Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

frodosdream t1_j60e1f2 wrote

>Sayfullo Saipov was found guilty of murder by a federal jury for using a rented truck to fatally strike eight people on a New York City bike path on Halloween Day in 2017.

About time; this was a particularly cruel attack on innocent people.

410

Maverick_1882 t1_j60gkro wrote

I hope people forget about him while he spends the rest of his life behind bars.

88

terabaap420 t1_j60k8ws wrote

Replying to TrainOfThought6 (#1,514,152)

A terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation against civilians. It’s not an explicit term for ISIS other other assholes from Middle East. All shooting suspects regardless of their religion affiliation should fall under that label. But media doesn’t do that.

−11

sweetplantveal t1_j60kgva wrote

Replying to frodosdream (#1,513,660)

God the justice system is slow. Isis was doing this in Europe, then this, then the far right was running over protesters weekly. Then it basically stopped happening and now we have a conviction for the first case. Jfc.

110

TheSammyMac t1_j60lykg wrote

5 years to be dealt with in the courts? Unacceptable.

111

sweet-tea-13 t1_j60s7vw wrote

Replying to terabaap420 (#1,514,493)

>A terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation against civilians.

You forgot to add "in order to push some sort of cause". Someone who uses violence or intimidation for no other reason than they are just mentally deranged and want to harm others isn't technically a terrorist. To fall under that label the person must have some sort of agenda or motive besides just wanting to hurt people, and most often the motives are either religious or political in nature. If the definition of terrorist was nothing more than "someone who causes terror" then I'd agree with you, but that isn't an accurate description which is why not every shooter is labeled as such. The persons religious affiliation only matters if their religion was the motive behind the crime, and that applies to all religions, and also all political ideologies.

11

wart_on_satans_dick t1_j61aj91 wrote

Replying to TheSammyMac (#1,516,708)

Five years is a long time but I will say so many things have to come together to get a fair trial in such a serious case. Covid may have also been a factor, as a lot of components involved in criminal cases required people who were justifiably staying home.

16

clineaus t1_j61anbe wrote

Can someone explain why it took 5 years?

22

FKreuk t1_j61i3v8 wrote

remember that, i walked over that path 2-3 times a week during lunch - skipped that day - scary

19

wart_on_satans_dick t1_j61jmwa wrote

Replying to blahbleh112233 (#1,518,724)

It would be, but it would be better than life imprisonment or the death penalty depending on the state or federal decision if wrongfully convicted of eight homicides. It's not about getting our shit together. It's about being able to have a clear and accurate record of evidence as well as a fair trial. Like I mentioned, I suspect Covid played a factor in the delay as well. Keep in mind the murders were alleged to aid in racketeering and appeal to ISIS. That requires a good amount of discovery I'd imagine. This is not a normal case.

7

Tentapuss t1_j61lwla wrote

But he looks so normal and well adjusted to the society he lives in.

7

Swoah t1_j61mef0 wrote

So what decides if a criminal gets charged federally or state level. I mean like why this guy tried by the feds and not NY? Do they just want to keep the death penalty an option?

−5

Agariculture t1_j62c2ev wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,522,041)

The defendant has a right to a speedy trial. This means they can make the entire trial happen on a particular time span which I do not know what it is. I may be wrong in this next one, but if they exercise that right and it doesn’t happen they win the case with prejudice. Meaning they cant be tried again for the same crime.

I had this explained to me a long while back.

The attorney said “we should waive speedy trial. This judge hates when defendants do this and it usually goes poorly for them when they do”. So I waived.

I suspect with how busy the courts, the prosecutors and the defending attorney all are every case gets waived these days.

6

SpaceTabs t1_j630qss wrote

Replying to TheSammyMac (#1,514,732)

That's the new thing. An attorney can now make a typical case easily span more than one year. Jury selection is super combative and is probably more lawyer work than an actual trial. I know of a single murder from 15 months ago, the defense attorney just filed a motion that discovery isn't finished yet. That's all you need. For something like this they probably held years of depositions, multiple medical experts, paid for a duplicate full background check, etc.

“The government revealed it had been surveilling Mr. Saipov and two of his associates for years, recording his conversations with them to gather information about his personal contacts, professional experiences, finances, and potential exposure to ISIS propaganda, violent jihadism, and Islamic extremism,” Saipov’s attorney Andrew Dalak argued in the heavily redacted filing.

Dalak wrote the government must disclose details of the surveillance and any materials pertaining to his client’s alleged connection to ISIS, so the legal team can mount a defense.

https://www.kbzk.com/cnn-national/2019/03/18/nyc-terror-suspect-sayfullo-saipov-wants-access-to-government-surveillance-of-him/

0

snoogins355 t1_j639gml wrote

Saipov became radicalized by consuming extremist content during lengthy solo stints as a long-haul truck driver, his attorney said.

7

Crixxa t1_j64cwgs wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,522,910)

That is an unusually long wait for a criminal case. Civil cases often drag out for years but criminal trials don't typically make it half that long without delays sought by the defendant.

When I worked as an ADA, the longest trial that dragged out while I was there took 3 years and mainly because the defendant knew he was going to have a very bad time in prison and we had enough evidence that no jury would fail to convict him. So he was constantly trying to find creative ways to cause delays.

3

snoogins355 t1_j64hpfg wrote

Replying to DoubleUniversity6302 (#1,530,589)

Reminds me of the phrase "you are what you eat" but for your mind. If all you consume is toxic radical bullshit, it can and likely will influence you. Why education and critical thinking are important. Also having a good group of people with different viewpoints to call out dangerous bullshit and keep you level. Get by with a little help from my friends...

2

dittybopper_05H t1_j64obmd wrote

Replying to Crixxa (#1,531,183)

I would take that with a grain of salt.

I looked at some of the incidents, including one that allegedly occurred not that far from me, and a lot of them are basically based on one or two eyewitnesses with no other information available.

And almost all of them are "0 injuries, 0 fatalities".

That suggests to me that they weren't actual attacks. You can't outrun a car or a truck. If someone wants to run into a protest on purpose to kill and injure people, there isn't anything you can do about it, they're going to hit somebody.

This case is a perfect example of that. It was an actual attack by a person intent on killing people, and he did. People who were running or on bikes* were killed (8) and injured (11).

I think it's more likely that most of those so-called "attacks" in your link where there were no injuries or deaths were people who were minding their own business, driving somewhere, and found themselves in the middle of a protest blocking traffic. Car gets surrounded by an angry mob, the people in the car get scared (we all remember what happened to Reginald Denny), and they try to carefully drive away without hurting anybody.

And it gets counted as an "attack" by people with an ax to grind.

​

​

*As a side note, I'm willing to bet a lot of the people killed or injured in that attack were wearing headphones and listening to music. That's a bad habit to get into, because it lowers your situational awareness.

6

Crixxa t1_j64u7n0 wrote

Replying to dittybopper_05H (#1,533,035)

The one my student was at was a protest and the car arrived on the scene navigating at that point against the flow of traffic away from the blocked street, then plowed straight through barricades, and the center of the gathered protesters and drove away.

I have never seen a protest with even a third of the ppl in attendance wearing headphones. That is such a weird point to try to make. It seems like you're reaching to justify violence.

3

dittybopper_05H t1_j6hw44v wrote

Replying to Maleficent_Tie4767 (#1,536,117)

Not really. I don't really have a dog in that fight.

But I did notice a lot of those incidents at that site (probably a majority, but I didn't count) were 0 injuries, 0 fatalities, which again suggests that they weren't really attacks. If they were intentional attacks, I would expect a injuries and fatalities. But we don't see that.

I mean, it's not like there is room for misinterpretation when you're really mad about something, mad enough to be protesting in the streets. You're probably totally calm and detached and an impartial observer.

That last paragraph was sarcasm, in case it wasn't completely obvious.

That's not to say there aren't any vehicle attacks, of course, but I think actual, for-real vehicle attacks are far less common than that site says they are. Most if not all of the incidents that are 0 injuries, 0 fatalities are likely to be misinterpretations of what the drive was trying to accomplish.

1