- cross-posted to:
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- politics
You must log in or register to comment.
Gosh was Kyle Rittenhouse charged with terrorism when his mom dropped him off to shoot protestors? No? But when we involve a millionaire suddenly it’s terrorism? Free Luigi. Deny defend depose.
Under New York law, such a charge can be brought when an alleged crime is “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.”
I don’t think the civilian population feels coerced. I think they were pretty ecstatic. Also, the intimidation was probably more directed at private companies than units of government.
It is kind of nuts how they’re trying so hard to make an example of this guy.
You can choke out a homeless guy and go about your life. Kill a CEO and you’re not just a murderer, you’re a terrorist!
CEOs are quaking in their multi-million dollar homes with round-the-clock hired security! They’re terrorized!
School children across the country are at higher risk than any CEO. And no one in government or law enforcement gives a fuck about them.
Is it terrorism if less than 0.01% of the population is afraid?
Yes, apparently if the only people who actually deserve to be afraid are afraid, then it’s a crime against humanity.
Not guilty. Brian Robert Thompson abandoned his humanity a long time ago. You can only commit murder against human beings. What Luigi did was more equivalent to deconstructing a cardboard box.
That’s not quite fair, a cardboard box has multiple uses, both built and deconstructed. The Brian Thompsons of the world are only useful to society in their deconstructed form.
What is it with this trope of arguing nuance about what the inanimate object’s merits are? You’re not being witty.
I haven’t seen anyone feeling terrorized or bad- people wanna marry him and there’s an alibi meme going strong.
Under New York law, such a [terrorism] charge can be brought when an alleged crime is “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.”
So even unlawful gathering to redress grievances with the government is considered terrorism? Or to do so against a private (civilian) organization? Good to know.
Does UHC run the fucking government now? I mean I know the answer is secretly yes, but aren’t we still pretending corpos don’t run the country?
“Hey US government, you dropped your fig leaf.”
“Oh nah, I’m good.”
Under New York law, such a [terrorism] charge can be brought when an alleged crime is “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
They may be a “person”, but they’re a private company/entity - not “the public”. So we’re clear here.
influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.
Wasn’t a government company. So we’re clear here.
Alright, boys. Nothing wrong - let’s pack it up!
If I understand your quotation correctly, unlawful gathering warrants the charge of terrorism only when “intended to […] (a) influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and (b) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping”. Then again, (a) and (b) seem redundant and the law and the judiciary might see intimidation or coercion where we do not.
Given how frequently and readily police officers fear for their lives, I think you have a point.
NYPD Officer: “Your honor the protestors made me fear for my life. Their signs said mean things.”
Judge: “Yep, they’re terrorists.” gavel
To be fair, fearing for one’s life is understandable in a society where gun ownership, social injustice and mental illness are not only relatively widespread, but correlated, and the chances of being hurt in even simple altercations correspondingly high. The solution, though, is not allowing police to resort to violence routinely, disproportionately and indiscriminately, but to address the root causes of the danger with socioeconomic justice and safeguards, proper universal healthcare and at least some restrictions in gun ownership. Those who either aren’t willing to solve these underlying issues or deny their existence outright often resort to the charge of terrorism as both a convenient deflection and an instrument of suppression and oppression. It is in our interest to push back against such misuse and keep the public discourse centered on the origins of conflict.
To be fair :P, English is not my mother tongue, so I don’t necessarily realize how pedantic some expressions I use come across. Fair enough?
