Homegrown terrorists captured

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Diemen said:
I've come to understand that AchtungBono doesn't hold the rule of law, civil rights, or, you know, the core principles a country was founded on, in high regard.

I'm sorry I give that impression... because nothing could be further from the truth.

I do believe in the law and civil rights....for the INNOCENT. I don't believe in granting any rights to criminals - this doesn't contradict anything or show that I don't believe in law....quite the opposite - it is precisely BECAUSE I believe in the law and people's rights that I am outraged when I see criminals getting away with crimes because of loopholes in the law and/or hide behind constitutional rights.
 
phillyfan26 said:


Are you ... are you serious?

Read these words: Innocent until proven guilty.

Your argument there literally is: the ends justify the means. Problem: That's not how the country works. Why? Because (drum roll, please) ... OFTEN TIMES THE ARRESTS ARE WRONG.

I can't believe that you need to be told this.

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't always work. What happens in a case where a robber is in a bank, holding a hostage, the police are surrounding him...there are dozens of witnesses, he comes out and shoots the hostage in broad daylight and in front of everyone.....and yet he's referred to as a SUSPECT and ALLEGED gunman......what???? Do you really need a trial to prove he's guilty??

Besides, I always understood that you can't charge anyone with a crime, much less put them on trial, unless there is solid evidence against them.
 
AchtungBono said:
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't always work. What happens in a case where a robber is in a bank, holding a hostage, the police are surrounding him...there are dozens of witnesses, he comes out and shoots the hostage in broad daylight and in front of everyone.....and yet he's referred to as a SUSPECT and ALLEGED gunman......what???? Do you really need a trial to prove he's guilty??

Besides, I always understood that you can't charge anyone with a crime, much less put them on trial, unless there is solid evidence against them.

1) The scenario you listed with "dozens of witnesses" is EXTREMELY rare.

2) Yes, you do need a trial.

3) For the last part ... not always. Sometimes there's corruption.
 
AchtungBono said:
I do believe in the law and civil rights....for the INNOCENT. I don't believe in granting any rights to criminals - this doesn't contradict anything or show that I don't believe in law....quite the opposite - it is precisely BECAUSE I believe in the law and people's rights that I am outraged when I see criminals getting away with crimes because of loopholes in the law and/or hide behind constitutional rights.

The problem is that you're trying to take away civil rights from people who haven't been found guilty.
 
AchtungBono said:
Besides, I always understood that you can't charge anyone with a crime, much less put them on trial, unless there is solid evidence against them.

And here is where your argument completely falls apart, because you are completely wrong. There have been lots and lots (and lots) of people who have been wrongly accused and convicted of crimes, and who have had to serve lengthy jail/prison terms, only to be freed later because further investigation uncovered evidence before their innocence was proven. What would you say to a man who just spent 17 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit? Oops, sorry you had to spend the last 17 years in a cement box away from your family and children, but uh... we thought you were guilty

Do a google search for "wrongly convicted" and read up a little bit before you say such incredibly naive (and dangerous) things.
 
Diemen said:
Do a google search for "wrongly convicted" and read up a little bit before you say such incredibly naive (and dangerous) things.

Don't bother AchtungBono with the facts. I think AB's allergic to them.
 
AchtungBono said:


"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't always work.

It's only Monday and I think we may have found the worst post of the week already.

I find it sad that you hate these principals so much.
 
AchtungBono said:
Axver, there's really no need for sarcasm.....my intentions are honorable and I mean no harm.

Your views are so ridiculous and repulsive that I believe the only suitable response is sarcastic mockery. In any case, I still think you're a troll.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


It's only Monday and I think we may have found the worst post of the week already.

I find it sad that you hate these principals so much.

I find it even sadder that you can't understand that I'm on your side......
 
Axver said:


Your views are so ridiculous and repulsive that I believe the only suitable response is sarcastic mockery. In any case, I still think you're a troll.

You have every right to disagree with my posts and opinions,.....but you do not have the right to insult me, seeing as I've never insulted you - or anyone else on this board.
 
AchtungBono said:


I find it even sadder that you can't understand that I'm on your side......

I'm sorry but you aren't on my side if you don't agree that people are innocent until proven guilty. There's just no other humane way to deal with crime.
 
AchtungBono said:
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't always work. What happens in a case where a robber is in a bank, holding a hostage, the police are surrounding him...there are dozens of witnesses, he comes out and shoots the hostage in broad daylight and in front of everyone.....and yet he's referred to as a SUSPECT and ALLEGED gunman......what???? Do you really need a trial to prove he's guilty??

Yes, we do need a trial, because if you start saying "well of course he's guilty, there are eyewitnesses" and just throw people in jail (or execute them -- which according to what I've read of your posts you would want) without having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt you run a much increased risk of jailing or killing an innocent person. Eyewitness identifications are notoriously inaccurate and are responsible for the incarceration of many innocent people. If the person in your scenario was apprehended immediately on the scene it shouldn't be too tough of a case to prosecute. But it still needs to go through the process.

Criminal justice will never get it right every time. Never. I believe that it is better to allow a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent one -- even if that guilty person will commit more crimes. I know that would be cold comfort to and future victims of that person, but life is full of risks. Taking away every risk also takes away every freedom. I'll take risks to have freedom.
 
indra said:
Eyewitness identifications are notoriously inaccurate and are responsible for the incarceration of many innocent people.

Exactly. Not to mention the occasional eyewitnesses that will sometimes claim so-and-so did it because they "looked" like the kind of person who would, they seemed a bit suspicious or something. Or the "eyewitnesses" who will flat out lie for whatever reason. And so on and so forth.

Everybody has the right to a fair trial and to be able to try and defend themselves. It would be a scary, scary world if we were to take that opportunity away.

Angela
 
Last edited:
AchtungBono said:
You have every right to disagree with my posts and opinions,.....but you do not have the right to insult me, seeing as I've never insulted you - or anyone else on this board.

I find your views themselves to be insulting to human decency, morality, ethics, common sense, intelligence, and everything I hold dear. You don't need to explicitly insult anyone; your opinions are quite sufficiently disgusting already.
 
AchtungBono said:


I'm sorry I give that impression... because nothing could be further from the truth.

I do believe in the law and civil rights....for the INNOCENT.
I'm sure the thousands of innocent Japanese Americans herded into internment camps during World War II might have a bone to pick with you, or some of the people sitting in GITMO who have not been accused of a crime and are there only because of the word of a neighbour or coworker.

It's quite irritating to have the US, and other Western nations for that matter, chiding China on human rights, only to be ignoring International Law themselves.

:tsk:
 
Axver said:


I find your views themselves to be insulting to human decency, morality, ethics, common sense, intelligence, and everything I hold dear. You don't need to explicitly insult anyone; your opinions are quite sufficiently disgusting already.

How can you possibly say that if all I want is to get criminals off the street and make our lives safer to live?

Don't you want that also? If you're so against my views then I'm afraid that it may be YOU who have issues here if you hold the rights of criminals ahead of your own.
 
AchtungBono said:
Don't you want that also? If you're so against my views then I'm afraid that it may be YOU who have issues here if you hold the rights of criminals ahead of your own.
The last time I checked, we should be holding the rights of accused criminals equal to our own.

Anyway, we'll wait for Antiram to get in here with her keen legal mind to clear things up. :up:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm sorry but you aren't on my side if you don't agree that people are innocent until proven guilty. There's just no other humane way to deal with crime.

I'm not talking about cases in which there could be a mistake in identity.

I'm talking about a crime taking place 10 feet from where I'm standing and me seeing the crime being committed and me WATCHING the guy shoot another person........I can't say it was a "suspect" or an "alleged" gunman - I SAW it happen!

That's the case of "innocent until proven guilty" being irrelevant because the crime took place right in front of me.....how could the perpetrator be innocent????

Now do you understand my point? I hope so......

And just to drive another point home, here's another example taken from the Israeli court yesterday - this is an actual case:

A suspect was arrested in a murder case and, on the advise of his lawyer, freely gave a DNA sample in order to prove his innocence in this case. The DNA sample was obtained after the police promised not to use the DNA sample as evidence in other cases (should they arise).
Well, during the testing, the DNA sample cleared the suspect of murder but, as it turns out, the sample clearly showed he was guilty in at least 3 unsolved rape cases. His DNA matched samples taken from the rape victims.
Naturally his lawyer thought that the DNA sample couldn't be used as evidence....but the judge surprised him: the judge said that the public interest dictates that this person not walk off scott-free for raping at least 3 women. So, in a judicial first, the judge INCLUDED the DNA evidence and so the suspect was cleared of murder and convicted of rape and sent to prison.


I would assume that in the United States the suspect would have walked.....and sent back in the streets to rape again.

Isn't it better that this rapist is now behind bars instead of threatening women?

Now THAT'S justice!!!
 
Canadiens1160 said:
The last time I checked, we should be holding the rights of accused criminals equal to our own.

Anyway, we'll wait for Antiram to get in here with her keen legal mind to clear things up. :up:

lol....the way things are going I think I'M going to be needing a lawyer....heehee.

I LOVE THIS FORUM!!
 
AchtungBono said:


I'm not talking about cases in which there could be a mistake in identity.

I'm talking about a crime taking place 10 feet from where I'm standing and me seeing the crime being committed and me WATCHING the guy shoot another person........I can't say it was a "suspect" or an "alleged" gunman - I SAW it happen!

That's the case of "innocent until proven guilty" being irrelevant because the crime took place right in front of me.....how could the perpetrator be innocent????

Now do you understand my point? I hope so......

But how do I know you don't have poor vision? How do I know you aren't projecting your hatred on someone innocent?

I'm sorry, but you seeing it, doesn't change anything. It still has to run through the system. You haven't made your point.


AchtungBono said:


And just to drive another point home, here's another example taken from the Israeli court yesterday - this is an actual case:

A suspect was arrested in a murder case and, on the advise of his lawyer, freely gave a DNA sample in order to prove his innocence in this case. The DNA sample was obtained after the police promised not to use the DNA sample as evidence in other cases (should they arise).
Well, during the testing, the DNA sample cleared the suspect of murder but, as it turns out, the sample clearly showed he was guilty in at least 3 unsolved rape cases. His DNA matched samples taken from the rape victims.
Naturally his lawyer thought that the DNA sample couldn't be used as evidence....but the judge surprised him: the judge said that the public interest dictates that this person not walk off scott-free for raping at least 3 women. So, in a judicial first, the judge INCLUDED the DNA evidence and so the suspect was cleared of murder and convicted of rape and sent to prison.


I would assume that in the United States the suspect would have walked.....and sent back in the streets to rape again.

Isn't it better that this rapist is now behind bars instead of threatening women?

Now THAT'S justice!!!

What does this have to do with anything? This has nothing to do with innocent until guilty. This is just a shitty deal the lawyers made.
 
AchtungBono said:
That's the case of "innocent until proven guilty" being irrelevant because the crime took place right in front of me.....how could the perpetrator be innocent???

It is absolutely not made irrelevant by your scenario. Innocent until proven guilty means that it is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty before we can take away any of their rights. That's just how democracy works. Even if in your heart you're 100% certain the person is guilty, you must afford them the same fair trial as everyone else. If the evidence is strong enough, the end result will be the same and they will receive their punishment. If you don't think that's right, then sorry, but no, you don't really believe in civil rights and equality, and frankly, I think that maybe democracy just isn't for you.
 
AchtungBono said:
I'm not talking about cases in which there could be a mistake in identity.

I'm talking about a crime taking place 10 feet from where I'm standing and me seeing the crime being committed and me WATCHING the guy shoot another person........I can't say it was a "suspect" or an "alleged" gunman - I SAW it happen!

That's the case of "innocent until proven guilty" being irrelevant because the crime took place right in front of me.....how could the perpetrator be innocent????

Are you kidding me?

You saw it happen. I didn't. The judge didn't. The jury didn't. Just you.

You could be wrong. In the heat of the moment, you might have mistaken him. He might look like someone else. You might have lied, for all we know. We have no idea. We'll never no for certain.




In the United States, guilt is found BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Not 100% guilty.

Not guilty with certainty.

No.

Wrong.

Get that out of your head already.
 
AchtungBono said:
How can you possibly say that if all I want is to get criminals off the street and make our lives safer to live?

You don't want that though. You keep saying you do, but you really just want to deprive people of rights and not allow due process. Ultimately, you do not respect the legal system.
 
AchtungBono said:

That's the case of "innocent until proven guilty" being irrelevant because the crime took place right in front of me.....how could the perpetrator be innocent????

reverse the senario and you are the one being accused of the shooting. You are immediately arrested and thrown on death row, because the person standing 10 feet away said you did it.

What you and no one else knows, because there was no trial,
is that the eye witness has a history of violent delusions and really didn't see it - he imagined it.
But non the less your life is over you are guilty.
 
I'm sorry that this is an online debate and not a real one because obviously I'm not getting my point across and none of you understand what I'm trying to say.

The internet is limited in the way I can express myself. There's only so much emotion I can put in these posts and there's nothing more I can do to convince you that I'm not a bad person and that I really DO believe in citizens rights.

I never run away from an argument but I can beat my head against the wall only so many times........so I'm dropping out of this discussion.

Have a good day.
 
Back
Top Bottom