You have no idea how the public defender system works do you?

 

You have no idea what I was saying in my post, do you?

Has it been decided if it will be in state court or federal court? Does MA have the DP?

 

Federal. The "use of a weapon of mass destruction" charge he's been hit with is a federal charge.

Federal. The "use of a weapon of mass destruction" charge he's been hit with is a federal charge.

 

Curious, where do we make the distinction on "weapon of mass destruction"? Was the Aurora movie theater shooter charged with that? What makes a weapon one "of mass destruction"?

Curious, where do we make the distinction on "weapon of mass destruction"? Was the Aurora movie theater shooter charged with that? What makes a weapon one "of mass destruction"?

 

The statute uses a pretty broad definition of "weapon of mass destruction". Among other things, it has a sort of catch-all provision that defines it as "any destructive device" as defined in another section. That section clarifies a "destructive device" as "any explosive, incendiary or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine or similar device."

 

Firearms are defined in a different section and so, I think, are specifically not included in the "weapon of mass destruction" definition. That definition above goes on to specifically exclude shotgun shells from the list of explosive items, which seems to further indicate that firearms are not considered to be weapons of mass destruction by the federal government.

 

Here are the relevant statutes:

 

18 USC 2332a - Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction

 

18 USC 921 - Definitions

Getslow is correct, firearms are specifically and thoroughly excluded from the WMD charge. There's no way it could have ever become law without painstakingly ensuring that it could never be applied to a gun.

Looks like they may be able to afford attorney fees...if they saved any of their taxpayer-funded benefits....

 

Tsarnaev family received $100G in benefits | Boston Herald

"The Tsarnaev family, including the suspected terrorists and their parents, benefited from more than $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance — a bonanza ranging from cash and food stamps to Section 8 housing from 2002 to 2012, the Herald has learned."

 

 

I know this will stir the pot. But, in general, aren't immigrates and naturalized citizens supposed to be able to support themselves when the immigrate here legally?

When the author says "including the suspected terrorists and their parents," is that taken to mean "including but not limited to" or just the named parties?

 

Not mentioned in your link but listed in other outlets' releases is Medicaid, which is likely to be a fairly sizable chunk of the money. In any case, an incredible bonanza of $2,500 (value, not actual dollars) per person per year.

 

To be clear, it's the characterization of that amount as some sort of pirate's chest of treasure that I find eye-roll inducing.

Getslow is correct, firearms are specifically and thoroughly excluded from the WMD charge. There's no way it could have ever become law without painstakingly ensuring that it could never be applied to a gun.

 

My whole intent was to simply point out that the crime that actually provided more "mass destruction" is the one that isn't charged as such.

My whole intent was to simply point out that the crime that actually provided more "mass destruction" is the one that isn't charged as such.

I'm sure I don't need to explain why that is?

I'm sure I don't need to explain why that is?

 

Of course not.

 

Just something I thought a bit ironic, however after seeing the actual statute, it makes sense.

When the author says "including the suspected terrorists and their parents," is that taken to mean "including but not limited to" or just the named parties?

 

Not mentioned in your link but listed in other outlets' releases is Medicaid, which is likely to be a fairly sizable chunk of the money. In any case, an incredible bonanza of $2,500 (value, not actual dollars) per person per year.

 

To be clear, it's the characterization of that amount as some sort of pirate's chest of treasure that I find eye-roll inducing.

The fact they got one red cent should be enough to induce vomiting.

When the author says "including the suspected terrorists and their parents," is that taken to mean "including but not limited to" or just the named parties?

 

Not mentioned in your link but listed in other outlets' releases is Medicaid, which is likely to be a fairly sizable chunk of the money. In any case, an incredible bonanza of $2,500 (value, not actual dollars) per person per year.

 

To be clear, it's the characterization of that amount as some sort of pirate's chest of treasure that Ifind eye-roll inducing.

 

Hundred thou. here, hundred thou. there...pretty soon we're talking real money. To me it shows just how beyond stupid we have gotten in this country. Who in the universe otherwise thinks it makes sense to allow in immigrants who have no means of support and then pay them to be here? While, at the same time, people who have done all the rights things...registered, secured employment, whatever, have to pay thousands and wait years to get citizenship. Again, our mass stupidity is going to end this dream.

Hundred thou. here, hundred thou. there...pretty soon we're talking real money. To me it shows just how beyond stupid we have gotten in this country. Who in the universe otherwise thinks it makes sense to allow in immigrants who have no means of support and then pay them to be here? While, at the same time, people who have done all the rights things...registered, secured employment, whatever, have to pay thousands and wait years to get citizenship. Again, our mass stupidity is going to end this dream.

 

If I remember correctly, the Tsarnaev's father was granted political asylum which is how he ended up in the United States. And we really don't have to imagine too hard a situation in which the Soviet Union was capable of political repression. In such cases, I don't believe the demonstration of an ability to support yourself is among the considerations, though you do have access to a work permit.

The fact they got one red cent should be enough to induce vomiting.

Please clarify: if the Tsarnaevs hadn't bombed the Boston marathon, would that still be true?

If I remember correctly, the Tsarnaev's father was granted political asylum which is how he ended up in the United States. And we really don't have to imagine too hard a situation in which the Soviet Union was capable of political repression. In such cases, I don't believe the demonstration of an ability to support yourself is among the considerations, though you do have access to a work permit.

 

 

So why did he go back there to live?

So why did he go back there to live?

Did he return to the Soviet Union?