Questioning of bombing suspect reportedly begins

I must say, that watching the media this weekend, (my mistake, I know.) has left me a bit upset. They just keep repeating that he will not have his rights read to him, may not get representation, and some of the other things they have been implying.

There are so many questions in this whole story, but the important thing is that is he not an American citizen? Should he have rights? I'm not saying that he isn't guilty, although not saying he is either.
I guess my concern is, if this is how the government is going to handle this young man, does this set precedent for any of us? Not that we would do something this horrible, but is it going to be up to the government to decide?

Originally posted by GrantedBail

I am probably gonna get flamed for this but this is a picture of a boy. He looks so innocent to me. I am the mother of two boys close to this kid's age. He looks like someone I have given a ride to practice.

edit on 21-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: cuz I messed my op up

edit on 21-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

So, at 19 you are responsible for your choices.

Their was an accident outside of philly recently where an 18 year old killed a family of three because they were txting while driving. Someone tried to say" the suspect was only 18, they didn't know better"
Because someone held a gun to that kids head and said "idiot txt while you are driving, this seems like a good idea"

If the evidence and facts prove that the bombing suspect committed the crime then it doesn't matter if he is 19 or 49. He should face the maximum penalty allowed by the law.

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

In my world..that term "light it up" means something else.....and it involves gunfire..

Good thing your world was not the reality of the situation as most of us could surmise from the scanner feed.
Of course it doesn't matter.

They could have videos of the chopper pilots lighting him up with FLIR or a different light\imaging source and I am sure their is a section here that will insist "light him up" actually means shoot him.

reply to post by opethPA


My point was the kid looks just like that....a kid. It is my maternal instinct.

Second of all, I am sorry that the 18 year old boy caused an accident that killed three people. That is just horrible. But what do you want to do, sentence the boy to death?? Do you think that he probably is unable to even live with himself right now.

Really not a comparison. A supposed murderer and a kid texting on his cell phone. I think you got it twisted.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by opethPA

 

My point was the kid looks just like that....a kid. It is my maternal instinct.

Second of all, I am sorry that the 18 year old boy caused an accident that killed three people. That is just horrible. But what do you want to do, sentence the boy to death?? Do you think that he probably is unable to even live with himself right now.

Really not a comparison. A supposed murderer and a kid texting on his cell phone. I think you got it twisted.

Oh im sorry.. he is 18 and because he can't live with himself it's ok.
Never mind the fact that a 6 year old girl and a mother and father were killed.
It's ok because he is young and gosh darn it he just didn't know better and made a mistake.

really?
It's been proven that the 18 year old in the case I was mentioning was txting and looking at his phone when he swerved over two lanes and hit the other car head on.

it hasn't been proven yet that the bombing suspect did anything. Evidence seems to suggest that he did but nothing has been proven.

You are right, they are not the same..the 18 year old is a proven murder suspect while the bomber is not.

reply to post by opethPA


First of all, I'm sorry that happened. But is it illegal to text and drive where this happened? Makes a difference on punishment.

I'm 99.9 % sure it is illegal to make a bomb and blow people up, so yeah, it is different.

1. Last I checked, once you turn 18 here in the United States, you are now legally an adult. Part of that is the realization that you are now solely responsible for your actions. You, yourself, alone. This is the age you can join our military, and be trained in advanced killing tactics. So, at 19, this MAN is an adult. He is not a kid anymore, regardless of his looks. As one of the main suspects in the case, and as an adult, he should face the full justice system on this country. A country that welcomed him in, educated him, offered him citizenship as an adult.

2. As a U.S. citizen, you are held accountable if you take up arms against this country. I would argue that this act was indeed that. This was a war against this country, and the suspect should be charged upon that context. Anything less, IMO, is BS and diminishes the suffering of everyone in this country over this tragic event.

That's my opinion only, I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by opethPA

 

First of all, I'm sorry that happened. But is it illegal to text and drive where this happened? Makes a difference on punishment.

I'm 99.9 % sure it is illegal to make a bomb and blow people up, so yeah, it is different.

As of March 2012 it is Illegal to Txt and Drive in Pennsylvania. It is considered a primary offense meaning a police officer can pull you over for txting and nothing else.
As of always it is illegal to make a bomb and blow people up.

That means both people in this case did illegal acts and killed, allegedly in the bomb case, innocent lives.

My point in bringing this up was that just because someone is 19 or "looks like a kid" means 100% nothing in the real world. If the proof shows the bomber did what he is alleged to do he should face the full consequences of the law be that the death penalty or life in prison.

reply to post by opethPA


OK, I get that. As a mom, of boys around the same age, I see why the OP picked up on that.
But what about the other part, like I questioned as well. I'm sure the boy texting had his rights read to him, and was allowed an attorney during questioning. Doesn't the other one deserve the same, as a US citizen, and if the government can set precedent as to why not, does that not bode ill for every citizen, if the government deems so?

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by opethPA

 

OK, I get that. As a mom, of boys around the same age, I see why the OP picked up on that.
But what about the other part, like I questioned as well. I'm sure the boy texting had his rights read to him, and was allowed an attorney during questioning. Doesn't the other one deserve the same, as a US citizen, and if the government can set precedent as to why not, does that not bode ill for every citizen, if the government deems so?

The difference is their legal precedence to not mirandize a suspected terrorist regardless of if they are a US citizen.

This article gives a brief though good explanation of it, more detailed explanations can be found on the DOJ website along with multiple other places: articles.latimes.com...

In the case I brought up the suspect was given his Miranda rights because he was not a suspected terrorist.

Again, my issue with what the OP brought up is the fact he is 19 should account for nothing if the proof shows he committed these crimes.

reply to post by GrantedBail


I haven't seen it posted yet so I thought I would mention, . .. .

The FBI has indicated this morning that the 2 suspects acted alone WithOut any outside influence or help so that the "Boy" will Not be listed as an Enemy Combatant.

In addition, the next story was regarding the Mother of the 2. She said that the FBI questioned the Older son a couple of days after the bombing. Of course the FBI has denied this.

The new guidelines strike a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement and the rights of suspects. In fact, they're so reasonable that they shouldn't be limited to terrorism cases but should apply to any case — a gang-related case, say, or a murder plot — in which a suspect may have knowledge of a possible future threat. Singling out terrorism suspects as less deserving of legal protections than others is generally a bad idea. So let's by all means implement the new guidelines, and broaden them beyond terrorism.

So, I'm right, just off on the dates. As of 1984, the government (supreme court) has set precedent that could affect all of us. And the LA times thinks it's great.
Awesome.

BTW, thank you!

i've found a clue that this may be a set up but unable to create a new thread so writing this just to let you know will hopefully be up at 21:00gmt