Anders Breivik trial started this morning.
I feel ill. The prosecutor is going through the list of the 77 innocent young people this animal butchered and he just sits there with a silly smirk on his face.
He tells the court that he does not recognise it.
Good. Take him outside and hand him over to the mob and let him complain to them. Right now, strapping him to a saw table and splitting him in two from the groin upwards as slowly as possible almost seems to good.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Anders Breivik
last reply
82 replies
3.6k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by GnV
Anders Breivik trial started this morning.
I feel ill. The prosecutor is going through the list of the 77 innocent young people this animal butchered and he just sits there with a silly smirk on his face.
He tells the court that he does not recognise it.
Good. Take him outside and hand him over to the mob and let him complain to them. Right now, strapping him to a saw table and splitting him in two from the groin upwards as slowly as possible almost seems to good.
whether we like it or not GNV, and whatever the crimes commited no matter how cruel, he is still entitled to a fair trial.
it may well turn peeples stomachs but the guy has been deemed not mental and fit to stand trial. i am more concerned how someone who is fit to stand trial, can kill so many young peeple. i want to know what actually is going on inside his head.
evil sometimes though holds no bounds.
Quote by GnV
Tell me star, how can the trial be fair if he announces that he does not recognise the Norwegian Court?
where would his trial be then GNV? the crime was committed in norway and he is norwegian, so that is where the trial should be. it is irrelevant whether he rocognises the court or not. i believe there have been war crimes in recent yeers where the person on trial did not rocognise the court. well in that case the trial will go ahead as fair as can be possible under norwegian law.
that is why we are trying to send suspected terrorsists to the USA or back to jordon, where the original crimes were committed or he is a national of that country.
Anders Breivik is going to be rightly tried and convicted in the country of his birth and where the acts of murder took place. because he fails to want to recognise the court, where would you suggest they hold the trial then GNV? I cannot think of anywhere fairer, and if he fails to recognise the court that is not a matter of concern for the prosecution or the court itself. :thumbup:
Quote by GnV
Fair to whom?
a fair trial for the relatives and survivors of this ruthless act.
dues process i think it is called GNV. if it was down to me i would just have him shot and damn the expense of a bullet or three, but the law states he has to have a fair trial. so fair to Anders Breivik i would presume also GNV, as distasteful as that may be.
Sex God
Very interesting to watch the BBC 2 This World programme last night, recommend it to others if repeated or on iPlayer -
Synopsis : This World tells the inside story of the 2011 massacre in Norway, offering new insights into the life and mind of the perpetrator Anders Breivik, and exposing the hidden hatreds that inspired him. Through interviews with key players, including the Norwegian prime minister, survivors, the commander of the police response and the head of the Delta Force team that arrested Breivik, and including unique footage and unseen archive, the film pieces together, minute by minute, the course of the attacks and the response of the security services.
Whilst Breivik confessed moments after his arrest, today in court he pleaded not guilty.
The trial's primary purpose now is to establish if he was insane when he committed his attacks. Two teams of court-appointed psychiatrists have assessed Breivik in prison. The first, whose report came out in October last year, concluded he was a paranoid schizophrenic whose vision of the world was delusional to the point of madness. The second team, who reported this week, believed the opposite - that he was sufficiently sane to be held criminally responsible for his actions.
The judges must decide which report is correct.
As for GnV's view, sadly have to agree with Star on this occasion.
Like Howard Shipman or Peter Sutcliffe in the UK and Jean-Claude Romand in France, as the alledged crimes were committed in those countries juristriction, then the trials were held within that country. The only other possible Court might be the Hague, but as this is usually the International War Crimes and Anders Behring Breivik, as far as we know, hasn't been charged with these type of offences, then it's only proper he his being tried in a Norwegian court
Synopsis : This World tells the inside story of the 2011 massacre in Norway, offering new insights into the life and mind of the perpetrator Anders Breivik, and exposing the hidden hatreds that inspired him. Through interviews with key players, including the Norwegian prime minister, survivors, the commander of the police response and the head of the Delta Force team that arrested Breivik, and including unique footage and unseen archive, the film pieces together, minute by minute, the course of the attacks and the response of the security services.
Whilst Breivik confessed moments after his arrest, today in court he pleaded not guilty.
The trial's primary purpose now is to establish if he was insane when he committed his attacks. Two teams of court-appointed psychiatrists have assessed Breivik in prison. The first, whose report came out in October last year, concluded he was a paranoid schizophrenic whose vision of the world was delusional to the point of madness. The second team, who reported this week, believed the opposite - that he was sufficiently sane to be held criminally responsible for his actions.
The judges must decide which report is correct.
As for GnV's view, sadly have to agree with Star on this occasion.
