Why on earth is Breivik's trial being broadcast?

do you know where I can find the document? I'm interested in reading it too. and yeah his side should be broadcast too (not because I think he deserves it, but so the public in general can be better informed)

http://breivikmanifest.com/book-3-planning-of-attacks

Reply 21

Idle

2

Original post by .eXe

do you know where I can find the document? I'm interested in reading it too. and yeah his side should be broadcast too (not because I think he deserves it, but so the public in general can be better informed)

I doubt it's allowed to be linked but if you google: A European Declaration of Independence it will come up with a bit of searching I am sure.

(I am on about the political stuff in it not his crazyness)

Reply 22

Playa10

13

Original post by JackE5

http://news.sky.com/home/supreme-court

:confused:

That doesn't broadcast trials. It merely broadcasts appeal cases from the Supreme Court

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 23

patrickinator

12

History repeating itself - Adolf Hitler and his Munich putsch and being let off by lenient judges and given a platform to speak on.

We may think his talk is crazy but there is certainly many thousands of people across europe who will be united in support of him.

Let Breivik rot in prison!

Reply 24

.eXe

11

Original post by patrickinator

History repeating itself - Adolf Hitler and his Munich putsch and being let off by lenient judges and given a platform to speak on.

We may think his talk is crazy but there is certainly many thousands of people across europe who will be united in support of him.

Let Breivik rot in prison!

Honestly this guy is comparable to George Bush, or many other leaders of the world who are hell bent on killing. Only thing is, this guy did it alone, while Bush does it with an army. Both are fighting for what each believes is freedom. Bush, by eliminating his definition of terrorists, while this man (with an obviously flawed approach) eliminating what he considers are the enemy.

Not condoning his actions in anyways, but trying to make the point that each acts based on their own definitions of terms. Just because their definitions and/or convictions are not accepted by the general population doesn't automatically mean that they are wrong.

The reason we hate this guy is because he killed innocent kids. But what if he had done the same thing, but instead of killing kids, he had killed a bunch of terrorists. We'd all be celebrating him.

Reply 25

j0hn

8

Aspects of the trial are going to be deliberately missed out, including his testimony. He's a mass murderer whose sanity has been seriously questioned, nobodys going to listen to him anyway. He's merely reminded us how utterly detestable and violent the notion of Facism is.

Reply 26

chaza01

OP

2

Why the negs :frown:

just a view... :'(

Reply 27

Kavalier

Original post by chaza01

Oh, I see, I just assumed that the fragments of the case broadcast on the news meant that the entire thing would be broadcast. Nevertheless, he was allowed to read a 30 page document boasting of his attacks.

Not 30 pages - he had 30 minutes to read 13 pages :smile:

Even though I find it incredibly offensive to the families of the victims that he was allowed to express his views like that, his testimony was still essential in trying to work out whether or not he's insane

Reply 28

zaliack

16

Original post by chaza01

Oh right...Excuse my ignorance...Then what was this recent debate regarding whether trials should be broadcast or not?

That's only Supreme Court, which are appeals based on special public importance. The recent debate was about extending broadcasting to all criminal cases, starting with the Appeal Court Criminal Division (Points of law), and then eventually Crown Courts (Actual trials) (Don't know if there is a point in showing Magistrates, or even if they are planning to).

Reply 29

patrickinator

12

Original post by .eXe

Honestly this guy is comparable to George Bush, or many other leaders of the world who are hell bent on killing. Only thing is, this guy did it alone, while Bush does it with an army. Both are fighting for what each believes is freedom. Bush, by eliminating his definition of terrorists, while this man (with an obviously flawed approach) eliminating what he considers are the enemy.

Not condoning his actions in anyways, but trying to make the point that each acts based on their own definitions of terms. Just because their definitions and/or convictions are not accepted by the general population doesn't automatically mean that they are wrong.

The reason we hate this guy is because he killed innocent kids. But what if he had done the same thing, but instead of killing kids, he had killed a bunch of terrorists. We'd all be celebrating him.

if the general population thinks it is wrong then that DOES make it wrong. Society sets a code, the law, to which everyone must follow so that the country can become more prosperous and free. When someone disobeys the law they must be punished thereby making what society thinks is wrong, wrong. If you can't live by the country's law then you will continue to be an outsider. The reason we killed kids is why I think he should spend the rest of his life in prison, I mean really WHO ARE YOU TO THINK THAT BECAUSE HE KILLED 77 PEOPLE HE SHOULD BE TREATED AS SOMEONE AS NORMAL? are you a sympathizer?
And for your information, I HATE George W. Bush.
Sorry my earlier comment it might have been a bit hasty. Friends? :smile:

(edited 12 years ago)

Why on earth is Breivik's trial being broadcast?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you