Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby addams » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:21 am UTC

Not that anyone cares what I think;

It is an international concern.
The concern is for the individual.

These people MUST be turned over to the International Community.

Two reasons:
1. The US has lost all credibility.
part A.
The US does not conform to its own national laws.
In reguard to run of the ill convicted persons.
The US does not conform to international laws.
In regard to the Treatment of Regular run of the mill Convicted Persons.
part B.
The US does Torture!
Murder and Torture are a seedy underbelly Humans have not sorted out, yet.
When it is obvious, We must do what we can for The Victims.

First! Don't Make Two More Victims!
It is less expensive to pay a nation to Host Justice, than to (fill in the blank of what the Americans might be up to, next.)


2. If this is The T word, then it is an Act of War. Right?
The international Justice System is strong enough to handle two men from Russia.
Not all Russians, just, these two.

Spoiler:
umm. Europe. Umm. Europe?
Europe. When you are done with your stuffed grape leaves, cheese and wine; umm.

Europe? Will you take a Look at This?
Take the people. Two.
Keep them safe.

You do whatever it is You Do to get information.
We will wait.

It was on The News in the US.
The US does Torture to get information.
That shit is, just, stupid.

Torture is Not how to get information.
The way to get information is with Blue Berry Pancakes.

You may not believe what I will tell for Blue Berry Pancakes.
And; Blue Berry Pancakes are not my favorite food!
They do remind me of an interrogation.

(I feel like Rover. Do I get to go home, now?)

Blue Berry Pancakes are personal stuff.
Do you like them?
no. not that. Blue Berry Pancakes.


The only way to regain any respect at all is to do The Honorable Thing.
The Honorable Thing is Turn Any Suspects over to The Grown Ups.

Of course, The US must pay Support. That is not the Point.
Two more human beings.
Each one worth less as a human being inside the US than outside the US?
Get them outside the US.

Then, Sit back and consider;
How many people were damaged?

2 dead.
50 wounded.
How many million entertained?!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Diadem » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:32 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But the suspect probably violated Federal Law, which means he should be tried in Federal Court. Terrorism is a federal crime. IIRC, states don't necessarily have laws on Terrorism, so if they wanted him tried on that, they have to take him to Federal Court.

Well it first needs to be proven that this was terrorism. I'm not convinced. So far, there does not seem to have been a political motivation for the attacks, which is one of the requirements to meet the definition of terrorism. Of course information is still scarce, so maybe there was, but at this point in time it's far from clear.

But regardless of that. What exactly makes something a federal crime? Isn't all murder against federal law? But not all murders are tried in federal courts. I thought federal crimes were crimes committed in areas under federal jurisdiction (government buildings, national parks, highways, etc).

The idea that federal government can just tell a state: "Fuck your justice system, we're going to do it our way" makes me very uncomfortable.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:59 am UTC

It's more complicated than that and it's definitely not arbitrary. Here's an okay link on it.

I kind of doubt Massachusetts has a terrorism statute on the books, so there probably isn't any jurisdiction issue if they choose to charge him with terrorism. If they don't think they can prove intent, they might go with a lesser charge in the state court.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby clintonius » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:12 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:But the suspect probably violated Federal Law, which means he should be tried in Federal Court. Terrorism is a federal crime. IIRC, states don't necessarily have laws on Terrorism, so if they wanted him tried on that, they have to take him to Federal Court.
Well it first needs to be proven that this was terrorism. I'm not convinced. So far, there does not seem to have been a political motivation for the attacks, which is one of the requirements to meet the definition of terrorism. Of course information is still scarce, so maybe there was, but at this point in time it's far from clear.
Nothing has to be proven first. That's what trials are for. There is a threshold matter, which is convincing a Grand Jury to hand down an indictment for the charge, but that only requires probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime. If it helps to clarify how low that threshold is, "probable cause" is the same standard required to obtain a warrant.

Saying that terrorism requires a political motive is also not correct. It's at least misleadingly imprecise. It's been posted before in this thread, but this page lists the statutory elements of domestic terrorism. The section applicable to this case is (5)(B)(i). The defendant's intent doesn't have to be to sway a government; it can be merely to intimidate the civilian population. Also note that it says "appear to be intended," not "are intended." The jury does not have to find that any of these elements were the actual intent of the defendant. The appearance of that intent is enough. This, again, is an easier standard to meet.

Diadem wrote:But regardless of that. What exactly makes something a federal crime? Isn't all murder against federal law? But not all murders are tried in federal courts. I thought federal crimes were crimes committed in areas under federal jurisdiction (government buildings, national parks, highways, etc).
Federal crimes include those committed in areas under geographic federal jurisdiction, but are not limited to those crimes. Federal statutes also create federal crimes. The sticking point here is when a crime can be charged under both state and federal laws. Generally, murder is fair game in both federal and state courts, and whether it goes to the US Attorney or is handed down to the state Attorney General is decided on a case-by-case basis. As I understand it, Feds have first dibs on these cases.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby eSOANEM » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:16 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:But it really does just return us to the question of motive, which apart from "He says his worldview is muslim on a social website, muslims have an assumed motivation for terrorism ("they hate our freedom" etc)" there doesn't seem to be anything out there that addresses motive atm.


I don't know how accurate they were, but there were some early reports that his youtube channel had a playlist (IIRC) called "terrorism".
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Wednesday
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:31 pm UTC
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Wednesday » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

To be fair, I have one called the same thing, and it's full of stuff like The Backstreet Boys, The Spice Girls, Nicki Minaj and everything else that is terrible and upbeat.
Sexts From The Void wrote:i struggle to maneuver on a chessboard of dicks

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:59 pm UTC

and even if it were filled with news reports of terrorism, or any number of similar compilations, it doesn't speak directly to the motivation for these acts.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:09 pm UTC

Wednesday wrote:To be fair, I have one called the same thing, and it's full of stuff like The Backstreet Boys, The Spice Girls, Nicki Minaj and everything else that is terrible and upbeat.

Perhaps the brothers referred to the bombing as "Operation Zig-a-zig Ahh".

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Steax wrote:I find their actions to be rather odd. Usually previous extremist islamists have no issues with dying for their cause, and, frankly, the original bombings could have been much more devastating to do as such an attack. Additionally, given the location and conditions, pulling off a larger suicide attack could have been very easy; unlike trying to smuggle something on an airplane or into a crowded office building, getting more explosives into a position that could've hurt more people would be easy during the marathon. Couple this with the way the bombs were positioned to give high visibility to TV cameras and media, and their attempts to flee the police for hours... It doesn't seem to fit what I'd imagine that sort of attack would be. It's as if they wanted to survive all that and witness the effect it did on people.

Of course, this is all just speculation (and me wondering to myself).


I'm assuming from the reports of a suicide vest that they at least strongly considered that this would eventually lead to death...but other bombs were reported as well. It seems likely that they planned to do multiple attacks, with suicide bombing being the final stop.

And yes, this counts as terrorism by any reasonable standard. However, the motivation is pretty open ended. We can try to interpolate from the likely Muslim beliefs, but I've heard no details about those beliefs...so that's still pretty vague. I anticipate this court case being covered pretty heavily, so hopefully additional detail will emerge.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby kiklion » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:53 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:But it really does just return us to the question of motive, which apart from "He says his worldview is muslim on a social website, muslims have an assumed motivation for terrorism ("they hate our freedom" etc)" there doesn't seem to be anything out there that addresses motive atm.


I don't know how accurate they were, but there were some early reports that his youtube channel had a playlist (IIRC) called "terrorism".


But were those the surviving bomber's channel or the deceased bomber?

If terrorism vs mass murder is defined by intent (it may not be but it seems to be the case by what I read here), if it is carried out by multiple people can each person be charged differently?

Most of what I have heard was about the deceased bomber. How Russia raised warnings about him, about him being tired of living in America etc.

