The Older of the Bomb Brothers Convic...

The Older of the Bomb Brothers Convicted of Domestic Violence

Posted in the Coopersburg Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#1 Apr 22, 2013
The older brother had a domestic violence conviction in 2009. So why did he have guns? Where did he get them? He could have been jailed or deported for that,right. Nobody seems to be asking. Nobody seems to be enforcing the existing gun laws!
retired viewer

Perkasie, PA

#2 Apr 22, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The older brother had a domestic violence conviction in 2009. So why did he have guns? Where did he get them? He could have been jailed or deported for that,right. Nobody seems to be asking. Nobody seems to be enforcing the existing gun laws!
Thought you're the BIG time gun toter!
Question

Hatfield, PA

#4 Apr 22, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The older brother had a domestic violence conviction in 2009. So why did he have guns? Where did he get them? He could have been jailed or deported for that,right. Nobody seems to be asking. Nobody seems to be enforcing the existing gun laws!
For every gun law that exists, there's been an obscure rider inserted in unrelated legislation that over-rides the gun law, thus making them unenforceable.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#6 Apr 22, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
The older brother had a domestic violence conviction in 2009. So why did he have guns? Where did he get them? He could have been jailed or deported for that,right. Nobody seems to be asking. Nobody seems to be enforcing the existing gun laws!
from the source pushing that info

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/bos...

"Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but we’re seeking confirmation of a conviction."

and

"Massachusetts law does not prohibit individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition, or require courts to notify these domestic abusers that they are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law.

http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and...
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#7 Apr 22, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
from the source pushing that info
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/bos...
"Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but we’re seeking confirmation of a conviction."
and
"Massachusetts law does not prohibit individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition, or require courts to notify these domestic abusers that they are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law.
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and...
You are so full of BS. When you buy the gun you have to fill out the federal form and state that you haven't been involved in domestic violence. Filling out the form wrong is a felony.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#8 Apr 22, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
from the source pushing that info
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/bos...
"Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but we’re seeking confirmation of a conviction."
and
"Massachusetts law does not prohibit individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition, or require courts to notify these domestic abusers that they are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law.
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and...
You left out the last sentence:

"Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but were seeking confirmation of a conviction. Nevertheless he would have been subject to removal for the arrest itself."

It isn't clear if he was charged with felony or misdemeanor domestic violence. So a weak law may have kept him from being deported. By all means, let's toughen up the deportation laws. But NO law would have prevented him from getting a gun and killing his wife and anyone else he wanted to - to say nothing about pressure-cooker bombs.

So this isn't about gun control, it's about immigration control. We need to know and keep tabs on all nationals from countries with terrorist ties and dispense with the political correctness and stop subjecting grannies and babies to intrusive searches. It's time to take a lesson from the Israelis. We understand who the enemy is and what he looks like. If it inconveniences a few people in their travel to the U.S., so be it. I understand these guys were in the country for a long time and appeared to be assimilated - but they should not have been let back into the country after receiving the warnings from the Russian government.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#9 Apr 22, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so full of BS. When you buy the gun you have to fill out the federal form and state that you haven't been involved in domestic violence. Filling out the form wrong is a felony.
and in Mass there is no requirement for the state to update the Feds on misdemeanor charges of domestic violence.
BTW how do you know where he bought his guns and when.
for all you know he got them from a relative.
or a gun show.
retired viewer

Perkasie, PA

#10 Apr 22, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so full of BS. When you buy the gun you have to fill out the federal form and state that you haven't been involved in domestic violence. Filling out the form wrong is a felony.
Yeah right if they can fill out the form! You can't see the forest for the trees! You're also a bully!
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#11 Apr 22, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You left out the last sentence:
"Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but were seeking confirmation of a conviction. Nevertheless he would have been subject to removal for the arrest itself."
It isn't clear if he was charged with felony or misdemeanor domestic violence. So a weak law may have kept him from being deported. By all means, let's toughen up the deportation laws. But NO law would have prevented him from getting a gun and killing his wife and anyone else he wanted to - to say nothing about pressure-cooker bombs.
So this isn't about gun control, it's about immigration control. We need to know and keep tabs on all nationals from countries with terrorist ties and dispense with the political correctness and stop subjecting grannies and babies to intrusive searches. It's time to take a lesson from the Israelis. We understand who the enemy is and what he looks like. If it inconveniences a few people in their travel to the U.S., so be it. I understand these guys were in the country for a long time and appeared to be assimilated - but they should not have been let back into the country after receiving the warnings from the Russian government.
try

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/tamerlan...

"It had been previously reported that Mr. Tsarnaev’s application might have been held up because of a domestic abuse episode. But the officials said that it was the record of the F.B.I. interview that threw up red flags and halted, at least temporarily, Mr. Tsarnaev’s citizenship application. "

"Late last year, Homeland Security officials contacted the F.B.I. to learn more about its interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, federal law enforcement officials said. The F.B.I. reported its conclusion that he did not present a threat.

At that point, Homeland Security officials did not move to approve the application nor did they deny it, but they left it open for “additional review.”

"Under immigration law, certain domestic violence offenses can disqualify an immigrant from becoming an American citizen, and perhaps expose him to deportation. But the Homeland Security review found that while Mr. Tsarnaev was arrested, he was not convicted in the episode. The law requires a serious criminal conviction in a domestic violence case for officials to initiate deportation, federal officials said.

Both Tsarnaev brothers came to the United States and remained here legally under an asylum petition in 2002 by their father, who claimed he feared for his life because of his activities in Chechnya. Both sons applied for citizenship after they had been living here as legal permanent residents for at least five years, as the law requires."
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#12 Apr 23, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
try
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/tamerlan...
"It had been previously reported that Mr. Tsarnaev’s application might have been held up because of a domestic abuse episode. But the officials said that it was the record of the F.B.I. interview that threw up red flags and halted, at least temporarily, Mr. Tsarnaev’s citizenship application. "
"Late last year, Homeland Security officials contacted the F.B.I. to learn more about its interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, federal law enforcement officials said. The F.B.I. reported its conclusion that he did not present a threat.
At that point, Homeland Security officials did not move to approve the application nor did they deny it, but they left it open for “additional review.”
"Under immigration law, certain domestic violence offenses can disqualify an immigrant from becoming an American citizen, and perhaps expose him to deportation. But the Homeland Security review found that while Mr. Tsarnaev was arrested, he was not convicted in the episode. The law requires a serious criminal conviction in a domestic violence case for officials to initiate deportation, federal officials said.
Both Tsarnaev brothers came to the United States and remained here legally under an asylum petition in 2002 by their father, who claimed he feared for his life because of his activities in Chechnya. Both sons applied for citizenship after they had been living here as legal permanent residents for at least five years, as the law requires."
Go back and read the thread, US stupidest country in the world
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#13 Apr 23, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
try
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/tamerlan...
"It had been previously reported that Mr. Tsarnaev’s application might have been held up because of a domestic abuse episode. But the officials said that it was the record of the F.B.I. interview that threw up red flags and halted, at least temporarily, Mr. Tsarnaev’s citizenship application. "
"Late last year, Homeland Security officials contacted the F.B.I. to learn more about its interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, federal law enforcement officials said. The F.B.I. reported its conclusion that he did not present a threat.
At that point, Homeland Security officials did not move to approve the application nor did they deny it, but they left it open for “additional review.”
"Under immigration law, certain domestic violence offenses can disqualify an immigrant from becoming an American citizen, and perhaps expose him to deportation. But the Homeland Security review found that while Mr. Tsarnaev was arrested, he was not convicted in the episode. The law requires a serious criminal conviction in a domestic violence case for officials to initiate deportation, federal officials said.
Both Tsarnaev brothers came to the United States and remained here legally under an asylum petition in 2002 by their father, who claimed he feared for his life because of his activities in Chechnya. Both sons applied for citizenship after they had been living here as legal permanent residents for at least five years, as the law requires."
Exactly my point. The Duke is correct, we have to stop being so stupid. We have more laws to protect real and potential criminals than we do victims.
JJJ

Lafayette Hill, PA

#14 Apr 23, 2013
Wait, so you're arguing against needing to be legitimately convicted of a crime in order to be punished for it?
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#15 Apr 23, 2013
JJJ wrote:
Wait, so you're arguing against needing to be legitimately convicted of a crime in order to be punished for it?
If you're addressing that question to me, I am referring only to people wanting to enter the U.S. or on temporary visas. We should be able to set the bar higher for screening requirements and people deemed "undesirable" because of credible warnings from other countries or subsequent bad behavior (not necessarily a felony conviction) should be expelled or prohibited from re-entering the country. It's like breaking probation.

Presumption of innocence is not necessary when it comes to national security. Of course, this does not apply to American citizens unless their actions are deemed treasonous. Then, their citizenship should be revoked. I don't understand how it's okay to launch a drone attack on a treasonous American citizen to kill him - but it's not okay to put him on trial as an enemy combatant.
If anyone can explain that to me, I'd like to hear it.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who plans or carries out attacks on Americans -just because they are Americans- should forfeit all rights and privileges of citizenship. By definition, they are ENEMIES of this country, not citizens.
JJJ

Emmaus, PA

#16 Apr 23, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Presumption of innocence is not necessary when it comes to national security.
But what was brought up was domestic violence, of which the alleged perpetrator was not convicted.

So under that reasoning, anyone could call the police on ANYONE from a country that has ever had a terrorist living in it and claim they did something. And because they were reported to the police - even if the entire thing was made up and they're found not guilty - they should be deported?
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#17 Apr 23, 2013
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>But what was brought up was domestic violence, of which the alleged perpetrator was not convicted.

So under that reasoning, anyone could call the police on ANYONE from a country that has ever had a terrorist living in it and claim they did something. And because they were reported to the police - even if the entire thing was made up and they're found not guilty - they should be deported?
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>But what was brought up was domestic violence, of which the alleged perpetrator was not convicted.

So under that reasoning, anyone could call the police on ANYONE from a country that has ever had a terrorist living in it and claim they did something. And because they were reported to the police - even if the entire thing was made up and they're found not guilty - they should be deported?
No, I didn't mean that at all. I was talking about expelling him (or anyone here on a visa) if he was convicted of a felony or any anti-American activities.

I also think he should have been denied re-entry on the evidence provided by the Russians. I'm not sure why the FBI discounted that, it's not like he was a contributor - they were on welfare as I understand it. Unless their record is spotless and their intentions are unquestioned, we don't need them here.

Think of Australia - you can't live there unless you pass some very tough scrutiny.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/01ba...
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#18 Apr 24, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're addressing that question to me, I am referring only to people wanting to enter the U.S. or on temporary visas. We should be able to set the bar higher for screening requirements and people deemed "undesirable" because of credible warnings from other countries or subsequent bad behavior (not necessarily a felony conviction) should be expelled or prohibited from re-entering the country. It's like breaking probation.
Presumption of innocence is not necessary when it comes to national security. Of course, this does not apply to American citizens unless their actions are deemed treasonous. Then, their citizenship should be revoked. I don't understand how it's okay to launch a drone attack on a treasonous American citizen to kill him - but it's not okay to put him on trial as an enemy combatant.
If anyone can explain that to me, I'd like to hear it.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who plans or carries out attacks on Americans -just because they are Americans- should forfeit all rights and privileges of citizenship. By definition, they are ENEMIES of this country, not citizens.
when a US citizen joins a foreign army then they are no longer US citizens and are legitimate military targets.

The Supreme Court ruled that American citizens are entitled to the protection of the Constitution to challenge their status as an enemy combatant.
The President could detain a enemy combatant and just hold him but to what end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfel...

so in effect is it easier to try him in the US courts.
given the material evidence the outcome should be fairly straight forward.

one other thing.
i understand your point from
"As far as I'm concerned, anyone who plans or carries out attacks on Americans -just because they are Americans- should forfeit all rights and privileges of citizenship. By definition, they are ENEMIES of this country, not citizens"

so would that apply say to a person who plans to bomb say a abortion clinic?
or say a person who plans to burn down say a church or mosque?
or a bank robber decides that to get away with the crime all the bank employees are killed?
i think the problem becomes where do you draw the line between criminal acts and terrorism?
the Boston bombing was an act of terror but should be tried as a criminal matter IMO.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#19 Apr 24, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, I didn't mean that at all. I was talking about expelling him (or anyone here on a visa) if he was convicted of a felony or any anti-American activities.
I also think he should have been denied re-entry on the evidence provided by the Russians. I'm not sure why the FBI discounted that, it's not like he was a contributor - they were on welfare as I understand it. Unless their record is spotless and their intentions are unquestioned, we don't need them here.
Think of Australia - you can't live there unless you pass some very tough scrutiny.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/01ba...
the dead terrorist was a permanent resident(green card holder)
as such
" Freedom to enter and leave the United States. United States citizens have the right to enter and leave the United States freely. Certain non-citizens, such as permanent residents, have similar rights."

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

now if the FBI report lead to him being denied citizenship he then could have been deported.
by the US immigration dept.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_reside... (United_States)
Jersey Duke

Quakertown, PA

#20 Apr 24, 2013
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>
But what was brought up was domestic violence, of which the alleged perpetrator was not convicted.
So under that reasoning, anyone could call the police on ANYONE from a country that has ever had a terrorist living in it and claim they did something. And because they were reported to the police - even if the entire thing was made up and they're found not guilty - they should be deported?
Everything I read says he was convicted. You libs always try to make these evil criminals look better. Look at the pictures they run of the younger brother. He is an innocent looking teenager, just like the pictures they ran of the dope dealer, burglar, Trevon Martin.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#21 Apr 24, 2013
Jersey Duke wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything I read says he was convicted. You libs always try to make these evil criminals look better. Look at the pictures they run of the younger brother. He is an innocent looking teenager, just like the pictures they ran of the dope dealer, burglar, Trevon Martin.
and the photos used always are the best of the pictures with criminals.

https://www.google.com/search...

besides the terrorist was not running for Miss America so what does his looks have to with it.

and try

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/eleve...

" Dzhokhar made little effort to prevent cameras from capturing his face, making him easier to identify when the FBI released security camera photos on Thursday. Indeed, classmates at University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth did see him in the photos, but dismissed the similarity because it seemed so far-fetched."

and his charges

"Court records in Cambridge, Mass., meanwhile, showed that Tamerlan was arrested on charges of assault and battery in July 2009 after slapping a girlfriend. The incident occurred at his apartment on Norfolk Street after an argument between him and Nadine Ascencao over another woman, according to the incident report. The records indicate that the case was dismissed about six months later."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/boston...

and there is also the question of their weapons

"Authorities are trying to trace a handgun recovered from the suspects. Law enforcement sources said the effort has been delayed because the serial number was removed. Technicians are working to determine the numbers, after which the weapon will be traced by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives facility in West Virginia."
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#22 Apr 24, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
when a US citizen joins a foreign army then they are no longer US citizens and are legitimate military targets.
The Supreme Court ruled that American citizens are entitled to the protection of the Constitution to challenge their status as an enemy combatant.
The President could detain a enemy combatant and just hold him but to what end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfel...
so in effect is it easier to try him in the US courts.
given the material evidence the outcome should be fairly straight forward.
one other thing.
i understand your point from
"As far as I'm concerned, anyone who plans or carries out attacks on Americans -just because they are Americans- should forfeit all rights and privileges of citizenship. By definition, they are ENEMIES of this country, not citizens"
so would that apply say to a person who plans to bomb say a abortion clinic?
or say a person who plans to burn down say a church or mosque?
or a bank robber decides that to get away with the crime all the bank employees are killed?
i think the problem becomes where do you draw the line between criminal acts and terrorism?
the Boston bombing was an act of terror but should be tried as a criminal matter IMO.
Well, the criminals in your examples may not lose citizenship, but they do lose many privileges of citizenship - as well they should. I believe the difference is the purpose behind the acts of violence. Bombing an abortion clinic or killing bank employees may kill Americans, but they are not treasonous acts aimed at bringing down the US government.

As far as the Boston bombing, I don't have a real problem trying the surviving brother in civilian federal court. But making it a State murder case would have prevented them from seeking the death penalty, which is illegal in Massachusetts. I agree the evidence is overwhelming and he has been talking. To avoid the death penalty, he will likely make a deal. He says there was no connection with a terrorist organization, but I don't believe that. In any case, he can always be declared an enemy combatant later if needed.

It does kind of mystify me, though, why they felt they had to Mirandize him so quickly. There was no rush to charge him and some useful information could have been obtained by FBI investigators that would not have affected his Miranda rights.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
For Richlandtownship to go forward 12 min Good by 1
This forum is boring 44 min Snowman 4
A pathetic township 4 hr Joe public 14
West End Pub? (Jan '15) 7 hr Nick 36
Old town Qtown trees all down! 10 hr tommy boy 2
Old Kart Track Shelly??? (Sep '13) 13 hr Jersey Duke 12
Bush House Hotel Nightmare!! (Dec '09) 22 hr madderhorn 67
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Coopersburg Mortgages