Like Howard Shipman or Peter Sutcliffe in the UK and Jean-Claude Romand in France, as the alledged crimes were committed in those countries juristriction, then the trials were held within that country. The only other possible Court might be the Hague, but as this is usually the International War Crimes and Anders Behring Breivik, as far as we know, hasn't been charged with these type of offences, then it's only proper he his being tried in a Norwegian court
Quote by HnS
Very interesting to watch the BBC 2 This World programme last night, recommend it to others if repeated or on iPlayer -
Synopsis : This World tells the inside story of the 2011 massacre in Norway, offering new insights into the life and mind of the perpetrator Anders Breivik, and exposing the hidden hatreds that inspired him. Through interviews with key players, including the Norwegian prime minister, survivors, the commander of the police response and the head of the Delta Force team that arrested Breivik, and including unique footage and unseen archive, the film pieces together, minute by minute, the course of the attacks and the response of the security services.
Whilst Breivik confessed moments after his arrest, today in court he pleaded not guilty.
The trial's primary purpose now is to establish if he was insane when he committed his attacks. Two teams of court-appointed psychiatrists have assessed Breivik in prison. The first, whose report came out in October last year, concluded he was a paranoid schizophrenic whose vision of the world was delusional to the point of madness. The second team, who reported this week, believed the opposite - that he was sufficiently sane to be held criminally responsible for his actions.
The judges must decide which report is correct.
As for GnV's view, sadly have to agree with Star on this occasion.
Like Howard Shipman or Peter Sutcliffe in the UK and Jean-Claude Romand in France, as the alledged crimes were committed in those countries juristriction, then the trials were held within that country. The only other possible Court might be the Hague, but as this is usually the International War Crimes and Anders Behring Breivik, as far as we know, hasn't been charged with these type of offences, then it's only proper he his being tried in a Norwegian court
I didn't say anything different.
I merely postulated a view that if he didn't accept the jurisdiction of the Norwegian Court, perhaps he might be happier being dealt with summarily by the outraged mob outside. I didn't suggest that he should be...
quite scarey watching him on the news.....not an ounce of remorse. Handcuffs off and first thing he does, is his right wing salute !! Took over an hour to read out all the names of those he killed !! Must admit I do like the way they are handling it in Norway. They are determinded to have a fair trail, and let him have his say, but refuse to give him a platform for his sick, far right rantings....and so will have the cameras switched off, when he speaks.
Quote by starlightcouple
Anders Breivik trial started this morning.
I feel ill. The prosecutor is going through the list of the 77 innocent young people this animal butchered and he just sits there with a silly smirk on his face.
He tells the court that he does not recognise it.
Good. Take him outside and hand him over to the mob and let him complain to them. Right now, strapping him to a saw table and splitting him in two from the groin upwards as slowly as possible almost seems to good.
whether we like it or not GNV, and whatever the crimes commited no matter how cruel, he is still entitled to a fair trial.
it may well turn peeples stomachs but the guy has been deemed not mental and fit to stand trial. i am more concerned how someone who is fit to stand trial, can kill so many young peeple. i want to know what actually is going on inside his head.
evil sometimes though holds no bounds.
Aaaaah the old "good old brits fair trial policy" a fair trial could be construed as the same fair trial he gave the victims
good that he is not being tried here shame that he is not being tried in a Country whose idea of a fair trial matches his own ideals Quote by MidsCouple24
Aaaaah the old "good old brits fair trial policy" a fair trial could be construed as the same fair trial he gave the victims
Nothing wrong with the fair trial policy.
There is a lot of mileage in "the eye for an eye" argument, but I am not sure it constitutes fairness. Many would argue with that standpoint and that's fair enough. I am not trying to say that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong - but if we are going to step away from the "fair trial" then they only other option is an "unfair trial".
I know which one I prefer.
Sex God
Quote by HimandHer
Aaaaah the old "good old brits fair trial policy" a fair trial could be construed as the same fair trial he gave the victims
Nothing wrong with the fair trial policy.
There is a lot of mileage in "the eye for an eye" argument, but I am not sure it constitutes fairness. Many would argue with that standpoint and that's fair enough. I am not trying to say that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong - but if we are going to step away from the "fair trial" then they only other option is an "unfair trial".
I know which one I prefer.
there is no doubt that he is guilty i think its just the going through the motions of a trial
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Aaaaah the old "good old brits fair trial policy" a fair trial could be construed as the same fair trial he gave the victims
Nothing wrong with the fair trial policy.
There is a lot of mileage in "the eye for an eye" argument, but I am not sure it constitutes fairness. Many would argue with that standpoint and that's fair enough. I am not trying to say that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong - but if we are going to step away from the "fair trial" then they only other option is an "unfair trial".
