GeorgiaDon 340
Considering the stress of the situation (bullets flying, bombs blowing up) I doubt that would have been in any position for an introspective analysis of his life. Much more likely that the only thought on his mind was "must get out of here". Think of skydivers who find themselves in the basement, how many go for their main despite knowing full well that this would be a great time to whip out the reserve? High stress and rational thought are generally mutually exclusive.QuoteNow here is a crazy thought: Suppose running over his brother wasn't really an accident. What if he came to the realization that his brother had pulled him into something that had just ruined his life?
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
GeorgiaDon 340
Fair enough.QuoteAn attorney will do his best to broker cooperation in exchange for sparing his life. Alternatively, if the attorney thinks the govt won't deal, he will get his client to STFU so he doesn't say something that might blow either a guilt-phase defense or a penalty-phase defense.
However, I'd say that it's extremely unlikely that any defense would be able to result in an acquittal at this point. Regardless of what he says or does not say, there is already a mountain of evidence against him that has been released in the effort to capture him. Avoiding the death penalty would probably have to pass for a "win" under the circumstances. Would a "win" that involved life without parole, perhaps in the Supermax prison like Ted Kazinski, locked up without human contact for 23 hrs/day, and let out to exercise alone for an hour, really be a better outcome than an early death? Especially if he does believe all that "heavenly reward" and "72 virgins" malarkey? If I was 19, and looking at 50+ years of solitary confinement vs a few years then "lights out" (as McVeigh did), at this point I'd probably be doing everything I could to ensure the latter outcome.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Andy9o8 0
QuoteI'd say that it's extremely unlikely that any defense would be able to result in an acquittal at this point.
Yeh, I'd agree that's pretty obvious. I was thinking more along the lines of some kind of possible psych defense. As a matter of due diligence, until/unless it's conclusively ruled out, and attorney would have to treat it as ruled in, and protect his client accordingly. For starters, that means STFU (including w/written communications) until defense-retained psych experts have the chance to evaluate him.
mpohl 1
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?
Andy9o8 0
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?
That's a very reasonable question. The law was passed by Congress, which drafted the language. You have 2 Senators and 1 Congressperson. You're their employer. If you feel the law needs to be amended, communicate with them. Seriously.
quade 3
QuoteWhy 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?
Honestly? Because there is no such thing as the National Bomb Association.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteWhy 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?
Honestly? Because there is no such thing as the National Bomb Association.
Ha. Then why does the NRA give a shit about handguns?
quade 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy 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?
Honestly? Because there is no such thing as the National Bomb Association.
Ha. Then why does the NRA give a shit about handguns?
Well, here we get into legal definitions. When does a "handgun" become a rifle? I think most handguns have rifled barrels; don't they? I mean it's all incrementalism and a slippery slope. So, that's probably why.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy 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?
Honestly? Because there is no such thing as the National Bomb Association.
Ha. Then why does the NRA give a shit about handguns?
Well, here we get into legal definitions. When does a "handgun" become a rifle? I think most handguns have rifled barrels; don't they? I mean it's all incrementalism and a slippery slope. So, that's probably why.
What about the NAACP? "Colored people"? Strictly speaking, everyone of every ancestry is colored by melanin, except for albinos. The KKK is chock-full of colored people. What's with that?
mpohl 1
So then, let's drop the terrorism charge in the Boston case, once and for all! Murder, yes. Terrorism no!
To the dead it does not make no difference: bomb vs AR/AK. They are all the same!
To the dead it does not make no difference: bomb vs AR/AK. They are all the same!
quade 3
QuoteSo then, let's drop the terrorism charge in the Boston case, once and for all! Murder, yes. Terrorism no!
To the dead it does not make no difference: bomb vs AR/AK. They are all the same!
Actually, there is a difference. A gun of any type is a directed weapon that puts holes in a person it is pointing at. Whereas a bomb is indiscriminate and will harm anyone within a radius, regardless if the person is an intended target or not. Nor does a bomb have to put a hole in a person in order to be fatal. Depending on the device, the shockwave itself can be enough to kill.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
mpohl 1
Thus, an indiscriminately targeted gun, like in all directions/ shooting at whatever moves, is like a bomb.
Actually, there is a difference. A gun of any type is a directed weapon that puts holes in a person it is pointing at. Whereas a bomb is indiscriminate and will harm anyone within a radius, regardless if the person is an intended target or not.
Actually, there is a difference. A gun of any type is a directed weapon that puts holes in a person it is pointing at. Whereas a bomb is indiscriminate and will harm anyone within a radius, regardless if the person is an intended target or not.
quade 3
Even an indiscriminately pointed gun, is still pointed.
We could do this all day, but the fact remains a gun and not a bomb.
Unless it's a bomb gun, but even then . . .
We could do this all day, but the fact remains a gun and not a bomb.
Unless it's a bomb gun, but even then . . .
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy 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?
Honestly? Because there is no such thing as the National Bomb Association.
Ha. Then why does the NRA give a shit about handguns?
Well, here we get into legal definitions. When does a "handgun" become a rifle? I think most handguns have rifled barrels; don't they? I mean it's all incrementalism and a slippery slope. So, that's probably why.
What about the NAACP? "Colored people"? Strictly speaking, everyone of every ancestry is colored by melanin, except for albinos. The KKK is chock-full of colored people. What's with that?
Strictly speaking, persons can be very different from humans. Persons and peoples can be created legally. Therefore, it seems the NAACP created a group of "colored people" and excluded your white A$$.
ryoder 1,384
QuoteNor does a bomb have to put a hole in a person in order to be fatal. Depending on the device, the shockwave itself can be enough to kill.
aka "Fuel-Air Explosive": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites