The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/us/boston-bombing-tsarnaev-sentence/index.html?sr=fb051515tsarnaevsentence3pVODtopPhoto

Well, it was going to happen either way, right? I wonder how long it'll be before people start making excuses.

Huh?

What do you mean either way - death vs. life in prison?

What excuses - for death penalty, against death penalty, by his family/supporters, by death penalty proponents, by death penalty opponents?

Mostly death vs. life in prison. It's technically cheaper to keep them locked in prison for life than to execute them...but then again, never discount the democratic thirst for blood.

I'm a little bit surprised, given the state's disapproval of the death penalty in general and specifically in this case, according to polls. (The Boston Globe reported here -- http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/26/globe-poll-shows-diminishing-support-for-death-penalty-for-tsarnaev/S3GMhFlGj5VUkZrmLzh1iN/story.html (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/26/globe-poll-shows-diminishing-support-for-death-penalty-for-tsarnaev/S3GMhFlGj5VUkZrmLzh1iN/story.html) -- that only a third support the death penalty in general and only a fifth supported it in this case.)

But as TRBB said, "never discount the democratic thirst for blood." (Nothing to be proud of in my opinion.)

That's the "narrative" of the Globe.  It was a federal and not a state trial, so federal guidelines are followed for sentencing.  The jurors were "death penalty qualified" prior to trial, meaning that if they found him guilty, they would sentence life without parole, or the death penalty and it had to be unanimous.  I do not trust the veracity of a Boston Globe poll.  The sentencing had no bearing on Massachusetts state criminal and punishment opinions. It was held in a federal courthouse, in Massachusetts, but addressed federal charges related to terrorism, and the like.  They have jurisdiction over federal crimes. Twelve persons were unanimous in 14 hours.

He showed no remorse, and that sealed his fate. When I saw them drag "the nun" in (sort of a discussion in another thread) I had the sense that the defense team were desperate, and she was their last hope.

My take is that the defense knew the jurors were impacted by the proximity of leaving the home made bombs behind children, calculated to kill or maim many people.  And they hoped that Sr. Prejean, who attempted to serve as sort of a proxy for Tsarnaev, could say that he (Tsarnaev) told her he was sorry. If he wanted to apologize or show remorse, he could have and didn't. He could have testified that he was sorry.  None of his behavior showed remorse.

And, the most liberal lawyers who oppose the death penalty, were supporting it because the crimes were of such atrocity, premeditated, and killed four and maimed hundreds. 

The other paper is the Boston Herald, which more closely represents what people think.  And there are many local stations to hear what the actual victims had to say.  At least this part is over.

I'm well aware of the distinctions between federal and state cases. My point was that in a state generally opposed to the death penalty, it surprised me that the jurors would be unanimously in favor of the death penalty. The Globe article was pasted because, frankly, it was one of the first recent ones I found. But let's be serious: it isn't as if the converse numbers are true. Massachusetts isn't Texas. I'm guessing that any news source you consider liberal won't satisfy you, but this NYT story quotes the Boston NPR affiliate as saying in its poll that 27% were pro-death penalty in this particular case.

Point being: it's a state where most people, at least in theory, don't support the death penalty.

Which liberal lawyers who oppose the death penalty were in favor in this instance? Frankly I think that's pathetic: it's intellectually dishonest for people to change their positions just because it's in their city, it's terrorism versus "regular crime," or whether the defendant looked acceptably sorry during his trial. Anyone who opposes it in theory but somehow apparently never considered the fact that some criminal might have "killed four and maimed hundreds" is an idiot.

Anyway, I don't mean to get into a political of philosophical discussion here because to be totally honest, I've seen too many of those in the Sandbox and I know where they lead (which is nowhere: everyone rallies her own troops or beats his own chest and usually belittles, generalizes about, and totally builds a straw man of the opponent). I really was just posting to make that one point, that it was a slight surprise for a case where the jurors' decision seemed to be disproportionate from that population's views.

Captain - IIRC they went through over a thousand potential jurors to find the ones selected.  They were capital crimes, with death resulting, and destruction of property, which didn't result in death, which did not factor in.  I'm somewhere in the moderate zone. There is contained in the Globe or boston.com, the 24 page jury verdict for the penalty phase that I've been poring over, which might be helpful.  They had to find first that he was 18 years old, beyond a reasonable doubt.

It was a jury decision. But, even if the venue was changed to another state, it might not have mattered, with the testimony that was put forth. 
As far as the newpapers, I got a little shock in NY a couple of weeks ago.  A full front page of Tsarnaev flipping the bird was on the NY Post.  Nothing like that ever ran in Boston with a full front page.  People exercised restraint.  I would have preferred cameras in the court so everyone could see instead of relying on twitter feeds.  There were reports of jurors weeping with the graphic testimony and photographs shown.  The bomb blew right though the torso of an 8 year old, who stood feet from Tsarnaev. He chose the spot and was "lying in wait."  Then bought a bottle of milk for himself 20 minutes later, while people on Boylston St., were looking at their limbs ten feet away. 

NYT is the alter ego of the Globe.  It once owned the Globe which is now owned by the Red Sox owner.  I know of no one who was polled.  And it isn't liberal lawyers generally supporting the death penalty.  It was the particular atrocity, premeditation, of putting a "weapon of mass destruction in a place of public use."

It was kidnapping/carjacking, assassination of a police officer.  It was the shocking lack of remorse.  And the bird flipped at the camera.  And, the target of "The Boston Marathon, an iconic event that draws large crowds of men, women and children in its final stretch, making it especially susceptible to the act and effects of terrorism." (Page 13 - count 3) And, he ran over his own brother, his co-conspirator.  The jury didn't buy the "Svengali" defense. 

The jury found that the death penalty fit the atrocity of the crime.  Massachusetts is changing, with a Republican governor.  And I can't imagine how, in this climate that this poll could be valid.  The trial outcome would likely have been the same in any state in the union.  We'll maybe hear from some of the jurors, now that this trial is over.  The US Atty. is an Obama appointee; hardly a conservative.  And they got this conviction and sentence.

The jury form lays out most of the story. 

And, thanks for the link.  I read some of the accounts on several media sources.

Thanks for describing the crime. I am aware of its severity. It got some press.

I can never agree with the death penalty under any circumstances whatsoever. That's all I have to say about this.

Couldn't happen to a nicer person - good riddance.

Every person who was picked to serve on the jury had to qualify themselves that they could vote for the death penalty. If they were totally against it, then they weren't picked to serve. Everyone chosen told the judge during jury selection that it would be a an agreeable option to vote for it during the penalty phase of the trial.

I wish the killers themselves thought about it as you do. Killers deal out the death penalty to their victims without a trial. How fair is that?

This, I agree with.

It's not fair at all. But I don't think some governments should stoop down to that level.

Hey, at least some people get a trial. I'm sure gays in Palestine would love a trial before they're thrown from rooftops. Just sayin'.

I think it's obvious to everyone that everyone can agree that victims of violence everywhere would prefer fair trials over vigilante or ideological or insanity-inspired killing, but that's irrelevant. All the unjustified killings in the world don't change the belief that state-approved killings are also wrong, fair trial or not.

How so?

Appeal after appeal after appeal.

Fair trial!!?! Since when!?!  :lol :lol :lol  Besides... who needs a fair trial anyway?!  "Fair trial"... that's a good one!!

Does your morality/reasoning also apply to a baby in the womb?  The State approves killing these babies -- for any reason (Mom's tired, Dad's a d-ck, too poor, too uneducated, too black -- too drunk).  Trial, schmial.  Kill it!

Too many poor in the ghetto??? -- F-CK IT!!! -- build a "Planned Parenthood" clinic!!  That's about as evil as it gets -- no matter which planet you're from.  People are so chickensh-t about having a firm morality/reasoning on this -- for reasons I will never understand.  This is the easy stuff in my book.

So any concern of Dzhohskxara's sentence, trial or whatever -- is hilarious to me.  Drop a safe on him -- who the f-ck cares!!!!???!!!  Unless you're a super-Christian (you're not, are you?) concern here is either a lie or some new form of ill-humanity that I've yet to categorize.

Also... state-approved killings are not "wrong" (see: War).  Let's not get all thinky.  Killing bad-guys is a necessary and unfortunate aspect of keeping society safe.  And enemy combatants who kill are signing up for it.  And they know that.  Any different a response gives them pause.  And the ones of the "one-off radical" variety -- like the turkey we have here -- should be sent through on a conveyor belt.  On slow.

Me personally? -- I'm opposed to the death penalty.  But... then again... azzhat-terrorists and serial killers like this sh-tface make me think differently.  Cuz I'm NORMAL.

 :wall

I think the punishment should fit the crime. 

Instead of putting these scumbags to sleep peacefully, they should send them off the earth in whatever brutal way they killed their victims. 

Take this guy and strap him to an exploding pressure cooker. 

The way I see it, if you take a life in cold blood, you sacrifice your right to live. 

See, I can never, ever agree with that. An eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

I respect your opinion, but I think one of the reasons we have so many problems with crime in the country is that punishment is not swift and severe. 

Really?  What about a nose-for-a-nose -- that way nobody stinks?

The reason we have problems with crime is because people are not taught to be respectful of others. Oh, and the anti-gun propaganda just makes it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

I agree with both of these points 100%.  Any anti-gun laws are just going to keep law abiding citizens from being able to protect their lives and property.

I have agree there. As a friend once said to me "Laws are for the law-abiding".

The progressives clearly value criminals over law-abiding individuals since their policies empower criminals. Only a fool would argue otherwise; as we all know, progressives are fools.

In Sweden politicians give ISIS fighters returning to Sweden free apartments in Stockholm and jobs. I am kidding you not. Anyone else have to wait for 10-15 years for an apartment or buy one for a whole lot of money.

Multicultural Sweden. Don't you love being treated like a second-class citizen in your own land?

The cultural marxists ruling Sweden will totally ruin this once great country before long. We are talking 10 - 15 years. I am already looking at countries where I can flee.

You're a racist for wanting to leave. Let's just get that out there now. :)

This is especially true in my hometown of Baltimore.  When riots broke out over the death of career criminal Freddie Gray while being arrested, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake gave the order to the police to stand down and, this is a direct quote, "allow space to destroy" adding it's only property.  Almost 200 police officers were hurt during the riots largely due to the fact that they were not permitted to defend themselves against rioters who were throwing rocks and bricks at them. 

Since the riots, Baltimore has experienced our deadliest month in almost 20 years.  And things are only going to get worse if the charges of the six police officers charged with Gray's death are dropped.  And the charges likely will, and should, be dropped. 

In Sweden our Police use so called "dialogue police officers". Instead of actually arresting violent criminals they talk to them. That's all they do. People don't get arrested for rioting. Works wonderfully well. NOT. A progressive riot below:

(https://petterssonorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dialogpolis.png)

Look at all the angry socialists...they don't like what socialism has wrought upon Sweden, so they demand more socialism. Fucking retards, the lot of 'em.

Not to digress from the topic... but what the heck...

1. Some crime will always exist.  Mental illness and things of that sort -- evil, for example -- exist just fine on their own.

2. Next comes morality and the lack there of.  This used to come from religion and family.  Enforced by society, education, entertainment.  But those institutions have been eroded.  Infiltrated with self-gratification, no consequences.

3.  Then comes common sense.  Without this, you can wave bye-bye to peaceful civilization.  This too is being questioned.  Little basic things, like kids taught not to keep score.  Boys being boys.  Girls being girls.  Relationships.  Nature.  Right and wrong -- all of it is questioned and seen as judgmental.  So common sense is no longer as common as it used to be.  People don't trust themselves.  And they go see a therapist.  Or they're feed therapy from the above and eroded institutions.


But most of all.  It's liberalism.  I know I sound like a broken record on this  :angel:  but where Liberalism Reigns... you got crime.  Liberals, leftist, Statist.  Commu-Crats.  Leftists aren't responsible for the first item, but they excuse it and own 2 and 3.

They do this, in short, to control the voters and win -- election after election.  ***cough*** Baltimore ***cough***

Yes.  Bingo.  Baltimore.  The system, keeps them down, so they demand... (i bet you can't guess).  More of the system.

(http://img.rt.com/files/news/3d/bc/90/00/baltimore-mayor-speaks-protest.si.jpg)
Me?

(http://www.amadershomoys.com/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/obama-smiling.jpg)
You, not me!

(https://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/sharpton.jpg?w=640&h=355)
Me, him and you!

You hit the nail on the head.  Baltimore has been run into the ground by liberal rule, and it's hitting rock bottom.

The previous Democrat governor did such a poor job that even those on the left voted for a Republican Governor to avoid having Maryland run by one of Martin O Malley's minions.  

And that same Martin O Malley who ran Maryland into the ground, turned a fiscal surplus into a deficit, raised taxes across the board, and even taxed the rain is announcing that he's seeking nomination for President of the United States.  

Maybe it's time for libertarians to start practicing voter intimidation. It's clearly all dandy when the liberals do it, so all's fair, right?

Voter intimidation is not needed. Libertarians can vote multiple times each, like... progressives.

And I am not saying the Republicans don't rig their primaries, they do. Their 2012 primaries were blatantly rigged.

The Republicans are just the socially conservative liberals. :)

And yes, the 2012 primaries were blatantly rigged. You'd think that if they were going to rig the primaries they'd rig them in favor of someone who could actually win elections.

No, I'm an atheist. (Not a super-Christian. Which I would consider becoming if it meant I got a cape, maybe.)

As for the rest, I'm reminded that some time ago, I had decided discussions with you about anything resembling politics weren't useful: you treat discussion as browbeating lecture where everything is either right (your team) or some combination of evil and ignorant (everyone else), so it's really neither productive nor fun. So I'm not responding to the rest of your post. If you want to have a civil and respectful conversation, I'm in. Though I'll warn you, it might "get all thinky." Reply if you'd like, but I'm done with the thread, so I won't be reading it.

Totally agree -- my bad.  My post (which was still balls-on accurate  ;D) reads more like a frothing tirade against you, yet it was not at all meant to be.  Sorry.  My apologies.

However, you have to admit... even a thinky exchange would have been the same -- only written in code and yielding similar results.

Republicans are going the way of the Whigs.  And they know it.  They've been sabotaging Conservative and Libertarian candidates (and now Tea Party candidates) at every turn, for years.  They're useless at best, aiding the Left at worst.

Funny* thing about Baltimore -- there's been like 20 or 30 or 50 murders since they locked up the cops that killed poor Freddie Gray.  Don't tell the Mayor... but I think they clearly arrested the wrong cops!!!   :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol





*It's only "funny" to me cuz clearly no one is taking it seriously... so why should I??  :lol :lol :lol :lol

(http://33.media.tumblr.com/70bbb18337ee867ad99f44a74f02753b/tumblr_nk3ure7nna1u7q1nbo4_500.gif)

Well, to be fair, the Tea Party has already been hijacked by the leftist neoconservatives.

Bean Bag,

There's a theory that the Baltimore Police aren't policing the troubled areas of the city since they're clearly not wanted there.  Also, since they get no support from the Mayor or the Police Commissioner, why would they want to put their lives at risk by going into these areas?

It's going to get worse before it gets better, and as a property owner in Baltimore City, all I can do is watch as my property taxes increase while my property value decreases.

Exactly right.  The police have been knee-capped.  I've worked in bad places run by political-liberal sh-tfaces, and it's bad.  I mean bad -- you ain't sh-t, you're expendable.  An awful work environment for any human being -- people literally afraid to do anything.  But there wasn't nearly the occupational pressure that a cop sees.

So it's bizzarro world -- upside down land -- in America right now.  An unnecessary waste of human energy and ingenuity.  Instead of inventing to increase human satisfaction, we have to stop and pretend the cops are the crime problem -- just so some evil politician f-ckface Democrap can get re-elected and eat Kobe beef at Michelle's dinner-party -- while she feeds our school children, Grade-F funk meat.

Elect a Demorat = Black CVS will burn*.  Fck the left.

(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/553ebaff6bb3f73e041a346c-600-300/cvs-baltimore-1.jpg)


*in 2004, ads and billboards appeared in St. Louis, aimed at the black voters, proclaiming that if Republicans are elected, black churches will burn.

Man, we are so off-topic!!  :lol  Fck it, I love the sandbox.  Almost as much as I love the pre-manufactured "community organizer" signs.  :lol :lol :lol :lol

(http://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/877429-BaltimoreFreddieGreyAFP-1430250019-816-640x480.jpg)

The "4" (rather than "for") is meant to imply this is a truly spontaneous and organic response by regular folk.   :lol :lol :smokin

Things could get a little crazy again tomorrow in Baltimore. 

There's a march planned by the supporters of career criminal Freddie Gray. 

There's also a march planned by the supporters of the Baltimore Six, the six police officers who were arraigned for doing their job in a city that supports criminals over law. 

So, I'll be avoiding downtown Baltimore tomorrow. 

A friend of mine and I were discussing this issue in Baltimore and I brought up the "why are they destroying their own city" point. He put it simply (paraphrasing) "they don't own much of anything in the city and aren't given much of an opportunity to better themselves anyway, so they have nothing to lose." This brings up an interesting point. No, I don't think black people are lawless (despite grumblings from some of my libertarian friends) but in the more liberal parts of the country they're used, exploited, and otherwise cajoled for political gain. Luckily, more and more people of all walks of life are waking up to the progressive liberal race-baiting propaganda machine and they can understand it's not "black vs. white" but rather "us vs. them." White people are not keeping black people down; the state is.

And as much as many might hate to admit it, this country edges further and further towards being a totalitarian police state. The government has power unlike any it has wielded before, police in many areas are (legitimately) out of control, and we have a populace more worried about people defacing flags than people being brutalized by the same government they want to punish people for defacing their precious flags. The American people have some soul-searching to do. Eight years of compassionate conservatism divided the country. Eight years of hope and change drove a wedge. Of course, I have little faith in the feels-based thinking of the American voter, which is probably why we'll be stuck with eight years of "what difference does it make?"

I'm just curious, where is the Police out of control?

George Zimmerman?  He was acting in self defense when he killed Travon Martin.

Ferguson?  Michael Brown was a criminal who accosted Officer Darren Wilson, and Wilson acted accordingly.  Now, they actually put up a memorial for Michael Brown.  Obama sends him staff to the funerals for these criminals cut down by honest cops, but not the honest cops cut down by criminals. 

Baltimore?  First of all, with his record, Freddie Gray never should have been on the streets to be arrested last month.  Most reports are suggesting that these police officers have done nothing wrong, and Baltimore will burn again at some point.  Especially if the so-called mayor (who was only put in office because the previous mayor was misusing gift cards) gives the order for police to stand down again rather than nip the unrest in the bud before more property is destroyed, and local businesses lose more control due to another curfew. 

For the record I did not say all police are out of control. I agree with all of your assessments although I don't think the police are 100% innocent in the Freddie Gray case. I still think there's something we're not being told. I do agree that the police in the Freddie Gray case are being overcharged to cull the angry mob.

Most every major city in the country has some kind of police corruption. The more liberal the city, the more corrupt the police.

I don't deny the existence of corruption.

But, I've known police officers.  And I'd be willing to bet that 99% of them are on the level.  These are men and women who put their lives on the line each and every day in dangerous parts of the city.  They're in areas where the residents wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire because they're taught that the police are the enemy.  The police are only the enemy if you break the law.  Now, the residents in the troubled areas are saying that a lack of police presence has lead to a spike in violent crime.  Last month, they complained about too much police presence.  You get what you ask for. 

And, at least in Baltimore, the police are getting zero support from the local or federal government.  The police in Baltimore were given orders to stand down.  Their professionalism was amazing when they were being pelted with rocks and bricks.  And now Obama wants police to not use riot gear in the event of a riot. 

If the liberals in Baltimore actually let the police do their jobs, the riots would've been stopped as soon as people began stopping traffic the Saturday of Freddie Gray's funeral. 

The trouble starts at the top.  The men and women in blue are not the problem. 

Is the liberal government holding some of these people back?  To a certain degree, yes.  But, you have to take responsibility for your actions.  At some point, these people in the community need to stand up and say, "these hand outs aren't working.  We need to vote in better people.  We need to rise up, stop killing each other, and try to make better lives for ourselves and our children."

No riot equipment.  Stand down.  That DA and mayor are tying the hands of law enforcement. This is disgraceful. And, a manufactured diversion from the war in the Middle East, complete with Occupy organizers.  They are using the citizens of Baltimore.

Body cams will solve a lot of this.