Boston Bomber Found Guilty

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How can i have lost when EOTR hasnt even bothered to present an argument to counter?

Murder is killing somebody unlawfully. how can a state kill somebody unlawfully if they law provides for the death penalty.

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

end of the road

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

the death penalty is more expensive. what part of that don't you get

ohnonotgmail

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

the laws are legitimate if the state decides they are. The state represents the people. thats the whole point. It is not in the slightest bit hypocritical.

seamus

crockholm wrote: »

I can't help but feel that you are ignoring my Point about video/surveillence evidence directly implicating a suspect,or a confession backed up by forensic evidence.

I'm not ignoring it, but it's not possible to extrapolate the general from the specific.

That is, you and I and the judge may agree in a particular case that yep, everything adds up, this guy is guilty beyond all doubt.

But how do convert that to the general? How do you write a framework whereby you can apply a set of criteria to any case which measures whether it is proven beyond all doubt?

You can't, because each case is different and rarely (if ever) can you prove the safety of a conviction beyond all doubt.

Not some fictional supposition about a judge being bribed by advocates of Death.

The theoretical supposition is giving an example of how a general framework for determining absolute guilt is fallible.

Lt J.R. Bell

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

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You made slanderous remarks about the judiciary, in particular the judiciary in the Boston area.

quote where he did as such. he didn't so you won't be able to. grand so. saying a judge can make mistakes or be bribed is not slanderous as it has happened before. nothing to do with this particular case.




actually, he hasn't done any of that. the death penalty would be a mistake because no evidence is fool proof, and it is the same as the actions he caried out. meaning the state condones his actions



really?



seriously, what are you on about? have you a comprehension problem or something? there were no slanderous remarks made, his posts have no conspiracies just facts. and as for "pathetic amateur legal discussion," non existant.



what lies. quote them for us all to see. if anyone around here is the spoofer its your good self. insults, lies, and the rest.

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

Lt J.R. Bell

end of the road wrote: »

the death penalty is more expensive. what part of that don't you get

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

Tombi!

lertsnim wrote: »

You know you have lost an argument when you retort with that. Seeing as you are on about a dictionary, you should have started your sentence with a capital letter.

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

crockholm

seamus wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it, but it's not possible to extrapolate the general from the specific.

That is, you and I and the judge may agree in a particular case that yep, everything adds up, this guy is guilty beyond all doubt.

But how do convert that to the general? How do you write a framework whereby you can apply a set of criteria to any case which measures whether it is proven beyond all doubt?

You can't, because each case is different and rarely (if ever) can you prove the safety of a conviction beyond all doubt.

The theoretical supposition is giving an example of how a general framework for determining absolute guilt is fallible.

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

PizzamanIRL

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

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the laws are legitimate if the state decides they are. The state represents the people. thats the whole point. It is not in the slightest bit hypocritical.

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

ohnonotgmail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WMDs ain't what they used to be.

end of the road

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

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

ohnonotgmail

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

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

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

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

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

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

end of the road

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

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.