DocM Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I'm actually rather concerned about how this is being handled. AFAIK, no other bomber in the US, even the Oklahoma bomber, has been charged with using WMD's; and regular bombs aren't actually classed as WMD's by anyone. But, seeing as MASS doesn't actually have a death penalty, suddenly they've decided to reclassify them as WMD's and charge him under a federal offense so that they can apply for the death sentence. > Your lack of knowledge of US law is showing, again. WMD under international law != WMD under US criminal law. In international law a WMD is a simply a strategic seapon that causes a high order of destruction or death like a nuke, poison gas or chemical weapon. In US criminal law as it applies to acts of terrorism, a WMD's definition is much broader; ? any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses ? any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors ? any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector ? any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life. And these definitions were enacted after Oaklahoma City, so of course McVeigh wasn't charged under them, but others have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Americans won't see it, I pointed it out before and tehy're all for yet. bend the rules so we can get our blood. meanwhile this response, is what's lead America to where it is today with high crime and murder. this response is why they have issues with terrorists and bombers. And it lets the terrorists win. there are better ways to beat them. Our mass killer is no locked up, forever forced to watch how he not only failed to accomplish what he wanted, but accomplised the complete opposite, uniting the nation even closer, closer ties to our new countrymen. and while a few still talk of the changes he wanted, his platform of change has lost most of it's support and people. But yeah, if you think creating more martyrs is a good idea, go ahead, but don't come whining to use for help. don't come asking us to invade more "terrorist" countries because you made more enemies. Again you generalize. You do realize there are more people in this country than just the few that post on neowin right? adrynalyne and Tews 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So was the guy who killed 12 and injured 58 in Aurora with guns charged with WMD's ? Again you generalize. You do realize there are more people in this country than just the few that post on neowin right? generalizing based on the general opinion of the US population on internet (not just neowin) media and so on. theyarecomingforyou 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So was the guy who killed 12 and injured 58 in Aurora with guns charged with WMD's ? > No - because he was charged under the State homicide law, as most murderers are, not under the Federal terrorism law. The Feds only get involved in homicides when they're committed while breaking a Federal law, and not all of those meet the terrorism definition. McVeigh was charged under Federal law because he bombed a Federal office building, which gave them jurisdiction even without a "terrorism" distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So was the guy who killed 12 and injured 58 in Aurora with guns charged with WMD's ? generalizing based on the general opinion of the US population on internet (not just neowin) media and so on. I didn't realize they spoke for all of us, that's my bad. Tews and adrynalyne 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 General doesn't mean all, just general. No - because he was charged under the State homicide law, as most murderers are, not under the Federal terrorism law. The Feds only get involved in homicides when they're committed while breaking a Federal law, and not all of those meet the terrorism definition. He was as much a terrorist as these guys, just different weapon, more efficient on in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 No - because he was charged under the State homicide law, as most murderers are, not under the Federal terrorism law. The Feds only get involved in homicides when they're committed while breaking a Federal law, and not all of those meet the terrorism definition. McVeigh was charged under Federal law because he bombed a Federal office building, which gave them jurisdiction even without a "terrorism" distinction. Then why weren't the Oklahoma bombers charged similarly? They were never accused of using WMD's, despite using bombs and despite killing far more people. I know why -I- think, because they have a death sentence in OK, but not in MASS; that's the difference. Your gov want to execute this guy, so they're redefining things so they can get him on a harsher crime. They didn't need to in OK because they had a death sentence available. theyarecomingforyou 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendrick Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Then why weren't the Oklahoma bombers charged similarly? They were never accused of using WMD's, despite using bombs and despite killing far more people. I know why -I- think, because they have a death sentence in OK, but not in MASS; that's the difference. Your gov want to execute this guy, so they're redefining things so they can get him on a harsher crime. They didn't need to in OK because they had a death sentence available. Did you even read his post? And these definitions were enacted after Oaklahoma City, so of course McVeigh wasn't charged under them, but others have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted April 23, 2013 Global Moderator Share Posted April 23, 2013 Then why weren't the Oklahoma bombers charged similarly? They were never accused of using WMD's, despite using bombs and despite killing far more people. I know why -I- think, because they have a death sentence in OK, but not in MASS; that's the difference. Your gov want to execute this guy, so they're redefining things so they can get him on a harsher crime. They didn't need to in OK because they had a death sentence available. Yes they were....unless I'm totally misreading your post and the background (it is early) VERDICT THE COURT: In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68, United States of America vs. Timothy James McVeigh. We, the jury, upon our oaths unanimously find as follows: Count 1, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, guilty. Count 2, use of a weapon of mass destruction, guilty. http://law2.umkc.edu...ighverdict.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Different law. The one being used in Boston was enacted Jan. 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 ^ Funny, I looked that up before posting, and didn't see anything in the verdict about WMD's. Eh, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong; so be it. I still reckon though, that your gov and a lot of your people are far more interested in revenge than justice. theyarecomingforyou 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted April 23, 2013 Global Moderator Share Posted April 23, 2013 ^ Funny, I looked that up before posting, and didn't see anything in the verdict about WMD's. Eh, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong; so be it. I still reckon though, that your gov and a lot of your people are far more interested in revenge than justice. I'm sure some people will want "revenge"...but the government follow the due course of the law. I'd bet that his trial or whatever will drag out...he will be found guilty and then either be put to death or serve a life sentence. Either way...he will be off the streets. Granted...some politicians wanted him to tried as an enemy combatant where he would have been denied some protection under the US constitution....but in the end (since he is a US citizen) that couldn't be. Vykranth 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCracker Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Wrong. This person is suspected of killing innocent people, and should be tried in a court to ascertain the facts, and then, IF found guilty, punished according to the same laws you try other murderers. I'm sorry you side with lynch mob justice. Oh please, the guy was with his brother, he was in on it, there are pictures of him carrying a back pack with what probably is the bombs used, he was involved in a fire fight with the police.He backed over his own brother to get away and hid from the police. I'm pretty sure he had something to do with the killings. Take him to trial, he will be found guilty.. An innocent person does none of what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Oh please, the guy was with his brother, he was in on it, there are pictures of him carrying a back pack with what probably is the bombs used, he was involved in a fire fight with the police.He backed over his own brother to get away and hid from the police. I'm pretty sure he had something to do with the killings. Take him to trial, he will be found guilty.. An innocent person does none of what he did. Innocent until proven guilty, that's what your own legal system says. I'm not saying he's innocent, but until he's actually proven guilty in court, he's just a suspect. Of course, a fair trial requires a jury with no prejudice, which is going to be impossible to find... theyarecomingforyou 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 which is why so many countires are looking to go away from jury trials. the result is to unpredictable and to many guilt walk and to many innocent get jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCracker Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Innocent until proven guilty, that's what your own legal system says. I'm not saying he's innocent, but until he's actually proven guilty in court, he's just a suspect. Of course, a fair trial requires a jury with no prejudice, which is going to be impossible to find... He's going to get his day in court, hes going to be tried as a civilian.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCracker Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So apparently the reason why they did it is because the U.S wars. O..K so you kill innocent people because of some wars that happened. I know how screwed up neowin is so I wont be shocked when I see people say that the people deserved to die because of the U.S foreign policy. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPreston Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 He's going to get his day in court, hes going to be tried as a civilian.. No thanks to people like you. FlintyV 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCracker Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 No thanks to people like you. Save it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ph1b3r0pt1c Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Once again, its the world vs the US. Never fails on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted April 24, 2013 Member Share Posted April 24, 2013 Innocent until proven guilty, that's what your own legal system says. I'm not saying he's innocent, but until he's actually proven guilty in court, he's just a suspect. Of course, a fair trial requires a jury with no prejudice, which is going to be impossible to find... So true. The only way they could would be to try him in another country, which is not ever going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Came out today that - 1) the explosives were harvested from fireworks. The elder brother bought a re-loadable fireworks mortar and shells for it. 2) remote detonators were based on toy R/C cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted April 25, 2013 Member Share Posted April 25, 2013 Came out today that - 1) the explosives were harvested from fireworks. The elder brother bought a re-loadable fireworks mortar and shells for it. 2) remote detonators were based on toy R/C cars. Which means anyone could do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted April 25, 2013 Veteran Share Posted April 25, 2013 which is why so many countires are looking to go away from jury trials. the result is to unpredictable and to many guilt walk and to many innocent get jailed. and what if you have corrupt judges?... a jury is suppose to protect against that... problem is, either way you will have issues Which means anyone could do it. unless you live in Pennsylvania where you can't buy mortars without a permit.... we have Phantom Fireworks stores but PA residents with out a permit can't buy from them.. but yeah, if you have the ingredients you could even make your own firework mortars... the stuff isn't hard to get, knowing how to do it though, that's the deadly part... they make firework mortars in concrete bunkers just because of how volatile it can be, static could set it off easily... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Which means anyone could do it. Which means anyone could do it. And as I have tried to drive home SO many times, you cannot legislate safety. Anyone can make weapons, explosives, electronic timers, remote control devices etc. etc. from commonly sourced items. People who want to kill will find a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts