your head at any point a police officer can step to you throw you against the wall search you and if you did you have any kind of basic rights or that you're a human being who deserved to be respected you could land yourself in jail with cases over you and this is i mean this is something that happens all that you know all the time you know you have people developing criminal records from the time they're fourteen fifteen who are being harassed so so often one fifteen year old told me that he had to get a restraining order against the police in his neighborhood because he had been a time he was fourteen he had been stopped so many times his mother was a fraid for his life and now that he's fifteen the restraining order is past its

time and so his mother doesn't let him go out and play with friends much anymore because she's afraid for his friend to be out in the streets knowing that these police are out there i mean you know and any point can come to him that way and i know she has. thank you for both your activism your passion and the risks that you've taken and thank you for being with us and sharing your story. thank you. phone lines are now open for your take my take a live segment so if you want to chance to ask me a question live here on the big picture give us a call to zero two nine zero four twenty one thirty four plus one is the country code for the u.s. maybe i'll be taking talking with you after the break. you

know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for life you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harvey welcome to the big picture. potentially deadly blizzard taking aim for the northeast it's expected to hit starting in a few hours from new york to maine we have team coverage of the storm. but we're watching is the very heavy snow moving last improperly or today it was very sticky you can see it started much more pattered up the bottom line there is still a lot of snow out here a good place for snowball fight. and

a pretty incredible day there and the record snowfall throughout much of in life will be slightly driving alyssum urgency we are exceptions. the worst year for the little. white house is a good guy and a minister i mean. what you. did you did you never seen anything like this i'm going to get. us. welcome you take my take alive our phone lines are now open so if you want to share an opinion make a comment ask question live on the air give us

a call or two to nine zero for twenty one thirty four so you get the first call or the next nicholas and loss of a gets a necklace we want to talk about the boston man and as we go to break up i think. i really want to talk about the boston bombing here heard him get from where i'm sure you are and i love i love the challenge walk high really don't even pay attention to remember all that garbage. all they've been talking about here strictly debacle bombing where it's going right through there are going on you're on your back hundreds of our crew.