It may be obvious to people, however, the accused bomber is innocent until proven guilty. We get that in our legal system because our lawk are based on English Common Law going back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Until the accused has his day in court, he is considered innocent.

Do I think he did it? Sure. However, he hasn't had his day in court so I withhold judgement. Keep in mind, originally the Constitution didn't have freedom of speech, to bear arms or anything like that. Those are the Bill of Rights and are the first ten amendments to the Constitution, Washington didn't need them but when Adams came into office, he went after his political opponents. (I think it was John Adams and not his son John Quincy) Most of the talk about trampling our rights is done by talking heads on TV and radio looking to make a buck with that type of talk.

 

If it was one of your family members murdered or maimed by them would your views be different

At one time I believed that if you dont put yourself in bad situations ,you dont have anything to worry about

If you want to see justice gone wrong
West Memphis Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Wikipedia is not a reputable source. Anybody can posts stuff there, and modifiy what's already there.

Let's say my father was murdered and you were accused. Maybe we rush you through the courts and get a conviction. I see you locked away for life. A while down the road, the real killer is found and confesses. Now, I see my fathers killer punished and you might have soent some time behind bars, but you are freed and your record expunged. Justice was slow but it was finally done.

Our justice system has worked, more or less, for 2 1/2 centuries. It worked for many centuries before that in England. It isn't perfect. However, it's the best yet.

 

Him and his brother did actually shoot it out and kill someone, not just a random act

I watched all of the documentries on the West Memphis 3 , it was a really EF'd up case

 

I Honestly and sick of seeing all the nut jobs online talking about how this was the government. and how 9/11 was too. Those types of people are the ones that belong in a mental institution.

 

He still hasn't had his day in court. While I may believe he did it, our laws guarantee a fair trial. Sometimes it's hard to do, and the evidence will be overwhelming, but until he has his day in court, he is innocent.

Years ago, I was a volunteer police officer. I was asked to be on call in case I was needed for court security in another county not far from here. I wasn't called on but that night I saw why I was on reserve. A guy molested an infant and was going to court. On TV I could see young mothers with a baby in one hand and a brick in the other. He was convicted and sent up for a long time. He also got stabbed in prison as child molesters don't have an easy time in prison. The case was open and shut but until he had his day in court, he was innocent.

As for documentaries, I'm always leery of them. The producer has a tale to tell and it's easy to skew the facts to one side or the other. I remember a story which may be apocryphal from the 1960's. A Country in Africa had a contest to see which cars the government would buy. A Soviet and an American car were the finalists. Out of 25 tests, the Soviet car won 2 and the American won 23. In Pravda, the story was released that (In an international competition, the Glorious works car came in second. The decadent American car came in next to last". There's nothing there that isn't true, but it gives a skewed picture.

 

^^^ follow the money to the root before you bite the hook.

 

Send the bastard up the river. Planting bombs is terrorist motif. The only people that should be worried about the patriot act are the ones doing illegal stuff to begin with. He bombed the marathon, ran from police, killed a security guard, and was involved in a shoot out. It's his face on tv. We all saw it unfold. How is he going to win a not guilty in court?