This will never be shut down. I mean, why would it? Have you read some very disturbing threads here? I remember "what's your preferred method of cannibalism" off the top of my head - that's way worse than this. Edit: "Is a leg of ham worth a human life?" and "if you had to remove a limb every decade" or something along those lines. My point is... say whatever you want, even if it's downright messed up.
Mocking other people's opinions doesn't give you any sort of credibility. There is a corrupt part of the US government and there is a non-corrupt part of the US government. This "news story" is on the corrupt side. I work for a prosecuting attorney and I know how substantial and non-substantial evidence works. One of the bigger parts that made me not believe this story was when I was watching the police chase of the Tsarnaev brothers live. They arrested the elder brother and placed him in a police car. Then later the story was that he died in a shoot out(???). I've never been able to find this footage afterwards, so it would be hypocritical for me to expect anyone to believe it or agree with me on that. Just letting people in general know this is a huge part of why I think there's something wrong with the story, among many other things.
I apologize. You are correct georgeashington. As history has shown there is a significant amount of coverup that does take place. However, I do think for some people everything is a conspiracy. Of course, depending more on which party is in office at the time.
I'm really confused now. Probably because I didn't actually know what this was about before reading the thread, even though I could still voice my opinion. I don't think I should add more than I already did because my post was basically the essence of all I could say. And I'm afraid that if I'll add more and discuss with other people I might say something wrong. But I'd like to add this: if this doesn't turn into a flame war, I'll be very proud of EMC. And I think there's absolutely no need for a flame war. Please, people, watch out, and take care to not let emotions take control over yourself. Discuss with reason.
So, to get everything straight here: As I said earlier, I'm against anyone having to die, ever. I am also against people killing other people for no good reason. So, in my point of view, anyone that kills anyone else for no good reason should be put to death. I don't at all agree with the death sentence. However, I think that anyone that attempts to kill anyone for no good reason should definitely be put to death. In this situation (or in any situation, for that matter) no one should have to die, and at the same time, no one should have to kill another person. It's a lose-lose situation for anyone involves. I think we should all be able to live in peace, however apparently that's not an option when everyone feels the need to kill one another. As much as I agree that jail is a horrible thing, and also that he should be punished, I think we should simply get rid of him now. Any person that wishes to cause harm to others shouldn't have to be killed, and as much as I am against the death penalty as an entirety, I think that in certain situations (larger terror attacks such as 9/11 or the topic at hand, the Boston Bombing) the death penalty is reasonable. I don't think anyone should actually have to kill each other in the first place. If I had to choose between an all out war and an eye for an eye, I'd have to go with the latter, considering then we are all equally punished. Again, I really don't want to come off as someone who supports the death penalty (as I am 100% against it). I simply believe that this crime is severe enough to be punishable by death. Simple as that. Regards, Caden
Where do you get your news information. You seem to be referencing information that you received and the only way to get said information is from a third party source and you seem set on discrediting all third party sources. Please tell me what you get all of your news and facts. I bring this up not to sound insulting but to wonder what sources you consider credible so I can better understand your point of view on this whole thing.
So, in my point of view, anyone that kills anyone else for no good reason should be put to death. I don't at all agree with the death sentence. However, I think that anyone that attempts to kill anyone for no good reason should definitely be put to death. In this situation (or in any situation, for that matter) no one should have to die, and at the same time, no one should have to kill another person. It's a lose-lose situation for anyone involves. Yes, also it seems everything boils down to power. Whether it's sacrificing yourself to bring glory to your god. or whatever your own desire is. de·sire dəˈzī(ə)r/ noun 1. a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen. Most go through life living their desires, and great people pass their desires onto to their followers. A great person can become a king or leader and create a nation. For one to be considered worthy, you must have power. And what creates power? Just a small percentage of how I'd answer this using caden's quote.
I am aware of that and agree with you, but it was kitten's OPINION. That does not mean FACT. An opinion is never wrong. It is never right either.
Who was this directed at? (Not to seem mean or rude also ) Just wanted to know to cite some credible sources.
Sorry about the double triple post, but if you said he deserves the death penalty, here is something to dwell on: If you were on that jury and you voted for him to receive the death penalty, would you stab him with a knife with your own two hands, prick him with a syringe, or just kill him in general? If not then why do you want him to die?
Do I have the legal right to kill him? If so, yes. But... Either way I am still a minor so it isnt decided by me. If I dont have legal right, no. I follow the rules and plan to my whole life. But this is what is in my head right now, if I was 20 years older and had a gun to his head, I might not be able to kill him. I would want to , but psychologically I cant. Either way, some of the people who do it actually enjoy it. Some actually feel the pain in them. No matter what the jury decides, I am on their side. Still as I said earlier, watch 12 Angry Men. I watched it again last night and it was amazing a second time around.
This is actually a straw-man argument - The jury does not decide whether or not someone should die for their crimes. They are a check against the government from unilaterally executing people simply because they feel like it. If they vote for the death penalty, they merely authorize the government to pursue that course if all appeals are exhausted and the sentence still stands. Two parties check the jury's decision - the courts and the leading executive of the state - mostly governors and the relevant trial court judge in the case of the federal level. If the courts do not reverse or commute (downgrade) the sentence when appealed, the governor/trial court judge has the option to sign the warrant authorizing the execution of a particular inmate. The process underlying the appeals chain is far more complicated because commuting powers and appeal processes for stay of executions vary from state to state and state to federal. If you're interested in looking up specifics, I suggest looking it up on Google as I will probably overshoot my length limit ten-fold explaining it here. Barring a successful last ditch effort to get the Supreme Court to hear the case by issuing a stay of execution (they won't most of the time), the warrant will be carried out and the convicted inmate will be executed. So legally, the jury did not "execute" the inmate - the governor or trial court judge did. Whoever carries out the execution is acting as the instrument of justice for the government. So legally speaking, they killed nobody.
I really was going to try and stay out of this, but the comment above forced my hand. . . I'm not sure you truly DO know how "substantial evidence and non-substantial evidence works". Obviously there was substantial evidence provided. Tsarnaev was found guilty, by a jury of peers, in a court of law. I believe the term you were looking for was "tangible evidence". If you would like a working definition of both you can go here and here. Now that we have shed light on the proper terminology we are looking for, let's take a look at the evidence, tangible and non. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/the-case-against-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-90448.html']case[/url] against tsarnaev[/URL]] At 2:45 p.m. on April 15, video taken from a surveillance camera at The Forum restaurant, near the marathon’s finish line on Boylston Street and the site of the second explosion, shows a man believed to be Tsarnaev slipping his backpack off his back and onto the ground. The man stays near his bag for the next four minutes, looking at his phone and apparently taking a picture, according to the complaint. A photograph taken from across the street shows the bag laying at the man’s feet. Thirty seconds before the first explosion, the suspect brings his phone to his ear and keeps it there for 18 seconds. As the first bomb goes off, the crowd reacts and begins streaming away from the marathon’s finish line. “Bomber Two, virtually alone among the individuals in front of the restaurant, appears calm,” FBI agent Daniel Genck writes in the complaint. The suspect walks away from the finish line, leaving his bag behind. Ten seconds later, the second explosion occurs. “I can discern nothing in that location in the period before the explosion might have caused that explosion, other than Bomber Two’s knapsack,” Genck writes. Shortly before midnight on Friday, a man is carjacked in Cambridge. The perpetrator — the complaint never conclusively accuses either Dzhokhar or his now-dead brother, Tamelan — points and gun at the victim. “Did you hear about the Boston explosion?” the suspect asks. “I did that.” The man removes a bullet from the gun’s magazine, puts it back in and declares: “I am serious.” The victim and the suspect drive and pick up a second man. The suspect and the second man talk in a foreign language. The gun-wielding suspect demands money from the victim, who gives him $45. The two carjackers demand the man drive to an ATM, where they take money from the victim’s account. The victim escapes when the two carjackers stop at a convenience store. The FBI reviewed footage from the convenience store’s surveillance camera and agents identified the two suspects at Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Police encounter the stolen vehicle in suburban Watertown. Police and the carjackers exchange gunfire, and the carjackers throw several explosives at police. The FBI later recovers two unexploded improvised explosive devices from the street, along with the remains of multiple exploded IEDs. One of the suspects is injured and remains at the scene while the other flees in the stolen car. The IEDs recovered at the scene in Watertown and the IEDs set off at the Marathon have the same design, used the same brand of pressure cooker and both contained BBs “contained in an adhesive material.” Both also used a green-colored hobby fuse. Police searched Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s dorm room at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth on Sunday. They find a “large pyrotechnic,” BBs and a white hat and black jacket matching those worn by the second bomber. (click spoiler header or here for reference to this material) Since you have obvious issue with the videos that show show him at the scene, let's just not even bother with those right now. During the shootout, the suspect lobbed IED's at the police.. this is after the bombing. They are of the same materials and construction style, as the ones used at the marathon. More IED's are discovered and retrieved in the backpacks after the end of the gunfight. FBI discovered BB's, and other makings of these IED's inside the suspects apartment. Russia warned the US a year before the bombings even took place that Tsarnaev was a violent radical islamist. All of this is tangible evidence, and more than substantial. So please, even though you may work for a prosecuting attorney, please don't use that as credibility to your statements, especially when they are... incorrect. I am not stating that Tsarnaev is guilty or not, other than he WAS found guilty according to the court of law. His own lawyer, during the trial even stated that he did it. Yes, he pleaded not guilty, but with your "working knowledge" of the court system you would probably understand that this was a strategy. A "not guilty" plea is not always a claim of innocence. It is more a statement that the defendant wants to hold the prosecutor to the burden of proof. Once the prosecution has made it's case, then the defense has a better understanding on how to form it's arguments against the death sentence in the penalty phase.
Thank you for the vocabulary lesson, but I still meant substantial lol. Maybe you should look up the definition of opinion, because you clearly do not know what it is. I appreciate you trying to prove me wrong, but an opinion cannot be wrong as it is an opinion. You can repeat the "facts" to me all you want, my views will not change. Better luck next time though and thanks for making the effort to look up all that stuff I mostly didn't read. Just wanted to add this in also because it amuses me to read it. Apparently someone needs to have credibility to have an opinion.
This statement in particular bugs me. If we assume that the opinion is right and it directly countermands information stated as fact, then the facts are wrong and the opinion is the sole truth. This would create a nightmare in the judicial system. Anyone and everyone could save or kill a soul by merely stating a theory regardless of any substantiation that does or does not exists. I'm still trying to figure out how the logic even connects, if it does at all.
