If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is awake and responding to questions via writing   (usatoday.com) divider line 561
    More: Followup, Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, Boston, Michael McCaul, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Massachusetts State Police, Boston Police, law enforcement officials  
•       •       •

18427 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2013 at 9:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



561 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-21 11:06:59 PM  
We should force him to watch the Khardasians over and over.
 
2013-04-21 11:07:02 PM  
Is this the thread where we all state what punishment we hope befalls someone who hasn't even been tried yet?

Oh, good.
 
2013-04-21 11:07:11 PM  

Tanukis_Parachute: I've heard both...that he did have a firearm and openned fired on the officers when he was in the boat and i have heard that when he was taken into custody that he was unarmed.

which one was it? if he was unarmed...how did he try and kill himself by shooting himself in the throat?


You had a lot of guys with their fingers on the trigger. I'm betting that they heard/saw the attempted suicide shot and unleashed holy hell. Pour lead to neutralize. Pretty much SOP. He survived. Have not seen a single report that he fired at them from the boat. It would be a sh*tty vantage for him. Ever been in a covered boat in a backyard at night? You can't see sh*t.
 
2013-04-21 11:07:54 PM  

BrieBelle00: In the military we referred to anything civilian as 'civi' (no L on the end); so it was military or civilian court, not civil court.


Having not been in the military I have a different view on it. I have been adjusted up thread but I still think there is a distinction between civil and criminal. A very important one. One does not get prison time in a civil court.
 
2013-04-21 11:07:56 PM  
There are so many victims here. Think of the poor widow. She converted to Islam. We should all chip in and pay for her to relocate to Saudi Arabia so she can enjoy the support of her Muslim brothers and sisters.
 
2013-04-21 11:08:30 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Is this the thread where we all state what punishment we hope befalls someone who hasn't even been tried yet?

Oh, good.


You know who else wasn't tried?
 
2013-04-21 11:09:16 PM  

jaytkay: Actually I haven't heard any mention of how he came across them, either. Why did they shoot him?


He was outside the convenience store that got robbed, I thought?  Not sure why they shot him, though.  Maybe they thought he saw and recognized them?

HideAndGoFarkYourself: I know the talking heads always refer to them in the context of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, but that's not how the courts define them.  A strict reading of the definition shows that these people did use a WMD in Boston.


Yeah, I see that now from the earlier cite too, but FWIW that's not how the term originated. It's just already been watered down to mean that in US law.  (Which I have a problem with, and no one cares, I get it. :))  Personally I find it interesting that guns are so nicely exempted though if they're gonna go that far.

I mean, what if these two killers had decided to pick people off with rifles as they crossed the finish line?
 
2013-04-21 11:09:23 PM  
What's his fark account?
 
2013-04-21 11:09:29 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Is this the thread where we all state what punishment we hope befalls someone who hasn't even been tried yet?

Oh, good.


Even if the case weren't all but surely ironclad... 

Do you think in such an emotionally-charged case, with all of the drama that happened in the shutting down of Boston, there's a jury that wouldn't convict him? They might as well prance him into the courtroom and then send the jury to deliberate.
 
2013-04-21 11:09:43 PM  
Sadly, this POS was granted citizenship, which means that he is afforded all rights that belong to a citizen of the USA.  You know how much it will end up costing the taxpayers to hold, try, convict and punish this POS?
But, in a (so called) civilized society, that is the price we pay.  I just hope the powers to be don't try an end run around the 5th amendment, and "wave" said freedoms, "due to the nature of the crime".  They already have illegally bypassed so many laws for "the war on terrorism" (homeland security, no warrant wiretapping and on and on), to them, what's another one, "in the need for security".
 
2013-04-21 11:09:46 PM  

Xyphoid: Pretty disturbing reading how many people want him tortured and/or extrajudicially punished, or just plain wishing suffering upon him.

My opinion, as an American, is I want him afforded every right I'd expect myself as an American.  Those rights and the treatment we espouse to be sacred are a significant portion of what makes our country better than many others.  As well, my country claims to stand against, and has hung people for, torture/"enhanced interrogation"/increasing suffering (even through inaction).  In that regard I also believe any intentional suffering caused upon someone in custody is a crime that should be punished, as is the opinion of the legal system* (*- sadly, your mileage may vary).

My opinion in regard to my faith and as a human being is that no unnecessary suffering (excluding any pain due to life-saving or life-maintaining actions) should come to him,  even though I believe he likely did it (to the effect I'd have to sit out of a jury).  I also believe that he shouldn't be sentenced to death unless his continued existence, no matter what actions we could possibly undertake, would still pose a threat to innocent life.

Some of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Whatever this persons motivations were, you wishing those kinds of things upon him, suggesting you'd be ambivalent to them happening, or wishing you could do it yourself makes you the same kind of person you believe this fellow to be.  You don't think terrorists have their own justification, like you, for thinking their actions (or willingness to cause suffering) as right?

/Two Iraq deployments for a year and a half
//Despite being shot at, fellow soldiers injured and killed, poisoned, threatened, insulted and knowing that if I was captured that terrible things would be done to me, 100% of any prisoners or suspects I had control of were treated like human beings.  Not just because of my beliefs, but that's how decent and civilized human beings roll.
///So yeah, I can practice ...


Thank you.
 
2013-04-21 11:09:48 PM  
Kyrgyzstan has inferior potassium.
 
2013-04-21 11:09:54 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Is this the thread where we all state what punishment we hope befalls someone who hasn't even been tried yet?

Oh, good.


When this blows over, all the ITGs can go back to whargarbling about needing moar guns to overthrow tyranny.
 
2013-04-21 11:09:59 PM  
Get well soon, shiathead, so we can put your stupid ass on trial.
 
2013-04-21 11:10:58 PM  

jaytkay: Actually I haven't heard any mention of how he came across them, either. Why did they shoot him?


They shot him because shots were fired from the boat.  After reading some articles today, it appears he shot himself, but police probably thought he was shooting at them.
 
2013-04-21 11:11:16 PM  

Weaver95: comslave: Let's hope he also responds to thumbscrews and waterboarding.

And the pear.

so torture used by the US is good but torture used by anyone else is bad?


Yeah, Sherman said it best:

Only those who've never seen it cry for more.
 
2013-04-21 11:11:22 PM  

DoctorCal: ArcadianRefugee: Is this the thread where we all state what punishment we hope befalls someone who hasn't even been tried yet?

Oh, good.

When this blows over, all the ITGs can go back to whargarbling about needing moar guns to overthrow tyranny.


Don't worry, in Oregon this month two children have been shot dead.

I don't know of any murderers shot dead in Oregon this month.
 
2013-04-21 11:11:26 PM  

doglover: Great! So my ass is a weapon of mass destruction when I eat at Taco Bell!?


...H2S gas? Hell yeah!
 
2013-04-21 11:13:08 PM  

Xyphoid: Pretty disturbing reading how many people want him tortured and/or extrajudicially punished, or just plain wishing suffering upon him.

My opinion, as an American, is I want him afforded every right I'd expect myself as an American.  Those rights and the treatment we espouse to be sacred are a significant portion of what makes our country better than many others.  As well, my country claims to stand against, and has hung people for, torture/"enhanced interrogation"/increasing suffering (even through inaction).  In that regard I also believe any intentional suffering caused upon someone in custody is a crime that should be punished, as is the opinion of the legal system* (*- sadly, your mileage may vary).

My opinion in regard to my faith and as a human being is that no unnecessary suffering (excluding any pain due to life-saving or life-maintaining actions) should come to him,  even though I believe he likely did it (to the effect I'd have to sit out of a jury).  I also believe that he shouldn't be sentenced to death unless his continued existence, no matter what actions we could possibly undertake, would still pose a threat to innocent life.

Some of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Whatever this persons motivations were, you wishing those kinds of things upon him, suggesting you'd be ambivalent to them happening, or wishing you could do it yourself makes you the same kind of person you believe this fellow to be.  You don't think terrorists have their own justification, like you, for thinking their actions (or willingness to cause suffering) as right?

/Two Iraq deployments for a year and a half
//Despite being shot at, fellow soldiers injured and killed, poisoned, threatened, insulted and knowing that if I was captured that terrible things would be done to me, 100% of any prisoners or suspects I had control of were treated like human beings.  Not just because of my beliefs, but that's how decent and civilized human beings roll.
///So yeah, I can practice ...


*check profile*

You're probably reading this because I've blown your mind with some salient point that you disagree with, and were probably hoping to find out something here to discredit me.

I checked it because you actually made sense. Another sane voice out here in farkland. You have a lot of wisdom for a young 'un.

/and a favorite now
 
2013-04-21 11:13:35 PM  

puffy999: I don't know of any murderers shot dead in Oregon this month.


Well if they were shot dead, they'd have no trial. So they wouldn't be murders yet, to the letter of the law, now would they?

/rights cut both ways
 
2013-04-21 11:14:21 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Can someone here please explain why stripping him of his citizenship is so important?


So he can be sent to Gitmo. Because Jesus. And the Constitution. No citizenship means no trial, and thus we can all sleep safer. Because trials will only make us less safe. And he can't be sent to prison, because...terrorism. And Jesus. We can only send God Fearing Christians to prison, because if you send a Muslim to prison, they just grow more powerful, and thus, to avoid a Super Muslim power level. What stymies us is that so many people turn to Islam while in prison, but luckily, by feeding them Pork'N Beans secretly, we can bleed off the Muslim Prison Effect. And because then we can just deport him, after we leave him in Gitmo for a few decades, and...and...oh feck it...

Yeah. It doesn't really matter. For criminal purposes, even non-citizens have the same rights. Administratively, that is a slightly different matter, for staying in the country, and essentially, it is a move by the pants besh*tted who lack any faith in our judicial system, and who imagine that our courts would be just sullied by trying folks who did bad things. Or have vivid imaginations about what folks could do to a prisoner without any citizenship and some very dark fantasies. Non-citizens may not be allowed to see all the evidence against them, and that is an exception that was made sort of recently.

I find it interesting that folks who have screamed loud and long about the Second Amendment, seem to really dislike the First, and now the 5th and 6th. The Gub'ment is coming for their guns, but when it comes to folks they don't like, then freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and all the rest are just so much excess that we can't fit into their pontoon liferaft...
 
2013-04-21 11:15:24 PM  

Weaver95: comslave: Let's hope he also responds to thumbscrews and waterboarding.

And the pear.

so torture used by the US is good but torture used by anyone else is bad?


Yes.  Because AMERICA - F*CK YEAH!!1!
 
2013-04-21 11:15:45 PM  

doglover: HideAndGoFarkYourself: itazurakko: jaytkay: He can be charged by the Feds, just like the 1993 WTC bombers and McVeigh. The news is describing the possible Federal charge as "use of a weapon of mass destruction to kill people".

...which is ludicrous.  It was a pressure cooker bomb.  That is not a weapon of mass destruction.

I don't doubt they'll try for it though.

A WMD is defined, for legal purposes, as "any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses."

I know the talking heads always refer to them in the context of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, but that's not how the courts define them.  A strict reading of the definition shows that these people did use a WMD in Boston.

Great! So my ass is a weapon of mass destruction when I eat at Taco Bell!?


I ate corned beef and sauerkraut for dinner, so right now I'm going off like an automatic weapon.

/Multiple rounds per "trigger pull"
 
2013-04-21 11:17:02 PM  
Apparently "weapons of mass distruction" has a different meaning in the US then the rest of the world since 2006.  That explains a lot.

The kid will face a fair trail, justice is not simply about arresting and charging someone.  The healing process requires justice, not a lynch mob.
 
2013-04-21 11:17:04 PM  
What I envision his trial to be like

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-04-21 11:18:06 PM  
First thing I thought of...no one else???
www.chud.com
 
2013-04-21 11:18:30 PM  

LordOfThePings: Oh, good, now we can all focus on their motivations like they matter.

They don't.


Why not?
 
2013-04-21 11:19:48 PM  

jaytkay: saturn badger: He seems incompetent all the way around except setting a back pack down.

He did a good job of escaping a gunfight in view of half a dozen police.


Well, there is that.

Ok, two things. Your point.
 
2013-04-21 11:20:20 PM  

popesballs: Timothy Mcveigh? Terry Nichols? We executed those farkers in due time


No. He got life.
 
2013-04-21 11:21:04 PM  

saturn badger: BrieBelle00: In the military we referred to anything civilian as 'civi' (no L on the end); so it was military or civilian court, not civil court.

Having not been in the military I have a different view on it. I have been adjusted up thread but I still think there is a distinction between civil and criminal. A very important one. One does not get prison time in a civil court.


Yes, that is correct, criminal and civil courts are very different. Civi (no L) does not mean civil (has an L), though - civi (no L) is slang for civilian. So a "civi court" (no L) means either state or federal criminal court.
 
2013-04-21 11:21:27 PM  

Ranger Rover: Gyrfalcon: BrieBelle00: ZAZ: BrieBelle00

Military court is not plausible based on what we know now. Military court is very unlikely even if we learn he was a member of a foreign-directed terrorist group against which the President is authorized to use military force. He's a United States citizen caught in the United States after committing a crime within the United States.

The real question is state court (life without parole) or federal court (death).

Oh, I completely agree with you - I thought the dimwits in Congress were still trying to get it moved to the Military Courts.

Why would either military or federal court be an option (except that the chickenhawks in Congress want it)? He was arrested by Boston PD, in Boston, for killing American civilians in a purely criminal act. The only reason Tim McVeigh's case was removed to federal court was because of the presence of federal agents at the Murrah Building, and the risk of his being unable to get a fair trial in Oklahoma state court.

This is a civil matter. There's no reason to bump it up a notch unless the Massachusetts DA decides he wants to.

Could be:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

My understanding is bombs count for purposes of this law, but ain't sure.


Simply by using a bomb gives the feds the option to step in.  They don't have to, but the option is there.
 
2013-04-21 11:21:59 PM  

popesballs: Agree 100%. Any time you violate or propose to violate the rights of another citizen, you are creating a rod for your own back.


Never in my life heard this phrase used before, but agree one hundred percent with the sentiment.
 
2013-04-21 11:22:51 PM  

quatchi: I don't think Hallmark even makes a card for this occasion.

Get Well Soon ...so we can try you in a court of law and send your blood thirsty little punkass to PMITA prison for the rest of your miserable farked up life!


Federal charges, Federal death penalty.
No state bullshiat. He killed 5 playing terrorist.
 
2013-04-21 11:23:34 PM  

awalkingecho: Well if they were shot dead, they'd have no trial.


Well since we're being technical, there have been many people convicted of murder released from jail or prison in their lives.
 
2013-04-21 11:23:35 PM  

Braggi: We should force him to watch the Khardasians over and over.


Cruel and unusual.

*I like it.*
 
2013-04-21 11:25:03 PM  

BravadoGT: The simple solution to this is to make the citizenship of naturalized aliens revokable upon arrest for terror-related charges.


Then we could make everything a "terror" offense then we can kick out all the brown people then we can just get rid of civil rights altogether.

/that might be a very stupid idea
 
2013-04-21 11:25:15 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Great post xyphoid.


Yeah
 
2013-04-21 11:25:18 PM  

BrieBelle00: saturn badger: BrieBelle00: In the military we referred to anything civilian as 'civi' (no L on the end); so it was military or civilian court, not civil court.

Having not been in the military I have a different view on it. I have been adjusted up thread but I still think there is a distinction between civil and criminal. A very important one. One does not get prison time in a civil court.

Yes, that is correct, criminal and civil courts are very different. Civi (no L) does not mean civil (has an L), though - civi (no L) is slang for civilian. So a "civi court" (no L) means either state or federal criminal court.


Such as you might find in a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich.
 
2013-04-21 11:26:00 PM  

saturn badger: puffy999: Shove a mercury thermometer up his dick and have someone smash it with a hammer.

Wow. That is harsh, dude, harsh.


I was going to suggest Gregory Hines tapdance on it, but he's dead.
 
2013-04-21 11:26:29 PM  

Lsherm: jaytkay: Actually I haven't heard any mention of how he came across them, either. Why did they shoot him?

They shot him because shots were fired from the boat.  After reading some articles today, it appears he shot himself, but police probably thought he was shooting at them.


No, I asked how the MIT cop came across them, and why did they shoot the MIT cop?

Someone suggested the cop was at the 7-11 but I looked and he was shot elsewhere. MAP
 
2013-04-21 11:26:55 PM  

puffy999: awalkingecho: Well if they were shot dead, they'd have no trial.

Well since we're being technical, there have been many people convicted of murder released from jail or prison in their lives.


I'll meet you in the middle on that one and we'll call it a wash.
 
2013-04-21 11:27:08 PM  

stoli n coke: No. Despite the concern trolling from various sites, the police have not read him his rights because they have not interrogated him yet. All reading his rights will do is make his statements admissible in court. Right now, if they haven't read him his rights, all that means is that anything he says tonight can't be used at trial.


Not actually true.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulle ti n/february2011/legal_digest
 
2013-04-21 11:28:38 PM  

Tatsuma: You have no idea what a WMD is, do you?


You have no idea that doesn't change the point, do you? BTW, how old are those definitons? Care to guess?
 
2013-04-21 11:29:02 PM  

jaytkay: Lsherm: jaytkay: Actually I haven't heard any mention of how he came across them, either. Why did they shoot him?

They shot him because shots were fired from the boat.  After reading some articles today, it appears he shot himself, but police probably thought he was shooting at them.

No, I asked how the MIT cop came across them, and why did they shoot the MIT cop?

Someone suggested the cop was at the 7-11 but I looked and he was shot elsewhere. MAP


Oh, beats the hell out of me.  Maybe he had an ID of the car and chased them?
 
2013-04-21 11:30:25 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: ka1axy: Give him the best medical care possible (Boston is a great place for that) and a fair trial. Life in prison is far worse than the death penalty.

I think he would prefer to get the federal death penalty than life in a state prison.  He killed a child.  That will make him very unpopular among the general prison population.

Great Janitor:
As for making it federal, it depends on how terrorism is viewed by the courts.  If he is classified as a terrorist, that could bump him up to the Federal level.

Of course they will classify his case as terrorism and make it a federal case.  Good test of our nation = do we bend the rules 'cause the guy's evil, or do we go by the book based solely on the fact that we are talking about a U.S. citizen?


What kind of a stupid question is that? We go by the rules based on the fact that he is a US citizen. Whether he is evil or not is what the courts are there to decide.
 
2013-04-21 11:30:56 PM  

Weaver95: we're just gonna strip him of his rights, torture the f*ck outta him, and then kill him.


Just as soon as we can bring this guy back to life so we can hire him to do the job. After all, he taught the CIA everything it knows.

www.bitsofnews.com
 
2013-04-21 11:31:05 PM  

Sliding Carp: Weaver95: Snapper Carr: SlothB77: they don't need a confession, they got enough on him already.  they want to know motive and any other accomplices.

Seemingly airtight evidence is ruled inadmissible every day in the US legal system for a variety of reasons. If they have a fully Mirandized confession (preferably with his attorney in the room), that just solidifies the case against him further.

I think it's safe to say that the rules are gonna get suspended twisted into whatever shape the gubmint wants on this one.


The U.S. Government is very good at twisting laws to meet their needs.
 
2013-04-21 11:31:19 PM  

Gyrfalcon: We go by the rules based on the fact that he is a US citizen.


We should go by the rules anyway.
 
2013-04-21 11:31:37 PM  

starsrift: saturn badger: jaytkay: saturn badger: Gyrfalcon: This is a civilcriminal matter. There's no reason to bump it up a notch unless the Massachusetts DA decides he wants to.

FTFY

People are using "civil" meaning "civilian" Everybody understands this is a criminal matter.

Then they should use the proper terminology. Civil in my mind means suits and such. Even civilian does not convey criminal. What is a civilian court? All I can find is it is not a military court but mostly goog tells me it is a civil and not a criminal court. There is a distinct difference.

Don't be silly, they still wear suits in criminal courts.


Also, there are civilian courts where both criminal and civil actions are heard. Not sure about military courts and civil procedings, b ut I suppose it's possible.
 
2013-04-21 11:31:47 PM  

neenerist: You have no idea that doesn't change the point, do you? BTW, how old are those definitons? Care to guess?


Rather recent, and that's how they are still prosecuted today.

You made a stupid post, everyone agrees that an IED inside a pressure cooker is a WMD under the legal definition, just move, stop digging.
 
Displayed 50 of 561 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report