Boston Bombing

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

What happened until innocent until proven guilty and due process?

Fox news and this woman don't run the american legal system. They are entitled to express a opinion. I don't necessarily agree with that opinion, but demanding due process here is a bit rich.

It doesn't matter what I think. It's what the jury thinks after a fair trial.

Quite. Practice what you preach. It doesn't matter what she thinks.

BloodBath

Colgem wrote: »

Fox news and this woman don't run the american legal system. They are entitled to express a opinion. I don't necessarily agree with that opinion, but demanding due process here is a bit rich.



Quite. Practice what you preach. It doesn't matter what she thinks.

Not when they represent opinion as fact. You can't say those things. It is illegal.

Why is it a bit rich? Where is the undeniable proof that you have that they did it? I'm not saying they didn't but they are at least entitled to a fair trial and the correct non illegal ways of implying that it could have been them. If I was the mother I would be sueing that bitch regardless of whether they are guilty or not.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Not when they represent opinion as fact. You can't say those things. It is illegal.

What exact law have has she broken?

Why is it a bit rich? Where is the undeniable proof that you have that they did it? I'm not saying they didn't but they are at least entitled to a fair trial and the correct non illegal ways of implying that it could have been them. If I was the mother I would be sueing that bitch regardless of whether they are guilty or not.

And they are entitled to a fair trial. If she was judging that trial that statement would of hers would be grounds for a mistrial. But she's not, so it isn't.

BloodBath

Defamation/Libel especially on National TV. Free speech isn't completely free.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Defamation/Libel especially on National TV. Free speech isn't completely free.

I'm sorry I literally don't understand your point.

You claim that this person is more guilt of commiting "defamation/libel" if they do it on national tv.

Does that mean that if carry out murder on national tv it is a more serious crime than if you do it on local radio.

So to be clear you think this charge "stating opinion as fact" is criminal charge. Earlier today on a different thread you said;

Bloodbath wrote:

Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

A false statement.

This a demonstrably false statement. If the Fox News commentary committed a crime under libel/defamation as you maintain, may I ask this;

Why are you immune to the prosecution of the crime you think she is guilty of?

Just curious.

BloodBath

Who am I defaming?

Do I really have to explain it you?

I suggest you read about the law.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Who am I defaming?

Hmmm,

Lets see You said;

Not when they represent opinion as fact. You can't say those things. It is illegal.

On another thread today you said;

Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

Thats your opinion. It's not a fact. And it's demonstrably false.

Now are you going to turn yourself in, or should I call the Gardai on you.

Do I really have to explain it you?

Yes.

I suggest you read about the law.

Which law? In which country?

Because in my understanding she was in a US news room, being broadcast on a US news station, as such her defence would be the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Please explain how I am wrong.

BloodBath

It's pretty sad that all you can do is quote a sentence I said in another post which has 0 relevance to this one.

I suggest you read the definition of Defamation before accusing me of it. I did not defame any people in anything I said.

Which law and country? Is that not also obvious. The country in question is the US. The law in question is libel/defamation.

I suggest you read this.

And this.

The first Amendment does not protect people from Defamation or Libel.


Hypothetically speaking what if they are innocent? A person should be protected from this kind of media bull**** at least until they are found guilty or there is publically available irrefutable evidence.

His mother claims innocence, he claims innocence. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

It's pretty sad that all you can do is quote a sentence I said in another post which has 0 relevance to this one.

You brought up JFK on the 911 thread. Sauce for the Goose.

I suggest you read the definition of Defamation before accusing me of it. I did not defame any people in anything I said.

I am aware of the concept of defamation.

Which law and country? Is that not also obvious. The country in question is the US. The law in question is libel/defamation.

I suggest you read this.

And this.

I have. Shoving a wikipedia link at me that you didn't bother reading yourself doesn't help your case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#United_States

The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law. (Previous English defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.

The first Amendment does not protect people from Defamation or Libel.

Actually the US 1st Amendment does a amazing job of both.

Take for example the south park episode "trapped in the closest". There's a reason why Tom Cruise sued the makers of south park in the UK and not the US, in the UK the plantiff has a much easier time making a libel case stand.

Hypothetically speaking what if they are innocent? A person should be protected from this kind of media bull**** at least until they are found guilty or there is publically available irrefutable evidence.

And if wishes were ponies.

That woman is doing what thousands if not tens of thousands of people are doing, at home, online, in the pub.

You're just pissed because she's doing on tv.

BloodBath

I am aware of the concept of defamation.

You clearly aren't since you accused me of it.

I read it. There's no doubt fox would have a team of lawyers who would be all over it anyway. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and illegal. If some states want to twist the wording of a law and leave ambiguity then they are asking for trouble from greasy defence lawyers. You would make a good one.

Actually the US 1st Amendment does a amazing job of both.

Take for example the south park episode "trapped in the closest". There's a reason why Tom Cruise sued the makers of south park in the UK and not the US, in the UK the plantiff has a much easier time making a libel case stand.

A clear satirical comedy program that implied he was a Homosexual is a lot different than somebody on a news program going into a 5 min tirade and outright accusing him of being one, representing it as fact. They know how to skirt around the law.

And if wishes were ponies.

That woman is doing what thousands if not tens of thousands of people are doing, at home, online, in the pub.

You're just pissed because she's doing on tv.

Except the actions of people in the pub ect are not influencing millions of people and are not going to affect the family if they turned out to be not guilty.

Why don't we start executing everyone as soon as they are accused of a capital punishment offence and then wait until the trial to see if they were guilty?

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

You clearly aren't since you accused me of it.

No you clearly aren't because your definition of defamation is broad and sweeping it is meaniless.

I read it. There's no doubt fox would have a team of lawyers who would be all over it anyway. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and illegal. If some states want to twist the wording of a law and leave ambiguity then they are asking for trouble from greasy defence lawyers.

Wrong? perhaps. Illegal? No.

A clear satirical comedy program that implied he was a Homosexual is a lot different than somebody on a news program going into a 5 min tirade and outright accusing him of being one, representing it as fact. They know how to skirt around the law.

And yet they did not go to the court of the country of the person who was "defamed" nor in the country it was broadcast in first. Nor the station that first broadcast it.

I think you are missing many things here.

Except the actions of people in the pub ect are not influencing millions of people and are going to affect the family if they turned out to be not guilty.

Ah so to be clear. It's okay to defame someone down the pub, just not on TV. This is your argument?

Why don't we start executing everyone as soon as they are accused of a capital punishment offence and then wait until the trial to see if they were guilty?

Very specious reasoning. FOX news aren't conducting the trial. The woman is question isn't conducting the trial. If they were your argument would have merit. But they aren't and you don't.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

You clearly aren't since you accused me of it.

No you clearly aren't because your definition of defamation is broad and sweeping it is mealiness.

I read it. There's no doubt fox would have a team of lawyers who would be all over it anyway. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and illegal. If some states want to twist the wording of a law and leave ambiguity then they are asking for trouble from greasy defence lawyers.

Wrong? perhaps. Illegal? No. You don't seem to understand how the US legal system seems to work.

A clear satirical comedy program that implied he was a Homosexual is a lot different than somebody on a news program going into a 5 min tirade and outright accusing him of being one, representing it as fact. They know how to skirt around the law.

And yet they did not go to the court of the country of the person who was "defamed" nor in the country it was broadcast in first. Nor the station that first broadcast it.

I think you are missing many things here.

Except the actions of people in the pub ect are not influencing millions of people and are going to affect the family if they turned out to be not guilty.

Ah so to be clear. It's okay to defame someone down the pub, just not on TV. This is your argument?

Why don't we start executing everyone as soon as they are accused of a capital punishment offence and then wait until the trial to see if they were guilty?

Very specious reasoning. FOX news aren't conducting the trial. The woman is question isn't conducting the trial. If they were your argument would have merit. But they aren't and you don't.

BloodBath

No you clearly aren't because your definition of defamation is broad and sweeping it is meaniless.

Wrong? perhaps. Illegal? No.

Your refusal to acknowledge Defamation or Libel as a law doesn't change the fact that it is a law in the majority of the developed world.

And yet they did not go to the court of the country of the person who was "defamed" nor in the country it was broadcast in first. Nor the station that first broadcast it.

I think you are missing many things here.

As I have explained already they used ambiguity to suggest he was a homosexual. They did not openly say that he was a closet homosexual in no uncertain terms and represent it as fact on a factual based news program. If they had he would have sued them and won the case. It's not hard to understand.

Ah so to be clear. It's okay to defame someone down the pub, just not on TV. This is your argument?

It's still illegal but who's going to prosecute you? How would the accuser prove you said it? How would the accuser even know you said it. Your statements are not going to influence the opinion of millions.

Very specious reasoning. FOX news aren't conducting the trial. The woman is question isn't conducting the trial. If they were your argument would have merit. But they aren't and you don't.

It's no different. It's protecting people's human rights.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Your refusal to acknowledge Defamation or Libel as a law doesn't change the fact that it is a law in the majority of the developed world.

No. And again. This is getting tedious. This isnt libelous. For it to be libel, it would have to be shown that the statement made was demonstrable untrue.

Now seeing as neither of us know whether what she says is untrue, we can't state that it is libel.

As I have explained already they used ambiguity to suggest he was a homosexual. They did not openly say that he was a closet homosexual in no uncertain terms and represent it as fact on a factual based news program. If they had he would have sued them and won the case. It's not hard to understand.

You can keep saying this till you are blue in the face it doesn't mean anything.

What was said on fox news can't be considered libel. Yet.

It's still illegal but who's going to prosecute you? How would the accuser prove you said it? How would the accuser even know you said it. Your statements are not going to influence the opinion of millions.

Again irrelevant to your argument.

It's no different. It's protecting people's human rights.

And its her right under the US constitution to safe what she thinks. If the person she's speaking about feels that he was libelled he can sue for libel.

It's why there are incredibly few criminal prosecutions for libel.

BloodBath

No. And again. This is getting tedious. This isnt libelous. For it to be libel, it would have to be shown that the statement made was demonstrable untrue.

Now seeing as neither of us know whether what she says is untrue, we can't state that it is libel.

Outright accusing someone of guilt whether they are the main suspect or not is libelous. They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's the whole reason the law exists in the first place. Could I announce on National television that you are paedophile and it wouldn't be libelous unless you could prove that you aren't?

Now if it went to court it could be dragged out longer than the case until a guilty verdict was given and the libel case would be dropped. i'm guessing fox have their bets hedged on this. If they were however found not guilty the libel case would stand and fox could be sued for millions. It doesn't change the fact that the accusation was illegal at the time it was made.

You can keep saying this till you are blue in the face it doesn't mean anything.

What was said on fox news can't be considered libel. Yet.

Yes it can. People have been found guilty of libel for far less.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/bshields/caselaw.html

Again irrelevant to your argument.

How is it irrelevant. It's a direct answer to your question

Ah so to be clear. It's okay to defame someone down the pub, just not on TV. This is your argument?

It's still illegal but who's going to prosecute you? How would the accuser prove you said it? How would the accuser even know you said it. Your statements are not going to influence the opinion of millions.

What's the problem?

And its her right under the US constitution to safe what she thinks. If the person she's speaking about feels that he was libelled he can sue for libel.

It's why there are incredibly few criminal prosecutions for libel.

No it's not. The first amendment does not override libel and defamation laws. There is also false light laws which are similar to libel without the same burden of proof.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/bshields/misc.htm

There are many many libel cases. Just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Outright accusing someone of guilt whether they are the main suspect or not is libelous.

No it's not.

They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Thats great and thats how the justice system (should) see them. It's not how the rest of the world works.

It's the whole reason the law exists in the first place.

Which law?

