It's over!

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: I am going to avoid this flounder except to say that I disagree with the statement from a purely statistical perspective. 1 isn't so bad. As a nation we don't seem to have any problem executing thousands of innocents, ie: the drone program.

Would you say the same if it was your sister or brother?

Yes, I would.

SVreX wrote: Many in this thread have already convicted this guy without a trial. What's the difference?

You mean besides the fact that their opinions and postings don't have the force of law or the threat of the death penalty behind them? Because to me that's a pretty big difference. All the difference in the world, really.

The clear consensus appears to be that this will go Federal and therefore DOES carry the death penalty, so having them pre-tried by the media in a manner that could jeopardize their ability to get a fair trial is essentially equal. No difference.

I am not suggesting people don't have the right to their opinion. I am suggesting that the ability to have a fair trial is severely compromised when a media circus like this is created, and we all "know" who is guilty.

The police have apprehended a suspect. Nothing more.

Datsun1500 wrote: What makes this guy a terrorist and the new town shooter just a crazy kid? Why is he different from any other mass murderer? Because he used a bomb, not a gun?

I think the difference lies in the intended targets.

In the case of Sandy Hook, the kid knew the school (and according to some recent reports, suffered a lot of hazing/abuse there) and specifically intended to make that particular group of people suffer. In the case of the marathon bombings, the general idea was to lay casualties and mayhem upon the public indiscriminately and in the largest numbers available to their primitive means.

Now, the Aurora shooting falls into a grey area. He seemed to have no particular plan aside from "shoot a lot of people," but I still don't feel like that meets the standards of qualifying as terrorism. I'm not sure why I think that, though.

On the other hand, I think the DC sniper case qualifies as terrorism, even though their plan was obviously also just "shoot a lot of people." But they carried it out in a way that was intended to cause as much fear in the public as possible.

You also bring up the term "crazy kid," which I think is also a distinguishing factor. Despite any preparation, mass shooters seem to be acting more impulsively, not in a protracted manner like the DC snipers did and the Boston bombers seemed to intend (since they were apparently interrupted planting more bombs on the MIT campus). For one thing, shooting sprees more often than not end in suicide or apparent suicide by cop. It seems more like a "blaze of glory" scenario rather than a calculated series of attacks.

There are, of course, exceptions to the plan/calculate/protract theory. For instance, I don't think it gets any more calculated or protracted than Ted Kaczynski, but nobody's going to be arguing for his sanity.

So, to answer your question: I dunno.

Debka's analysis: http://www.debka.com/article/22914/The-Tsarnaev-brothers-were-double-agents-who-decoyed-US-into-terror-trap

Dr. Hess wrote: Debka's analysis: http://www.debka.com/article/22914/The-Tsarnaev-brothers-were-double-agents-who-decoyed-US-into-terror-trap

That analysis made my head spin. I'm tuning in to short wave radio tonight to learn the real troof.

SVreX wrote:

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: I am going to avoid this flounder except to say that I disagree with the statement from a purely statistical perspective. 1 isn't so bad. As a nation we don't seem to have any problem executing thousands of innocents, ie: the drone program.

Would you say the same if it was your sister or brother?

Yes, I would.

I really and truly don't believe you. Easy to say on line when you've not had anything like that ever happen in your life.

SVreX wrote:

dculberson wrote: You mean besides the fact that their opinions and postings don't have the force of law or the threat of the death penalty behind them? Because to me that's a pretty big difference. All the difference in the world, really.

The clear consensus appears to be that this will go Federal and therefore DOES carry the death penalty, so having them pre-tried by the media in a manner that could jeopardize their ability to get a fair trial is essentially equal. No difference. I am not suggesting people don't have the right to their opinion. I am suggesting that the ability to have a fair trial is severely compromised when a media circus like this is created, and we all "know" who is guilty. The police have apprehended a suspect. Nothing more.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here, and I don't think you are either. In fact I think you're arguing my point for me with some bit of confusion thrown in about individuals in a message board thread having a strong opinion being exactly the same as a judge performing the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial without any of the pesky due process. If you're really making that equivalence then I don't think there's much we can talk about here.

My position is that a death sentence should be very, very difficult to carry out, to avoid the risk of executing innocents. Nothing more, nothing less.

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote:

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: I am going to avoid this flounder except to say that I disagree with the statement from a purely statistical perspective. 1 isn't so bad. As a nation we don't seem to have any problem executing thousands of innocents, ie: the drone program.

Would you say the same if it was your sister or brother?

Yes, I would.

I really and truly don't believe you. Easy to say on line when you've not had anything like that ever happen in your life.

Well, you are mistaken.

You didn't ask me if I would like it. The pain would be unbearable.

You asked me if I would stand by my statement if it were my sister or brother. I would.

The reason is quite simple. Any system that ruled out execution as a viable deterrent because of the remote possibility of a single error would be a system that was doomed to failure and impossible to sustain. If it was not ruled out entirely, it is an absolute statistical fact that there would one day be an error.

It is essentially a "one for the good of the many" concept. If we rule out any possibility of error, we will fail to lead, and to make difficult decisions.

Great leadership requires difficult decisions, and is sometimes wrong. Any law, guideline, or policy that attempts to eliminate all possibility of error always has the unintended consequence of destroying the possibility of greatness, and of having great leadership.

I would support a system that included execution for the good of many, even if it cost an innocent. Even if it was my brother. That is part of the cost of freedom, part of the cost of a great nation. I wouldn't like it one bit, and would fight for the rest of my life to try to improve it so others wouldn't have to go through what I did, but I would support it.

Isn't that what every mother does who sends her son off to war?

AsianFemaleDriver wrote:

Mmadness wrote: On an off-topic note, the Boston police did ask the Dunkin Donuts to remain open, I'm not joking.

As my hubby mentioned, I work at one in Belmont, right next to Watertown. We had police officers come and go while we were open and was thanked for being open when the entire town was on shut down.

Thank You. A lot of people don't think about it but when everything is closed up they still need somewhere to go for a coffee, food ect. Having someone open their business and people come in to work it when they would rather be home with their families is a big help.

FLIR image of suspect #2 from MSP chopper

SVreX wrote:

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: I am going to avoid this flounder except to say that I disagree with the statement from a purely statistical perspective. 1 isn't so bad. As a nation we don't seem to have any problem executing thousands of innocents, ie: the drone program.

Would you say the same if it was your sister or brother?

Yes, I would.

SVreX wrote: Many in this thread have already convicted this guy without a trial. What's the difference?

You mean besides the fact that their opinions and postings don't have the force of law or the threat of the death penalty behind them? Because to me that's a pretty big difference. All the difference in the world, really.

The clear consensus appears to be that this will go Federal and therefore DOES carry the death penalty, so having them pre-tried by the media in a manner that could jeopardize their ability to get a fair trial is essentially equal. No difference.

I am not suggesting people don't have the right to their opinion. I am suggesting that the ability to have a fair trial is severely compromised when a media circus like this is created, and we all "know" who is guilty.

The police have apprehended a suspect. Nothing more.

You aren't even discussing the point I was making, so I'm not sure where this comes from.

Carguy wanted to make it easier to execute people. I didn't. That's all.

Wally wrote: Thank You. A lot of people don't think about it but when everything is closed up COPS still need somewhere to go for DONUTS...

FTFY!

dculberson wrote:

carguy123 wrote:

Knurled wrote: Yes, it costs millions of dollars in legal fees to execute someone. I'm okay with this. Even the lowest of the lowest scum of the earth should get every possible defense available to them, because without that there is no legitimacy to a conviction.

OK, you just link them your bank account so they'll stay out of mine. Oh wait! I'm betting you don't mean you're willing to spend the money, you want them to use other people's money.

Nice flounder.. I'll play along. Why not? You're okay with them executing innocent people? Because that has definitely happened already, one case in Texas at least, and several more suspected innocent executions fairly recently. One innocent executed is worse than a thousand guilty people spending the rest of their lives in jail. Oh wait! You mean it's okay for them to kill innocent people that aren't you.

Speaking of flounder!!! I'll take mine blackened with a cream sauce of shrimp and crab on top. You're the one who mentioned innocent people. So far no one else has.

carguy123 wrote: Speaking of flounder!!! I'll take mine blackened with a cream sauce of shrimp and crab on top.

Sounds delicious!

carguy123 wrote:

dculberson wrote:

carguy123 wrote:

Knurled wrote: Yes, it costs millions of dollars in legal fees to execute someone. I'm okay with this. Even the lowest of the lowest scum of the earth should get every possible defense available to them, because without that there is no legitimacy to a conviction.

OK, you just link them your bank account so they'll stay out of mine. Oh wait! I'm betting you don't mean you're willing to spend the money, you want them to use other people's money.

Nice flounder.. I'll play along. Why not? You're okay with them executing innocent people? Because that has definitely happened already, one case in Texas at least, and several more suspected innocent executions fairly recently. One innocent executed is worse than a thousand guilty people spending the rest of their lives in jail. Oh wait! You mean it's okay for them to kill innocent people that aren't you.

Speaking of flounder!!! I'll take mine blackened with a cream sauce of shrimp and crab on top. You're the one who mentioned innocent people. So far no one else has.

"Blackened" is how restaurants sell white people burned fish!

Osterkraut wrote: "Blackened" is how restaurants sell white people burned fish!

Troof.

"Blackened" seasoning may be nothing more than salt and a mix of chilis, but I put that on lots of stuff.....even on grits sometimes.

I thought that was what TIME magazine did to OJ Simpson...

fasted58 wrote: FLIR image of suspect #2 from MSP chopper

Wonder if the boat's for sale now...imagine it has some bullet holes in it.

Datsun1500 wrote: What makes this guy a terrorist and the new town shooter just a crazy kid? Why is he different from any other mass murderer? Because he used a bomb, not a gun?

1. There are (were, really) two of them.
2. One went to a known terrorist area (Chechnya) and returned.
3. Appeared to have more bombs (used in gunfight with police) for later attacks

Here's a flounder my wife asked me and I had no good answer. What makes a bomb a weapon of mass destruction vs an ar15? My wife pointed out more actual death occurred at sandy hook than in Boston.

I wouldn't call these bombs or AR-15 rifles "weapons of mass destruction". Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are "weapons of mass destruction".

Anti-stance wrote: I wouldn't call these bombs or AR-15 rifles "weapons of mass destruction". Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are "weapons of mass destruction".

I believe that Antoine Lavoisier would agree with me in asserting that "weapons of mass destruction" do not actually exist, in accordance with the Law of Conservation of Mass.

Those were hobbled together IEDs not WOMD

But isn't the guy being charged with using a WMD.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:

There hasn't been any charges yet. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-charges-against-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-delayed?lite&GT1=43001

I think I know where you are going with this.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Here's a flounder my wife asked me and I had no good answer. What makes a bomb a weapon of mass destruction vs an ar15? My wife pointed out more actual death occurred at sandy hook than in Boston.

Calling those bombs WMDs is hilarious, and a complete degradation of the term. Whomever is calling them that should be ashamed. If a political figure, I hope they also claim WMDs were never found in Iraq... by their new definition every IED is infact an WMD.