Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

[unofan]

Agreed. How does one define a WMD? What makes this pressure cooker bomb a WMD? I want to know where the lines have been drawn and why they were drawn in that specific location.

When I think WMD, I think of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. A homemade bomb of nails and ball bearings doesn't fit the bill. If it did, one could easily argue a gun with a large enough magazine is also a WMD.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

If a bomb is not a WMD (in the legal sense) then what is? A bigger bomb?

I think bigblue has it right, at least historically. The traditional definition of wmd would be a nuke, some sort of biological weapon or chemical weapon. Of course, with the growing demand of our government to make literally everything a federal crime and an act of war, I suspect that just about any old pipe bomb, or even a good firecracker will qualify under the right circumstances.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Agreed. Because if we're only talking about something that has the capacity to kill say "dozens" of people, then would a semiautomatic rifle with a couple of 30-round clips count? I sure as hell don't think so.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

I joked with a friend of mine that the feds are so eager to get jurisdiction over this guy it won't surprise me if they assert some sort of admiralty jurisdiction just because they found him in a boat.

 

[Almington]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

If a bomb is not a WMD (in the legal sense) then what is? A bigger bomb?

I think that we all agree that any bomb that contains material that is radioactive, biological, or chemical would be a weapon of mass destruction.

In my mind, a bomb used against a specific private person or private property would not be a weapon of mass destruction. A bomb used against a public target or to indiscriminately targeting other people would be a weapon of mass destruction.

I recognize the inconsistency in that I would not consider a gun fired into that same crowd to constitute a weapon of mass destruction, even if the likely result would be increased casualties. Something about the detached and indiscriminate nature of a bomb makes me place it in a different category.

 

[Almington]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

I think bigblue has it right, at least historically. The traditional definition of wmd would be a nuke, some sort of biological weapon or chemical weapon. Of course, with the growing demand of our government to make literally everything a federal crime and an act of war, I suspect that just about any old pipe bomb, or even a good firecracker will qualify under the right circumstances.

To me, any nation has a right to possess explosive ordinance (ie bombs) and if necessary use that ordinance to protect itself (ideally against defined security threats or militarily relevant targets) . I hold private persons (both internationally and domestically) to a lower standard as to what would constitute a weapon of mass destruction, particularly depending on how that weapon was used (or intended to be used).

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Agreed. How does one define a WMD? What makes this pressure cooker bomb a WMD? I want to know where the lines have been drawn and why they were drawn in that specific location.

So would I. After all, an assault rifle could be defined as a WMD. Just look quickly it took one to kill all those kids in Newtown. Not much longer than the two bomb explosions in Boston. How about purposely driving a car at a high rate of speed into a crowd of people? Could easily kill a handful of people using that method. Does the car suddenly become a WMD? How about an arsonists setting a blaze that kills half a dozen people and injures dozens? Are the matches a WMD? Is the definition based on potential? Results? Intent? All at once? Or spread out over a period of time?

I fear defining WMD is a legal exercise in futility.

 

[Almington]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

I fear defining WMD is a legal exercise in futility.

It's going to be a legal exercise in absurdity, but it is likely that the outcome of that legal exercise will determine if an execution is allowable or not.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

I fear defining WMD is a legal exercise in futility.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Edit: Although, this may qualify:

It's going to be a legal exercise in absurdity

 

[jmh]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

I think this is the right call. The only thing that I don't think I'd agree with is the WMD part. I don't think a pressure cooker bomb qualifies as a WMD. Besides that, we're talking about a US citizen, committing a horrible crime on US soil. I would not consider him an enemy combatant. He'll get his desevrings going this route.

About the family, it is really annoying seeing how some members appear to be claiming it is a coverup, but I can see why it is happening. I wouldn't want to believe that a close family member is capable of doing something like that either, and I'd be clinging to any hope I had that he/she was not responsible.

When this is all said and done, and the younger brother is tried and sentenced, this could end up being an excellent case study in human psychology. How did this kid get turned into a terrorist? How did he go from being a normal college kid to trying to kill hundreds of people? If we can understand this, which I doubt we'll ever be able to completely, we are one step closer to being able to prevent it, and possibly saving the next kid from turning into an evil terrorist a-hole.

This is all very well said.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

It's going to be a legal exercise in absurdity, but it is likely that the outcome of that legal exercise will determine if an execution is allowable or not.

In my opinion, it is absurd that killing 3 people, including one kid, isn't enough to warrant the death penalty in itself.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

To me, any nation has a right to possess explosive ordinance (ie bombs) and if necessary use that ordinance to protect itself (ideally against defined security threats or militarily relevant targets) . I hold private persons (both internationally and domestically) to a lower standard as to what would constitute a weapon of mass destruction, particularly depending on how that weapon was used (or intended to be used).

We get all tied up with definitions. Is it a "weapon of mass destruction." That's only done to somehow justify having the feds try this guy, and not the Commonwealth of Mass.

I guess for me what it comes down to is this -- was this some sort of "federal" crime, or crime against the U.S.? Or was this a couple of idiots committing a handful of murders locally? If it were up to me, I'd just have him prosecuted in Mass. He isn't getting out anyway. The only reason the feds want him is so they put on the display of killing him. If I were the Commonwealth, I'd insist on jurisdiction and then let him spend the rest of his days behind bars.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

It's going to be a legal exercise in absurdity, but it is likely that the outcome of that legal exercise will determine if an execution is allowable or not.

Is murder in a federal crime punishable by death? Mass murder? Killing a police officer?

I really don't know, but I ask wondering if this WMD charge is only there for the sake of trying to get a death penalty conviction. If so, then I can understand. If not, then I wonder if that charge is there to try and get a better definition of a WMD with a precedent setting case.

 

[theprofromdover]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

in my opinion, it is absurd that killing 4 people, including one kid, isn't enough to warrant the death penalty in itself.

fyp.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Rereading the criminal complaint against him, the Feds are asserting jurisdiction because this bombing disrupted interstate commerce.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Rereading the criminal complaint against him, the Feds are asserting jurisdiction because this bombing disrupted interstate commerce.

Seriously? Heck, if I can pulled over for speeding causing a rubber necking traffic jam, is that disrupting interstate commerce because goods are getting to the stores later?

Geez. The Feds can justify any sort of crime with that logic.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

We get all tied up with definitions. Is it a "weapon of mass destruction." That's only done to somehow justify having the feds try this guy, and not the Commonwealth of Mass.

I guess for me what it comes down to is this -- was this some sort of "federal" crime, or crime against the U.S.? Or was this a couple of idiots committing a handful of murders locally? If it were up to me, I'd just have him prosecuted in Mass. He isn't getting out anyway. The only reason the feds want him is so they put on the display of killing him. If I were the Commonwealth, I'd insist on jurisdiction and then let him spend the rest of his days behind bars.

I admit, I want the death penalty implemented in this case. However, I agree with what you are saying.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

fyp.

I am not including the MIT police officer simply because I think it will be extremely hard to prove that it is the younger brother that committed that murder, as opposed to the older brother. I don't think there are any witnesses to that murder, and as far as I know, nobody except the younger brother knows what actually happens.

I agree that this blood is on his hands, no argument there. I just don't think it will be able to be proven in a court of law.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

I am not including the MIT police officer simply because I think it will be extremely hard to prove that it is the younger brother that committed that murder, as opposed to the older brother. I don't think there are any witnesses to that murder, and as far as I know, nobody except the younger brother knows what actually happens.

I agree that this blood is on his hands, no argument there. I just don't think it will be able to be proven in a court of law.

It was a killing during the act of a crime. In many cases, it doesn't matter at that point who pulled the trigger. The whole "gang" gets nailed for the murder.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

It was a killing during the act of a crime. In many cases, it doesn't matter at that point who pulled the trigger. The whole "gang" gets nailed for the murder.

Ok, that would make sense then. If that is enough to convict, which I don't know enough about law to know if it is or not, then I would say he should get a murder charge for that one as well.