I have heard very little of the back story for the surviving bomber. Though I may have just twisted all of that up if I mistook a report on one as a report on the other due to their same last name and my inability to remember their first names.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:00 pm UTC

'Terrorism' is the method, not the intent. It's not a contradiction to be a terrorist and a freedom fighter.

We just pretend the people we agree with never actually committed terrorism so that we don't have to ask if the ends ever justifies the means.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:09 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:'Terrorism' is the method, not the intent. It's not a contradiction to be a terrorist and a freedom fighter.


Here's part of the definition of terrorism, linked earlier.

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping


so, the apparent intent is part of the definition of the crime. Now, you could say that i) is satisfied: they attacked crowds. But, what were they trying to coerce the population to do? I'd sya ii) is right out without some sort of manifesto, and the last also out: no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, no specific target, and no kidnapping.

So, to legally be terrorism, there has to be some sort of intent to coerce. Well, coerce to do what? What was their motive? For it to legally be terrorism, motive seems necessary.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:21 pm UTC

Sorry, apparently had my foot in my mouth.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:38 pm UTC

The city of Boston is holding a moment of silence at 2:50 pm EST.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby omgryebread » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:05 pm UTC

Federal prosecutors preparing charges

Not surprising. I also would be pretty surprised if they didn't go for the death penalty.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Роберт » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:08 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Federal prosecutors preparing charges

Not surprising. I also would be pretty surprised if they didn't go for the death penalty.

In that link:
Police believe the 19-year-old Dzhokhar may have killed his brother himself, running him over in a car as he fled capture on Thursday night.

...that would be an interesting twist, if true. And I would have even more respect for the handling of this case.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:12 pm UTC

Mass hasn't had the death penalty since 1984. Is there any reason in particular people keep bringing up the probability of him getting the death penalty?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:15 pm UTC

It sounds like this is going to be a federal case, not a state case. As far as I understand it, that means the death penalty is still an option.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby omgryebread » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:17 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Mass hasn't had the death penalty since 1984. Is there any reason in particular people keep bringing up the probability of him getting the death penalty?
The word federal is right there in the link. You don't even have to click to read the article.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

That's a bit of legal I was unaware of; if a case is being tried by Federal prosecutors, state laws don't apply?

I suppose that makes sense though.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:22 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:That's a bit of legal I was unaware of; if a case is being tried by Federal prosecutors, state laws don't apply?

It's not that the prosecutors themselves are federal, but that he's being tried for breaking a federal law and breaking that federal law (potentially) carries the death penalty.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Rodion Raskolnikov
Alyona Ivanovna knows what you did last summer
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:01 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Rodion Raskolnikov » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:24 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:But it really does just return us to the question of motive, which apart from "He says his worldview is muslim on a social website, muslims have an assumed motivation for terrorism ("they hate our freedom" etc)" there doesn't seem to be anything out there that addresses motive atm.


I don't know how accurate they were, but there were some early reports that his youtube channel had a playlist (IIRC) called "terrorism".


But were those the surviving bomber's channel or the deceased bomber?

If terrorism vs mass murder is defined by intent (it may not be but it seems to be the case by what I read here), if it is carried out by multiple people can each person be charged differently?

Most of what I have heard was about the deceased bomber. How Russia raised warnings about him, about him being tired of living in America etc.

I have heard very little of the back story for the surviving bomber. Though I may have just twisted all of that up if I mistook a report on one as a report on the other due to their same last name and my inability to remember their first names.


We might have heard more about the deceased brother precisely because he is dead. The media can report on him without fear of defamation, contempt or court or biasing any potential trial. Anything about the past of the surviving brother would be under close scrutiny, I imagine.
Last edited by Rodion Raskolnikov on Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Yo Rodja's kind of a dick, those are the facts / He murdered a pawnbroker with an axe
Now Dosoyevsky is here to teach you / About his problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche


~ ahammel

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby WibblyWobbly » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:40 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:Here's part of the definition of terrorism, linked earlier.

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping


so, the apparent intent is part of the definition of the crime. Now, you could say that i) is satisfied: they attacked crowds. But, what were they trying to coerce the population to do? I'd sya ii) is right out without some sort of manifesto, and the last also out: no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, no specific target, and no kidnapping.

So, to legally be terrorism, there has to be some sort of intent to coerce. Well, coerce to do what? What was their motive? For it to legally be terrorism, motive seems necessary.

Why does coercion have to be present? Point (i) says "to intimidate OR coerce a civilian population" - I thought intimidation was pretty easily satisfied, although one could easily make the argument that any violent act is intimidating by its nature and so makes (i) unnecessarily broad in scope. And (iii) doesn't necessarily require weapons of mass destruction, does it? The deaths of nearly 3,000 people in NYC clearly affected the conduct of a government by mass destruction without being nuclear-sized. I guess that depends on your definition of "mass destruction," though. But to me, the most squirrely part of that piece of law is the idea of "appear to be intended" - to show intent is one thing, and a rather difficult thing at that. To suggest that it "looks" like someone wants to be a terrorist seems far less rigorous and far more open to abuse.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:40 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:But it really does just return us to the question of motive, which apart from "He says his worldview is muslim on a social website, muslims have an assumed motivation for terrorism ("they hate our freedom" etc)" there doesn't seem to be anything out there that addresses motive atm.


I don't know how accurate they were, but there were some early reports that his youtube channel had a playlist (IIRC) called "terrorism".


But were those the surviving bomber's channel or the deceased bomber?

If terrorism vs mass murder is defined by intent (it may not be but it seems to be the case by what I read here), if it is carried out by multiple people can each person be charged differently?

Most of what I have heard was about the deceased bomber. How Russia raised warnings about him, about him being tired of living in America etc.

I have heard very little of the back story for the surviving bomber. Though I may have just twisted all of that up if I mistook a report on one as a report on the other due to their same last name and my inability to remember their first names.


I thought it was the surviving guy but I'm not sure. Also, someone told me that they'd heard that, like some of the twitter accounts, that youtube channel was a fake. So, I don't know. Things still seem quite confused.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby omgryebread » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:52 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:That's a bit of legal I was unaware of; if a case is being tried by Federal prosecutors, state laws don't apply?

I suppose that makes sense though.
All state law says in this case is that no crime carries the death penalty. So Massachusetts will almost certainly charge Tsarnaev with various charges and ask for life in prison without possibility of parole. The federal government, meanwhile will charge him with various crimes (though probably not murder, even though they could) which do carry the death penalty. State law doesn't prevent federal law from working. (It couldn't do so anyway.)

So he'll end up standing trial for both, getting life in prison from Massachusetts, then being sent to the federal death row in Indiana when all his appeals in federal court are spent.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:49 pm UTC

WibblyWobbly wrote:Why does coercion have to be present? Point (i) says "to intimidate OR coerce a civilian population"


You're right that coercion isn't necessary, but there is still an apparent intent that needs to be present, which is motive. And we still don't know what that was.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:59 pm UTC

So he has been charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in the United States resulting in death. The definition for that crime is here.

Question for clintonius: Does the fact that Tsarnaev has appeared before a magistrate judge imply that he's been informed of his right to representation at this point? Or is it possible to do this without Mirandizing?

Edit: Question settled by reading the transcript. The judge Mirandizes you at this hearing.
Last edited by TheGrammarBolshevik on Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:26 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Brace » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:08 pm UTC

Am I right in my reading that there's no mandatory minimum sentence for that crime?
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby sardia » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:17 pm UTC

Brace wrote:Am I right in my reading that there's no mandatory minimum sentence for that crime?

Is there a problem when a jury/judge has flexibility in sentencing? Were you hoping for a California 3 strikes rule?

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby omgryebread » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:58 pm UTC

I don't know if it was mentioned before in the thread, so here we go to set up more current news: Bunch of Republicans want Tsarnaev tried in military court as an enemy combatant.


Which leads us into this: Tsarnaev will not be tried as an enemy combatant.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:01 pm UTC

I don't feel comfortable with the government having the power to make people disappear, even if they really are bad people who 'deserve' to disappear.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby morriswalters » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:05 pm UTC

Somebody should shove a sock in their mouths, neither are fit to serve in the senate.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:23 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Which leads us into this: Tsarnaev will not be tried as an enemy combatant.
"Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions," he said.
Didn't realize he was a citizen. That makes things easier.

Graham and McCain are just stupid. This guy's face is everywhere, we can't just throw him in Gitmo and hope everyone forgets about him.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Brace » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Brace wrote:Am I right in my reading that there's no mandatory minimum sentence for that crime?

Is there a problem when a jury/judge has flexibility in sentencing? Were you hoping for a California 3 strikes rule?


No. I just find it odd that there are crimes where the judge absolutely has to give a 10 year sentence even for a first offense, but then something like this, where people are actually killed, could be literally anything from one year in prison to the death penalty. We have mandatory sentencing for breaking drug laws, don't we? Granted that's horrible, but I recoil even more at the inconsistency.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby cphite » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:I don't know if it was mentioned before in the thread, so here we go to set up more current news: Bunch of Republicans want Tsarnaev tried in military court as an enemy combatant.


Which leads us into this: Tsarnaev will not be tried as an enemy combatant.


He should absolutely not be tried in military court. He is a US citizen. A horrible, despicable US citizen - but a citizen nonetheless. As such he has a right to due process just like any other citizen.

We do not want the government deciding which citizens get due process and which do not, no matter what the circumstances.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Diadem » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:14 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:It sounds like this is going to be a federal case, not a state case. As far as I understand it, that means the death penalty is still an option.

Which I still think is a pretty terrible thing. The death penalty is barbaric, of course, we already knew that. But now it appears states aren't even allowed to abolish it, at least not in practice. That's just sick. I really can't fathom the mindset of a federal government that would go "Oh, wait, you want to treat this person humanely? No, we absolutely can not allow that!", and a people that, apparently, aren't just allowing it, but cheering about it.

Also:
cphite wrote:We do not want the government deciding which citizens people get due process and which do not, no matter what the circumstances.

Fixed that for you.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:48 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Which I still think is a pretty terrible thing. The death penalty is barbaric, of course, we already knew that. But now it appears states aren't even allowed to abolish it, at least not in practice. That's just sick. I really can't fathom the mindset of a federal government that would go "Oh, wait, you want to treat this person humanely? No, we absolutely can not allow that!", and a people that, apparently, aren't just allowing it, but cheering about it.

That's an incredibly tendentious reading of federalism. Tsarnaev is not being tried under federal law for the sake of treating him inhumanely. He is being tried under federal law because he committed federal crimes, because the federal government has more resources, and because the federal government traditionally prosecutes suspected acts of terrorism. It is also wrong to suggest that the federal government is attempting to undermine Massachusetts' abolition of the death penalty. The State of Massachusetts simply does not have the power to set the penalties for federal crimes; when it abolished the death penalty, it therefore abolished the death penalty under the laws of Massacusetts, but not for any crime under any law that happens to take place in jurisdiction. Thus if Georgia decides that it wants to abolish penalties for hate crimes, it also does not have the right to prevent the federal government from carrying out those prosecutions.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby clintonius » Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:00 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
WibblyWobbly wrote:Why does coercion have to be present? Point (i) says "to intimidate OR coerce a civilian population"
You're right that coercion isn't necessary, but there is still an apparent intent that needs to be present, which is motive. And we still don't know what that was.
Statutory interpretation is a nitpicky business. Here, "appear to be intended" is vitally distinct from "were intended." The latter requires showing the defendant's actual ("subjective") intent, while the former requires only "objective" intent - basically, how a "reasonable person" would interpret the act. It's possible that Tsarnaev wanted nothing more than to get his face on the news. However, I think you'd have an uphill battle arguing that a reasonable person would not view bombing the finish line of the Boston Marathon as "intended to intimidate... the civilian population."

But the point is moot, as this isn't the charge they're bringing.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:So he has been charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in the United States resulting in death. The definition for that crime is here.

Question for clintonius: Does the fact that Tsarnaev has appeared before a magistrate judge imply that he's been informed of his right to representation at this point? Or is it possible to do this without Mirandizing?
Yes and yes. Explanation below. If you just want the short answer, the transcript of his appearance reveals that Tsernaev had a Federal Defender present, and that the Judge informed him of his Constitutional rights, which is standard procedure for an initial appearance. However, this is not the same as being read your Miranda rights after an arrest.

Explanation: The Miranda rights are actually separate from the right to counsel that comes from the Sixth Amendment right. The Miranda right to counsel applies only to "custodial interrogation." It's not actually a Constitutional right to counsel. Rather, it is a prophylactic measure against compelled self-incrimination, per the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, and so testimony given without counsel present violates the Fifth Amendment and will be excluded from trial.

The other and larger right to counsel, the Sixth Amendment right, attaches "upon commencement of adversary proceedings" and applies for the duration of the case. A preliminary hearing like what occurred today usually satisfies the definition of an adversary proceeding. Thus, it requires the defendant to be informed of his right to counsel, or the least to have counsel there from the beginning of the hearing. It looks like Tsarnaev met his lawyer just before the hearing.

It's possible to get to the preliminary hearing without being read the Miranda rights as such. A long-standing exception to Miranda means the government did not need to Mirandize before questioning about matters of immediate public safety, like whether there were additional bombs planted around the city. If they go outside the scope of that questioning, his answers to questions outside that scope will be excluded from trial. It is entirely possible that they dealt with public safety issue and ceased questioning without ever Mirandizing him, hence "yes and yes" above.

Brace wrote:Am I right in my reading that there's no mandatory minimum sentence for that crime?
That looks to be correct. Mandatory minimums are actually quite rare.

Diadem wrote:I really can't fathom the mindset of a federal government that would go "Oh, wait, you want to treat this person humanely? No, we absolutely can not allow that!", and a people that, apparently, aren't just allowing it, but cheering about it.
I'll respond to the part that TGB left alone: "A people"? We aren't all cheering about it, and the fact that the death penalty still exists doesn't mean there aren't plenty of us trying their damnedest to abolish it again. You have a special gift for alienating those of us who might actually agree with you, but have a hard time abiding your personal attacks against us. Kindly knock it off.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:22 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Thesh wrote:It sounds like this is going to be a federal case, not a state case. As far as I understand it, that means the death penalty is still an option.

Which I still think is a pretty terrible thing. The death penalty is barbaric, of course, we already knew that. But now it appears states aren't even allowed to abolish it, at least not in practice. That's just sick. I really can't fathom the mindset of a federal government that would go "Oh, wait, you want to treat this person humanely? No, we absolutely can not allow that!", and a people that, apparently, aren't just allowing it, but cheering about it.


I highly doubt that every person injured in those blasts is a Mass citizen. There is a reasonable federal interest in this case, given the scope of the crimes. There is ALSO a reasonable state interest, and yes, he may well be tried for crimes by both. I'm sure there is no shortage of possible charges to be brought.

There are good arguments for dispensing with the death penalty, but in this particular case, federalism wouldn't appear to be terribly threatened by this development. I would imagine that, given the overwelming nature of the evidence, he's gonna get convicted of...rather a lot. The defense will be mostly interested in preventing the death penalty, given that getting him off the hook altogether is wildly unlikely. Also, the lawyer defending him will likely become a notorious, if unpopular figure.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Bombing at Boston Marathon Finish Line.

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:33 am UTC

clintonius wrote:But the point is moot, as this isn't the charge they're bringing.


Yeah, but, continuing the nitpicky business, it reads like a grenade can be a destructive device can be a weapon of mass destruction. That seems like an incredibly shitty lack of distinction to me. I mean, a grenade and a weapon of mass destruction should be different things under the law, shouldn't they?
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests