Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[Jodie]

If I were in this guy's position, I would play dumb. I would say that my brother told me that the Russian revolutionaries were coming for our family if there was no follow through with the plan. My brother couldn't do it alone so I helped him even though I didn't want to do it, and that I had regrets. If I reported it to the FBI the revolutionaries would have killed us all anyway, I felt I had no choice.

 

[triforcharity]

I think rights are earned and shouldn't be automatically bestowed in a case like this, there was a confession and multiple witnesses. Coming over here to take advantage of what our society offers and then blowing us to kingdom come for who knows what reason, he forfeits.

No. He doesn't. He is entitled to those rights, no matter WHAT he's been accused of. If we did that, our justice systems fails, completely. We've now become what we abhor. No go ma'am.

As much as I want to see this scum hung from a tall tree, we still have to give him his due process, and respect his rights.

 

[newyorkguy]

This guy is already guilty...

I asked you how you know that, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in fact guilty?

It's a serious question and I'd still like to know. Because it goes directly to the core of the concept of presumption of innocence. You're ready to ship this man off to be executed or imprisoned for life based on a set of facts that you have no way of knowing are true. You seem unaware that your presumption of guilt is based on media reports and your own understandable anger at the events.

Don't misunderstand me. I too believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be the second bomber. But I don't know that he is. I can envision a scenario where the facts may turn out not to be as they appear on the surface. That's why I want to see him tried in a court of law. As I know he certainly will be.

 

[triforcharity]

Why not just send him home to Russia and let them handle it as they see fit? If he forfeits his rights here then he doesn't need to be here.

Because of the simple fact that he committed an atrocious crime here, and as such, he needs to be held responsible HERE. Not in Russia.

 

[Craig B]

You lose your rights when you go through the trial process and are found to be guilty. This guy is already guilty, I can't see how a good outcome can result from this point on. Going through the legal process would be going through the motions. It won't mean anything in this guy's case. ...

Wow! Please be careful. Is the rule of law in the USA in more danger from within than from without?

 

[triforcharity]

No, I didn't get that he was a citizen but even so, if I kill someone then I don't deserve my rights as a law abiding citizen.

No, you DO deserve those RIGHTS. That's why they're called RIGHTS. Not options, or anything else. RIGHTS. Nowhere in the BOR does it say that you've got to be a law abiding citizen to enjoy those rights. Especially the 5th Amendment right to a fair trial, and to be innocent before proven guilty.

If I can't play fair why should I expect fair treatment?

That's why we're America, and not some uncivilized third world country.

Not really surprised, but I wonder how generous they would be with their prayers if it was one of their family or friends that was hurt or killed?

Knowing many Christians the way I do, I doubt it would change much.

 

[Doctor Plop]

If convicted he should be made to run a marathon, and be blown up just before the finishing line.

 

[ponderingturtle]

MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lindsay Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally I'm against it. I think we tread a dangerous path when we start declaring some crimes to be above the normal legal procedures.

Drone strikes on hin are the clear answer.

 

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy
The police chief in Watertown Mass told CNN that a helicopter-mounted thermal imager was used to verify that the second Marathon bombing suspect was in a boat in a Watertown backyard and that he was alive, moving. The Watertown Chief said shots were exchanged with the suspect as officers moved in. A police negotiator, in the second floor of the home overlooking the boat in the backyard, then attempted to get the suspect to surrender. Which he finally did. Chief Ed Deveau said officers ordered the suspect to stand up and open his shirt because they feared he might be wearing an explosive device. He was not. Link

That doesn't appear there.

What doesn't appear there? The interview with Chief Deveau? I don't think I said it did, did I? The link was to a thermal image from the helicopter, a Massachusetts State Police helicopter I believe.

As I mentioned, Deveau was interviewed on the air several times by CNN. I watched this, I didn't read it. For some reason I could only find a written report by CNN on Deavau's interview as to events surrounding the initial confrontation with officers early Friday morning. Not his description of the capture of the younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, on Friday evening.

At any rate, I did find a description of that arrest in an LA Times story:

When Tsarnaev didn't respond to the negotiator, police began to throw in "flashbangs," which are explosive devices used to stun or disorient people. "We continued to lob those in, at least three to four times," Deveau said. "Eventually it worked, because after about 20 minutes, he showed himself." Afraid that Tsarnaev was going to detonate a suicide vest, authorities told him to lift his shirt. When he did, they saw he wasn't wearing any explosives. From his porch, [Bob Glatz, 46, who lives in a third-floor condominium on Franklin Street] saw police begin to move in.

Link

I had seen Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz interviewed on CNN where he questioned the accuracy of the reported scenario for the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. With some justification I suppose, because law enforcement sometimes tends to overstate the resistance it meets when making an arrest. So Dershowitz being a defense lawyer naturally had some skepticism. Second, it wasn't clear I don't think whether Chief Deveau's account was based on his being at the scene or on second-hand information.

 

[Jodie]

No. He doesn't. He is entitled to those rights, no matter WHAT he's been accused of. If we did that, our justice systems fails, completely. We've now become what we abhor. No go ma'am.

As much as I want to see this scum hung from a tall tree, we still have to give him his due process, and respect his rights.

Our justice system fails on many levels already every single day. I'ld be more concerned about the innocent person of lower socioeconomic status accused of a crime who can only afford a public defender, an attorney that may or may not put forth any effort to provide adequate representation, that isn't fair or equal as it is.

 

[Jodie]

I asked you how you know that, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in fact guilty?

It's a serious question and I'd still like to know. Because it goes directly to the core of the concept of presumption of innocence. You're ready to ship this man off to be executed or imprisoned for life based on a set of facts that you have no way of knowing are true. You seem unaware that your presumption of guilt is based on media reports and your own understandable anger at the events.

Don't misunderstand me. I too believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be the second bomber. But I don't know that he is. I can envision a scenario where the facts may turn out not to be as they appear on the surface. That's why I want to see him tried in a court of law. As I know he certainly will be.

Mind you I am not following this as closely as some of you, I had heard there was a confession, that they had video tape and witnesses.

 

[triforcharity]

What doesn't appear there? The interview with Chief Deveau? I don't think I said it did, did I? The link was to a thermal image from the helicopter, a Massachusetts State Police helicopter I believe.

As I mentioned, Deveau was interviewed on the air several times by CNN. I watched this, I didn't read it. For some reason I could only find a written report by CNN on Deavau's interview as to events surrounding the initial confrontation with officers early Friday morning. Not his description of the capture of the younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, on Friday evening.

At any rate, I did find a description of that arrest in an LA Times story:
Link

I had seen Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz interviewed on CNN where he questioned the accuracy of the reported scenario for the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. With some justification I suppose, because law enforcement sometimes tends to overstate the resistance it meets when making an arrest. So Dershowitz being a defense lawyer naturally had some skepticism. Second, it wasn't clear I don't think whether Chief Deveau's account was based on his being at the scene or on second-hand information.

Thank you. I wasn't aware that he did actually surrender, but it appears that he did. Interesting. Not that it will help him any in court.

 

[Jodie]

Because of the simple fact that he committed an atrocious crime here, and as such, he needs to be held responsible HERE. Not in Russia.

In order to over tax an already overstressed justice system both fiscally and literally? In my mind justice would be served to send him back to the country he was born in. That way he can figure out if his actions were truly justified based on his experiences with the way that society functions moving forward.
I don't think even the KGB, or whatever passes for secret service over there, would be comfortable giving him a free pass.

 

[Jodie]

Wow! Please be careful. Is the rule of law in the USA in more danger from within than from without?

Sure you do, you are no longer free to walk the streets and do what you please. You are either incarcerated, or in some states, receive the death penalty. That's a forfeiture of rights no matter what you want to call it.

 

[Jodie]

No, you DO deserve those RIGHTS. That's why they're called RIGHTS. Not options, or anything else. RIGHTS. Nowhere in the BOR does it say that you've got to be a law abiding citizen to enjoy those rights. Especially the 5th Amendment right to a fair trial, and to be innocent before proven guilty.



That's why we're America, and not some uncivilized third world country.



Knowing many Christians the way I do, I doubt it would change much.

Rights are bestowed and based on whether you play by the rules. The right to a fair trial only means that depending on the results do you continue to enjoy those rights freely, in essence they are taken away from you.

We are rapidly on our way to becoming a third world country from an economic stand point, in case you didn't notice.

Christian charity is usually only extended in direct proportion to the monetary and emotional cost for the said christian.

 

[Toke]

A few years ago there was a case in the US where a car ran into and killed some pedestrians.
Enraged bystanders dragged the driver and passenger out of the car and beat them to death.

 

[triforcharity]

Our justice system fails on many levels already every single day. I'ld be more concerned about the innocent person of lower socioeconomic status accused of a crime who can only afford a public defender, an attorney that may or may not put forth any effort to provide adequate representation, that isn't fair or equal as it is.

Our justice system is not perfect. There isn't one on the planet that is.

A public defender may not put forth 100% effort, true, but then the defendant has grounds for an appeal and overturning of his conviction on ineffective or inadequate council, which then a conflict attorney will be appointed, which is usually a private attorney, and the state picks up the bill.

But what you're suggesting happen goes completely against our entire basis of justice. It completely circumvents the judicial process and advocates a "lynch mob" basically, where there is no due process, no rights, nothing. I'm absolutely appalled that anyone would suggest we adopt that type of system. Somalia has a similar system.

 

[triforcharity]

As an aside, the USG is putting the final touches on charges for this scum. They are most likely going to officially file charges today.

Not State charges, but federal charges.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...nday-for-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect?lite

 

[triforcharity]

In order to over tax an already overstressed justice system both fiscally and literally?

Irrelevant. That is the price that we pay to protect the rights of ALL who live in this country.

In my mind justice would be served to send him back to the country he was born in.

And what about the victims here, who now get no justice, no closure. Nothing.

That way he can figure out if his actions were truly justified based on his experiences with the way that society functions moving forward.
I don't think even the KGB, or whatever passes for secret service over there, would be comfortable giving him a free pass.

This just amazes me. Wow. I'm really hoping you work nowhere near our justice system. This cannot happen.

 

[Craig B]

Sure you do, you are no longer free to walk the streets and do what you please. You are either incarcerated, or in some states, receive the death penalty. That's a forfeiture of rights no matter what you want to call it.

If you are subject to the death penalty in the USA for walking in the streets, I can understand your concern about the state of things in your country. That is indeed a "forfeiture of rights". I had no idea things have gone that far! I hope you get a fair trial before they strap you in the the Chair for such an offence.

We are rapidly on our way to becoming a third world country from an economic stand point, in case you didn't notice.

I must admit I didn't. From here on the other side of the Atlantic the USA still looks like a mighty economic empire.