Dzhokhar Tsarnaev charges

[gipsy danger]

so as you may heard that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the boy that was suspect of the Boston bombing was charged without trial while he was in his hospital bed. the reason I think he was charged because he cant speak because of the wound on his throat and they cant get any information out of him. so the question is do you think he should of gone on trial? do you think he is innocent and doesn't deserve this? or they should execute him for his crime? and he is guilty for what he did?

[tovaris]

A fair triel for everione. He shouldent be charged without trial that is unfair, he might even be inocent but cant even defend himself so they simoly charge him and sentince zim to siberia without trial (hm iw seen this before). No convictions can be made without a trial.

[Bethany]

Well, they've charged him with a crime, but he hasn't appeared in court yet.

Once he's well, he'll appear in court and be tried for the crimes he's been charged with.

[Atonement]

Being charged with a crime without a trial would be considered normal.

If he were convicted of these charges without a trial, that would be wrong since he would have no trail, let alone a fair one.

Since we're talking about it: I consider these charges to be level and fair. He is being tried in civilian courts, as a US citizen, with charges that reflect the incident.

His lack of voice hasn't prevented questioning and trials have gone on without speech before. They questioned him via writing before the charges were filed, therefore they could continue communicated with him through writing as well.

[ImCoolBeans]

Being charged with something and being convicted of something are two very different things. You can be charged without a trail, and as Addi said, it's quite normal. Now being convicted, that's a different story. To go through the motions of a full trial and reach a verdict where the defendant is convicted of the charges against him or her would be unconstitutional -- however that is not what is going to happen. I think you misunderstood the situation, OP, he has simply been charged and informed of his charges. A trial, the process of reaching a verdict or judgement, won't take place until he is well and can actually stand trail.

I think the charges are fair and deserved.

[unknownuser]

I don't care what they do with him (if he is found guilty) as long as he won't be sitting around being pampered in jail for years, sucking taxpayers' dollars...

[PerpetualImperfexion]

This brings up an interesting question though... Had Osama been captured rather then killed, do you think he would have received a fair trial?

[gipsy danger]

This brings up an interesting question though... Had Osama been captured rather then killed, do you think he would have received a fair trial?

Osama bin laden wasnt a citizens of the US so they killed him like nothing. but this guy is a citizens of the states so therefore he should go under trial. I just don't think he actually did this whole bombing thing.

[Atonement]

This brings up an interesting question though... Had Osama been captured rather then killed, do you think he would have received a fair trial?

A "fair" trial. Yes. I think it would have been fair. However, with the number of charges able to be brought against him, it would've looked incredibly unfair. Nonetheless, the evidence stacked on him was plenty for a trial.

Osama bin laden wasnt a citizens of the US so they killed him like nothing. but this guy is a citizens of the states so therefore he should go under trial. I just don't think he actually did this whole bombing thing.

1. Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant in a war. He was killed on sight because of that characteristic. He wasn't killed because he was foreign. He was killed because he was an enemy of war. If the Marines had been able to capture bin Laden, I would imagine that would've been ideal.

2. Everyone deserves a fair trial, if possible, regardless of their citizenship. The question is whether Tsarnaev would be tried in military or civilian court. As a US citizen, he cannot be tried in military court, therefore he will be tried in civilian court.

3. On what do you base your opinion that Tsarnaev didn't commit the Boston bombings?

[kolte]

Innocent until proven guilty. There isn't any, publicly available, evidence that proves his guilt. Our justice system is busy building a case against him and he will be judged by a jury of peers and an elected official(judge). It is incumbent of a free society that we withhold our condemnation. The media sensationalized this story to Hollywood proportions, and our government is once again using this madness to exploit a frightened and insecure society. Think objectively, and don't take anything at face value.

[naglfari]

He was kinda caught on tape then had a shoot out with CPUs and killed one cop, pretty sure he's guilty lol.

Oh yeah and he admitted it to the police. Derp.

Anyway since the OP doesn't seem to know how the system works, you get charged with a crime and go to court to either be proven guilty or innocent, the charge is what leads to the trial

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Really, he's not guilty in my mind. Our government is pretty obviously trying to hide SOMETHING.

[naglfari]

Do you wear a tinfoil hat to keep the aliens out of your head

[Stronger]

Really, he's not guilty in my mind. Our government is pretty obviously trying to hide SOMETHING.

But he's admitted to doing it?

[TheBigUnit]

He will have a trial, they already got him a lawyer

[ImCoolBeans]

Do you wear a tinfoil hat to keep the aliens out of your head

And do you not have anything positive to add to the thread? If not then please don't bother posting spam like that post. Nobody appreciates it.

[naglfari]

what about my first post

and i can't poke fun at conspiracy theorists here? i mean cmon, guy was caught on tape, pictures were taken of him shooting at police, he admitted he was one of the bombers, and the government would have zero reason whatsoever to bomb people just to pin it on 2 losers who have literally no association with any group that we could retaliate against.

kind of a silly comment to make

[Korashk]

But he's admitted to doing it?
People admit to crimes they didn't commit all the time under duress by the police. the Innocence Project found that in 25% of cases where DNA exonerated a person of guilt, that same person had plead guilty or otherwise incriminated themselves. I don't think that's the case here, but confessions are so unreliable in law that you really shouldn't even consider them.

[Stronger]

People admit to crimes they didn't commit all the time under duress by the police. the Innocence Project found that in 25% of cases where DNA exonerated a person of guilt, that same person had plead guilty or otherwise incriminated themselves. I don't think that's the case here, but confessions are so unreliable in law that you really shouldn't even consider them.

That's true, but then why do what they did at the 7-11? and the gun "fight" with the cops?

[britishboy]

he's guilty they have evidence he's a murderer who tried killing loads of innocent people. the death penalty should be given to him

[RiverM]

This case is honestly a very special case as well, I think that the government is going to pursue it a different way, using federal laws, and exceptions. That's just my opinion.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

But he's admitted to doing it?

It's called pressure from authorities?

[Stronger]

It's called pressure from authorities?

So why the robbing of 7-11 and the huge gun battle?

[Bethany]

So why the robbing of 7-11 and the huge gun battle?

Did he really rob the 7-11? I thought he was just present at the time of the robbery.

[Stronger]

Did he really rob the 7-11? I thought he was just present at the time of the robbery.

Pretty sure they robbed it, thats how the police office got shot and killed.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

So why the robbing of 7-11 and the huge gun battle?

7-11 robbery: maybe because they didn't bring a lot of money with them???
Gun battle: Because the authorities chased them... Thats almost always how they're started?

[Stronger]

Gun battle: Because the authorities chased them... Thats almost always how they're started?

Why would they chase them and how often to you actually see that happen?

7-11 robbery: maybe because they didn't bring a lot of money with them???

Please tell me your joking.....

[Pure Innocent Nun]

7-11 robbery: maybe because they didn't bring a lot of money with them???
Gun battle: Because the authorities chased them... Thats almost always how they're started?

... So if I'm short on change at McDonald's, I should rob them?

When authorities chase you, you don't start shooting and killing people, you let them catch you.

[Korashk]

When authorities chase you, you don't start shooting and killing people, you let them catch you.
So....are you serious? You can't be serious.

[Bethany]

I don't think they robbed the 7-11. I just looked up recent articles, and the consensus seems to be that the story that they robbed a 7-11 was untrue. Does anyone have a recent (not from right after the robbery) that says otherwise?

[Pure Innocent Nun]

So....are you serious? You can't be serious.

Well it is what you're supposed to do. o _o

[Bethany]

Well it is what you're supposed to do. o _o

Usually, criminals don't do what one is "supposed to do" :D

[Stronger]

I don't think they robbed the 7-11. I just looked up recent articles, and the consensus seems to be that the story that they robbed a 7-11 was untrue. Does anyone have a recent (not from right after the robbery) that says otherwise?

Seems like the media jumped the gun way sooner then they should have.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

... So if I'm short on change at McDonald's, I should rob them?

When authorities chase you, you don't start shooting and killing people, you let them catch you.

Some people... Are stupid.

[Stronger]

Some people... Are stupid.

Calling the Kettle Black, much?