• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2013 Boston Marathon Bombing... (merged)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Bucklion;2354255; said:
I assume everyone has seen the Rolling Stone cover and the backlash and refusal to sell it...thoughts?
Click to expand...

Rolling Stone covers are typically reserved for rock stars. Whether Rolling Stone intends to or not, they are giving the terrorist "rock star" type treatment/status by putting him on the cover. The cover is an insult to all the victims and the entire city of Boston. At best the cover is giving the bomber fame and exposure. At worst, it's glorifying a terrorist. It's a pathetic attempt by RS to try and make themselves relevant again. Shock media at it's lowest.
 
Upvote 0
TexasBuck;2354516; said:
Rolling Stone covers are typically reserved for rock stars. Whether Rolling Stone intends to or not, they are giving the terrorist "rock star" type treatment/status by putting him on the cover. The cover is an insult to all the victims and the entire city of Boston. At best the cover is giving the bomber fame and exposure. At worst, it's glorifying a terrorist. It's a pathetic attempt by RS to try and make themselves relevant again. Shock media at it's lowest.
Click to expand...

It's not the first time they've had a controversial cover. They had Charles Mason on the cover back in the late '60s...I seriously doubt they were trying to bestow "rock star status" onto Mason. As for giving Tsarnaev "fame and exposure", I think the douchebag already has plenty of that.

Let's see how the article actually portrays Tsarnaev before we all pass sanctimonious judgement.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2354518; said:
It's not the first time they've had a controversial cover. They had Charles Mason on the cover back in the late '60s...I seriously doubt they were trying to bestow "rock star status" onto Mason. As for giving Tsarnaev "fame and exposure", I think the douchebag already has plenty of that.

Let's see how the article actually portrays Tsarnaev before we all pass sanctimonious judgement.
Click to expand...

I would argue putting Charles Manson on the cover was a mistake as well. I don't believe criminals should benefit from their crimes in any way. Being on the cover of a national publication is a benefit. It gave/gives Manson/Tsarnaev more attention and publicity, which is part of what they were trying to achieve with their horrific murderous actions.
 
Upvote 0
Muck;2333595; said:
Judy Clarke takes on most of these cases specifically because she is an opponent of the death penalty.



$20 says Clarke will broker a guilty plea in exchange for life in prison.
Click to expand...

Yup. Clarke isn't a publicity seeker. She's handled more high profile cases than any defense attorney in the country and yet most most Americans don't know who she is.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Lawyers for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev accused the government of imposing unduly harsh restrictions on their client in a motion filed Wednesday. Tsarnaev is "in near total isolation"
Click to expand...
-- maybe we should let him make day visits with the people he maimed.. he can help them learn to walk again or hold a folk.. and spend nights next to the graves of people he killed.. or let him rot
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top