Could I announce on National television that you are paedophile and it wouldn't be libelous unless you could prove that you aren't?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of libel.

Could you announce I was a paedophile? Yes.

Could I sue for libel? Yes. At this junction you would be asked to provide evidence that I was a paedophile.

You would be found guilty of libel in a US court if you accused me being a paedophile when you knew that I wasn't a paedophile.

You could at this junction say I am a journalist working for X organisation, and my sources told me that Colgem was a paedophile, but if I show you didn't take due care and attention to verify that I was a paedophile.

Libel law doesn't work like the way you think it works.

For example you don't know what sub juce information this woman had when she made her statement.

Now if it went to court it could be dragged out longer than the case until a guilty verdict was given and the libel case would be dropped. i'm guessing fox have their bets hedged on this. If they were however found not guilty the libel case would stand and fox could be sued for millions. It doesn't change the fact that the accusation was illegal at the time it was made.

No it wasn't. Also you keep saying "it's illegal" underlying a damning lack of understanding of the concept and principles of libel law.

Yes it can. People have been found guilty of libel for far less.

Then he should sue. Still doesn't mean what the woman did is libelous and doesn't mean speech like that should be banned.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/bshields/caselaw.html

None of these cases help your argument.

How is it irrelevant. It's a direct answer to your question

Sorry but at this junction :rolleyes:

What's the problem?



No it's not. The first amendment does not override libel and defamation laws. There is also false light laws which are similar to libel without the same burden of proof.

http://plaza.ufl.edu/bshields/misc.htm

What exactly did she say that is untrue, and how can you say for certain that it is untrue?

Colgem

Looking back this is gone off topic for over a dozen posts.

Were the comments on Fox news libellous? No. Were they prejudicial and ill advised? yes.

Was what Judge Piro said illegal? Not at all.

If we were to criminalise every stupid comment made on air, Fox News' broadcasting would be reduced to 15 minutes a day, including adverts, and if we criminalised every stupid comment anyone makes, the internet would finally just be full of porn.

BloodBath

No it's not.

Yes it is. Of course for the case to be accepted or ruled on her accusations would have to be proven to be false which in this case can only be done in a court of law. It would also break other laws in other countries. She would be in contempt of court in many parts of the world for her comments while the case is sub judice.

No it wasn't. Also you keep saying "it's illegal" underlying a damning lack of understanding of the concept and principles of libel law.

I'm not going to argue over Semantics. It is however considered illegal in many states (16) so you're wrong.

Then he should sue. Still doesn't mean what the woman did is libelous and doesn't mean speech like that should be banned.

Banned no. Libelous yes. If she takes the chance in making libelous comments then she runs the risk of getting sued. If found not guilty she/fox will be getting sued. We have better laws in place here protecting people from such reporting. It's as simple as changing the wording to give the same opinions.

What exactly did she say that is untrue, and how can you say for certain that it is untrue?

At the present time he is innocent until a decision is made in a court of law. I'm not even going to listen to her ridiculous tirade again to point out what I think is libelous. There's plenty of it in there.

Brown Bomber

Colgem wrote: »

You claim that this person is more guilt of commiting "defamation/libel" if they do it on national tv.

Of course they are, or at least it is a far more serious violation than publishing it in a local paper or shouting it in a crowded room etc.

Colgem wrote: »

Does that mean that if carry out murder on national tv it is a more serious crime than if you do it on local radio.

No. That would be stupid.

Colgem wrote: »

So to be clear you think this charge "stating opinion as fact" is criminal charge. Earlier today on a different thread you said;

Stating opinion as fact is not a criminal charge. Hate speech is though.

hate speech legal definition

noun
Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

Colgem

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course they are, or at least it is a far more serious violation than publishing it in a local paper or shouting it in a crowded room etc.

So presumably commiting murder or rape in a crowded room is a more serious crime than doing it in a alley.

What a absurd notion.

No. That would be stupid.

Quiet There is much about this discussion that is very stupid.

Stating opinion as fact is not a criminal charge. Hate speech is though.

What about her statement would be considered hate speech.

Please cite specific laws.

Brown Bomber

Colgem wrote: »

So presumably commiting murder or rape in a crowded room is a more serious crime than doing it in a alley.

What a absurd notion.

Yes, it is an absurd notion. Haven't a breeze why you have presumed what you have.

Colgem wrote: »

Quiet There is much about this discussion that is very stupid.

Colgem wrote: »

What about her statement would be considered hate speech.

Please cite specific laws.

Maybe you don't understand...?

She is inciting hatred against asylum seekers, Muslims and Chechens - all easy targets with Julius Streicher-like propaganda. She is pushing the lie that the mother is defending and justifying acts of terrorism against the US by playing snippets of her statements out of context.

DUBLINHITMAN

What's the latest anyone??
Last I heard was a so called friend of tamerlan
was shot loads of times
reports say he was unarmed and shot in the back of the head
reports also say he had a knife

DUBLINHITMAN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXfRB0H-ow&feature=youtube_gdata_player

he was in court the otheday and people said he had a strong Russian accents
but alot of his friends say he never had an accent

Brown Bomber

Jahar has been featured on the front cover of Rolling Stone magazine apparently.

The FBI has ordered a Florida medical examiner’s office not to release the autopsy report of a Chechen man who was killed during an FBI interview in May over his ties to one of the suspected Boston Marathon bombers.

The autopsy report for Ibragim Todashev, 27, killed by an FBI agent during an interrogation which took place in his apartment on May 22 was ready for release on July 8. However, the FBI barred its publication, saying an internal probe into his death is ongoing.

Continued at...
http://rt.com/usa/fbi-blocks-release-todashev-autopsy-195/

Brown Bomber

stuar wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

Their backpacks are with them before and after, my question was is it the same backpack, like where is his backpack when he's running?

Wheres his backpack here, or is he getting a new one off the black guy?




Also after the "shootout" how did this pastsy walk from the "fibreglass???) boat unaided?, he doesn't look to me like he's been shot multiple times including throat/neck....



Then he ends up like this, take a look at the pic of him leaving the boat and how he was when being strechered off, big difference I'd say.

Better images leaked. Where is the neck/thoat wound that prevented him from talking? How did he go from this to looking like Gadaffi's corpse in the photo directly above?

Sam Crow

Brown Bomber wrote: »

stuar wrote: »

Better images leaked. Where is the neck/thoat wound that prevented him from talking? How did he go from this to looking like Gadaffi's corpse in the photo directly above?

Has there been any adequate explanation for this??

I can only assume that the cops, either trigger happy, or ordered to do so, shot him when he was surrendering, and its subsequently been covered up.

I don't think it was the powers that be's, wish to kill him though, otherwise, he hardly would have survived in hospital.

DUBLINHITMAN

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Is-This-the-Man-Who-Radic-by-Joe-Giambrone-130606-764.html

RecordStraight

I tried to raise this in another thread but obviously made a balls of it, so having looked at the charter, I'll try again.

Dzhokar Tsarnaev's lawyer has admitted that he and his brother carried out the bombing. With this new information, I would like to put forward the theory that he conspired with his brother to carry out this bombing for ideological/religious reasons - hopefully more will come out in the trial. Whether others were involved in the conspiracy is not yet clear, but it seems that only Dzhokar is being tried, so either they can only prove that it was he and his brother, or they have not put a case together against any other members of the conspiracy.

The defence appears to be that his (dead) brother (who can't defend himself or disagree) unduly influenced him into taking part.

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

I tried to raise this in another thread but obviously made a balls of it, so having looked at the charter, I'll try again....

...The defence appears to be that his (dead) brother (who can't defend himself or disagree) unduly influenced him into taking part.

a plea to avoid the death penalty i suspect. whether he did it or not is immaterial now, they could barely find a non-biased jury for the case (and i doubt they have yet).

he's guilty until proven innocent and he knows that's not gonna happen.