I know which one I prefer.
there is no doubt that he is guilty i think its just the going through the motions of a trial
Of course there is doubt that he is guilty.
The question is, is whether that doubt is a reasonable one to have.
Who is to decide reasonableness? It is a function of the court, and that is why he must stand trial (a fair, open and impartial trial).
Do you think this is a serious case or a trivial one - I would suspect that the answer you will give is that it is a serious one.
Do you think that speeding is a serious offence or a trivial one - compared to these murderous acts. I suspect that you would say that compared to the murder of dozens of people, that speeding is a trivial offence.
If I have summised correctly, you are content to accept that there is no doubt of his guilt, and that the trial is simply going through the motions - then you cannot possibly argue that a person who goes for trial for a lessor offence than multiple murder - is simply doing no more than going through the motions too.
If he is 100% guilty with no reasonable doubt - then why bother trial him at all... the problem we have is that the next person who is accused of a crime might be you - and I suspect that you would be squealing human rights if a third party suggested that any trial you were subjected to was just going through the motions and you were obviously guilty.
The bottom line is that once we tread on one person rights, then everyone's rights are jeapordised forever.
Of course he is guilty - and he will go away for a long time, whether he be found guilty on his own merits or not guilty by reason of insanity, ultimately he won't be going home anytime soon, but it must be a decision for the courts within the composition of their countries judicial apparatus to make, that simply has to happen.
No I wouldn't scream human rights, just a victim of a bad system in the UK and in other countries, a system that says evidence can be inadmissable, that previous convictions have no relevance to the charge, that you can be tried and convicted in your absence because guilt is the only reason for non attendance at court for example, would I seek compensation or even retrial, no why bother under this system.
There is no doubt he did it; he has admitted as such (although he refuses to plead other than the killings were done in self defence).
The only doubt is whether he was criminally responsible which is why the shrinks are in Court sitting in front of the Judges. That is the main reason for the trial at this time. The prosecution still have the right to change the indictments to reflect any change in circumstance. It's probably a case of 'give him enough rope, and he'll probably hang himself'. His rambling demeanour is favouring fruit cake status at it presently stands from what I can see.
The only doubt is whether he was criminally responsible which is why the shrinks are in Court sitting in front of the Judges. That is the main reason for the trial at this time. The prosecution still have the right to change the indictments to reflect any change in circumstance. It's probably a case of 'give him enough rope, and he'll probably hang himself'. His rambling demeanour is favouring fruit cake status at it presently stands from what I can see.
Sex God
What I believe is required here is a Jacob Leon Rubenstein
Sex God
Quote by HimandHer
(snip)
Of course he is guilty - and he will go away for a long time, whether he be found guilty on his own merits or not guilty by reason of insanity, ultimately he won't be going home anytime soon, but it must be a decision for the courts within the composition of their countries judicial apparatus to make, that simply has to happen.
i believe that's what i said ^^^^^^^^
but in a much less complicated manner :doh:
Warming the Bed
Justice would be for him to suffer 77 deaths and all the misery that goes along with them.
His actions were not due to a momentary lapse of reason,they were planned,he is just plain evil.
His actions were not due to a momentary lapse of reason,they were planned,he is just plain evil.
Sex God
I don't understand why they are having a trial. He has admitted in court that he did it and offered no viable defence. There is a clear definition of self-defence and it requires immediate threat to life or property. Him thinking what he did was justified and imagining the established justice system of the country that nourished him doesn't apply to him is irrelevant.
He has admitted he did it, what is there to discuss? Time to move to sentencing.
He has admitted he did it, what is there to discuss? Time to move to sentencing.
Foxy,
because he has actually pleaded not guilty, even though he clearly accepts he did do it. However he believes his country is being invaded by foreigners and so calls it an act of self defence !!!!
fact is he will without doubt be found guilty. The only question is should he go to prison or a mental institute. He himself has favoured the death penalty. No doubt seeing himself as a martyr to the cause, dieing for his beliefs !! However in norway this is not an option. What he wants least in his won words is to be "locked up in a mental institute with a load of nutters, and be monitored 24 hours a day and told his views and actions are wrong all day ".
Interesting enough the one survivor I heard on the radio said the other day, they hope and pray he is classed as insane and locked up in mental hospital, as that is exactly what he doesn't want and fears most !!!!
because he has actually pleaded not guilty, even though he clearly accepts he did do it. However he believes his country is being invaded by foreigners and so calls it an act of self defence !!!!
fact is he will without doubt be found guilty. The only question is should he go to prison or a mental institute. He himself has favoured the death penalty. No doubt seeing himself as a martyr to the cause, dieing for his beliefs !! However in norway this is not an option. What he wants least in his won words is to be "locked up in a mental institute with a load of nutters, and be monitored 24 hours a day and told his views and actions are wrong all day ".
