How should Tsarnaev be handled? Criminal or Enemy Combatant?

[billvon 2,426]

>Why is a bomb a weapon of mass destruction, but not an AR-15?

Per the definition AggieDave posted - it is.

[Kennedy 0]

Support that with a quote from the law, please.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[champu 1]

Quote

Why is a bomb a weapon of mass destruction, but not an AR-15? Three people died from two bombs, but one gun killed 16 in Aurora or 22 in Newtown. Why is one terrorism and one "only" mass murder?

I think charging people with the act of using a widget in addition to charging them with killing someone or multiple people with said widget as part of the same act is silly in either case. But, DAs will be DAs...

[billvon 2,426]

>Support that with a quote from the law, please.

================
The term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
================

Guns are designed to cause death or serious bodily injury due to the impact of toxic chemicals (i.e. lead.) The law was clearly intended to cover chemical weapons, and this has the paradoxical result of covering lead shot but not steel shot (for example) - but the law as written includes weapons that fire toxic projectiles that cause death through impact.

[mpohl 1]

Soooooo, we as society realize/agree that a 19-year old is too immature to buy a bottle of beer. Forbidden! No, NO!!!!!

But if the same immature 19-year old commits a crime, he will be charged as an adult! No problems w/ applying the death penalty. Anybody else see anything wrong with that picture??

Quote

>Why is a bomb a weapon of mass destruction, but not an AR-15?

Per the definition AggieDave posted - it is.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Support that with a quote from the law, please.

================
The term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
================

Guns are designed to cause death or serious bodily injury due to the impact of toxic chemicals (i.e. lead.) The law was clearly intended to cover chemical weapons, and this has the paradoxical result of covering lead shot but not steel shot (for example) - but the law as written includes weapons that fire toxic projectiles that cause death through impact.

You may think so, but you're not going to get a disinterested lawyer or judge to agree with you. I also disagree completely. This being law, I'm sure there is also a section that defines what constitutes "toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursor".

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[OHCHUTE 0]

See all this chatter: what do we charge him with, what do we consider him, was he influenced, life, or death.... hell the arrest was handled terrible. DUE TO THE FACT they didn't know if he had explosives or not they might have lay siege to the boat to insure the safety of LEO's and citizens, for a week which might have allowed the perp, a child mass murderer to bleed to death...........SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY THING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT. But OH no, rush in there, get him, nurse him back to health so that one day the state might finally execute the monster. AS HE IS A MONSTER.

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

Soooooo, we as society realize/agree that a 19-year old is too immature to buy a bottle of beer. Forbidden! No, NO!!!!!

But if the same immature 19-year old commits a crime, he will be charged as an adult! No problems w/ applying the death penalty. Anybody else see anything wrong with that picture??

Same reason we will allow someone to risk their life and possibly lose it in defense of our country, but is not able to drink legally.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

See all this chatter: what do we charge him with, what do we consider him, was he influenced, life, or death.... hell the arrest was handled terrible. DUE TO THE FACT they didn't know if he had explosives or not they might have lay siege to the boat to insure the safety of LEO's and citizens, for a week which might have allowed the perp, a child mass murderer to bleed to death...........SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY THING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT. But OH no, rush in there, get him, nurse him back to health so that one day the state might finally execute the monster. AS HE IS A MONSTER.

Call me a heritic, or what you will, but if he's going through the american justice system then there are some ground rules. First that comes to mind is innocent before proven guilty. We've recieved little if any evidence of his crimes through the media, a media i might add that does not have the best track record. I would not send someone to their death based on the facts presented so far.

Equal justice under the law and what not....

[Kennedy 0]

Apparently he's one of those folks who loves the media when it says bad things about an unpopular "them", gets annoyed when the media gets it wrong on something he's ambivalent about, and hates the media when they say something he strongly disagrees with. I think we all have words for folks like him, but I'm not interested in a banning just for one of the nanothermite crowd.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,426]

>You may think so, but you're not going to get a disinterested lawyer or judge to agree with you.

I don't know about that.

I mean, RICO was clearly meant to prosecute gangsters and other organized crime participants. Right?

Now take some Iranian terrorist who tries to set off a bomb - and fails - but kills 15 kids with a gun before they take him down. Who's going to argue about charging him with the same crime this guy was charged with? He killed MORE people! Are you going to be the one who argues against trying for the death penalty, and for leniency?

[billvon 2,426]

>they might have lay siege to the boat to insure the safety of LEO's and citizens, for a
>week which might have allowed the perp, a child mass murderer to bleed to
>death...........SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY THING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT.

Well, that's sorta the point. Might be a good thing to talk about a few other things. Like co-conspirators. Other people in his cell. People who supplied him with weapons. People who protected him right after the bombing.

You want to let those people get away scot free?

[JerryBaumchen 1,060]

Hi c6,

Quote

Same reason we will allow someone to risk their life and possibly lose it in defense of our country, but is not able to drink legally.

That is why the 7th frame was the beer frame when I bowled, as a teenager, in the military.



JerryBaumchen

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

You may think so, but you're not going to get a disinterested lawyer or judge to agree with you.

I don't know about that.

I mean, RICO was clearly meant to prosecute gangsters and other organized crime participants. Right?

Now take some Iranian terrorist who tries to set off a bomb - and fails - but kills 15 kids with a gun before they take him down. Who's going to argue about charging him with the same crime this guy was charged with? He killed MORE people! Are you going to be the one who argues against trying for the death penalty, and for leniency?

(1) I'm not a huge fan of feds trying to take every big crime and pull it into their jurisdiction. Most crime should not involve the feds, and using interstate commerce is beyond a stretch.
(2) I would argue agaisnt charging him with the WMD/ destructive device law.
(3) Wanting due process and wanting the prosecution to follow the law is not the same as arguing for leniency.
(4) If these two had used firearms, I'm not sure I would look for the feds to charge them with the murders, and I would absolutely not want them to use the WMD law. If that meant prosecution was limited to Mass laws and life without parole instead of death, then so be it, that's a state issue.

edit for formatting

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Apparently he's one of those folks who loves the media when it says bad things about an unpopular "them", gets annoyed when the media gets it wrong on something he's ambivalent about, and hates the media when they say something he strongly disagrees with. I think we all have words for folks like him, but I'm not interested in a banning just for one of the nanothermite crowd.

I'd say that a lot of people have a similar relationship with the media, not just the "nanothermite" crowd.

I did not mean any personal attack, but I find it inconsistent that one can doubt a government/media narrative in one instance and then in another accept it at face value.

In this particular case, this kid deserves justice more than anything. Not because he's somehow special, but because it's a right we all have. He's not a monster, he's a human being and a citizen and as such deserves all the same rights afforded to us all.

IMHO. Withstanding a shooting or a bombing is not the test. The real test of our mettle is our response to these events. Everything possible should be done to ensure he receives a fair trail, even if that means he's not convicted.

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

In this particular case, this kid deserves justice more than anything. Not because he's somehow special, but because it's a right we all have. He's not a monster, he's a human being and a citizen and as such deserves all the same rights afforded to us all.

IMHO. Withstanding a shooting or a bombing is not the test. The real test of our mettle is our response to these events. Everything possible should be done to ensure he receives a fair trail, even if that means he's not convicted.

This. Every time something like this happens and we're lucky enough to take a perpetrator alive, people bay for blood with the rationale of "it's what they did/would do to us!". I'm so fucking tired of it. We're supposed to be better than that. That's the whole fucking point.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>they might have lay siege to the boat to insure the safety of LEO's and citizens, for a
>week which might have allowed the perp, a child mass murderer to bleed to
>death...........SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY THING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT.

Well, that's sorta the point. Might be a good thing to talk about a few other things. Like co-conspirators. Other people in his cell. People who supplied him with weapons. People who protected him right after the bombing.

You want to let those people get away scot free?

There is a picture of his dead brother on the internet. Apparently the younger ran over him. Not sure with all the LEO fire they even hit the guy. As, with most current LEO and military it is spray an pray. I think this was a cell of 2.
I'm all for due process, BUT, there is no law that says LEO must make an immediate apprehension of a suspect. It was reported an eye witness saw blood on the floor of the boat so, why not just let him bleed out in the interest of safety.

Cells, nugjobs, splinter groups, was T. MacVEY and T. Nicholes a cell? There's thousands of nutjobs in this society. In fact, the criminal justice system lets murderers out of prison all the time and they often kill again. This idea of trying to learn what they know, is on faulty ground when 100% of the information they get is from the internet or the FBI coaching them. With these two I suspect they'd not even demo'd their explosives prior to the race, the info is so very well documented online. Fert/fuel explosives replaced TNT, if you can believe it. The world knows radical muslims want to kill us so what's to learn? Who? Good luck. There's a billion muslims on the planet. My advice. Keep a sharp lookout.

[normiss 622]

So to sort that out, "kill them all, let god sort them out".

Impressive.

[billvon 2,426]

>It was reported an eye witness saw blood on the floor of the boat so,
>why not just let him bleed out in the interest of safety.

Because then you never find out who helped him build the bombs.

Besides which, if he is trying to die for a cause, why give him what he wants? A nice long trial, with his picture in handcuffs on the front page every day for months, will do nicely to prove that you can't really get away with that stuff here - and you won't even get a nice quick death to martyr yourself if you fail.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

In this particular case, this kid deserves justice more than anything. Not because he's somehow special, but because it's a right we all have. He's not a monster, he's a human being and a citizen and as such deserves all the same rights afforded to us all.

IMHO. Withstanding a shooting or a bombing is not the test. The real test of our mettle is our response to these events. Everything possible should be done to ensure he receives a fair trail, even if that means he's not convicted.

This. Every time something like this happens and we're lucky enough to take a perpetrator alive, people bay for blood with the rationale of "it's what they did/would do to us!". I'm so fucking tired of it. We're supposed to be better than that. That's the whole fucking point.

I agree with Managing Prime - I also find it ironic that your reply is an emotionally charged statement that expresses frustration at people reacting in an emotionally charged way.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

why not just let him bleed out in the interest of safety.

not because of the info he might have, not for the sake of interviewing him, not for any of those kinds of reasons -

but because the job is to apprehend him - if the cops would have been exposed to an unreasonably unsafe situation, then they might have kept him contained until he died. But they were able to take him, so they should.

Cops don't get to make decisions to execute. they can only use deadly force to protect others or themselves in the face of an immediate threat. At that point, apparently the jerk wasn't an immediate threat any more.

They certainly don't get to take your position to "manufacture" a reason to kill him or let him die. This isn't a poorly made Steven Seagal B movie of the week.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mistercwood 287]

You got me, guilty as charged... Don't worry officer, I'll come quietly...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

why not just let him bleed out in the interest of safety.

not because of the info he might have, not for the sake of interviewing him, not for any of those kinds of reasons -

but because the job is to apprehend him - if the cops would have been exposed to an unreasonably unsafe situation, then they might have kept him contained until he died. But they were able to take him, so they should.

Cops don't get to make decisions to execute. they can only use deadly force to protect others or themselves in the face of an immediate threat. At that point, apparently the jerk wasn't an immediate threat any more.

They certainly don't get to take your position to "manufacture" a reason to kill him or let him die. This isn't a poorly made Steven Seagal B movie of the week.

But he was a terrorist.
Let say the guy who took the video of the two behind the car shooting at police, took his 308 rifle and killed both of them. Then yelled out of the window. CLEAR. Would he have been busted. Or thanked.

But with as many liberals in Boston, no one had a rifle in the house, just video cameras. And ladders to climb up on boats.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But he was a terrorist.
Let say the guy who took the video of the two behind the car shooting at police, took his 308 rifle and killed both of them. Then yelled out of the window. CLEAR. Would he have been busted. Or thanked.

But with as many liberals in Boston, no one had a rifle in the house, just video cameras. And ladders to climb up on boats.

whether you prefer to call him a terrorist or not - nor the amount of outrage you fell - neither is jsutification to bypass the rule of law in the country. Get over that first. Else this is just posturing and emotion on your part (or you are trying to run for congress and want the votes of the dumb and emotional crowd) and nothing substantial in the discussion.

2nd question - If the citizen would have murdered the 'terrorist' in cold blood while not in any immediate threat (or noting immediate threat to others) from that same? I suspect he would have been thanked by many (again, not for any reason that has to do with process and law). Then, he clearly should also have been arrested tried and sentenced (also correctly). Some congressmen might have tried to score points by attempting to get him off - it would have a bunch of public support - but it wouldn't change the fact that it was a vigilante move and illegal as hell, and morally wrong to boot.


Here's the deal - MAN UP on the topic. If you are perfectly willing to murder the suspect in cold blood. Admit it's illegal and wrong, and you are willing to personally TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES of that act - up to and including the death penalty in this case. Don't try to rationalize a vigilante position as anything but exactly what it is.

There is nothing more dangerous than a person that feels they are absolutely and morally entitled to break the law on a whim....because they'll do it again and again and again.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

I think we should Commission a scientific survey: how many (hypothetical) people who regularly use the term "liberal" as a pejorative are stupid assholes?

(The follow-up, of course, would be how many of the droolers don't understand the word "pejorative" w/o looking it up.)