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.

(AP)   Doing it wrong 101: Ft. Hood Shooter represents self in court opens with: Evidence will show 'I AM THE SHOOTER'   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 227
    More: Asinine, evidence  
•       •       •

6482 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2013 at 4:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-06 02:33:10 PM
Yeah, I don' understand why the military court wont accept a guilty plea.  He doesn't deny it, readily admits it, take him out back and give him the bullet that he craves.
 
2013-08-06 02:44:11 PM
The 42-year-old Hasan had wanted to argue that he shot U.S. troops to protect Taliban fighters in Afghanistan

Yeah, the old "out of the frying pan and into the fire" defense.

He's not exactly Johnnie Cochran, that's for sure.
 
2013-08-06 02:45:40 PM
"Your Honor, my client is an idiot.  But not only an idiot, a guilty idiot.  I think we can all sympathize with him in that regard.  But we aren't here to determine if my client took a few liberties with the firearms and lives of military persons...he did.  We are here to determine if my client may grow out my, uh, his beard again.  And isn't it an indictment of American ideals to not let my client grow his beard out like Osama...uh those guys from Duck Dynasty?"
 
2013-08-06 02:51:36 PM

basemetal: Yeah, I don' understand why the military court wont accept a guilty plea.  He doesn't deny it, readily admits it, take him out back and give him the bullet that he craves.


They can't render the death penalty without a trial.
 
2013-08-06 02:52:14 PM
I don't think you can plea to a death penalty and they want this guy dead.
 
2013-08-06 02:55:01 PM

doyner: basemetal: Yeah, I don' understand why the military court wont accept a guilty plea.  He doesn't deny it, readily admits it, take him out back and give him the bullet that he craves.

They can't render the death penalty without a trial.


Yup, the Manual for Courts Martial requires a unanimous jury verdict in Death Penalty cases, so the court needs to go through the motions and THEN shoot him.
 
2013-08-06 02:59:08 PM
i hope they bury this bastard in a bacon coffin.

mmmm.... bacon coffin...
 
2013-08-06 03:01:58 PM
Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.
 
2013-08-06 03:04:45 PM

netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.


I assume you mean for his victims? If so, that's bullshiat.
 
2013-08-06 03:07:43 PM

netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.


If they had, they'd likely have had to transfer the perp to Gitmo, where we'd be paying for his ass for the next 50 years.  The denial of benefits is a BS move for sure, but I'd rather him face trial in our lifetimes.
 
2013-08-06 03:09:08 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

If they had, they'd likely have had to transfer the perp to Gitmo, where we'd be paying for his ass for the next 50 years.  The denial of benefits is a BS move for sure, but I'd rather him face trial in our lifetimes.


It's not Gitmo that's the issue, it would require acknowledging his actions as a terrorist attack, and for political reasons it would look bad.
 
2013-08-06 03:11:41 PM

Gig103: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

I assume you mean for his victims? If so, that's bullshiat.


Ya, the victims.  "Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he won't receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didn't deem his injuries to be combat-related, he said."
 
2013-08-06 03:13:58 PM

Boojum2k: Grand_Moff_Joseph: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

If they had, they'd likely have had to transfer the perp to Gitmo, where we'd be paying for his ass for the next 50 years.  The denial of benefits is a BS move for sure, but I'd rather him face trial in our lifetimes.

It's not Gitmo that's the issue, it would require acknowledging his actions as a terrorist attack, and for political reasons it would look bad.


Too bad that parts of the government had identified it a terrorist attack:
"...the National Counterterrorism Center's 2009 Report on Terrorism called the Fort Hood shooting a "high fatality terrorist attack." The shooting also was mentioned in the State Department's "Country Reports on Terrorism 2009."

But you're right, official the WH may have not wanted to muddy the waters of the trial by calling it terrorism until the case was closed.
 
2013-08-06 03:17:35 PM

Boojum2k: It's not Gitmo that's the issue, it would require acknowledging his actions as a terrorist attack, and for political reasons it would look bad.


Maybe in 4 years that will change.
 
2013-08-06 03:19:04 PM
I don't think we should give him the death penalty. He's already in a prison in his own body now that he is paralized. He probably couldn't even attempt to kill himself w/o help. I think the court should find the worst care facility in America and put him there for the rest of his miserable existence. Preferably some facility that hires the kind of people that have been fired from other patient care jobs for abusing senior citizens and the disabled.
 
2013-08-06 03:20:48 PM
It should be illegal for someone like this to represent themselves.

In fact I don't know why they let anyone represent themselves, its never a good idea.
 
