Scratch

That's just wrong

Mokat wrote:

But what if something else happens while they've got all their police in that area? Like a bank robbery across town?

TDKR conspiracy, much?

Good job to the FBI, SWAT, and Boston Police Department for ensuring that this ordeal was ended relatively swiftly. Surely every crime fighter in Boston has been working for days on end, and the city of Boston is now secure with minimal collateral damage.
HOWEVER (although surely the FBI does not read these boards, just saying) we need to go about this legally. The suspect is an AMERICAN CITIZEN and has his rights. You can't arbitrarily define this as "terrorism" and deny him rights. He has the same rights as every other American citizen. I only bring this up because currently he is not being read his Miranda rights (Right to remain silent, right to a lawyer, etc.) which while not the first time, is still a bad move by the BPD/FBI.

soupoftomato wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

Mokat wrote:

But what if something else happens while they've got all their police in that area? Like a bank robbery across town?

TDKR conspiracy, much?

Good job to the FBI, SWAT, and Boston Police Department for ensuring that this ordeal was ended relatively swiftly. Surely every crime fighter in Boston has been working for days on end, and the city of Boston is now secure with minimal collateral damage.
HOWEVER (although surely the FBI does not read these boards, just saying) we need to go about this legally. The suspect is an AMERICAN CITIZEN and has his rights. You can't arbitrarily define this as "terrorism" and deny him rights. He has the same rights as every other American citizen. I only bring this up because currently he is not being read his Miranda rights (Right to remain silent, right to a lawyer, etc.) which while not the first time, is still a bad move by the BPD/FBI.

If they don't read his Miranda rights won't the case have to be thrown out because of that one that set the precedent?

Anyway, what does defining something as "terrorism" do? I don't go by a legal definition - I just consider anything that goes around terrorizing people terrorism - there's not reason for one reason for a crime to be considered worse than another.

And you say AMERICAN CITIZEN like the silly other countries don't deserve the same treatment on our land. Actually, is justice performed the same with citizens of other countries committing crimes in America? (Ordinary crimes like a theft, not big 9/11 style things)

Certainly they deserve it, but the legal system will ignore that because it's what they do. I'm pretty sure that non-citizens aren't given the same protections as citizens through the constitution, which is why Guantanamo exists.

Edit: as for what constitutes "terrorism," I would define it as the use of terror in order to promote a political cause. As there have been no links or motives yet discovered, I have remained hesitant to call this "terrorism." There is a word for killing without motive whatsoever, and that is murder. 9/11 was terrorism. Sandy Hook was murder. Aurora was murder. This, well, not established yet. As it is believed they were plotting a "grand finale" a possible political motive could have been announced after that. Just because it was a bomb doesn't automatically make it terrorism.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2013-04-19 23:41:31)

that's exactly what he said, clever clogs

1 bomber down. 1 to go.

LeDerpy123 wrote:

genderdysmorphia wrote:

that's exactly what he said, clever clogs

It is exactly what he said, but I was just backing it up with proof.

you didnt need to do that
(dictionary definitions=/=moral or legal arguments anyway)

personally, im rather enjoying the reddit/4chan drama in the media
the same media outlets that accepted the paranoid accusations as fact are now pointing the finger at reddit/4chan (when 4chan's accusations were never meant to be taken seriously!! pretty sure they accused michael jackson), when they are just as at fault for taken unsubstantiated rumours and reporting on them

genderdysmorphia wrote:

LeDerpy123 wrote:

genderdysmorphia wrote:

that's exactly what he said, clever clogs

It is exactly what he said, but I was just backing it up with proof.

you didnt need to do that
(dictionary definitions=/=moral or legal arguments anyway)

personally, im rather enjoying the reddit/4chan drama in the media
the same media outlets that accepted the paranoid accusations as fact are now pointing the finger at reddit/4chan (when 4chan's accusations were never meant to be taken seriously!! pretty sure they accused michael jackson), when they are just as at fault for taken unsubstantiated rumours and reporting on them

4chan accused the jews and the government

Last edited by zubblewu (2013-04-20 13:04:46)

soupoftomato wrote:

zubblewu wrote:

genderdysmorphia wrote:

you didnt need to do that
(dictionary definitions=/=moral or legal arguments anyway)

personally, im rather enjoying the reddit/4chan drama in the media
the same media outlets that accepted the paranoid accusations as fact are now pointing the finger at reddit/4chan (when 4chan's accusations were never meant to be taken seriously!! pretty sure they accused michael jackson), when they are just as at fault for taken unsubstantiated rumours and reporting on them

4chan accused the jews and the government

4chan accused everybody man

touche

16Skittles wrote:

4chan... Yeah anybody who's ever been on 4chan should know that most of it is made up of trolls. Although there are some white hats and black hats there (is that phrase still usable?), some will hack/investigate for good purposes while there was a recent shooting that was announced on 4chan and then carried out (two injured, no dead).

there are no real hackers left on 4chan