• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Boston: One dead, one captured, city re-opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
BFctFaDCEAEnuYh.jpg:large
What is written on the BMW's licensed plate? Looks like "terrorist" something.
 
Its very difficult to stand in court and say a man was set up and a witness is lying when the witness is missing two legs he had before meeting. Whilst another photo shows the other young man leaving the other explosion.

Just saying.

That's an emotional argument.
Pictures alone and witness testimony is not enough evidence wise. Their behaviour post-bombing is pretty damning, but without it you'd need finger prints/biological samples/etc connecting the suspects to the bombs themselves.

Otherwise, all you got is conjecture.
 
He got out of the police's radius long enough for it to cooldown.

He could have some random hostage in a house somewhere. He could be in a subway tunnel. All kinds of places in Boston metro.

It seems most of the Chechens we have heard from are against this action. Sounds like two isolated brothers without a backup plan or escape planned for the aftermath. They didn't seem to have much money according to NBC.
 
muslims in usa r fucked, rn't they?

Yeah that's how I feel. As far as I know Boston isn't the friendliest place to certain ethnicities to begin with (never been there just going on word of mouth) and this is going to make it soooo much worse.
 
They weren't Muslim. They were Russians.
Watch some jerkoff start saying and associating Russians and the Soviet Union rising again.

You realize one is a nationality and the other a religion, right?

I thought the uncle said his family was muslim in that interview.
 
I doubt anyone's ever tried in the US because why bother?

But if you did you'd, at the very least, have a problem with the right to confront witnesses.

I couldn't believe this would be an unanswered questions so I pulled up US Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 43:
(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and

(3) sentencing.

...

(c) Waiving Continued Presence.

(1) In General. A defendant who was initially present at trial, or who had pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, waives the right to be present under the following circumstances:

(A) when the defendant is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun, regardless of whether the court informed the defendant of an obligation to remain during trial;

(B) in a noncapital case, when the defendant is voluntarily absent during sentencing; or

(C) when the court warns the defendant that it will remove the defendant from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, but the defendant persists in conduct that justifies removal from the courtroom.

(2) Waiver's Effect. If the defendant waives the right to be present, the trial may proceed to completion, including the verdict's return and sentencing, during the defendant's absence.

And nothing in the rule notes suggests that death would be an exception.
 
A bit unrelated, but they just had a friend of suspect white hat talking about how they use to smoke blunts together. How can you talk about doing something illegal on national television without any repercussions?
 
I think one thing we can all agree on is that the phrase "This shit is BANANAS" will have to be forcibly retired. Because nothing will ever be more bananas than this.
 
A bit unrelated, but they just had a friend of suspect white hat talking about how they use to smoke blunts together. How can you talk about doing something illegal on national television without any repercussions?

Pretty sure they got bigger concerns right now. Of course I'm surprised the media hasn't tried to blame this on smoking weed yet.
 
I couldn't believe this would be an unanswered questions so I pulled up US Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 43:


And nothing in the rule notes suggests that death would be an exception.

Huh, that is interesting.
If they can theoretically prosecute a dead man, I would very much like to see it done in this case as well so that justice can be done.
 
A bit unrelated, but they just had a friend of suspect white hat talking about how they use to smoke blunts together. How can you talk about doing something illegal on national television without any repercussions?
Freedom of speech. You can say you did whatever you want. And in MA, where it's decriminalized, it's like asking how you can get away with admitting to jaywalking on national T.V. Hell, our last few presidents have talked about smoking something illegal on national television without any reprecussions, why would we give a shit about some kid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom