Boston Bomber Found Guilty

ohnonotgmail · 09-04-2015 6:26pm

end of the road wrote: »

it is hypocritical. the state does not represent everyone. the state deciding something is legitimate doesn't make it legitimate

It represents the majority view. thsat is how society runs.

end of the road wrote: »

it is hypocritical. the state does not represent everyone. the state deciding something is legitimate doesn't make it legitimate

Thats kinda the whole basis of what is legitimate

end of the road · 09-04-2015 6:38pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

why. because one got something doesn't mean the other should.

what "waffle" the only one i can see waffling is your good self. actually in this case the jury decide the punishment i believe.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Nothing more hilarious than a poster saying oh I was "talking in the general sense"

That translates to "I'm talking bollox". Stick up the facts of this case

you'd know all about that. what facts of what case.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The laws in this jurisdiction are clear, you kill, you could face the death penalty. Who are you or I to suggest to another jurisdiction what penalties they should use?

one will state what laws a place should use if one wants to. this is a discussion board where people discuss. if you don't like it, leave. and when a country uses a backward punishment that is the same as the crime being punished, then its right to call that country out on it

Ah, the terrorist defender is in full action just like the Egypt posts. You realise you have absolutely no credibility?

How about leaving the amateur human right law expertise to one side.it's laughable the crap that you have been spewing

Re McVeigh: Hey, sentencing should be consistent. Terrorist acts in America = availability of the death penalty

Re your support of the other poster :

1. "waffle" :the poster, and clearly yourself, have a ridiculous understanding that the judge decides the guilt on the accusse. The other poster clearly suggested so. Ignoring the fact that it is the jury that does this. The section that you quoted from my statement, care to explain how it is waffle? the poster went on waffling about making claims about bribery,which had no bearing on this case and then failed to cite specific examples when called on to do so

2". Facts of what case"

Wow! Eh, how about looking at what court case this thread is about, and sticking to the facts of that case, unlike your friend

3. Re laws of other jurisdiction and discussion of same.
People have no right to dictate to another jurisdiction! Sure it can be discussed, but it's a complete waste of time, especially when imaginary scenarios that have no bearing on the case, are discussed

4 re slander. The poster, despite clearly been given the chance to cite examples of bribery etc in the State of Massesscuttes, failed to do so. The poster imagined scenarios that are not present in this case. You and him are implying, maybe not intentionally, the possibility that mistakes and bribery will come into play here.

The law makes death penalty available.the nature of the crime clearly falls into this realm, it is unquestionable that this man played a role in the deaths of many and had links to terrorists.what mistakes are there if the death penalty is applied in this case.

So when the death penalty is imposed, are we to suspect that mistakes and bribery are always possible?

5. No conspiracies, "just facts "
Whice he failed to support despite being called upon,twice to cite, and explain how they are relevant to this case.facts tend to be provable

6. You questioning the guilt of this man? Wow, this will be fun.He more or less was caught red handed. He was charged accordingly. One only has to prove the cases beyond all REASONABLE doubt, not, one is 100 per cent guilty. Such a standard would make it impossible to convict anyone

i'm not a "terrorist defender" i have lots of credibility unlike you and your ranting ramblings. i don't claim to be an "expert" on human rights, all though whether you like it or not, human rights exist for all. the same rights protect you to. terrorist acts may mean the death penalty in america, but the death penalty says terrorism is okay. there was no waffling from seamus and he did not claim that it was the judg who found people guilty, but who implemented the sentences. people do have a right to dictate to countries who abuse human rights and who care more about bloodlust rather then jenuine justice. america has been dictating to the rest of the world for years while its the biggest commiter of the things they preach about so i will call them out on it. there was no slander. mistakes and bribery have happened in america, nothing you say can change that. well it is questionable as to what part he played, i believe he was always going to be found guilty regardless. anyone can say one has links to terrorists, the americans will say what they need to to get a conviction. plenty of mistakes if the death penalty is applied in this case, it will say what he did was legitimate and okay and he wants to die so it would be giving him what he wants. absolutely if the death penalty is imposed we should always know there is a mistake. beyond all reasonable doubt means the death penalty should never be applied as there is always a chance.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Not in the long term, what part of that do you not get?

its very expensive in the long run. all the necessary appeals that any supporter of the death penalty will agree with.

end of the road · 09-04-2015 6:40pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It represents the majority view. thsat is how society runs.

not always. many of the taxes that have come in over the years in ireland have been against the majority view. therefore sometimes the state does not represent the majority

end of the road · 09-04-2015 6:41pm

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Ah sure let the taxpayers pay for his prison stay and for his food etc. Why not sure?

well it would be cheeper then the death penalty

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-04-2015 6:41pm

end of the road wrote: »

not always. many of the taxes that have come in over the years in ireland have been against the majority view. therefore sometimes the state does not represent the majority

Just stop, your embarrassing yourself.

ohnonotgmail · 09-04-2015 6:45pm

end of the road wrote: »

not always. many of the taxes that have come in over the years in ireland have been against the majority view. therefore sometimes the state does not represent the majority

go and read up on what a democracy is before you embarrass yourself totally

wes · 09-04-2015 7:11pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why should the tax payers pay for his up keep? Get rid of him now. He will be forgotten about in the long run

It costs more in the US system to put someone to death than to jail him for life. So your argument about cost doesn't fly.

I have no issue with death penalty and I have no sympathy for this guy, but I do find it amusing that people like yourself are so intent on giving him exactly what he wants.

lertsnim · 09-04-2015 7:14pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Mod: Dictionaries do not help with grammar or the rules, it seems.
don't go and be a grammer nazi

That's me told. I see how you left a hook there for me to take. Shame on you. I never suggested that a dictionary would help with grammar. You should try reading it again.

seamus · 09-04-2015 7:27pm

crockholm wrote: »

CCTV footage of a man planting a bomb,or shooting a man dead?

Again, that's the specific, not the general. Without examples, give me an idea of the criteria you would use to decide with absolute certainty and infallibly that someone committed a crime.

At present we use, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". But that doesn't claim infallibility. Clearly the burden needs to be higher. What it is the measure which would ensure that no innocent person is ever put to death?

c_man · 09-04-2015 8:16pm

WMDs ain't what they used to be.

end of the road · 09-04-2015 8:31pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

go and read up on what a democracy is before you embarrass yourself totally

taxes implemented against the will of the people is not democracy

EireNYC · 09-04-2015 8:32pm

I believe it was staged event. I don't believe the Tsarnaev brothers had anything to do with it, They were set up

ohnonotgmail · 09-04-2015 8:44pm

end of the road wrote: »

taxes implemented against the will of the people is not democracy

enough of your nonsense. you dont even have comedy value anymore

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-04-2015 8:50pm

EireNYC wrote: »

I believe it was staged event. I don't believe the Tsarnaev brothers had anything to do with it, They were set up

CT forum >>>>>>>>

bb1234567 · 09-04-2015 8:59pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Boston Bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev has been found guilty of the atrocity after two months of jury selection and 17 days of moving and often disturbing testimony from 95 witnesses. It took a Boston jury just over 11 hours to convict Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on all charges relating to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Tsarnaev, 21, was found guilty of all 30 counts against him, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, for his role in the attack that left three people dead and 264 injured two years ago. Seventeen charges carried the death penalty, and the same jury will now decide whether to sentence Tsarnaev to death or life in prison without possibility of parole.

The jury officially began their deliberation on Tuesday morning following closing statements from the prosecution, the defence, and a brief prosecution rebuttal. Assistant US attorney Aloke Chakravarty gave an emotional closing argument which aimed to ram home the horror of Tsarnaev’s crimes. As the clerk slowly delivered the verdict, Tsarnaev, dressed in a charcoal jacket and blue-grey sweater, remained impassive.He fiddled with his hands, hugged himself, scratched his hair and beard, but did not appear to react as the guilty verdicts were read. Briefly, at the end, he placed his head in his hands, before returning them to his pockets.

