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?
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.
ArcadianRefugee: Is this the thread where we all state what punishment we hope befalls someone who hasn't even been tried yet?Oh, good.
jaytkay: Actually I haven't heard any mention of how he came across them, either. Why did they shoot him?
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.
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 ...
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?
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.
doglover: Great! So my ass is a weapon of mass destruction when I eat at Taco Bell!?
puffy999: I don't know of any murderers shot dead in Oregon this month.
Lionel Mandrake: Can someone here please explain why stripping him of his citizenship is so important?
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!?
LordOfThePings: Oh, good, now we can all focus on their motivations like they matter.They don't.
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.
popesballs: Timothy Mcveigh? Terry Nichols? We executed those farkers in due time
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.
Ranger Rover: Gyrfalcon: BrieBelle00: ZAZ: BrieBelle00Military 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/18/2332aMy understanding is bombs count for purposes of this law, but ain't sure.
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.
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!
awalkingecho: Well if they were shot dead, they'd have no trial.
Braggi: We should force him to watch the Khardasians over and over.
BravadoGT: The simple solution to this is to make the citizenship of naturalized aliens revokable upon arrest for terror-related charges.
JohnBigBootay: Great post xyphoid.
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.
saturn badger: puffy999: Shove a mercury thermometer up his dick and have someone smash it with a hammer.Wow. That is harsh, dude, harsh.
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.
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.
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.
Tatsuma: You have no idea what a WMD is, do you?
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
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?
Weaver95: we're just gonna strip him of his rights, torture the f*ck outta him, and then kill him.
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.
Gyrfalcon: We go by the rules based on the fact that he is a US citizen.
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.FTFYPeople 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.
neenerist: You have no idea that doesn't change the point, do you? BTW, how old are those definitons? Care to guess?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 17 2017 23:40:37
Runtime: 0.737 sec (736 ms)