pyroman2498 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/26/justice/pennsylvania-teen-bomb-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 and There was one i heard on the new where A guy made a bomb from fireworks, and attempted to kill someone with it , if i find that one ill post it here , Or if you guys can find it post it please I found it guys here it is - http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/25/us/maryland-mall-shooting/index.html -Late Saturday, police revealed that "two crude devices that appeared to be an attempt at making explosives using fireworks" were found inside the shooter's bag inside the store. "Both were disabled," police added. Edited January 26, 2014 by pyroman2498
LambentPyro Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 What surprises me is they listed the specific chemicals he had, I've never seen that before. Just horrendous to hear about shit like this. He should be deported back to Russia and not even face a conviction. Going to jail gives him three meals a day, TV, and time to actively play sports; all from hard-working tax dollars. Keep him out of the country and let him blow himself up. How does a terrorist assume constitutional rights such as a public defender anyway????
asdercks Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 magnesium,kclo4 and kno3 weapons of mass destruction!!! I wonder when the witch hunt will beging. That's definitely not good news for our hobby.That's why I keep stockpiling chems
Peret Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I'm old enough to remember when "weapons of mass destruction" meant atomic or radioactive bombs, nerve gas or biological toxins in large enough amounts to cause mass fatalities, like a city block or greater. This kind of mission creep bullshit is purely down to the fact that the prosecutor can threaten a longer sentence for WMD, so increasing the chance that the perp will accept a plea bargain and save the lazy assholes having to try the case. One of these cases needs to go to trial so that the WMD thing can be challenged, and hopefully a good precedent set. However, I don't volunteer.
Bobosan Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Sensationalism and paranoia always seem to compliment one another. Some media and many prosecutors are nothing without it.
asdercks Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Gotta love the system... nahhhh! I'm just being sarcastic. 1
psyco_1322 Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I didn't see anywhere that it lists the chemicals. How is there chemicals if he made it from fireworks? They don't seem to have cared about the devices, more the fact he was shooting the place up.
ddewees Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 It's right in the third paragraph... They mention atomized magnesium and Chinese potassium perchlorate.
Peret Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 ... How does a terrorist assume constitutional rights such as a public defender anyway????I'm going to take you up on that. In the first place, neither of the links says anything about a "terrorist". A terrorist, in the true meaning of the word, is a person using public fear and terror in pursuit of a political objective. The political objective is the key. The IRA were terrorists, using public fear to bring pressure on the British government to withdraw from Northern Ireland. Al Queda are terrorists, using public fear to bring pressure on governments to withdraw from Muslim lands. These morons are not terrorists. Second, any person present in the United States or within its legal jurisdiction has constitutional rights. No exceptions. All the authority of the United States Government derives from the Constitution. So if you say that a person has no constitutional rights, you are also saying the US has no authority to prosecute them. It's very dangerous to tamper with the concept of constitutional rights. If today you approve of tossing foreigners into Gitmo and holding them indefinitely without trial, you won't have much to say in Hilary's third term when she starts gitmo'ing the Tea Party. 4
somecommiebastard Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Oy vey! lets just hope no BS legislation comes out of this wanting to ban consumer fireworks and the sale of chemicals because you "could" make a atomic bomb out of a roman candle. 1
LambentPyro Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I'm going to take you up on that. In the first place, neither of the links says anything about a "terrorist". A terrorist, in the true meaning of the word, is a person using public fear and terror in pursuit of a political objective. The political objective is the key. The IRA were terrorists, using public fear to bring pressure on the British government to withdraw from Northern Ireland. Al Queda are terrorists, using public fear to bring pressure on governments to withdraw from Muslim lands. These morons are not terrorists. Second, any person present in the United States or within its legal jurisdiction has constitutional rights. No exceptions. All the authority of the United States Government derives from the Constitution. So if you say that a person has no constitutional rights, you are also saying the US has no authority to prosecute them. It's very dangerous to tamper with the concept of constitutional rights. If today you approve of tossing foreigners into Gitmo and holding them indefinitely without trial, you won't have much to say in Hilary's third term when she starts gitmo'ing the Tea Party.It all comes down to one thing, he obviously wasn't going to use what he was making for fun, but instead to pose harm towards another person with a weapon of mass destruction. DON'T say he is not a terrorist, he didn't progress far enough for us to judge whether he wanted to commit a terrorist act, and also, he doesn't have to admit any thoughts about it to the court, playing dumb can cheat himself out for being tried as a terrorist if he were to admit it. I am going to assume he was for, my own, personal reasons. Stating the facts doesn't make you right. Exactly, that's what the system is now, doesn't mean it makes sense/isn't corrupt. Don't put words in my mouth, I never said if A PERSON should have constitutional rights, I said why should terrorists assume rights in our country in the first place. Should hardworking citizens who don't threaten the country have benefits and constitutional rights? Damn right! What did they do to deserve them? Tried in court??? They should be publicly tortured and hung for all I care. IMO, Hilary is a twisted bitch and I highly despise her. Throw the TP into the gitmo? How about sending her there instead, directly to Big Bob. If you can't tell by now, obviously I am not a liberal. Sorry, Democraps don't make sense to me. (I don't want to go any further with talking with politics publicly, if you want to talk any further, send me a message instead.) Edited January 27, 2014 by LambentPyro
nater Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 The name calling is classy. The US is right to treat people in our borders according to our laws. Anything less is becoming no better the groups we claim to stand against. 2
LambentPyro Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 The name calling is classy.The US is right to treat people in our borders according to our laws. Anything less is becoming no better the groups we claim to stand against.Why terrorists?
nater Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 We have criminal laws for a reason, picking who those laws apply to and who they don't makes them pointless. We have a system of checks and balances in our judicial system, and anyone who is charged with crimes in our country deserves a fair trial. Aren't we better than countries like North Korea who detain people with no trial? Don't forget that our nation was founded by people who were fleeing the reign of their King who did not apply laws fairly. We must not loose sight of those roots. 1
LambentPyro Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) We have criminal laws for a reason, picking who those laws apply to and who they don't makes them pointless. We have a system of checks and balances in our judicial system, and anyone who is charged with crimes in our country deserves a fair trial. Aren't we better than countries like North Korea who detain people with no trial? Don't forget that our nation was founded by people who were fleeing the reign of their King who did not apply laws fairly. We must not loose sight of those roots.True, true. But acts of crime today*** are much more severe than acts of crime during that time period. People in NK are not terrorists, they would be too frightened to become one because of the harsh penalty involved. In the US, crime occurs because they know they can continue living in a jail cell where they get food, TV, and able to play sports. If you want laws to be laws, you must impose a strict punishment standard on them unless they're not laws, they're children's rules. Edited January 28, 2014 by LambentPyro
nater Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 "True, true. But acts of crime are much more severe than acts of crime during that time period." ------ Wow. I am speechless.
LambentPyro Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 "True, true. But acts of crime are much more severe than acts of crime during that time period."------Wow. I am speechless.In today's world I meant, if you cannot see that, then you must be blind.
Extrarius Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Why terrorists? The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine whether a person actually is a "terrorist" (or criminal of other category) before punishing them as prescribed for the alleged crime.
Peret Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Wow, for a moment there I thought I was on Passfire. 1
nater Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Wow, for a moment there I thought I was on Passfire. At least people on Passfire have studied history. 3
LambentPyro Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 At least people on Passfire have studied history. At least some people would accept that others have different opinions than theirs.
asdercks Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I also think that not only terrorists are bad, I also think that terrorists are badyou mean real terrorists or politicians, lol.
taiwanluthiers Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I think "terrorist", or at least the way terrorists are defined is scary. I do not know if there is a legal definition of terrorism under US law but it's not hard to label anyone a terrorist, simply based on whether or not the state likes him/her. This could include Al Queda, IRA, etc. or could even include those who campeigns against the current established government in the US due to disagreement or dissidance. What makes a person a terrorist vs. a criminal? The laws and constitution was made for a good reason. As soon as you start discounting them because of "terrorists" (which could be applied to anyone) you start creating a loophole around the checks and balance that was created to prevent abuse of power. Today it might be used for those who genuinely wanted to destroy America and their way of life, but in the future it could be used on anyone who disagrees with the government and their interests, those who speaks out against social injustice, etc. This development towards antiterrorism is disturbing.
Maserface Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Wow, for a moment there I thought I was on Passfire. Im bustin up over here
Recommended Posts