|
|
Post by redcase on Apr 21, 2013 8:38:32 GMT
Following a set of laws? What like he did? Fucking scum that doesnt deserve to be treated with any sort of humanity what so ever. I get why they didnt take him out but certainly wouldnt blame them if they put one between the eyes. Why should this vile cunt get any human rights when hes taken so many lives without justification, thoughts go to all those INNOCENT people, as far as im concerned I hope hes put in a room and beaten senseless, fucking terrorists deserve nothing less. This person deserves no special treatment nor does he deserve to breathe the same air as those hes taken. So aye I'd go ar far as to say fuck the due process, if hes guilty which the evidence pretty much shows then fuck him. If he followed a set of laws he wouldn't be a fucking terrorist now would he? He didn't that's why he is. If somebody takes his life into their own hands without due process, does that make him any different from said terrorist? How hard is that? And saying that he deserved it is a rubbish excuse. No matter how much anybody deserves it, it's never upto one man to sentence somebody to death. That's why there's a jury and laws etc etc. Where did I ever say he warranted special treatment. You could at least read my post carefully before going into rage mode. |
|
|
|
Post by johnboy14 on Apr 21, 2013 8:49:37 GMT
Following a set of laws? What like he did? Fucking scum that doesnt deserve to be treated with any sort of humanity what so ever. I get why they didnt take him out but certainly wouldnt blame them if they put one between the eyes. Why should this vile cunt get any human rights when hes taken so many lives without justification, thoughts go to all those INNOCENT people, as far as im concerned I hope hes put in a room and beaten senseless, fucking terrorists deserve nothing less. This person deserves no special treatment nor does he deserve to breathe the same air as those hes taken. So aye I'd go ar far as to say fuck the due process, if hes guilty which the evidence pretty much shows then fuck him. If he followed a set of laws he wouldn't be a fucking terrorist now would he? He didn't that's why he is. If somebody takes his life into their own hands without due process, does that make him any different from said terrorist? How hard is that? And saying that he deserved it is a rubbish excuse. No matter how much anybody deserves it, it's never upto one man to sentence somebody to death. That's why there's a jury and laws etc etc. Where did I ever say he warranted special treatment. You could at least read my post carefully before going into rage mode. Would agree, he will get whats coming to him, on another note whats with the citizens of Boston celebrating like the 4th of July after his capture. |
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Apr 21, 2013 11:23:16 GMT
A "bleeding and weak 19 year old". . . Who had earlier packed a homemade explosive device WITH NAILS, get that humanity, and tried to blow people up. A double tap to the head and insurance round in the chest would have done the right job. For the record, if it is a case of myself or my collegues or some sadistic bomb-making fuck, then I opt for ending him. And all this moral superiority talk is horsecrap. Being better is one thing, but the authorities don't give a shit about that. They want to question this guy about what his thinking was. Nothing to do with being better. fuck sake that's a bad post. First of all he's a SUSPECT. Has not been found guilty. Anyone remember the fucking UK police shooting someone who was running for a train after the bombing. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most important phrases that has ever been spoken. Sencondly, going by that rational shoot every fucking soldier who's ever bombed another country. There is no difference between being a soldier & a kid. A bomb is a bomb. He and his brother were at the marathon, and days later they tried to blow up police officers. With bombs. They shot at police officers. They stole a car, and drove it at police officers. Then, when his brother died, this guy ran over the body - of his brother - and tried to flee. Then he HID IN A BOAT. Something in there substantial enough evidence for to you accept he might be a bad guy? As for the other point, soldiers set out to murder civilians, what a ridiculous statement. What soldiers do in a war/combat scenario is completely different to putting a nail bomb in a bin and exploding it with the aim of killing and wounding as many innocent people as possible. news.sky.com/story/1078964/boston-marathon-explosions-child-victimThat kid was eight years old. Eight. A "bleeding and weak 19 year old". . . Who had earlier packed a homemade explosive device WITH NAILS, get that humanity, and tried to blow people up. A double tap to the head and insurance round in the chest would have done the right job. For the record, if it is a case of myself or my collegues or some sadistic bomb-making fuck, then I opt for ending him.And all this moral superiority talk is horsecrap. Being better is one thing, but the authorities don't give a shit about that. They want to question this guy about what his thinking was. Nothing to do with being better. There are enough gun toting morons running around for even the police to start shooting whenever they bloody well please. So, if they don't get answers out of him I imagine they are definitely just going to shoot the fuck out of him encounter style eh? Since you claim the police want nothing to do with being better than a fucking criminal and they just want answers from him. Once his usefulness is done I imagine it will be the firing squad eh? No need for due process etc. Jesus. No it definitely is about being better. It is definitely about following a set of laws and having a set of moral codes and abiding by it. Thankfully somebody also made it illegal for a cop to shoot and kill somebody especially when there is a very viable option of subduing and apprehending alive without taking life and death into your own hands. Thankfully somebody realised how slippery a slope that would be. You think it wouldn't be easy for any one of those cops there to shoot and kill him? Do you guys think you're the only one who thought to do it? You don't think somebody there thought about making it easier and pumping a few into him while he was injured and say it was in self defense? They could have, nobody could say anything to him, he was in a firefight after all, easy to shoot and kill. No, they chose to be better. You are confused. If you'll go back and read what I said, my argument is that as long as the guy was trying to shoot police officers, they were perfectly within their rights to kill him first. They didn't, well done them. I was also pointing out that the way you phrased it made out like the guy was some poor, injured, defenceless teenager. Which again was incorrect. But like I said, it wasn't fo the virtue of morality, or by being more righteous. It was because they would had to explain it (as self-defence, as you say) and because they want to question him. Put it this way, if murder wasn't illegal. If the only bar to killing someone was, a person's individual morality. Would you trust the world we live in, for people to go their entire lives without taking a life? Would you trust the police not to shoot-to-kill? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2013 11:27:01 GMT
Couple of points.
We're talking about a 'suspect' who's thrown devices from a moving car at the police, who's had no problem shooting at them, also he's dabbled in a bit of armed robbery.
If it comes to a point where's he's got the opportunity to end my life as a law enforcement officer despatching a couple of rounds at me from a boat, am i going to let a terrorist who's blown up 3 people with a device packed with nails and ball-bearings, have a sniff of a chance of ending my life? Am i fuck..!!
I'll let him kill me and my colleagues first, then we'll let him end other officers lives before we have a chat about it.
Laws and moral codes go out the window when you're dealing with evil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2013 12:44:47 GMT
fuck sake that's a bad post. First of all he's a SUSPECT. Has not been found guilty. Anyone remember the fucking UK police shooting someone who was running for a train after the bombing. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most important phrases that has ever been spoken. Sencondly, going by that rational shoot every fucking soldier who's ever bombed another country. There is no difference between being a soldier & a kid. A bomb is a bomb. He and his brother were at the marathon, and days later they tried to blow up police officers. With bombs. They shot at police officers. They stole a car, and drove it at police officers. Then, when his brother died, this guy ran over the body - of his brother - and tried to flee. Then he HID IN A BOAT. Something in there substantial enough evidence for to you accept he might be a bad guy? As for the other point, soldiers set out to murder civilians, what a ridiculous statement. What soldiers do in a war/combat scenario is completely different to putting a nail bomb in a bin and exploding it with the aim of killing and wounding as many innocent people as possible. news.sky.com/story/1078964/boston-marathon-explosions-child-victimThat kid was eight years old. Eight. There are enough gun toting morons running around for even the police to start shooting whenever they bloody well please. So, if they don't get answers out of him I imagine they are definitely just going to shoot the fuck out of him encounter style eh? Since you claim the police want nothing to do with being better than a fucking criminal and they just want answers from him. Once his usefulness is done I imagine it will be the firing squad eh? No need for due process etc. Jesus. No it definitely is about being better. It is definitely about following a set of laws and having a set of moral codes and abiding by it. Thankfully somebody also made it illegal for a cop to shoot and kill somebody especially when there is a very viable option of subduing and apprehending alive without taking life and death into your own hands. Thankfully somebody realised how slippery a slope that would be. You think it wouldn't be easy for any one of those cops there to shoot and kill him? Do you guys think you're the only one who thought to do it? You don't think somebody there thought about making it easier and pumping a few into him while he was injured and say it was in self defense? They could have, nobody could say anything to him, he was in a firefight after all, easy to shoot and kill. No, they chose to be better. You are confused. If you'll go back and read what I said, my argument is that as long as the guy was trying to shoot police officers, they were perfectly within their rights to kill him first. They didn't, well done them. I was also pointing out that the way you phrased it made out like the guy was some poor, injured, defenceless teenager. Which again was incorrect. But like I said, it wasn't fo the virtue of morality, or by being more righteous. It was because they would had to explain it (as self-defence, as you say) and because they want to question him. Put it this way, if murder wasn't illegal. If the only bar to killing someone was, a person's individual morality. Would you trust the world we live in, for people to go their entire lives without taking a life? Would you trust the police not to shoot-to-kill?[/quote] soldiers don't aim for civilians but do get them regularly & call it collateral damage, i struggle to see the difference sometimes. Right now somewhere in the world American soldiers as well as others are killing someones children. Human rights are important & shouldn't be forgotten because it's westerners being shot at. I know your only arguing if you were in their situation you wouldn't risk your life but that's why you shouldn't be in their situation. They are paid to put their life in danger for the greater good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2013 13:35:32 GMT
Following a set of laws? What like he did? Fucking scum that doesnt deserve to be treated with any sort of humanity what so ever. I get why they didnt take him out but certainly wouldnt blame them if they put one between the eyes. Why should this vile cunt get any human rights when hes taken so many lives without justification, thoughts go to all those INNOCENT people, as far as im concerned I hope hes put in a room and beaten senseless, fucking terrorists deserve nothing less. This person deserves no special treatment nor does he deserve to breathe the same air as those hes taken. So aye I'd go ar far as to say fuck the due process, if hes guilty which the evidence pretty much shows then fuck him. If he followed a set of laws he wouldn't be a fucking terrorist now would he? He didn't that's why he is. If somebody takes his life into their own hands without due process, does that make him any different from said terrorist? How hard is that? And saying that he deserved it is a rubbish excuse. No matter how much anybody deserves it, it's never upto one man to sentence somebody to death. That's why there's a jury and laws etc etc. Where did I ever say he warranted special treatment. You could at least read my post carefully before going into rage mode. Not in rage mode at all, Fed up that these vile cunts dont get a punishment they deserve, I never said you said he deserved special treatment, It was meant in general. He is guilty, hes owned up to it so he deserves to face a punishment that relates to the crime, he and his brother killed innocent people in a vicious unprovoked cowardly attack. Therefore he deserves nothing less than the death penalty. That is my point, how it gets decided I couldn't give 2 fucks whether its through a court or a public vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Tatty on Apr 21, 2013 14:52:12 GMT
If he followed a set of laws he wouldn't be a fucking terrorist now would he? He didn't that's why he is. If somebody takes his life into their own hands without due process, does that make him any different from said terrorist? How hard is that? And saying that he deserved it is a rubbish excuse. No matter how much anybody deserves it, it's never upto one man to sentence somebody to death. That's why there's a jury and laws etc etc. Where did I ever say he warranted special treatment. You could at least read my post carefully before going into rage mode. Not in rage mode at all, Fed up that these vile cunts dont get a punishment they deserve, I never said you said he deserved special treatment, It was meant in general. He is guilty, hes owned up to it so he deserves to face a punishment that relates to the crime, he and his brother killed innocent people in a vicious unprovoked cowardly attack. Therefore he deserves nothing less than the death penalty. That is my point, how it gets decided I couldn't give 2 fucks whether its through a court or a public vote. Massachusetts don't have the death penalty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2013 14:55:38 GMT
Not in rage mode at all, Fed up that these vile cunts dont get a punishment they deserve, I never said you said he deserved special treatment, It was meant in general. He is guilty, hes owned up to it so he deserves to face a punishment that relates to the crime, he and his brother killed innocent people in a vicious unprovoked cowardly attack. Therefore he deserves nothing less than the death penalty. That is my point, how it gets decided I couldn't give 2 fucks whether its through a court or a public vote. Massachusetts don't have the death penalty. I thought they did :S Fucked that idea then, fuck it move him somewhere that has  . |
|
|
|
Post by Kamilo on Apr 22, 2013 15:03:01 GMT
Massachusetts don't have the death penalty. I thought they did :S Fucked that idea then, fuck it move him somewhere that has . If he receives a Federal Terrorism charge, which he will, he can receive the death penalty. |
|
