Support NeoGAF

[indigo-cyclops]

Bad choice of words maybe. It goes more like this typically: someone's shot in a parking lot. There are no fibres, no prints, no tire tracks, no dna, the bullet probably won't tell that much unless you also find the weapon which probably won't be found because it's been tossed into a river. There are no cameras or footage. Because of shows like CSI, though, people have been taught to expect irrefutable scientific evidence before they make a judgment.

Yes that makes much more sense.

 

[Half and half]

Science is not just forensic investigation. Ask yourself, why do we know that this person is guilty? Is it because we really want him to be? Or is it because he killed a police officer, threw bombs at the police, and ended the night with a shoot out, resulting in being incapacitated?

Given that we have camera footage showing him placing the device in the crowd of people, as well as the whole on-the-run situation, we can place the events together and logically derive that this person is guilty. We can construct logical formulae that place the facts together in an unambiguous and unbiased manner, and logically prove that this person is guilty without the need of a court. If you really want to go that far, considering we already have all the evidence that is necessary to prove his guilt.

Maybe the kid was a complete idiot and was duped by his brother into placing the bag. Maybe there's a third bomber and white hat guy was just a decoy.

Unlikely, but it's important to make absolutely sure he is guilty.

 

[dutchguyjack]

No, it's not irrefutable. He could pull the bomb out of his backpack and throw it at the crowd and it wouldn't be irrefutable.

So disprove to me that he placed the bomb. If it's not irrefutable, you should be able to.

 

[Pineconn]

Like that Sunil dude. Guilty as fuck, no doubt about it.

Is that the footage of Sunil placing a bomb?

The hell is up with you talking about Sunil?

 

[Dead Man]

Is camera footage showing him placing a bomb in a crowd of people not irrefutable? It is not someone that determines if it is irrefutable. It's the quality of the evidence that makes it irrefutable. It's never irrefutable by decision.

You really don't understand why this wouldn't work, do you? So now it's only cases with clear video evidence of the crime?

Can you please explain how the process of declaring evidence irrefuteable would work. Who would decide in borderline cases, where the video wasn't perfectly clear but still probably clear enough?

So disprove to me that he placed the bomb. If it's not irrefutable, you should be able to.

So now you want go to guilty until proven innocent. Jesus wept.

 

[GavinGT]

So disprove to me that he placed the bomb. If it's not irrefutable, you should be able to.

I don't have to do that, and nor will his defense. They have to provide reasonable doubt of his guilt. They can also provide proof of mitigating factors, such as him being coerced.

 

[jakonovski]

The hell is up with you talking about Sunil?

The man in the "irrefutable" footage was identified as one Sunil Tripathi by the internet.

 

[dutchguyjack]

You really don't understand why this wouldn't work, do you? So now it's only cases with clear video evidence of the crime?

Video evidence is one of the pieces of evidence in this particular case. I never said that only video evidence can be irrefutable, and don't understand how you derived that conclusion.

Can you please explain how the process of declaring evidence irrefuteable would work. Who would decide in borderline cases, where the video wasn't perfectly clear but still probably clear enough?

If it's a borderline case it's hardly irrefutable. It's irrefutable only if there is no question about it.

So now you want go to guilty until proven innocent. Jesus wept.

I'm asking for an explanation as to how the evidence is not irrefutable. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

[GavinGT]

The man in the "irrefutable" footage was identified as one Sunil Tripathi by the internet.

Stupid people were saying it was absolutely him. Still dumb people were saying we shouldn't rule it out as a possibility (I was one of them), and the smart ones were saying we shouldn't even utter his name unless he's officially acknowledged as a suspect.

 

[Fahrenheit]

Can't handle this thread no more, gonna have a stroke if I keep reading.

 

[EagleBurnn]

Can't handle this thread no more, gonna have a stroke if I keep reading.

Oh no please don't leave

 

[Fahrenheit]

Sorry Scooby Doo the mystery of the vanishing rights will have to wait till next time

 

[Dead Man]

Video evidence is one of the pieces of evidence in this particular case. I never said that only video evidence can be irrefutable, and don't understand how you derived that conclusion.


If it's a borderline case it's hardly irrefutable. It's irrefutable only if there is no question about it.



I'm asking for an explanation as to how the evidence is not irrefutable. You're putting words in my mouth.

Your argument is circular, and broken at the same time, impressive.

 

[Kinyou]

Why should they have the same rights?

Because then you end up with tons of innocents in jail. Just look at Guantanamo Bay

 

[GavinGT]

Can't handle this thread no more, gonna have a stroke if I keep reading.

I applaud you for standing up for our rights, even if I feel you lack a sense of realism.

 

[Half and half]

So disprove to me that he placed the bomb. If it's not irrefutable, you should be able to.

Not proof, but younger brother may have been decoy while a third person placed the actual bomb and slipped away.

So, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Fahrenheit]

I applaud you for standing up for our rights, even if I feel you lack a sense of realism.

I thank for staying civil when most fell back on name calling.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Not proof, but younger brother may have been decoy while a third person placed the actual bomb and slipped away.

So, innocent until proven guilty.

Apparently there is footage of him actually placing the bomb. Why the FBI haven't released this yet I don't know, but I think it needs to be ultimately. They did refer them as "suspects" when they released their photos, not persons of interests, and so that leads me to believe whatever footage they have is quite incriminating

 

[GavinGT]

I thank for staying civil when most fell back on name calling.

I just want us all to get along and discuss things in a civil manner. I break my own rules more than I like.

 

[GavinGT]

Apparently there is footage of him actually placing the bomb. Why the FBI haven't released this yet I don't know, but I think it needs to be ultimately. They did refer them as "suspects" when they released their photos, not persons of interests, and so that leads me to believe whatever footage they have is quite incriminating

Hey OP, do we need to start a new thread now that it's at 20,000? BTW thanks for banning me from your chat because I was indeed being a douchebag.

 

[Half and half]

Apparently there is footage of him actually placing the bomb. Why the FBI haven't released this yet I don't know, but I think it needs to be ultimately.

Footage of him placing a bag not necessarily the bomb. An identical bag with a bomb may have been sitting there out of view.

I believe he did it, of course, but we should be willing to rule out all possibilities to make sure we got the right guy.

 

[Dabookerman]

20,000!

 

[GavinGT]

Lawlessness prevails!

 

[Joel Was Right]

Footage of him placing a bag not necessarily the bomb. An identical bag with a bomb may have been sitting there out of view.

I believe he did it, of course, but we should be willing to rule out all possibilities to make sure we got the right guy.

I agree. It's ironic that the shootout, not the explosion, has actually incriminated him.

 

[Joel Was Right]

New thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=544029

 

[GavinGT]

New thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=544029

 

[turnbuckle]

Really? Because I think anyone that thinks that the amount of havoc this individual exacted upon our citizens deserves to live on and think about what they did in prison for the rest of their lives is disgusting and a sheer sign of their disregarding of the value of other people's lives.

And this isn't even damned close to "dehumanization".

if that's your definition of disgusting then fine. just trying to think of an adjective to describe a person who feels that way about rational people who don't have a penchant for bloodlust and primitive revenge.

 

[CrankyJay]

I don't follow. I thought I was backing up your statement.

Sorry, meant to put that in quotes.

 

[speculawyer]

Welp can't really argue with you guys. If you watch door to door searches at gun point and think its ok I better get used to the idea of showing my papers to the police just like if we where in Nazi Germany

You act as if this is a daily occurrence and not something that only happened in a single neighborhood where a cop-killing bomb-throwing car-jacking maniac was on the loose.

That is some dumb fucking shit. Context matters.

 

[speculawyer]

Nice distinction baddie, this dude is never going to see a court room. Hes gonna end up in Club Gitmo (the same place Obama ran on closing that ya know is still open)

No, he is not.


Your arguments seem to largely stem from just making shit up and misinterpreting things.

 

[Naked Snake]

Someone ask a mod to lock this thread. What's the point of making a second thread with this one still running?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Footage of him placing a bag not necessarily the bomb. An identical bag with a bomb may have been sitting there out of view.

I believe he did it, of course, but we should be willing to rule out all possibilities to make sure we got the right guy.

How do you explain the weapons, the other makeshift bombs, and their actions on the day of the chase?