2013-08-06 03:22:05 PM

Boojum2k: Grand_Moff_Joseph: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

If they had, they'd likely have had to transfer the perp to Gitmo, where we'd be paying for his ass for the next 50 years.  The denial of benefits is a BS move for sure, but I'd rather him face trial in our lifetimes.

It's not Gitmo that's the issue, it would require acknowledging his actions as a terrorist attack, and for political reasons it would look bad.


Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a radicalized Muslim American soldier, fired upon and killed multiple U.S. troops. He stated that his motive was to prevent them from killing Muslims in Iraq.

It was not classified as terrorist attack. There was zero debate or controversy over his victims not being categorized as combat wounded, or not being awarded Purple Hearts.

This was in 2003.

Huh, I wonder what's different this time?
 
2013-08-06 03:23:06 PM

vernonFL: It should be illegal for someone like this to represent themselves.

In fact I don't know why they let anyone represent themselves, its never a good idea.


well, because freedom, i guess.

also: never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
 
2013-08-06 03:26:57 PM

Sgt Otter: Huh, I wonder what's different this time?


They were in a war zone, this attack took place inside the United States. Have a citation on them not qualifying for combat casualty benefits?
 
2013-08-06 03:29:39 PM
Forget the death penalty.

Let him plead guilty and sentence his ass to one night of rehabilitation.

i236.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 03:34:39 PM

Ennuipoet: doyner: basemetal: Yeah, I don' understand why the military court wont accept a guilty plea.  He doesn't deny it, readily admits it, take him out back and give him the bullet that he craves.

They can't render the death penalty without a trial.

Yup, the Manual for Courts Martial requires a unanimous jury verdict in Death Penalty cases, so the court needs to go through the motions and THEN shoot him.


THAT makes more sense now.

Thank you.
 
2013-08-06 03:38:52 PM

kbronsito: I don't think we should give him the death penalty. He's already in a prison in his own body now that he is paralized. He probably couldn't even attempt to kill himself w/o help. I think the court should find the worst care facility in America and put him there for the rest of his miserable existence. Preferably some facility that hires the kind of people that have been fired from other patient care jobs for abusing senior citizens and the disabled.


I disagree.

He should be given the full Danny Deever treatment:  Public cashiering, followed by the noose.
 
2013-08-06 03:46:54 PM
The 42-year-old Hasan had wanted to argue that he shot U.S. troops to protect Taliban fighters in Afghanistan

The classic "it wasn't murder so much as treason" defense.  Godspeed.
 
2013-08-06 03:51:26 PM

Sgt Otter: Boojum2k: Grand_Moff_Joseph: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

If they had, they'd likely have had to transfer the perp to Gitmo, where we'd be paying for his ass for the next 50 years.  The denial of benefits is a BS move for sure, but I'd rather him face trial in our lifetimes.

It's not Gitmo that's the issue, it would require acknowledging his actions as a terrorist attack, and for political reasons it would look bad.

Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a radicalized Muslim American soldier, fired upon and killed multiple U.S. troops. He stated that his motive was to prevent them from killing Muslims in Iraq.

It was not classified as terrorist attack. There was zero debate or controversy over his victims not being categorized as combat wounded, or not being awarded Purple Hearts.

This was in 2003.

Huh, I wonder what's different this time?


What was in 2003?  The Ft Hood shooting?
That happened right around Veteran's Day in either 2009 or 2010 when I was living in Germany.

/google says 2009
 
2013-08-06 03:53:15 PM

Via Infinito: Sgt Otter: Boojum2k: Grand_Moff_Joseph: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

If they had, they'd likely have had to transfer the perp to Gitmo, where we'd be paying for his ass for the next 50 years.  The denial of benefits is a BS move for sure, but I'd rather him face trial in our lifetimes.

It's not Gitmo that's the issue, it would require acknowledging his actions as a terrorist attack, and for political reasons it would look bad.

Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a radicalized Muslim American soldier, fired upon and killed multiple U.S. troops. He stated that his motive was to prevent them from killing Muslims in Iraq.

It was not classified as terrorist attack. There was zero debate or controversy over his victims not being categorized as combat wounded, or not being awarded Purple Hearts.

This was in 2003.

Huh, I wonder what's different this time?

What was in 2003?  The Ft Hood shooting?
That happened right around Veteran's Day in either 2009 or 2010 when I was living in Germany.

/google says 2009


Nevermind. Akbar, not Hasan. *sigh* Gotcha. Reading is fundamental.
 
2013-08-06 03:54:05 PM

Via Infinito: Sgt Otter: Boojum2k: Grand_Moff_Joseph: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

If they had, they'd likely have had to transfer the perp to Gitmo, where we'd be paying for his ass for the next 50 years.  The denial of benefits is a BS move for sure, but I'd rather him face trial in our lifetimes.

It's not Gitmo that's the issue, it would require acknowledging his actions as a terrorist attack, and for political reasons it would look bad.

Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a radicalized Muslim American soldier, fired upon and killed multiple U.S. troops. He stated that his motive was to prevent them from killing Muslims in Iraq.

It was not classified as terrorist attack. There was zero debate or controversy over his victims not being categorized as combat wounded, or not being awarded Purple Hearts.

This was in 2003.

Huh, I wonder what's different this time?

What was in 2003?  The Ft Hood shooting?
That happened right around Veteran's Day in either 2009 or 2010 when I was living in Germany.

/google says 2009


Eh, you missed the point, methinks.  I believe Otter was referencing a similar attack that occurred in 2003, when a certain non-KenyanMuslimUsurper was President.

/hint hint
 
2013-08-06 04:00:58 PM

Boojum2k: Sgt Otter: Huh, I wonder what's different this time?

They were in a war zone, this attack took place inside the United States. Have a citation on them not qualifying for combat casualty benefits?


http://articles.mcall.com/2005-04-27/news/3608520_1_sentence-penalty -p hase-hasan-akbar

"Wolfenden said the Army would not issue Seifert a purple heart medal because he was not killed by an enemy combatant, so Wolfenden bought his own purple heart. With the family's permission, Wolfenden said, "I pinned the purple heart on him before they closed the casket."
 
2013-08-06 04:05:37 PM

vernonFL: It should be illegal for someone like this to represent themselves.

In fact I don't know why they let anyone represent themselves, its never a good idea.


Non-military courts sometimes have a lawyer sit second chair and help by objecting to stuff that the Defendant doesn't understand.  But, technically, it would be unconstitutional for the government to force representation on you.
 
2013-08-06 04:06:29 PM

Sgt Otter: Boojum2k: Sgt Otter: Huh, I wonder what's different this time?

They were in a war zone, this attack took place inside the United States. Have a citation on them not qualifying for combat casualty benefits?

http://articles.mcall.com/2005-04-27/news/3608520_1_sentence-penalty -p hase-hasan-akbar

"Wolfenden said the Army would not issue Seifert a purple heart medal because he was not killed by an enemy combatant, so Wolfenden bought his own purple heart. With the family's permission, Wolfenden said, "I pinned the purple heart on him before they closed the casket."


That would be a medal. Do you have a citation that shows Akbar's victims were denied combat casualty benefits?
 
2013-08-06 04:14:16 PM

netizencain: Gig103: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

I assume you mean for his victims? If so, that's bullshiat.

Ya, the victims.  "Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he won't receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didn't deem his injuries to be combat-related, he said."


Well, and I hate that the victims get denied benefits based on a technicality, but these injuries are not combat related. They happened on US soil, on a base, thousands of miles away from any declared combat zone.

These were executions, not combat.
 
2013-08-06 04:14:47 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Eh, you missed the point, methinks.  I believe Otter was referencing a similar attack that occurred in 2003, when a certain non-KenyanMuslimUsurper was President.

/hint hint


Oh right. My bad.

/Thanks Obama!
 
2013-08-06 04:16:43 PM

dittybopper: He should be given the full Danny Deever treatment:  Public cashiering, followed by the noose.


I'm all for that.
 
2013-08-06 04:16:51 PM
Everyone hoping he will be tortured, don't worry he will... probably end up in some kind of solitary for his own safety confinement in a supermax prison.
 
2013-08-06 04:17:12 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Forget the death penalty.

Let him plead guilty and sentence his ass to one night of rehabilitation.

[i236.photobucket.com image 375x203]


Only if Beef Supreme decides to come out of retirement. That would definitely make it more better.

//Now go away, batin'.
 
2013-08-06 04:18:16 PM

gilgigamesh: Well, and I hate that the victims get denied benefits based on a technicality, but these injuries are not combat related. They happened on US soil, on a base, thousands of miles away from any declared combat zone.

These were executions, not combat.


Considered the shooter has said it was done in support of the Taliban, combat related makes more sense than the "going postal" theory.

Incidentally, on US soil, on a base, thousands of miles away from any declared combat zone as the standard would have denied the Pearl Harbor survivors the same benefits.
 
2013-08-06 04:18:22 PM
 Aren't they looking for somebody to send on a one way trip to mars?
 
2013-08-06 04:18:41 PM
UPDATE:  Maj. Nidal Hasan, acting as his own jury, has found himself guilty of all charges
 
2013-08-06 04:19:34 PM

Rolander: Aren't they looking for somebody to send on a one way trip to mars?


Using NASA for Islamic outreach again?
 
2013-08-06 04:20:14 PM
He wanted death when I went shooting, he wants death now.

Don't give him what he wants. Decades of paralysis in a windowless cell offers a secular form of hell, just to make sure he suffers.
 
2013-08-06 04:20:42 PM

basemetal: Yeah, I don' understand why the military court wont accept a guilty plea.  He doesn't deny it, readily admits it, take him out back and give him the bullet that he craves.


/Too bad they hit him in the back, instead of the back of the head.  Then his whole "martyr" dream and camel buggery and fun with little boy virgins could commence.
 
2013-08-06 04:21:35 PM

Headso: Everyone hoping he will be tortured, don't worry he will... probably end up in some kind of solitary for his own safety confinement in a supermax prison.


The only reason they're forcing him through a trial rather than accepting a guilty plea is so that they can execute him. The man has an express ticket to hell.
 
2013-08-06 04:22:04 PM

wildcardjack: He wanted death when HE went shooting, he wants death now.

Don't give him what he wants. Decades of paralysis in a windowless cell offers a secular form of hell, just to make sure he suffers.


Oops, should proof read the script. Otherwise I could start another conspiracy theory.
 
2013-08-06 04:23:11 PM

netizencain: Gig103: netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.

I assume you mean for his victims? If so, that's bullshiat.

Ya, the victims.  "Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he won't receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didn't deem his injuries to be combat-related, he said."


/nice.  As far as most americans are concerned, it WAS a combat injury.  The enemy had already chosen sides,  just because he was hiding in our uniform doesn't make him any less of a combat injured vet.  Way to fark over the wounded Army, way to stay classy.
 
2013-08-06 04:24:22 PM
Why can't we do neat stuff like inject him with a virus to transmit a disease to him and test potential cures on him? Analyze the decomposition rate of his circulatory system, muscles, and bones in zero gravity for extended periods of time? Monitor the effects of long-term exposure to radiation? etc.
 
2013-08-06 04:25:04 PM

the money is in the banana stand: Why can't we do neat stuff like inject him with a virus to transmit a disease to him and test potential cures on him? Analyze the decomposition rate of his circulatory system, muscles, and bones in zero gravity for extended periods of time? Monitor the effects of long-term exposure to radiation? etc.


Test makeup on him.
 
2013-08-06 04:25:29 PM
And you can count on me, shooter, waiting for you in the parking lot.
 
2013-08-06 04:25:46 PM

dittybopper: kbronsito: I don't think we should give him the death penalty. He's already in a prison in his own body now that he is paralized. He probably couldn't even attempt to kill himself w/o help. I think the court should find the worst care facility in America and put him there for the rest of his miserable existence. Preferably some facility that hires the kind of people that have been fired from other patient care jobs for abusing senior citizens and the disabled.

I disagree.

He should be given the full Danny Deever treatment:  Public cashiering, followed by the noose.


will the rest of his unit need to wear a black armband as a testament to their collective shame as well?
 
2013-08-06 04:26:07 PM

netizencain: Yet the DOD won't classify it as enemy combatant related, thus denying some benefits.  What a load of shiat.


The president said it was workplace violence, not a terrorist attack. deal with it.
 
2013-08-06 04:26:17 PM

Boojum2k: gilgigamesh: Well, and I hate that the victims get denied benefits based on a technicality, but these injuries are not combat related. They happened on US soil, on a base, thousands of miles away from any declared combat zone.

These were executions, not combat.

Considered the shooter has said it was done in support of the Taliban, combat related makes more sense than the "going postal" theory.

Incidentally, on US soil, on a base, thousands of miles away from any declared combat zone as the standard would have denied the Pearl Harbor survivors the same benefits.


Except that, at the time, Hawaii was not a US state.  And it was foreign combatants that executed the attack.  So that argument holds no water at all.
 
2013-08-06 04:26:21 PM

Headso: Everyone hoping he will be tortured, don't worry he will... probably end up in some kind of solitary for his own safety confinement in a supermax prison.


I'm hoping he'll be wheeled across whatever military facility he happens to be at, at 60 beats per minute in full military dress blues, accompanied by a live band playing a dirge.  Upon being wheeled up on the gallows platform, every single piece of insignia should then be removed from his uniform, one piece at a time.   Once that is done, he should be wheeled over the trap door and the noose pulled over his neck and tightened.  Then he may be given a minute to spend as he wishes, either in silent prayer, or to make a last statement.  At the conclusion of that minute, he gets the short drop, not the standard drop.
 
Displayed 50 of 227 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report