Charged in Federal Court

U

USFREEDOM911

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
There was some recent discussion as to which Court would take jurisdiction in the Marathon Bombing case.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Marathon bombing suspect, charged in federal court with using a weapon of mass destruction

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged today with using a weapon of mass destruction in the April 15 attacks that ripped through a crowd at the finish line of the world-renowned race, killing three people and injuring scores of others

Tsarnaev’s initial court appearance was conducted today by a federal magistrate judge in his hospital room. Tsarnaev was able to respond to inquiries, nodding yes and at one point saying, “No,” according to a transcript of the hearing. A person familiar with the proceeding said Tsarnaev had mouthed the word.

Tsarnaev also faces a charge of malicious destruction of property resulting in death. The charges carry the possibility of the death penalty or life in prison for the 19-year-old Cambridge man, who is listed in serious condition at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after suffering multiple gunshot wounds before his capture by police on Friday.

The federal public defender’s office has been assigned to the case. Miriam Conrad, the chief public defender, had no comment.

He could still face charges in the City of Boston, Suffolk County and the State of Massachusetts.

It was suggested that while he may face the death penalty; he will never receive it, as part of a plea deal to get information.

He's 19 and will probably live the rest of his life (60+ years) in a PC cell and under 24 hour suicide watch; which we'll all get to pay for.
 
i'll end up pissing everybody off with this one, but i'd have to acquit on the weapons of mass destruction charge. a pressure cooker is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. end of story.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i'll end up pissing everybody off with this one, but i'd have to acquit on the weapons of mass destruction charge. a pressure cooker is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. end of story.
Click to expand...

While it might be a stretch, there are arguments that it does fit the criteria.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.
 
given that definition, every IED in Iraq and afghanistan is a WMD. a grenade is a WMD. a large enough molatov can be a WMD. I mean, really. that's like idiot blue state legislators defining a BB gun as a firearm.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
given that definition, every IED in Iraq and afghanistan is a WMD. a grenade is a WMD. a large enough molatov can be a WMD. I mean, really. that's like idiot blue state legislators defining a BB gun as a firearm.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't the items you mentioned, outside of the BB Gun, be classified as WMD, if that's the intent?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i'll end up pissing everybody off with this one, but i'd have to acquit on the weapons of mass destruction charge. a pressure cooker is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. end of story.
Click to expand...

It is under federal law. Basically, under federal law any bomb-like device is a WMD. It doesn't mean what we typically think of - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Why shouldn't the items you mentioned, outside of the BB Gun, be classified as WMD, if that's the intent?
Click to expand...
WMDs initial perception was deaths and injuries in the thousands, like nukes and chem weapons. If humanity is shitminded enough to whittle away serious terms to a banal usage of any death, it loses all meaning. Sort of like terrorism.
 
Dungheap said:
It is under federal law. Basically, under federal law any bomb-like device is a WMD. It doesn't mean what we typically think of - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
again, are we that shitminded enough that we require a legislative entity to tell us what things are and are not? I don't need congress telling me that a BB gun is a firearm when it isn't, nor do I need the courts telling me orwellian crap like the word 'penalty' in some law is actually a tax. It offends my intelligence and should offend yours.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, are we that shitminded enough that we require a legislative entity to tell us what things are and are not? I don't need congress telling me that a BB gun is a firearm when it isn't, nor do I need the courts telling me orwellian crap like the word 'penalty' in some law is actually a tax. It offends my intelligence and should offend yours.
Click to expand...

Well, if what the guy did meets the statutory definition of WMD, not the STY definition, then the charges are perfectly appropriate notwithstanding that you think the statutory definition is stupid.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, if what the guy did meets the statutory definition of WMD, not the STY definition, then the charges are perfectly appropriate notwithstanding that you think the statutory definition is stupid.
Click to expand...
so I take it that you're intelligence is not offended by idiots in congress telling you what is and isn't, despite the obvious. that's the problem with alot of you establishment types. you either NEED someone to tell you whats what, or you choose to accept their commandments because it fits with your agenda.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so I take it that you're intelligence is not offended by idiots in congress telling you what is and isn't, despite the obvious. that's the problem with alot of you establishment types. you either NEED someone to tell you whats what, or you choose to accept their commandments because it fits with your agenda.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that Congress gets to define what terms mean as a general matter as opposed to what words mean solely for purposes of federal statutory law. I suffer from no such confusion. That's why I don't give a goddamn how Congress defines WMD and understand that so long as what the guy is accused of doing meets that definition, regardless of how stupid the definition is, he was appropriately chrarged, which he was.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
WMDs initial perception was deaths and injuries in the thousands, like nukes and chem weapons. If humanity is shitminded enough to whittle away serious terms to a banal usage of any death, it loses all meaning. Sort of like terrorism.
Click to expand...

Many desciptions that were brought about for a specific item or situation have been reclassified.

Look at what used to designate someone getting a DUI.
 
Dungheap said:
You seem to think that Congress gets to define what terms mean as a general matter as opposed to what words mean solely for purposes of federal statutory law. I suffer from no such confusion. That's why I don't give a goddamn how Congress defines WMD and understand that so long as what the guy is accused of doing meets that definition, regardless of how stupid the definition is, he was appropriately chrarged, which he was.
Click to expand...
your juxtaposition of terms and stances shows that I am exactly right in my thinking of you. Where you get the notion that I seem to think congress gets to define terms is nothing short of ignorance of obfuscation on your part. I have said no such thing, in fact my issue is YOU seeming to believe you NEED congress to define your terms. Then also, you clearly show that you're quite comfortable with congress doing such defining when it suits your agenda, such as charging someone with using a WMD when they used a pressure cooker.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Many desciptions that were brought about for a specific item or situation have been reclassified.

Look at what used to designate someone getting a DUI.
Click to expand...
this is my point. nobody in their right mind would think that sleeping in the front seat of a car because you've been drinking should be a charge of DUI, but since that's the 'letter of the law', people sheepishly accept it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is my point. nobody in their right mind would think that sleeping in the front seat of a car because you've been drinking should be a charge of DUI, but since that's the 'letter of the law', people sheepishly accept it.
Click to expand...

So how does something that injures around 180 people, not meet the critera of a WMD.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So a bomb isn't a WMD, unless it harms around 1800 people?
Click to expand...
if a bomb harms 18 people, is it a WMD? if a bomb harms nobody, is it a WMD?

The relevant section of Title 18 of the US Code specifies that the term "weapon of mass destruction" applies to the following "destructive devices": "[A]ny incendiary, explosive, 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 ... any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter...."
Click to expand...

do you not see an issue with this vague and all consuming definition of a WMD??
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if a bomb harms 18 people, is it a WMD? if a bomb harms nobody, is it a WMD?



do you not see an issue with this vague and all consuming definition of a WMD??
Click to expand...

I believe it also has to with the intent and the availablity to carry out the intent.

Didn't seem vague to me.
What part confused you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top