• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Boston Marathon attack

When a person causes the death and destruction that those men caused, they give up a certain amount of their rights.
Click to expand...

ONLY when convicted of the crime until then they have ALL the rights of a citizen and any attempt to subvert those rights should worry you because YOUR rights may be next!

This isn't an emotional debate, which unfortunately it seems to become, emotion must be set aside for logic.

Human rights are not negotiable. No matter how evil the deed, or what the person has done, how many they killed, hurt or maimed rights are not negotiable. They MUST be afforded to all no matter how emotional one is tempted to be, because no one has the right to start deciding who is entitled to have rights or not based on what they may or may not have done. If you set foot on that slope it is only a few steps to totalitarianism.
 
Conscious Bob said:
The state has a right to protect the populace from indiscriminate attack, especially when time is not on their side and there's a possibility of further attack.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The innocent populace has the right to be protected from attack, in particular from attack by possible accomplices of those already in custody.
 
Conscious Bob said:
These guys don't play by the rules and do not respect the law. Your respect is their opportunity.
Click to expand...

so what if it is? that doesn't give me or you the right to deprive them of their rights because doing so deprives ME of MY rights in the long run. It is shorted sighted to think otherwise.
 
pontalba said:
That is exactly the point CB.....agreed.
When a person causes the death and destruction that those men caused, they give up a certain amount of their rights. It is the cost of living in a civilized society.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Click to expand...

Including the right to have an attorney?

I don't think selectively taking away rights from people is a mark of a civilised society. No matter what they did.
 
As I recall, the authorities had enough proof of their guilt before questioning the brother, plus there were eyewitnesses...when one of the bags was dropped off by the younger one, a person that lost his legs below the knee saw him, in fact the younger brother looked at him straight in the eye. Not much room for doubt there.

There are numerous pictures of the brothers, not to mention the shootouts.
So, in a way, in this case, I'd call the reading of Miranda Rights a moot point.
The authorities wanted to get information in case there were others with the same sort of bombs to inflict, maim and torture people.

And, yes, I do believe when someone is known, repeat, known to have done something of this horrific nature, they give up their right to be a civilized human being.
 
As I recall, the authorities had enough proof of their guilt before questioning the brother, plus there were eyewitnesses...
Click to expand...

then take them to court and prove it there. Until then, they have the right to innocence UNTIL proven guilty. The court of public opinion is not the same at all. Never forget that every single time any one person's rights get trampled on - its YOUR rights that are being trampled as well. There is no differentiation just because you think the person has done something wrong. What until some one thinks that what you did was wrong and its you who is being denied your rights. Then you will sing a different tune, at which point it will probably be too late.
 
So far it seems to me the accused is doing pretty well.
1. He is alive.
2. He has an attorney and has clammed up.
3. He will be shielded from all the fruits of that famous "poisoned tree".
4. His attorney will only have to discount all the eyewitness and camera testimony.
Seems to me he is at least as well off as if he had had an attorney from the beginning.
5. And some court may yet throw the whole thing out.
 
I wish all would be so passionate about the rights of the people that lost all or part of a limb, or multiple limbs, or were killed. Or for the families of those same ones.
 
pontalba said:
I wish all would be so passionate about the rights of the people that lost all or part of a limb, or multiple limbs, or were killed. Or for the families of those same ones.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you think that I'm not. I'm defending your rights and my rights which get trampled on when people react over emotionally to heinous acts and throw them out because its 'inconvenient' to accord rights to people who commit acts we don't like, completely losing sight of the fact that whenever that happens WE lose not the criminal!!

I'm defending your right to HAVE your opinion. The more rights are ignored no matter how tempting the circumstances are to do so, the more we ALL lose, including the rights of the victims!
 
Meadow337 said:
I'm sorry you think that I'm not. I'm defending your rights and my rights which get trampled on when people react over emotionally to heinous acts and throw them out because its 'inconvenient' to accord rights to people who commit acts we don't like, completely losing sight of the fact that whenever that happens WE lose not the criminal!!
Click to expand...

I said "All". That is not specific to you.
 
pontalba said:
I said "All". That is not specific to you.
Click to expand...
Well I'm a part of that 'all' now aren't I? At least in how my response is perceived.

People react from an emotional point of view and get all hot under the collar when one suggests that this person who did such horrible things (although I do still stand by my earlier assertion that the degree of 'horribleness' is entirely relative to location) not only has rights, but that it is really important that in the midst of all the emotion sight is not lost of the fact that ANY erosion of rights (no matter how tempting it is to do so) means that ALL our rights are being threatened, one's you probably hold very dear when they apply to you.
 
You are starting to repeat yourself Meadow. I totally understand where you are coming from, I just happen to disagree in some respects. 'Nuff said. :)

Do you really think I haven't heard it all before?
 
I'm really curious as to how you think that the rights of the victims are being trampled on by asserting the perpetrator has rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top