Bolded bit is weird. You reckon this chap is deserves the death penalty or life imprisonment. I'm torn on it. He's bloody young for one thing but then again, so was his victim Martin Richards, who hadn't even hit double digits yet

Full article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/08/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-verdict-boston-marathon-bombing

I don't think his age should have any influence on your opinion, he is an adult. If he was middle aged you'd be all for seeing him hang ?

StewartGriffin · 09-04-2015 9:09pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just stop, your embarrassing yourself.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

go and read up on what a democracy is before you embarrass yourself totally

There's really no point telling someone that they are embarrassing themselves.
Either they feel embarrassed or they don't, it's not for anyone else to decide.

You could say he's making an ass of himself. But you make an ass of yourself telling him/her to be embarrassed.

ohnonotgmail · 09-04-2015 9:21pm

StewartGriffin wrote: »

There's really no point telling someone that they are embarrassing themselves.
Either they feel embarrassed or they don't, it's not for anyone else to decide.

You could say he's making an ass of himself. But you make an ass of yourself telling him/her to be embarrassed.

:rolleyes:

StewartGriffin · 09-04-2015 9:22pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

end of the road · 09-04-2015 9:22pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

enough of your nonsense. you dont even have comedy value anymore

i'm right though. property tax/household charge/universal social charge/water charge, brought in against the will of the majority. these charges don't represent the majority

ohnonotgmail · 09-04-2015 9:29pm

end of the road wrote: »

i'm right though. property tax/household charge/universal social charge/water charge, brought in against the will of the majority. these charges don't represent the majority

All governments do unpopular things. If they do enough they get voted out. All perfectly democratic. I cant believe i have to explain this to you.

DeadHand · 09-04-2015 9:32pm

end of the road wrote: »

i'm right though. property tax/household charge/universal social charge/water charge, brought in against the will of the majority. these charges don't represent the majority

Sometimes a government are required to make unpopular decisions. They have a democratic mandate to make those decisions. A democratically elected government governing is democracy, even when some of the aspects of its governance are unpopular.

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 9:21am

end of the road wrote: »

its the legitimacy of such laws in relation to either being unable to or able to kill. the law might allow the state to kill, but it makes a mockery and is hypocritical to the idea that society does not condone killing

Society rejects UNLAWFUL Killing, in other words, Murder. The law does recognise that one might carry out an act of homicide that did not meet the intention requirements of murder, ie manslaughter.

The law recognises the act of self defence , this makes some homicides excusable

Some States, or Countries, recognise, despite International Law stating everyone has a right to life, the right to execute criminals.

There is a difference between lawful and unlawful homicide, thus, there is no hypocrisy

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 9:24am

DeadHand wrote: »

Sometimes a government are required to make unpopular decisions. They have a democratic mandate to make those decisions. A democratically elected government governing is democracy, even when some of the aspects of its governance are unpopular.

In addition, it is a democratic right of a subsequent government to repeal such laws. In most cases, such action won't be taken. When the government who made the unpopular decision gets re-elected, it may indicate that enough people accepted, however begrudgingly, the said policy

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 9:28am

seamus wrote: »

Again, that's the specific, not the general. Without examples, give me an idea of the criteria you would use to decide with absolute certainty and infallibly that someone committed a crime.

At present we use, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". But that doesn't claim infallibility. Clearly the burden needs to be higher. What it is the measure which would ensure that no innocent person is ever put to death?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is all ready a very high burden to prove! You have to convince a jury of your peers that there is no evidence in place that raises a doubt on the culprits culpability. There are rules and precedent dealing with the legality of gathering evidence and submitting it to court.

In this case, there was ample evidence that the chap played a role. Your argument maybe valid in other cases borderlining the death penalty. This case is not one of them.

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 9:33am

end of the road wrote: »

taxes implemented against the will of the people is not democracy

Rubbish!

Read a Constitution of any Country.

Start by

1. The People elected the Parliament in indirectly the Government (and in some cases the President, who is directly elected, has power)

Many of them set out their policies in a manifesto before the election (not always complied with of course)

2. They are supervised by the Judiciary

3. The Parliament (Legislature) and Government (Executive) are bound by the Constitution. Their actions are on behalf of the people

4. The Legislature has the sole power to legislate , especially Tax and Finance Bills

5. The people , normally , have access and a right to challenge their legality in a court of law

Stop talking crap! Your argument has nothing to do with the topic here.

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 10:11am

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not a "terrorist defender"

Yes, you are. Anyone who read the thread on the "Oirish" lad in Egypt would come to such a conclusion

end of the road wrote: »

i have lots of credibility unlike you and your ranting ramblings.

Eh, in your head , maybe. Look at your latests posts. You have now even resorted to waffling about taxes and legitimacy of government. My fellow posters have had to break it down to you as to what a democracy is.

My ranting ramblings? Only an idiot would not understand what was said. That or a dishonest person. But, that is typical of nut case left wingers. I stated facts, that can be cited and followed up on.

You have not done so, nor can you do so.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't claim to be an "expert" on human rights, all though whether you like it or not, human rights exist for all.

Indeed they do, no one denies that.

The argument is, unlike your grossly misguided view, very very very few human rights are absolute!

end of the road wrote: »

terrorist acts may mean the death penalty in america, but the death penalty says terrorism is okay.

How?

Not every terrorist group goes out to become martyrs. Not every terrorist groups values good PR for themselves over loosing an important member.

Not every terrorist group goes out of its way to loose their lives, even if there is a high probability that such an event would occur.

end of the road wrote: »

there was no waffling from seamus

Yes there was, loads of it. Making statements that have no bearing on the topic, is waffling.

Not backing up his claims with specific evidence, is waffling

Accepting that he was talking "in general" as oppose to the specific topic of the case, where his arguments have no bearing, is waffling

end of the road wrote: »

and he did not claim that it was the judg who found people guilty, but who implemented the sentences.

He clearly implied it. All the remarks he made concerned a judgement of guilt, a part of the judicial side the Judge does not really have a big role in. How do you makes mistakes if a jury finds one guilty of the crime charged and the sentencing options are available and suitable?

end of the road wrote: »

people do have a right to dictate to countries who abuse human rights and who care more about bloodlust rather then jenuine justice.

No, they do not. They can complain and whine, but they don't have to be taken seriously.

Besides, America is not a party to many of the Human Rights Instruments that are accepted and part of the laws of the European Union. They seem to be in a world of their own.

Cite the laws that support your argument.

end of the road wrote: »

america has been dictating to the rest of the world for years

When other countries come looking for money and investment, they leave themselves open to been dominated by the US.

end of the road wrote: »

while its the biggest commiter of the things they preach about so i will call them out on it.

Yep, they are hypocritics. They are not well liked around the world. But, where would you feel safer, the US or some war thorn area in the Middle East (pick any of them) , funny enough the US worsened things

Call them out all you want, but expect to be ignored.

By the way, you can't argue other alleged human rights abuses to support your argument about the death penalty. That is called whataboutery. Not every State in the US applies the Death penalty. The Death penalty is legitimate in other countries too.

end of the road wrote: »

there was no slander. mistakes and bribery have happened in america, nothing you say can change that.

It has, and will be proven to have, NO bearing on this case in Boston. To raise that point clearly was an attempt to discredit a decision to impose the death penalty on this case, should it happen. Slander!

I am not one bit surprised that this has to be spelt out to you, but the other guy?

No effort has been made, after repeated calls, to cite evidence of such mistakes and bribery occurring in American Judiciary, in particular at the higher levels, dealing with serious crime like murder.

end of the road wrote: »

well it is questionable as to what part he played,

No it was not questionable. Evidence found his practically red handed. Much of the evidence was shown for all of the world to see.

end of the road wrote: »

i believe he was always going to be found guilty regardless.

Tends to happen , when you get caught read handed.

I note other posters have questioned your credibility on this already. No surprise , considering your stance on the other thread concerning Egypt

end of the road wrote: »

anyone can say one has links to terrorists,

No one really said he was part of a terrorist gang.

His actions are what are deemed as terrorism .

end of the road wrote: »

the americans will say what they need to to get a conviction.

They will not have to say anything.

All they need to do to prove murder is his role in the gashly acts

end of the road wrote: »

plenty of mistakes if the death penalty is applied in this case,

GIve 3 specific examples of why that would be the case. This is well over the third time that this question was asked. Failure to answer merely confirms the bout of spoofery that you are engaged in.

Is the guilty verdict safe, what are the available options for punishment, why is the death penalty not merited

end of the road wrote: »

it will say what he did was legitimate and okay and he wants to die so it would be giving him what he wants. absolutely if the death penalty is imposed we should always know there is a mistake. beyond all reasonable doubt means the death penalty should never be applied as there is always a chance.

Wow,

The wishes of the culprit and indeed the victims and their families are not and should not ever be taken into account when the sentencing stage is considered.

The wishes of the culprit are irrelevant, and have no bearing . No lunatic will mourn his death or look up to him (judging by the responses of some, that might not be the case).

You are hanging onto notions that mistakes are present in the verdict. That the jury maybe have been mistaken. You have failed to cite examples.

The burden of reasonable doubt is a difficult one to succeed in! If a smidgen of reasonable doubt is placed, it may seriously dented the ability of a jury to convict

There is "always" a chance, yet, you have failed, and WILL fail to outline how there is always a chance that this smug bag might not have been guilty

end of the road wrote: »

its very expensive in the long run. all the necessary appeals that any supporter of the death penalty will agree with.

Wow, your stupidity holds no bounds.

Appeals would occur even if they are incarcerated and no death penalty is imposed !!!!! They have nothing to loose. Appeal conviction, appeal decisions of probation , suspend some of the sentence, appeal parole decisions.

Sure, since you seem to be certain as to what he wants, why would he appeal?

Its pennies compared to keeping this rat alive and accommodated for the next 4-5 decades

end of the road · 10-04-2015 2:51pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Society rejects UNLAWFUL Killing, in other words, Murder. The law does recognise that one might carry out an act of homicide that did not meet the intention requirements of murder, ie manslaughter.

The law recognises the act of self defence , this makes some homicides excusable

Some States, or Countries, recognise, despite International Law stating everyone has a right to life, the right to execute criminals.

There is a difference between lawful and unlawful homicide, thus, there is no hypocrisy

the death penalty legitimizes the act it is used to punish. if you support the death penalty, you condone the actions of the person being executed.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is all ready a very high burden to prove! You have to convince a jury of your peers that there is no evidence in place that raises a doubt on the culprits culpability. There are rules and precedent dealing with the legality of gathering evidence and submitting it to court.

In this case, there was ample evidence that the chap played a role. Your argument maybe valid in other cases borderlining the death penalty. This case is not one of them.

where the death penalty is concerned, the burdin will never be high enough. its debatible as to whether there was ample evidence" in this case. after all this man was most likely going to be found guilty regardless. the argument he has is valid in this case.

ohnonotgmail · 10-04-2015 2:56pm

end of the road wrote: »

the death penalty legitimizes the act it is used to punish. if you support the death penalty, you condone the actions of the person being executed.

I'm afraid to ask how you came to that conclusion. terribly afraid.

end of the road · 10-04-2015 3:46pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yes, you are. Anyone who read the thread on the "Oirish" lad in Egypt would come to such a conclusion

no, only angry rabel rousers like yourself would. at least i'm willing to accept the case of the irish lad isn't as it seems.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Eh, in your head , maybe. Look at your latests posts. You have now even resorted to waffling about taxes and legitimacy of government. My fellow posters have had to break it down to you as to what a democracy is.

not in my head at all. the only waffling was from yourself and your angry rabel rousing

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

My ranting ramblings? Only an idiot would not understand what was said. That or a dishonest person. But, that is typical of nut case left wingers. I stated facts, that can be cited and followed up on.

yes, ranting rabel rousing ramblings. oh i understood every bit of it, but it was just a rant. there is no argument for the death penalty. none. all have been debunked. you have given no facts, just accusations against posters, like seamus for example. but that is usually typical of a "right wing nutter"

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You have not done so, nor can you do so.

not done what? whatever it is, i have and i can do so.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Indeed they do, no one denies that.

good.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The argument is, unlike your grossly misguided view, very very very few human rights are absolute!

well, in most modern thinking countries, the right to life is .

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

How?

because its commiting the same act as they commited, killing someone. if your against killing, killing to show killing is wrong goes against the idea that killing is wrong.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yes there was, loads of it. Making statements that have no bearing on the topic, is waffling.
Not backing up his claims with specific evidence, is waffling
Accepting that he was talking "in general" as oppose to the specific topic of the case, where his arguments have no bearing, is waffling

no there wasn't. none of it. he backed up his statements with evidence, his statements were very relevant to the topic in terms of the death penalty, talking in general about a part of this situation which is the potential death sentence is very relevant and his arguments are relevant. no waffling at all.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

He clearly implied it. All the remarks he made concerned a judgement of guilt, a part of the judicial side the Judge does not really have a big role in. How do you makes mistakes if a jury finds one guilty of the crime charged and the sentencing options are available and suitable?

he clearly did nothing of the sort. he was referring to the sentencing. juries can be bribed also. a jury can find someone guilty yet the evidence put forward could have been tampered with, could be generally wrong, could be anything. it can happen. the only sentence that is suitable is life in prison.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No, they do not. They can complain and whine, but they don't have to be taken seriously.

they do. its not "whining" only angry rabel rousers would use such terms because they are angry that people dare to criticise. those who dare to criticise countries with backward punishments which have no effects such as the death penalty are taken seriously by many

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Besides, America is not a party to many of the Human Rights Instruments that are accepted and part of the laws of the European Union. They seem to be in a world of their own.

well, thats america. however when they start preaching and dictating, they should either practice what they preach or STFU.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

When other countries come looking for money and investment, they leave themselves open to been dominated by the US.

no, the US don't have a right to dictate to other countries unless the US practices what it preaches.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yep, they are hypocritics. They are not well liked around the world. But, where would you feel safer, the US or some war thorn area in the Middle East (pick any of them) , funny enough the US worsened things

they don't deserved to be liked with their behaviour. i wouldn't feel safer in either of them. especially with the civilian military (sorry police) that america has now.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Call them out all you want, but expect to be ignored.

by who? whoever it is i won't lose sleep over it. america will still be a hypocritical bully though.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

By the way, you can't argue other alleged human rights abuses to support your argument about the death penalty. that is called whataboutery.

oh i can. as its relevant and not "whataboutery"

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Not every State in the US applies the Death penalty.

yeah, they have "seen the light" if you will. only the bible bashing states seem to have it. funny that.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The Death penalty is legitimate in other countries too.

the death penalty is never legitimate, it belongs in the stone age along with its supporters.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It has, and will be proven to have, NO bearing on this case in Boston. To raise that point clearly was an attempt to discredit a decision to impose the death penalty on this case, should it happen. Slander!

any decisian to impose the death penalty should be discredited by whatever means necessary, including the defence accusing the jury of condoning the bombing should they impose the death penalty if needs be, i would certainly support that action not that it would happen. there was no slander at all.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I am not one bit surprised that this has to be spelt out to you, but the other guy?
No effort has been made, after repeated calls, to cite evidence of such mistakes and bribery occurring in American Judiciary, in particular at the higher levels, dealing with serious crime like murder.

