Boston Bombing, Boston Marathon April 15th

  • Thread starter Spagetti69
  • 1,061 comments
  • 53,691 views
Conveniently sidestepping the rest of my post, do you not think capital punishment is a demonstration of absolute power and judgement, hypocritical given the nature of the crimes it punishes, more than it is a deterrent?

You didn't ask me for a response nor ask me any questions. I'm supposed to read your mind that you want me to respond directly to your post?

You find it immoral, arrogant and hypocritical, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to not care about it. As I said, from my point of view it is just(ice) or revenge or whatever you prefer. I don't care if it's a deterrent or not. In my view, if one sets out to deliberately kill people you lose your right to life. Of course it's a demonstration of absolute power and judgement, I thought that was the function of the courts, to listen to evidence and pass judgement.
 
Yeah i had seen that last night. That is Martial Law right there. No exuse that is Martial Law



Here fixed that for you.

Thank you, that is the video. Bull:censored: if you ask me.
 
People of watertown didnt mind.

But i dont like the slippery slope we may have just stepped on with it either.
 
Slashfan
Thank you, that is the video. Bull:censored: if you ask me.

It is the exact definition of Martial Law.

Only thing would make it even worse is if the people in that house continued to say "No you may not come into my house" and they ended up getting killed. And under Martial Law it would be legal
 
It is the exact definition of Martial Law.

Only thing would make it even worse is if the people in that house continued to say "No you may not come into my house" and they ended up getting killed. And under Martial Law it would be legal

It's totally martial law.

When a few neighborhood blocks are only being searched, and they knocked on the door, waited for someone to answer, stated why they were there, asked if they could enter, then proceeded to do nothing more then search basements and attics for someone who only hours earlier, was shooting at police and throwing bombs at them, and days before, committed an act of terrorism at a peaceful, charitable event.

Totally eroding civilians' rights, though! That's why people were CHEERING and high fiving police when they drove through town after they caught him.
 
I can understand their cause but if someone says no, that looks extremely suspicious.
 
There is no cause and effect relationship established there. Isn't it possible the States with the death penalty always had a higher murder rate and that's what drove them to institute or retain the death penalty?

Of course, and most of them (especially in the south) did have a higher murder rate (above U.S average). We also need to remember that even states that still allow the death penalty are using it less and less.

Interesting to note though that since 1997 the graphs are moving much closer together and the rate of decline in states with the death penalty is actually higher.

Are we looking at the same graph? Since 1997 murder rates have been pretty constant - states without the death penalty having around 4 murders per 100,000 population and states with the death penalty having around 6 murders per 100,000 population.

And in the last few years there has been a significant drop in death penalty states while the non-death penalty states have had a slight uptick. In fact, if the recent trend continues, the two graphs will crossover soon. Perhaps it has been a deterrent the last 15 years after all.

Guess what else there was a significant drop in over those last few years? That's right, state executions! 2008 (where the graph shows a decline in the murder rate in states with the death penalty) was a 13-year low in state executions. So if the recent trend of not using the death penalty continues, the plotted data will soon crossover!

My response is the same. I think the death penalty is appropriate justice in many cases. You can call it revenge if you like, that word carries no negative connotation to me. Child molestors, planned murders, mulitple murderers, cops, serial rapists..etc..I have no problem with their execution. Being a deterrent is a bonus for me, not a prerequisite.

Getting away from boring statistics, what about the most important issue - the very real risk of executing an innocent person? This is my main concern with the death penalty, because it is so final.
 
Thank you, that is the video. Bull:censored: if you ask me.

Says the guy wanting public executions :rolleyes:

Because if you want to use fear to govern people, these tend to go hand in hand.


And will you please stop these useless posts? They contribute to nothing but your post count.

And before you claim you aren't doing this often, around 20 of your last 100 posts have been "I agree" or "I agree with this"

Generally followed 2 or 3 posts later by you explaining why, or having changed your mind.
 
It's times like this when our resolve to uphold the bill of rights is tested - and that resolve usually fails. Martial law is a nice term used to describe suspension of rights for convenience.
 
Theres a thousand things that make them different, so what? Both cases are examples of terror survivors being offered the option of seeing the responsible parties 'ended'. In Bin Ladens case it was the closest approximation; a photo of the top of his head blown off.
Let's just ignore this little fact first off; I made no mention of Bin Laden's death originally, so nothing you said had any relevance to my post.
Secondly, Bin Laden's death photo was leaked across the internet (much like the dead brother).

Third & the most important fact, viewing a photo is not the same as viewing an execution. Bin Laden's death was not even an execution. An execution is typically putting to death by a sentencing. Bin Laden was not sentenced to death by law, he was killed by 2 bullets to the head trying to hide behind an arguable hostage. If viewing a photo of a dead man who was killed is similar in any way to viewing an execution, then there have been hundreds of public "executions" for years.


As if I need to give any more reason as to why I used McVeigh as an example beyond all this, if Dzhokhar is sentenced to death & it will be viewable, it will be done in the same circumstances as McVeigh's; media & family members.

It will not be shown to the public, much to Slashfan's dismay.
 
It will not be shown to the public, much to Slashfan's dismay.

I merely posted that our government offered the 9/11 survivors some solace, if they wanted it, of seeing Bin L's corpse = No, it doesnt bring the loved ones back, but yes, if it makes you feel better: heres his dead body. And McVeighs victims were allowed to watch his execution = No, it doesnt bring the loved ones back, but yes, you can watch if it makes you feel better.

I honestly dont know why you felt a need to contrast my post with your own. Its as if you are trying to be 'right' or something. I dont give a damn anyway, but its good to know there are mental wizards like you out there to set the record straight in the event someone sees a similarity that has mathematically zero possibility of actually existing in your world. Looking at a photo doesnt bring a loved one back. Actually watching a murderer be executed doesnt bring a loved one back. And neither does trying to prove to me that you are right is saying there is no similarity there, so whats your point with all the corrections?

But since you're so acutely alert to whats relevant or not relevant: where is McVeigh now? I know he's dead, but what does that mean.. what happens after death? Oh I'm sorry-- your framework of facts ends suddenly, doesnt it. You dont have a clue, do you. Youre probably a specialist in only whats right in front of your face, arent you. Why is the 'where is McVeigh now' question relevant? You'll find out for yourself, I promise you. But if you knew now, it would answer lots of questions you are ignorant about.
 
Last edited:
Don't know if you guys will be able to see it but...
What, exactly, are you trying to prove?

Yeah i had seen that last night. That is Martial Law right there. No exuse that is Martial Law
Do you actually know what martial law is?

Here's a definition:
Martial law is usually imposed on a temporary basis when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively
How, exactly, were the civilian government and civilian authorities supposed to be able to deal with Tsarnaev?
 
@Prisonermonkeys

I'm not trying to prove anything, I just thought tha it was a bit strange that civilians were being forced out of their homes at gunpoint rather than what they were telling the media they were doing....which was walking up to homes, presenting I.D. and asking to search. Clearly in the video they just march right in,
 
I merely posted that our government offered the 9/11 survivors some solace, if they wanted it, of seeing Bin L's corpse = No, it doesnt bring the loved ones back, but yes, if it makes you feel better: heres his dead body. And McVeighs victims were allowed to watch his execution = No, it doesnt bring the loved ones back, but yes, you can watch if it makes you feel better.
Grasping for straws to justify why you even responded to my post in the first place when again, I mentioned nothing that had to do with Bin Laden's death. I picked the most similar situation to what will happen to Dzhokhar; McVeigh's.

The rest of your post is just gibberish that continues to attempt at re-enforcing an irrelevant point. And helpful advice next time; think before you post such a dimwitted thought-out final paragraph. You're trying to make some kind of point that I don't know what happened to McVeigh after his death & how it has something to do with your post when you don't have any more of a clue than I do. :rolleyes:

C- for effort.
 
Yeah but we already know who we are dealing with here, so it's not really necessary to go into specifics. Saves your fingers at least from typing Muslim over and over again. Leave that to CNN and others.
 
Yeah but we already know who we are dealing with here, so it's not really necessary to go into specifics. Saves your fingers at least from typing Muslim over and over again. Leave that to CNN and others.

I appreciate your effort at saving me the 6 keystrokes and 1.84 seconds it takes to type the words, "Muslim terrorists", that is very thoughful of you, but I believe I'll continue to use the phrase just the same. If it proves to be inaccurate, feel free to let me know.

And unless you happen to have first hand knowledge of the Muslim terrorists and the events in Boston, you really don't know who you are dealing with here do you?
 
I appreciate your effort at saving me the 6 keystrokes and 1.84 seconds it takes to type the words, "Muslim terrorists", that is very thoughful of you, but I believe I'll continue to use the phrase just the same. If it proves to be inaccurate, feel free to let me know.

And unless you happen to have first hand knowledge of of the events in Boston, you really don't know who you are dealing with here do you?

I don't know what the FBI has said so far entirely to the public, but I know we're dealing with a radicalized kid and his dead brother. That and paranoia at the moment. I could ask that same question to you however.

FYI, terrorism is just terrorism at the end of the day. Doesn't really need titles like Muslim or IRA or The League of Shadows or Cobra.
 
Who knows, maybe it will turn out that he's also a video game playing terrorist, or a vegetarian terrorist, at which point of course it's a good idea to refer to him as the video game playing, vegetarian, Muslim terrorist. You can never be too specific.
 
Last edited:
Back