The Islamo Terrorist Admits It, Why Wait for Execution?

[Baron]

It is an idiotic system when punished victims, not causers of crimes.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How screwed up is that. We have a confession, we have video to support the confession.

Fill out the paperwork and conduct the sentence per the desires of the next of kin.

It isn't screwed up at all ... And there is a reason it is required.

Just an example ... If I had a child and that child committed a murder ... And said I did it so I would go to jail instead of my child ... Well that doesn't satisfy the law.
In murder cases ... You actually have to prove the person is guilty ... Them saying so is included, but not all that is required.

Personally I would prefer they investigated the extent of the case.
Maybe they will find something else in their investigation.
Maybe he didn't act alone ... Maybe there is more to the story than him simply saying he did it.

He doesn't get to change our laws.
Your hatred does not determine what our judicial system does or how we handle business.

If you think we should act like he does ... Move your backwards ass to the Middle East.


.

No. When someone says they are guilty, that's pretty much it. They are guilty. They won't participate in their defense. They will testify as to their guilt. They will sign a confession. A trial would be pretty much pointless. So there's a sentencing hearing. The investigation will go on a to who else might be involved but that's separate from proving him guilty.

 

[BlackSand]

No. When someone says they are guilty, that's pretty much it. They are guilty. They won't participate in their defense. They will testify as to their guilt. They will sign a confession. A trial would be pretty much pointless. So there's a sentencing hearing. The investigation will go on a to who else might be involved but that's separate from proving him guilty.

That's not what the law requires as far as proof is concerned ... We don't need to throw away the law for this asshole.
His confession will be included in evidence but that isn't enough to satisfy the law ... Look it up.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Fill out the forms and get ‘er done. Only an uncivilized country would drag on a trial costing tens of millions for years and then tell him he can eat meals for the rest of his life at the same time the loved ones of his victims are eating.

In a murder case OUR judicial systems requires a defense even if the party confesses or pleads guilty.
The prosecution is still required to make a case instead of just agreeing the defendant is guilty.
This is in place so that people who are protecting another cannot plead guilty to a murder they didn't commit.

There is no reason our judicial system should disregard our procedures in order to expedite the process.
New York doesn't have the death penalty ... Why do you think the perpetrator picked there instead of Tampa, Florida where they do have the death penalty?

.

We have a declared war against isis which he said he belonged too.....they have no official uniform so just shoot the bastard

 

[Weatherman2020]

No. When someone says they are guilty, that's pretty much it. They are guilty. They won't participate in their defense. They will testify as to their guilt. They will sign a confession. A trial would be pretty much pointless. So there's a sentencing hearing. The investigation will go on a to who else might be involved but that's separate from proving him guilty.

That's not what the law requires as far as proof is concerned ... We don't need to throw away the law for this asshole.
His confession will be included in evidence but that isn't enough to satisfy the law ... Look it up.

.

I’m not talking about right or wrong here, I’m talking about the law!

 

[Peach]

No. When someone says they are guilty, that's pretty much it. They are guilty. They won't participate in their defense. They will testify as to their guilt. They will sign a confession. A trial would be pretty much pointless. So there's a sentencing hearing. The investigation will go on a to who else might be involved but that's separate from proving him guilty.

That's not what the law requires as far as proof is concerned ... We don't need to throw away the law for this asshole.

.

Thank you, a few seem ready to burn the Constitution for instant revenge. I guess they do not understand "close custody". Chances are the accused will want to kill himself, the US cannot let that happen. The government will decided when, where and if. He can suffer being watched 24/7.

 

[BlackSand]

We have a declared war against isis ... Blah-Blah-Blah ...

No we haven't ... Several have tried, but we haven't declared war on ISIS.

Paul Rand authored a declaration of war against ISIS but it didn't make it through Congress.
President Obama said we "are at war with ISIS" ... But only Congress can declare war.

.

 

[BlackSand]

Thank you, a few seem ready to burn the Constitution for instant revenge. I guess they do not understand "close custody". Chances are the accused will want to kill himself, the US cannot let that happen. The government will decided when, where and if. He can suffer being watched 24/7.

We owe it to ourselves to remain ourselves and not fall into the trap of emotional response.
I don't care if he ends up in prison for the rest of his life or if they decide to send him off to the next life.

We don't need to change our laws and requirements in regards to this little piece of shit.
He does not have the power to define who we are or dictate what we do through his actions.

.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No. When someone says they are guilty, that's pretty much it. They are guilty. They won't participate in their defense. They will testify as to their guilt. They will sign a confession. A trial would be pretty much pointless. So there's a sentencing hearing. The investigation will go on a to who else might be involved but that's separate from proving him guilty.

That's not what the law requires as far as proof is concerned ... We don't need to throw away the law for this asshole.

.

Thank you, a few seem ready to burn the Constitution for instant revenge. I guess they do not understand "close custody". Chances are the accused will want to kill himself, the US cannot let that happen. The government will decided when, where and if. He can suffer being watched 24/7.

The right to a speedy verdict is a benchmark of our Constitutional Rights.

Delaying what all agree upon is the outcome only violates his rights.

 

[BlackSand]

I’m not talking about right or wrong here, I’m talking about the law!

You're talking shit is what you are doing ...

.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

New York doesn't have execution. Unless there are federal charges (and since the majority of victims were foreign nationals they might well be) he's not facing the death penalty. He needs to be executed. He's guilty. He is bragging about his guilt. Just end his miserable existence.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Put the Terrorist in a cell that is wallpapered with pictures of Hillary and then play Obama’s speeches 24/7 and just leave him a rope with a hook on the ceiling and wait.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No. When someone says they are guilty, that's pretty much it. They are guilty. They won't participate in their defense. They will testify as to their guilt. They will sign a confession. A trial would be pretty much pointless. So there's a sentencing hearing. The investigation will go on a to who else might be involved but that's separate from proving him guilty.

That's not what the law requires as far as proof is concerned ... We don't need to throw away the law for this asshole.
His confession will be included in evidence but that isn't enough to satisfy the law ... Look it up.

.

And you are wrong. Just wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Look it up. Have you EVER had a client plead guilty? Start there.

When someone pleads guilty, the defendant takes the stand. He is required to allocute. He will be questioned. "Did you willfully and with premeditation cause your vehicle to strike Joe Blow causing his death? Did you intend to cause Joe Blow's death?" This line of questioning will go on for each and every person killed. Then he will be questioned in the same way as to each person injured. He will be required to allocute as to each and every act and element of the crime.

Next the defendant, still on the stand will be questioned about giving up his rights. "You have the right to an attorney, do you so voluntarily give up that right? You have the right to a trial by jury, do you so give up that right? You have the right to present evidence in your defense, do you so give up that right?" And so on until every right is specifically and individually given up. Then the judge says "The court is satisfied that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights, the guilty plea is accepted. Sentencing is scheduled for (date)."

 

[Peach]

No. When someone says they are guilty, that's pretty much it. They are guilty. They won't participate in their defense. They will testify as to their guilt. They will sign a confession. A trial would be pretty much pointless. So there's a sentencing hearing. The investigation will go on a to who else might be involved but that's separate from proving him guilty.

That's not what the law requires as far as proof is concerned ... We don't need to throw away the law for this asshole.

.

Thank you, a few seem ready to burn the Constitution for instant revenge. I guess they do not understand "close custody". Chances are the accused will want to kill himself, the US cannot let that happen. The government will decided when, where and if. He can suffer being watched 24/7.

The right to a speedy verdict is a benchmark of our Constitutional Rights.

Delaying what all agree upon is the outcome only violates his rights.

Trial or plea first though. (Your rendering is unique, I am smiling.)

 

[BlackSand]

And you are wrong. Just wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Look it up. Have you EVER had a client plead guilty? Start there.

When someone pleads guilty, the defendant takes the stand. He is required to allocute. He will be questioned. "Did you willfully and with premeditation cause your vehicle to strike Joe Blow causing his death? Did you intend to cause Joe Blow's death?" This line of questioning will go on for each and every person killed. Then he will be questioned in the same way as to each person injured. He will be required to allocute as to each and every act and element of the crime.

Next the defendant, still on the stand will be questioned about giving up his rights. "You have the right to an attorney, do you so voluntarily give up that right? You have the right to a trial by jury, do you so give up that right? You have the right to present evidence in your defense, do you so give up that right?" And so on until every right is specifically and individually given up. Then the judge says "The court is satisfied that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights, the guilty plea is accepted. Sentencing is scheduled for (date)."

Sure whatever ... Your opinion isn't the law ... Never will be.
You can plead guilty to lesser charges and progress without a trial ... Not capital murder ... There will be a trail and you can bet they will present more than a confession as evidence.

.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And you are wrong. Just wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Look it up. Have you EVER had a client plead guilty? Start there.

When someone pleads guilty, the defendant takes the stand. He is required to allocute. He will be questioned. "Did you willfully and with premeditation cause your vehicle to strike Joe Blow causing his death? Did you intend to cause Joe Blow's death?" This line of questioning will go on for each and every person killed. Then he will be questioned in the same way as to each person injured. He will be required to allocute as to each and every act and element of the crime.

Next the defendant, still on the stand will be questioned about giving up his rights. "You have the right to an attorney, do you so voluntarily give up that right? You have the right to a trial by jury, do you so give up that right? You have the right to present evidence in your defense, do you so give up that right?" And so on until every right is specifically and individually given up. Then the judge says "The court is satisfied that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights, the guilty plea is accepted. Sentencing is scheduled for (date)."

Sure whatever ... Your opinion isn't the law ... Never will be.
You can plead guilty to lesser charges ... Not capital murder ... There will be a trail and you can bet they will present more than a confession as evidence.

.

Have it your way. You can't be educated.

 

[BlackSand]

Have it your way. You can't be educated.

You don't have to agree ... Your acceptance isn't required by law ...

.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Have it your way. You can't be educated.

You don't have to agree ... Your acceptance isn't required by law ...

.

You don't know anything about the law. Try this.

Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence

 

[BlackSand]

You don't know anything about the law. Try this.

Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence

From your link ...

"Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.[14]"

It means the plea of guilt cannot be the sole basis for judgment ... There has to be evidence presented ...
Which is what I have been saying all along ... Thanks for the link nit-wit.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

We have a declared war against isis ... Blah-Blah-Blah ...

No we haven't ... Several have tried, but we haven't declared war on ISIS.

Paul Rand authored a declaration of war against ISIS but it didn't make it through Congress.
President Obama said we "are at war with ISIS" ... But only Congress can declare war.

.

Falls under war on terror......he committed a war crime by targeting civilians