doesn't matter. the fact is, such has happened. if it can happen, it can happen in murder cases to.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No it was not questionable. Evidence found his practically red handed. Much of the evidence was shown for all of the world to see.

it is questionable.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Tends to happen , when you get caught read handed.

red handed how?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I note other posters have questioned your credibility on this already. No surprise , considering your stance on the other thread concerning Egypt

well, the usual suspects will try, but it doesn't matter. there is nothing wrong with my view in the other thread and i would suspect some share it but are afraid to say so.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No one really said he was part of a terrorist gang. His actions are what are deemed as terrorism .

doesn't matter, any prosecution over there can throw in how one has links to terrorists if they want to

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

They will not have to say anything.

oh believe me they do.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

All they need to do to prove murder is his role in the gashly acts

which is debatible as to what they were. i've no doubt it was all down to the brother.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

GIve 3 specific examples of why that would be the case. This is well over the third time that this question was asked.

i've given plenty.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Failure to answer merely confirms the bout of spoofery that you are engaged in.

the only spoofery is from yourself

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Is the guilty verdict safe, what are the available options for punishment, why is the death penalty not merited

the availible option should be life in prison. the death penalty is the same as murder, the state planning to kill someone. planning to kill someone is premeditated murder.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Wow,
The wishes of the culprit and indeed the victims and their families are not and should not ever be taken into account when the sentencing stage is considered.

exactly. the family should have no say.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The wishes of the culprit are irrelevant, and have no bearing . No lunatic will mourn his death or look up to him (judging by the responses of some, that might not be the case).

but they will, its what he wants. you claim to be angry about what he did so much you want him to die, but your willing to give him what he wants.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You are hanging onto notions that mistakes are present in the verdict. That the jury maybe have been mistaken. You have failed to cite examples.

such mistakes might be present. at least by not having the death penalty should that be, he can be released or re-tried.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The burden of reasonable doubt is a difficult one to succeed in! If a smidgen of reasonable doubt is placed, it may seriously dented the ability of a jury to convict

even more reason not to have the death penalty.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

There is "always" a chance, yet, you have failed, and WILL fail to outline how there is always a chance that this smug bag might not have been guilty

so? anything is possible. no evidence, no burdin of proof, will ever be enough for the death penalty.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Wow, your stupidity holds no bounds.

resorting to personal abuse again, now why am i not surprised. the proof is there that the death penalty is hugely expensive, more then prison. if one really wants the death penalty so badly as a way to impose justice rather then revenge, they will be willing to pay for it, and will be willing to accept all the appeals that go with it. if its just about revenge however, they will want it at all costs including no appeals, no nothing.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Appeals would occur even if they are incarcerated and no death penalty is imposed !!!!! They have nothing to loose. Appeal conviction, appeal decisions of probation , suspend some of the sentence, appeal parole decisions.

doesn't matter. at least with life in prison, technology could have advanced enough to prove something that couldn't have been proven during the original trial. with the death penalty, they will have less time.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Sure, since you seem to be certain as to what he wants, why would he appeal?

why wouldn't he.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Its pennies compared to keeping this rat alive and accommodated for the next 4-5 decades

no it isn't. prison in america is rather cheep actually. the death penalty is hugely expensive.

G_R · 10-04-2015 4:14pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Wow, your stupidity holds no bounds.

Mod
Attack the post, not the poster.

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 4:58pm

end of the road wrote: »

the death penalty legitimizes the act it is used to punish. if you support the death penalty, you condone the actions of the person being executed.

What utter drivel. A declaration of war can not be ignored. The only way to quash war is to kill the enemy, cut it off. It ain't a game of tiddly winks

I agree with my fellow poster who fears what you will say when you have the courage to actually explain that statement with a straight face.

end of the road wrote: »

where the death penalty is concerned, the burdin will never be high enough.

You evidentially have no idea how small a minority you are in with that view. The country either completely bans it or it does not.

Absolutely nothing in that statement reflects with the facts of the case in Boston. No amount of pseudo left wing crap will wash

end of the road wrote: »

its debatible as to whether there was ample evidence" in this case.
after all this man was most likely going to be found guilty regardless. the argument he has is valid in this case.

This is, roughly the fourth time this question is going to be asked

From your knowledge of this case, cite 3 reasons why the verdict of guilty is unsafe . Explain how it is debatable as to whether there was ample evidence.

If you get caught red handed, you kinda don't have a defence to fly a flag.

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 5:00pm

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Mod
Attack the post, not the poster.

The post was attacked. Even if that was not the case,the post didn't come into existence out of thin air either

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 5:29pm

end of the road wrote: »

no, only angry rabel rousers like yourself would. at least i'm willing to accept the case of the irish lad isn't as it seems.

No anger here chief. Why would there be? Nothing better than reading the rants of the looney left digging holes for themselves.

As for the other post, you are on record for constantly defending the family with no proof or validity to rebut the allegations despite clear evidence.The only major problem in that case is the delay and problems with fair procedures and access to a lawyer . There is sufficient evidence on film that highlights that he is guilty of a number of offences

end of the road wrote: »

not in my head at all. the only waffling was from yourself and your angry rabel rousing

As the song says, "It's in your head, in your head........ "

No surprise fellow posters have made similar remarks

end of the road wrote: »

yes, ranting rabel rousing ramblings.

Find a dictionary, read it, and educate yourself of the terms "ranting", rabel rousing" and ramblings"

I can back up my comments with sources, you have consistently failed and refused to do so

end of the road wrote: »

oh i understood every bit of it, but it was just a rant. there is no argument for the death penalty.

You made an opinion piece. That is all that it is. Your opinion is utterly irrelevant to countries that still have the death penalty

end of the road wrote: »

none. all have been debunked. you have given no facts, just accusations against posters, like seamus for example. but that is usually typical of a "right wing nutter"

Nothing has been debunked. You could not debunk the statements made if your life depended on it.

You and your pals are expected to provide proof of allegations of bribery and mistakes s in the judiciary, specifically, in the Boston area, specifically in relation to serious crimes like murder (you have't even tried to touch something like Whitey Bolger ffs)

You have also being asked to explain how those rants are relevant to this case

These demands have been made several times. Nothing has been debunked

It is better to be a right wing nut job than a left wing lunatic. Left wingers will never be taken seriously. Neither will terrorist defenders

end of the road wrote: »

not done what? whatever it is, i have and i can do so.

No you have not. You have not even tried. Specifics dear boy specifics. The floor is all yours

end of the road wrote: »

well, in most modern thinking countries, the right to life is .

Well, not wishing to side track, but there are exceptions!

Abortion and in some places assisted suicide (more right to die)

Also, if you are a war criminal , forget about getting refugee status in some states, even if it means being returned to the country of origin for trial (though, likely to go to The Hauge)

end of the road wrote: »

because its commiting the same act as they commited, killing someone. if your against killing, killing to show killing is wrong goes against the idea that killing is wrong.

Drivel

The terrorists committed unlawful killings. Execution is deemed lawful in the said countries. There is a difference.

Killing is not always wrong.

end of the road wrote: »

no there wasn't. none of it. he backed up his statements with evidence,

Backing up the statements with evidence means citing actual cases and incidents, with a link. Making generalised statements that have no similarity to cases involving serious crime is not "backing it up"

It is one thing to defend someone on the basis of evidence before you, it is completely another to lie! Go back through the pages. What evidence was produced.

Lies lies and more lies. Typical left wingers

That ain't a rant , that is fact, this ain't angry, this is absolute delight. Look how low you will go to have something to say.

end of the road wrote: »

his statements were very relevant to the topic in terms of the death penalty,

They had no relevancy to this case. None at all, he even acknowledged that by admitting that what he said was more a generalised context. There is no evidence of bribery or mistakes with the verdict. He even accepted that the verdict is safe. He might not agree with the possible death penalty but tough. His reasoning won't apply here.

end of the road wrote: »

talking in general about a part of this situation which is the potential death sentence is very relevant and his arguments are relevant. no waffling at all.

Stick to the specifics of the case and don't go waffling or generalising.

end of the road wrote: »

he clearly did nothing of the sort. he was referring to the sentencing. juries can be bribed also.

More waffling

Evidence that the jury in this case were bribed ......

end of the road wrote: »

a jury can find someone guilty yet the evidence put forward could have been tampered with,

That is were right of appeal comes in

end of the road wrote: »

could be generally wrong, could be anything. it can happen. the only sentence that is suitable is life in prison.

Right of appeals are in place to try and avoid that situation. If it takes another 10 years to put him down, so be it. So long as no one like you can question the safeness of the verdict

"woulda shoulda coulda"

end of the road wrote: »

well, thats america. however when they start preaching and dictating, they should either practice what they preach or STFU.

You are free to ignore them. If you are paying the piper , they are entitled to call the tune.

end of the road wrote: »

no, the US don't have a right to dictate to other countries unless the US practices what it preaches.

In a utopia, yes, but, will the small countries relying on America care about their indiscretions when its looking for help?

end of the road wrote: »

any decision to impose the death penalty should be discredited by whatever means necessary, including the defence accusing the jury of condoning the bombing should they impose the death penalty if needs be, i would certainly support that action not that it would happen. there was no slander at all.

Great defence. Really will work. Making statements without caring if they are true, cough, slander

As for the rest, nah, I am not responding. It more or less is no different to the above. Suffice to say, I am responding to the rants of an Anti American , Terrorist supporter who has issues with authority and rule of law.

pmasterson95 · 10-04-2015 5:34pm

Hello EOTR I missed you

Galwayguy35 · 10-04-2015 5:37pm

I'd say he is a shoo in for the death penalty, he'll be no great loss to society anyway.

Lt J.R. Bell · 10-04-2015 5:51pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'd say he is a shoo in for the death penalty, he'll be no great loss to society anyway.

Ah sure, there is bound to be some group of loonies out in force with a vigil on O'Connell Street that day

end of the road · 10-04-2015 6:34pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What utter drivel. A declaration of war can not be ignored. The only way to quash war is to kill the enemy, cut it off. It ain't a game of tiddly winks

there was no war. it was simple mass murder. so no need to "kill the enimy" he can be locked up for life in prison for a lot less cost.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You evidentially have no idea how small a minority you are in with that view. The country either completely bans it or it does not.

i'm not in a minority at all. the people of ireland voted to abolish it because they realized it was a failure and went against what we stand for. the same with some states in america. people are slowly realizing the death penalty has no place and achieves nothing.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Absolutely nothing in that statement reflects with the facts of the case in Boston. No amount of pseudo left wing crap will wash

what "pseudo left wing crap" got examples?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

If you get caught red handed, you kinda don't have a defence to fly a flag.

caught red handed how?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No anger here chief. Why would there be? Nothing better than reading the rants of the looney left digging holes for themselves.

plenty of anger from your good self. statements like "the rants of the looney left digging holes for themselves" . what holes? what loony left? what rants?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

As for the other post, you are on record for constantly defending the family with no proof or validity to rebut the allegations despite clear evidence.

what "clear evidence" . nobody has been able to provide it, they just claim it. frankly i'd believe the family over a military junta any day

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The only major problem in that case is the delay and problems with fair procedures and access to a lawyer . There is sufficient evidence on film that highlights that he is guilty of a number of offences

what "sufficient evidence" he was on film, means nothing. there is nothing to say he is guilty of anything, and again this is a military junta we are dealing with.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I can back up my comments with sources, you have consistently failed and refused to do so

you can't back up anything, its just consistent ranting. you haven't backed up anything

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You made an opinion piece. That is all that it is. Your opinion is utterly irrelevant to countries that still have the death penalty

its not, those who abolished it did so because of the pressure of many.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Nothing has been debunked. You could not debunk the statements made if your life depended on it.

everything pro death penalty here has been debunked. the funny thing is the pro death penalty arguments are so easy to debunk

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You and your pals are expected to provide proof of allegations of bribery and mistakes s in the judiciary, specifically, in the Boston area, specifically in relation to serious crimes like murder (you have't even tried to touch something like Whitey Bolger ffs)
You have also being asked to explain how those rants are relevant to this case
These demands have been made several times. Nothing has been debunked

all of it has been debunked. the examples were provided by another poster.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It is better to be a right wing nut job than a left wing lunatic.

oh its not. right wing nut jobs are the dangerous ones, the bigots, the racists, and the rest. i'm happy being a supposed "left wing lunatic"

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Left wingers will never be taken seriously. Neither will terrorist defenders

left wingers are taken seriously all the time, specially people like myself. there are no terrorist defenders here, withdraw the allegation. and withdraw your continuous personal attacks.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Well, not wishing to side track, but there are exceptions!
Abortion and in some places assisted suicide (more right to die)

which are personal choices, so irrelevant

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Also, if you are a war criminal , forget about getting refugee status in some states, even if it means being returned to the country of origin for trial (though, likely to go to The Hauge)

again, irrelevant

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Drivel

no, its definitely the case.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The terrorists committed unlawful killings. Execution is deemed lawful in the said countries. There is a difference.

doesn't matter, its pre-meditated murder, and is using the same act to show that the act is wrong, therefore legitimizing and condoning the act.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Killing is not always wrong.

self defence is about the only really exceptable time.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Backing up the statements with evidence means citing actual cases and incidents, with a link. Making generalised statements that have no similarity to cases involving serious crime is not "backing it up"

links were provided by other posters

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It is one thing to defend someone on the basis of evidence before you, it is completely another to lie! Go back through the pages. What evidence was produced.

there were no lies.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Lies lies and more lies. Typical left wingers

because right wingers would never lie? seriously, your acting like a child. personal attacks and abuse, and the rest.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

That ain't a rant , that is fact, this ain't angry, this is absolute delight. Look how low you will go to have something to say.

its not fact, its a rant, its anger.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

They had no relevancy to this case. None at all, he even acknowledged that by admitting that what he said was more a generalised context.

its relevant to whether the death penalty should be imposed or even be an option, thats relevant enough.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

There is no evidence of bribery or mistakes with the verdict. He even accepted that the verdict is safe.

your the one claiming that he stated there was bribery in this case.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

He might not agree with the possible death penalty but tough. His reasoning won't apply here.

its not tough at all. nobody is claiming that we will stop him from being put to death. your the one making out that we are trying to say as such.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stick to the specifics of the case and don't go waffling or generalising.

we have been sticking to the case and various things that are relevant to it via various parts of it. the only waffling has been from you.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

More waffling

no waffling at all.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Evidence that the jury in this case were bribed ......

who said they were?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

That is were right of appeal comes in

and it can be even better without the death penalty.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Right of appeals are in place to try and avoid that situation.

not good enough with the death penalty in place. no evidence will be good enough for it.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

If it takes another 10 years to put him down, so be it. So long as no one like you can question the safeness of the verdict

it would be fantastic if it was found unsafe, i can just imagine the anger and rabeling from yourself if it was. i can question what i like. i can have an opinion on it if i like, we live in a free country.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

"woulda shoulda coulda"

yeah, and if someone innocent was put to death, wouldnt matter as long as ones bloodlust was satisfied.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You are free to ignore them. If you are paying the piper , they are entitled to call the tune.

actually, they aren't.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

In a utopia, yes, but, will the small countries relying on America care about their indiscretions when its looking for help?

thats up to them. however if america wants to be taken seriously and wishes to have countries dance to their tune, they need to practice what they preach. as by not doing so, they are causing certain countries to cause problems.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Great defence. Really will work. Making statements without caring if they are true, cough, slander

well, anything to guilt trip people out of supporting the death penalty. no slander here at all.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

As for the rest, nah, I am not responding. It more or less is no different to the above. Suffice to say, I am responding to the rants of an Anti American , Terrorist supporter who has issues with authority and rule of law.

anti-american, terrorist supporter, problems with the rule of law? any evidence for these? you have nothing bar personal abuse and attacks. you constantly resort to them. and, for the record, america is itself guilty of terrorism.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Ah sure, there is bound to be some group of loonies out in force with a vigil on O'Connell Street that day

yeah. "loonies" . nothing else to say.

SeanW · 11-04-2015 4:57pm

Billy86 wrote: »

They should not be killed because we can learn from them - we know they are deeply disturbed individuals, but we also know there are many more like that out there, and will be in the future. The only way to try and combat that is by figuring out why they are so deeply disturbed, and why they did what they did (on a subconscious/neurological level) to try and reduce it in the future by any findings gained from them.

The problem - for you - is that we already know what caused the Boston bombings, and indeed the vast majority of terrorism in the world today: radical Islam. The problem is that leftists don't want to hear the answer ... and from what I recall you fit into that group.

So what's the point of keeping the Tsarniew fellow alive to "study" him for answers about why he commited this atrocity when we already have the answers, but pretend we dont?

DeadHand · 11-04-2015 5:23pm

I'd keep this Muslim terrorist alive because he is so much more dangerous in death.

In death he becomes a martyr and immortal rallying point for other Muslims who may seek to emulate him and take part in militant Islam's continuing war on the West in particular and freedom, enlightenment and democracy in general.

Death is what Islam has led him to believe he wants. It should not be given to him. Let him reflect on his crimes as he rots, frustrated and irrelevant.

Perhaps, in time, he will come to reject the poisonous philosophies that led him to murder and mutilate so many innocents that day for the sole crime of being "infidels".

The Aussie · 11-04-2015 5:25pm

end of the road wrote: »

there was no war. it was simple mass murder. rabble rabble rabble

Just out of interest, how long did that post take???

pmasterson95 · 11-04-2015 5:27pm

The Aussie wrote: »

Just out of interest, how long did that post take???

I think he has a word document where he keeps all his sayings. He just pastes them here as he sees fit and in a steady enough rotation

end of the road · 11-04-2015 6:09pm

SeanW wrote: »

The problem - for you - is that we already know what caused the Boston bombings, and indeed the vast majority of terrorism in the world today: radical Islam.

caused of course by certain countries pentiants for running around the world overthrowing governments and replacing with puppet governments, and bombing the **** out of places.

SeanW wrote: »

The problem is that leftists don't want to hear the answer ... and from what I recall you fit into that group.

well , rightists don't wish to hear that the more certain countries antagonise the islamic world, the more radicals we will get. and americas and britains policies have a major part to play and are mostly responsible.

SeanW · 11-04-2015 7:40pm

end of the road wrote: »

caused of course by certain countries pentiants for running around the world overthrowing governments and replacing with puppet governments, and bombing the **** out of places.

well , rightists don't wish to hear that the more certain countries antagonise the islamic world, the more radicals we will get. and americas and britains policies have a major part to play and are mostly responsible.

Who are the Kenyans opressing? What countries have Kenya bombed, governments overthrown? How about Nigeria?

Billy86 · 11-04-2015 8:07pm

SeanW wrote: »

The problem - for you - is that we already know what caused the Boston bombings, and indeed the vast majority of terrorism in the world today: radical Islam. The problem is that leftists don't want to hear the answer ... and from what I recall you fit into that group.

So what's the point of keeping the Tsarniew fellow alive to "study" him for answers about why he commited this atrocity when we already have the answers, but pretend we dont?

Explain to all of us what exactly drove him to radicalism, when it did and why it did, as well as what drives people to radicalism in general, and what makes some so open persuadable compared to others.

Lt J.R. Bell · 14-04-2015 11:36am

end of the road wrote: »

there was no war. it was simple mass murder. so no need to "kill the enimy" he can be locked up for life in prison for a lot less cost.

There is a war,if you have been listening to FOX News for all of these years, you would know that there is a war against Islamic Terrorists .

End of The Road, I am never one to preach about spellings or grammar, but, if you are going to quote my statements, which you did with "kill the enimy", at least spell it properly. It was spelt "kill the enemy"

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not in a minority at all. the people of ireland voted to abolish

I am referring to America, not Ireland! The thread is about an incident in America . Why would I be talking about anywhere else but America?

end of the road wrote: »

the same with some states in america. people are slowly realizing the death penalty has no place and achieves nothing.

"Some States". Of all of the States in America, Massachusetts , one of the most liberal "Yankee" States , still has the death penalty .

There are what? 55 States in the US? About 32 still have it, so, yes, you are in a minority on that front

end of the road wrote: »

what "pseudo left wing crap" got examples?

Read your posts ,that is a start

end of the road wrote: »

caught red handed how?

Plenty of video and CCTV footage

end of the road wrote: »

plenty of anger from your good self. statements like "the rants of the looney left digging holes for themselves" . what holes? what loony left? what rants?

No anger, just pure amusement . Using "harsh" words don't mean you are angry, but, you are probably a sensitive soul.

Looney left tend to be the fruit cakes roaring at the end of a microphone because no sane group would tolerate them in their premises.

end of the road wrote: »

what "clear evidence" . nobody has been able to provide it, they just claim it. frankly i'd believe the family over a military junta any day

Several posters on that thread , put up links to several youtube videos, which filmed that family making incendiary statements in public . They also commented on their "surprise" that they were taken down rather quickly

Despite the videos being clear, you still denied them.

end of the road wrote: »

what "sufficient evidence" he was on film, means nothing. there is nothing to say he is guilty of anything, and again this is a military junta we are dealing with.

In denial again . He wasn't there telling his life story for the hell of it. The gathering wasn't there to show support for the new junta either. Their intentions are clear to any intelligent person, and the video speaks volumes .

He would have problems getting sweeping those videos under the carpet in any court room

end of the road wrote: »

you can't back up anything, its just consistent ranting. you haven't backed up anything

I am not the one who made statements that needed backing up. I have made remarks about the legal system, which were backed up.

I actually said "I could back it up"........ Learn to read sunshine!

One more time.

Provide proof of bribery and negligence in the American Judiciary and specifically, Boston Area.

This is the sixth time of asking, you and your friend should be banned until you can provide evidence of the allegations made or until you and your pal retract those comments.

end of the road wrote: »

its not, those who abolished it did so because of the pressure of many.

It sure as hell was not because of you and your ilk. Again, I was referring to America not other countries.

end of the road wrote: »

everything pro death penalty here has been debunked. the funny thing is the pro death penalty arguments are so easy to debunk/

I will surprise you, but I oppose the death penalty in my country. What I don't do, is go trying to tell other jurisdictions what they should do, that is scumbaggery left wing poison. I would defend the right of other States to continue with the Death Penalty if their people wished to do so.

end of the road wrote: »

all of it has been debunked. the examples were provided by another poster.

Serious case of reading difficulties here with you. The allegations of bribery and "mistakes" in the American Judiciary , when dealing with Serious Crime has not been debunked. No efforts have been made to deal with it. That was the angle I was referring to and to deny that or pretend that was not the case, exposes you for the liar that you are.

end of the road wrote: »

oh its not. right wing nut jobs are the dangerous ones, the bigots, the racists, and the rest. i'm happy being a supposed "left wing lunatic"

You would still be living in a cave or modern version of Stalingrad but for us glorious right wingers. Left wingers could not manage a piss up in a brewery. Left wingers are too busy posing and talking about doing stuff but doing nothing, except fight with each other.

Left wingers are just as racist and dangerous. Stalin, Yugoslavia, Hitler (yes, Hitler was a socialist!) , Castro , Che Guevara Lynch.

end of the road wrote: »

left wingers are taken seriously all the time,

Are they? Electoral polls and number of parliamentary seats say differently

end of the road wrote: »

specially people like myself. there are no terrorist defenders here, withdraw the allegation. and withdraw your continuous personal attacks.

You have persistently defended anyone that has been accused of Terrorism, and in particular Islamic militants. You are on record for defending terrorists and been an apologist for them.It has already being pointed out by other posters. So No!

end of the road wrote: »

which are personal choices, so irrelevant
again, irrelevant

The fact that you said that supports my contention that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Thank you.

Contrary to your argument that right to life is absolute, you were shown a number of exceptions.

The person may have a right to choice an abortion (personal right) but their view is only one half. The State is the final decision maker, does it allow abortion or not.

Under Refugee Law, you can't send anyone back to their COI if their life is at risk. The exception, being if they are responsible for war crimes which could result in the death penalty . The Countries decide that, not you or I

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't matter, its pre-meditated murder, and is using the same act to show that the act is wrong, therefore legitimizing and condoning the act.

Suffice to say, you lost that argument a long time ago. I am not the only poster to point that out to you.

end of the road wrote: »

self defence is about the only really exceptable time.

People kill in war. Wart can be just and right. You have your own opinion , we have ours.

end of the road wrote: »

links were provided by other posters

No poster has provided a link dealing with the allegations of bribery within the Judiciary when dealing with Serious Crimes like Murder, No evidence was provided dealing with the Boston Judiciary . No evidence was provided by posters dealing with so called mistakes in sentencing (that are relevant here)

No evidence or arguments were made as to why the verdict in this case was wrong or could be tinged with bribery and mistakes

It is not just a figment of your imagination, it is a down right lie.

end of the road wrote: »

there were no lies.

Yes there were, your statements are a continuous tissue of lies.

end of the road wrote: »

because right wingers would never lie? seriously, your acting like a child. personal attacks and abuse, and the rest.

No personal attacks, just stating facts. You have made a number of statements and supported unsupported allegations made by another poster, you claim that they were backed up, then despite over 5 calls for ye to back them up, no effort was made to do so. Thats lying. You are simply called out on that.

Left wing loonies, is a perfectly valid and accurate description of such a group

end of the road wrote: »

its not fact, its a rant, its anger.

Facts , baby, all facts

end of the road wrote: »

its relevant to whether the death penalty should be imposed or even be an option, thats relevant enough.

Eh, no. The court is interested in whether it should apply the legal penalty of the death penalty in that case, based on those facts. It is not there to listen to arguments and pleas as to they the death penalty is wrong. That is a job for the legislators, not the Courts (in that case , could always run a Constitutional case, I guess). The penalty is legal and can be used.

end of the road wrote: »

your the one claiming that he stated there was bribery in this case.

Lies. Go back and read what was said. THat is a pretty weak effort in diversion.

end of the road wrote: »

its not tough at all. nobody is claiming that we will stop him from being put to death. your the one making out that we are trying to say as such.

we have been sticking to the case and various things that are relevant to it via various parts of it. the only waffling has been from you.

no waffling at all.

who said they were?

Talking about issues that had no bearing on the facts of this case, is waffling. The fact that your intellect is incapable of seeing past that is your problem.

Instead dealing with the specific facts of the case, you and your pals felt an urge to waffle about general scenarios.

Bribery and Mistakes were raised by another poster on a "generalised context". I have that same poster accepting that the verdict was safe. That poster was asked by he felt the need to utter the words bribery in this case. You would not do it if you were trying to make a point

Instead of him and later you , saying, hands up,admitting that what was said was irrelevant and confirming that they have no proof of bribery in this case or other judicial cases , ye persisting in talking about it. Even, laughably saying the matter was proved and "debunked".

Ye were far too interested in saving face, knowing damn well that ye were talking drivel

end of the road wrote: »

and it can be even better without the death penalty.
not good enough with the death penalty in place. no evidence will be good enough for it.

Your opinion is worthless. If the court is satisfied that the accused committed the crimes, and the death penalty is legal (and acceptable by the public in that jurisdiction) is perfectly safe to execute

end of the road wrote: »

it would be fantastic if it was found unsafe, i can just imagine the anger and rabeling from yourself if it was. i can question what i like. i can have an opinion on it if i like, we live in a free country.

Opinions and free speech do not allow you to tell lies and get away with the consequences.

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, and if someone innocent was put to death, wouldnt matter as long as ones bloodlust was satisfied.

If the verdict was safe and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (high threshold) that X committed a serious crime that merited the DP, why not? The penalties are what the people of that areas democratically support

end of the road wrote: »

actually, they aren't.

Your opinion does not match with reality. America is always calling the tune

end of the road wrote: »

thats up to them. however if america wants to be taken seriously and wishes to have countries dance to their tune, they need to practice what they preach.

When America sneezes the world shakes. Countries , even like Ireland, don't allow little things like Human Rights violations and war crimes get in the way , when America are looking to invest in Ireland. Same in other countries where America have dictated what kind of government should be in place.

I do not disagree with you on that point, but that is just theory, I am more concerned with practice and reality

end of the road wrote: »

well, anything to guilt trip people out of supporting the death penalty. no slander here at all.

"Anything", including lying, making damaging statements where you are careless as to whether they are true of not, and undefendable (ie honest opinion) as they are not supported by facts. Slander, bhra! Slander

That statement simply confirms my point. Thank you. You have undermined everything you said.

end of the road wrote: »

anti-american, terrorist supporter, problems with the rule of law? any evidence for these?

Your statements on this thread and the thread about the Egyptian lad on trial

end of the road wrote: »

you have nothing bar personal abuse and attacks. you constantly resort to them. and, for the record, america is itself guilty of terrorism.

A new Anti American Statement there. Alleged personal abuse and "attacks"? Call you out on lies is now personal abuse and attacks? Wow sensitive soul

end of the road wrote: »

yeah. "loonies" . nothing else to say.

You have nothing else to say? About time

end of the road · 14-04-2015 2:49pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

There is a war,if you have been listening to FOX News for all of these years, you would know that there is a war against Islamic Terrorists .

thats fox news known for their rabel rousing?

I am referring to America, not Ireland! The thread is about an incident in America . Why would I be talking about anywhere else but America?[/QUOTE]

my point still stands. americans are slowly waking up.

"Some States". Of all of the States in America, Massachusetts , one of the most liberal "Yankee" States , still has the death penalty .[/QUOTE]

well as it has the death penalty, its not a liberal state

There are what? 55 States in the US? About 32 still have it, so, yes, you are in a minority on that front[/QUOTE]

i'm not in a minority at all.

Read your posts ,that is a start[/QUOTE]

no examples then. thought not. just rabel from your good self.

No anger, just pure amusement . Using "harsh" words don't mean you are angry, but, you are probably a sensitive soul.[/QUOTE]

yeah.

Looney left tend to be the fruit cakes roaring at the end of a microphone because no sane group would tolerate them in their premises.[/QUOTE]

plenty of people roar at the end of a microphone. thats not a clue to them being "looney left"

Despite the videos being clear, you still denied them.[/QUOTE]

because they meant nothing. just a young lad mouthing off. not evidence in terms of the charges he's up on.

In denial again . He wasn't there telling his life story for the hell of it. The gathering wasn't there to show support for the new junta either. Their intentions are clear to any intelligent person, and the video speaks volumes .
He would have problems getting sweeping those videos under the carpet in any court room[/QUOTE]

no denial at all. the videos aren't evidence, they are just some young lad giving a speach mouthing off.

I am not the one who made statements that needed backing up. I have made remarks about the legal system, which were backed up.[/QUOTE]

they weren't backed up by you.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I actually said "I could back it up"........

i'm well aware of what you said.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Learn to read sunshine!

i read it. it was simply nothing worth bothering over.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

you and your friend should be banned until you can provide evidence of the allegations made or until you and your pal retract those comments.

lol. just, lol

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It sure as hell was not because of you and your ilk.

yes, it was the people. so technically me and my "ilk"

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Again, I was referring to America not other countries.

my point still stands.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I will surprise you, but I oppose the death penalty in my country. What I don't do, is go trying to tell other jurisdictions what they should do, that is scumbaggery left wing poison.

ah for jesus sake. its an opinion. "scumbaggery left wing poison" as a description proves you have anger issues. time to get over it.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I would defend the right of other States to continue with the Death Penalty if their people wished to do so.

good for you. your wrong though to be defending the death penalty. it doesn't work.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Serious case of reading difficulties here with you.

more attacks

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

That was the angle I was referring to and to deny that or pretend that was not the case, exposes you for the liar that you are.

evidence i'm a liar?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You would still be living in a cave or modern version of Stalingrad but for us glorious right wingers.

yeah. i'm sure.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Left wingers could not manage a piss up in a brewery.

right so.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Left wingers are too busy posing and talking about doing stuff but doing nothing

just like the "right wingers" then?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Left wingers are just as racist and dangerous. Stalin, Yugoslavia, Hitler (yes, Hitler was a socialist!) , Castro , Che Guevara Lynch.

yeah. the world has dangerous people in it. the more dangerous tend to be the far right though

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You have persistently defended anyone that has been accused of Terrorism, and in particular Islamic militants.

you mean, i don't bother with the usual rabel rousing and recognize that nothing is ever as its made out to be? still nothing to say i'm a "terrorist defender"

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You are on record for defending terrorists and been an apologist for them.

any examples?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It has already being pointed out by other posters. So No!

nothing then. i knew it would be the case. your just mouthing off as usual

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The fact that you said that supports my contention that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Thank you.

absolute nonsense. abortion and assisted suicide are personal choices. thats a fact. i well have a clue what your on about and its irrelevant.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Contrary to your argument that right to life is absolute, you were shown a number of exceptions.

personal choices. after that, if the state wishes for one not to take a life, then it practices that stance itself.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The person may have a right to choice an abortion (personal right) but their view is only one half. The State is the final decision maker, does it allow abortion or not.
Under Refugee Law, you can't send anyone back to their COI if their life is at risk. The exception, being if they are responsible for war crimes which could result in the death penalty . The Countries decide that, not you or I

we are the country i thought? i thought the government represents us whether we want it or not? so therefore we do decide? make up your mind

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Suffice to say, you lost that argument a long time ago. I am not the only poster to point that out to you.

i lost no argument. its premeditated murder.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

People kill in war. Wart can be just and right. You have your own opinion , we have ours.

who's "we" many americans haven't agreed with the wars for "freedom and democracy" i mean oil and revenge.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No poster has provided a link dealing with the allegations of bribery within the Judiciary when dealing with Serious Crimes like Murder, No evidence was provided dealing with the Boston Judiciary.

because nobody said there was any

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No evidence was provided by posters dealing with so called mistakes in sentencing (that are relevant here)
No evidence or arguments were made as to why the verdict in this case was wrong or could be tinged with bribery and mistakes

because nobody stated any of that was the case, rather that such things are possible in a judicial system.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It is not just a figment of your imagination, it is a down right lie.

no, no lie

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yes there were, your statements are a continuous tissue of lies.

no there weren't, you provided no evidence, just accusations and attacks.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No personal attacks, just stating facts.

plenty of personal attacks, no facts.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You have made a number of statements and supported unsupported allegations made by another poster, you claim that they were backed up, then despite over 5 calls for ye to back them up, no effort was made to do so. Thats lying. You are simply called out on that.

there were no allegations. just statements that such things are possible in a judicial system. so no lies, i wasn't called out on anything apart from in your head.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Left wing loonies, is a perfectly valid and accurate description of such a group

no, its just rabel rousing tripe

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Facts , baby, all facts

no facts from yourself.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Eh, no. The court is interested in whether it should apply the legal penalty of the death penalty in that case, based on those facts. It is not there to listen to arguments and pleas as to they the death penalty is wrong. That is a job for the legislators, not the Courts (in that case , could always run a Constitutional case, I guess). The penalty is legal and can be used.

anything should be used to stop premeditated murder by the state.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Lies. Go back and read what was said. THat is a pretty weak effort in diversion.

i read everything. no lies what so ever apart from you accusing everyone else of telling lies.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Talking about issues that had no bearing on the facts of this case, is waffling.

its not. what was written by seamus was relevant to the discussion which entails both this case and the morals of the death penalty, and the operations of the justice system. so, all relevant.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Instead dealing with the specific facts of the case, you and your pals felt an urge to waffle about general scenarios.

the discussion has moved on a bit, deal with it.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Bribery and Mistakes were raised by another poster on a "generalised context".

so what?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I have that same poster accepting that the verdict was safe. That poster was asked by he felt the need to utter the words bribery in this case. You would not do it if you were trying to make a point

he stated that such things are possible. thats all. nothing more.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Instead of him and later you , saying, hands up,admitting that what was said was irrelevant and confirming that they have no proof of bribery in this case or other judicial cases , ye persisting in talking about it. Even, laughably saying the matter was proved and "debunked".

nobody stated there was bribery in this case.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Ye were far too interested in saving face, knowing damn well that ye were talking drivel

no, wrong again. nobody said there was bribery in this case. your the one making out we did, its all in your head.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Your opinion is worthless. If the court is satisfied that the accused committed the crimes, and the death penalty is legal (and acceptable by the public in that jurisdiction) is perfectly safe to execute

i wouldn't be so sure. the people are slowly waking up to the fact the death penalty belongs in the stone age.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Opinions and free speech do not allow you to tell lies and get away with the consequences.

i told no lies.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

If the verdict was safe and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (high threshold) that X committed a serious crime that merited the DP, why not? The penalties are what the people of that areas democratically support

again, the death penalty is the same as the act carried out, murder. either the state is against someone killing or not. if its against the act of murder, then it won't practice the death penalty, to show killing is rong by killing makes a mockery of the laws.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Your opinion does not match with reality. America is always calling the tune

not with russia and other countries its not. america will slowly become as irrelevant as britain has. after all its starting to implode as it is

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

When America sneezes the world shakes. Countries , even like Ireland, don't allow little things like Human Rights violations and war crimes get in the way , when America are looking to invest in Ireland. Same in other countries where America have dictated what kind of government should be in place.

because its american companies. making a choice off their own backs. they can't be held responsible for their governments actions.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

"Anything", including lying, making damaging statements where you are careless as to whether they are true of not, and undefendable (ie honest opinion) as they are not supported by facts. Slander, bhra! Slander

again. there were no lies. there were no allegations, no slander. that is it.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

That statement simply confirms my point. Thank you. You have undermined everything you said.

it confirms nothing. i haven't undermined anything.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

A new Anti American Statement there. Alleged personal abuse and "attacks"? Call you out on lies is now personal abuse and attacks? Wow sensitive soul

what "lies" you called me out on nothing. nothing anti-american at all from me. saying a country is wrong to do something isn't being against the country as a whole.

ohnonotgmail · 14-04-2015 2:53pm

are you two trying to get into the guinness book of records for most quotes in a post?

circadian · 14-04-2015 3:05pm

55 states in the USA? When did that happen?

RollieFingers · 14-04-2015 3:12pm

Get a room lads!

Hans Bricks · 14-04-2015 4:28pm

"No, no, rabel rabel, it is, no, no your the *Throw back exact same insult which was received* "

Another thread ruined by EOTR.

Boston Bomber Found Guilty

Comments