Interesting enough the one survivor I heard on the radio said the other day, they hope and pray he is classed as insane and locked up in mental hospital, as that is exactly what he doesn't want and fears most !!!!
Quote by gulsonroad30664
he we know about.
many others that we dont.
yes, i would like to know who they are too. i certainly do not believe he acted alone.
Of course you don't!!
I notice you didn't answer my questions in the Nuclear War next week thread. Quel surprise!!
I've revised my opinion of you......you're not a troll, you're a fake!
Quote by Max777
he we know about.
many others that we dont.
yes, i would like to know who they are too. i certainly do not believe he acted alone.
Of course you don't!!
I notice you didn't answer my questions in the Nuclear War next week thread. Quel surprise!!
I've revised my opinion of you......you're not a troll, you're a fake!what are you ?
Quote by gulsonroad30664
he we know about.
many others that we dont.
yes, i would like to know who they are too. i certainly do not believe he acted alone.
Of course you don't!!
I notice you didn't answer my questions in the Nuclear War next week thread. Quel surprise!!
I've revised my opinion of you......you're not a troll, you're a fake!what are you ?
Someone that can recognise a fake!
Quote by Max777
he we know about.
many others that we dont.
yes, i would like to know who they are too. i certainly do not believe he acted alone.
Of course you don't!!
I notice you didn't answer my questions in the Nuclear War next week thread. Quel surprise!!
I've revised my opinion of you......you're not a troll, you're a fake!what are you ?
Someone that can recognise a fake!your also very intelligent max. i wish i could be like you but i'm a fake, i'm a weirdo, what am i doing here, i dont belong here.
funny, i dont believe i have ever taken the initiative in slagging you off for anything you have posted on here although in defending myself from one of your personal attack's i may have. if i have i apologise but please keep up the good work posting non swinging controversial issue's or accepted norms. i prefer political and controversial as is the title of this section myself.
thank you for raising questions regarding my credentials by calling me a troll previously and now a fake. your attacks bring attention to my posts and i thank you for that. regards.
Quote by gulsonroad30664
he we know about.
many others that we dont.
yes, i would like to know who they are too. i certainly do not believe he acted alone.
Of course you don't!!
I notice you didn't answer my questions in the Nuclear War next week thread. Quel surprise!!
I've revised my opinion of you......you're not a troll, you're a fake!what are you ?
Someone that can recognise a fake!your also very intelligent max. i wish i could be like you but i'm a fake, i'm a weirdo, what am i doing here, i dont belong here.
funny, i dont believe i have ever taken the initiative in slagging you off for anything you have posted on here although in defending myself from one of your personal attack's i may have. if i have i apologise but please keep up the good work posting non swinging controversial issue's or accepted norms. i prefer political and controversial as is the title of this section myself.
thank you for raising questions regarding my credentials by calling me a troll previously and now a fake. your attacks bring attention to my posts and i thank you for that. regards.
Gulson, you have repeatedly attacked everyone and anyone that doesn't agree with your rants!
Still not answered any of my questions, have you? Why not? The simple answer is that all your incoherent rants and ramblings are simply regurgitations of the crap you have read on conspiracy websites.
Most people on this site see you for what you are.......I was just hoping that maybe you had the balls to try and substantiate the sh*te you post. I was obviously wrong.
Quote by gulsonroad30664
please keep up the good work posting non swinging controversial issue's or accepted norms. i prefer political and controversial as is the title of this section myself.
thank you for raising questions regarding my credentials by calling me a troll previously and now a fake. your attacks bring attention to my posts and i thank you for that. regards.
the bit i have highlighted gulson has me a bit confused. i cannot remember your good self ever posting anything related to swinging on here, correct me of course if i am wrong.
the rest of the comment may i suggest instead of getting all humpy with max, why not do what max has aksed a zillion times, and answer the questions he has asked of you
even if you post a dog poo link, at least do something in answering questions gulson.
sorry but so many peeple on here with so much to say and then when asked to back the claims up, they cannot as it is just opinions with no factual evidence. many times gulson your arguments fall over because you have no proof at all to back up peeples questions that they ask of you.
why will you not answer max's questions when he asks :dunno:
by ignoring his questions i am sorry to say, it just makes you look like what max is saying, a troll. i like a lot of your comments but some are so far fetched you do yourself no favors by continueing to say the same stuff over and over and over and over :sleeping: again. if you al least tried to answer the questions it would be a good start :thumbup:
