Althea
Althea told me...
Radical domestic terrorism.
Of course, he 'likes to get all the facts before he comments'.
Only when he has to defend a white guy/group. Otherwise, he's tweeting at 4 a.m.
Is dump going to call this domestic terroism?
- Thread starter TTQ64
- Start date
Of course, he 'likes to get all the facts before he comments'.
Only when he has to defend a white guy/group. Otherwise, he's tweeting at 4 a.m.
Althea
Althea told me...
First thing I thought of when I heard the moron's statement.
He would be a terrorist and this would be terrorism if this dude was Muslim.
He terrorized 20K people at a concert. He's a domestic terrorist.
It's this "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R.
Again, he committed mass murder, but without the "in furtherance of political or social objectives" the elements of the crime of terrorism are not present and it would not be terrorism. He terrified people, but didn't commit terrorism unless we find some specific political or social objective that he attempted to promote or "further" as the law states. The "or" that you keep bolding doesn't change that it is a separator of actions before the motivation element of the crime of terrorism. You can do this or that, or the other thing, in furtherance of... just "this" isn't enough for terrorism unless you find the "furtherance of" element.
He did the first part "this", but the other element necessary for that designation "in furtherance of" at this time is not in evidence.
He's a white male domestic terrorist.
He terrorized people to their death.
You can twist and defend all you want.
look dummies I am calling it now it was another rabid liberal. If it was terrorism it will have been liberal terrorism, trying to kill trump supporting country music lovers.
I am not defending or twisting. I am simply informing. In order to commit the crime of terrorism all the elements must exist one of the action in the "or" list and the last where it must be done "in furtherance of a social or political objective". It doesn't change the horrifying nature of the crime, it is simply a legal definition that you seem to want to take out of context.
McNichols was a terrorist, and this guy could be too (we don't know yet), if he had that political or social objective as the reason for his act.
cawacko
Well-known member
Fwiw, you are saying any violence or killing is terrorism. Now it's possible you believe that but by the definition you are choosing to use there is no difference between me punching someone in the face and killing multiple people
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You realize that makes inner city thugs who 'terrorize' their neighbors 'terrorists', right?
Why is it that we call it "terrorizing" if, for example, a guy follows his ex around, threatens her via phone or in person, or lets her believe he's going to hurt or kill her?
Btw I didn't say "any" killing or violence is terrorism.
Not just inner-city thugs, any thugs.
Sad, how the most obvious things have to be explained to pinheads, ain't it Damo. ?
cawacko
Well-known member
I was going off you agreeing with what TTQ64 bolded in that any violence is terrorism.
However you bring up an excellent point about the use of the term in a domestic violence situation.
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Anyone can be terrorized and it still would not fit the definition of 'terrorism'......
I agreed with this: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R.)
It doesn't say any violence.
It's not just political aims. It could be religious, ideological or revenge, too.
I wonder why it has to be politically motivated, all those people were obviously terrified.
its making a lot of people fearful of attending these types of events.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm not that smart to argue the exact meanings of those words but isn't most violence to intimidate in some way?
Like Trump colluding with Russia ?
The truth means nothing to the neo-Communists/Socialists known as the Democrat party.....
Well, the punishment must be different is my guess. Like First Degree Murder and Second Degree. While the result was the same, the punishment is different based on that motivation and specific elements.
This guy certainly committed a horrible crime and terrified a bunch of people, like the Aurora Movie Theater guy did... however, at this point we don't have that second element to make it Terrorism. Nor do you necessarily have to massacre people to commit the crime of terrorism. All you have to do is intimidate.
Now intimidation is a crime in itself, but it isn't terrorism until you add the political or social element.
Yeah, people were scared, even terrified, but it still doesn't yet meet the criteria of terrorism. I don't know if it will or if we will even find out what was in this guy's mind. Unreal as it may seem to us he may just have gone batcrap crazy or he caved and actually listened to voices he never told people about in the past. We won't know unless the guy left a note or something to give us that information.