Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sava


Just about all crime "terrorizes"... that's not the point. Gepap pointed it out nicely... terrorism tries to advance a certain political agenda. And no one yet has countered or addressed Gepap's point.

So my statement stands, and yours fades into irrelevancy.

Of course all crime terrorizes. But I can't help if political halfwits only narrowly define terrorism.

According to Webster's Dictionary:

Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

Nowhere does it say, social or political end.

The end can simply be to create havoc, remove rivals, or terrorize people.

So your use of is very funny.

ACK!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So you are saying, Criminal=terrorist?

Gang members join gangs to be part of something- criminal gangs exist to protect criminal enterprises- thats an economic, NOT socio-political agenda.

No, i think its more like organized crime, including violence directed at members of a community generally, not specifically those being stolen from, is terrorism. Theres clearly a difference between a gang shooting up a park and a mugger taking your wallet. A difference as great, or greater than that between a gang shooting up a park cause theyre mad about the womens dress, and shooting up a park cause theyre mad that folks gave info to the police on their drug ops.

[Patroklos]

Sava is a terrorist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If you fall under the control of a new state, which collects taxes from you, does it matter if youre still allowed to vote for the leaders of an old state, which has manifestly failed to protect you? And isnt the establishment of a new state a political act? Of course gangs dont generally stop you from ALSO paying taxes to the old state, so they dont meet modern criteria for a state.

Except that street gangs don't attempt to recreate a new state.

Im not in disagreement with you gepap - i understand what you mean, im just not sure how you would draft a law that would encompass everything you want to ban, but couldnt be used against gangs (suppose an Islamist group DIDNT attack people who wore the wrong clothes, but those who failed to pay the charity required by Sharia? What if a gang killed those who didnt wear gang colors? etc - theres a real grey area here)

You use the existing laws against murder, manslaughter, extorsion, witness tampering, weapons possesions, assualt, so forth and so on- and then you can add a hate crimes addendum if you want.

There is more than enough law to handle the situation you mention. This is an issue of a DA trying to get a harsher penalty than the existing law gives him by creating a charge.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


No, i think its more like organized crime, including violence directed at members of a community generally, not specifically those being stolen from, is terrorism. Theres clearly a difference between a gang shooting up a park and a mugger taking your wallet.

So what? gang violence is closer to warfare then to singular crime- does that make gang violence recognized warfare? Should we treat gang members as prisoners of war if caught!? The suggestion is absurd, and so is calling them terrorist.

A difference as great, or greater than that between a gang shooting up a park cause theyre mad about the womens dress, and shooting up a park cause theyre mad that folks gave info to the police on their drug ops.

Just the fact that the killing can be indifferent, and the action taken by an organization does not make gangs into terrorist orgs anymore than it makes them armies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Of course all crime terrorizes. But I can't help if political halfwits only narrowly define terrorism.

According to Webster's Dictionary:

Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

Nowhere does it say, social or political end.

The end can simply be to create havoc, remove rivals, or terrorize people.

So your use of is very funny.

ACK!

The FBI definition trumps this.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by GePap


The FBI definition trumps this.

The FBI defines it for the FBI's purpose.

ACK!

[GePap]

Dictionary definitons aren't legal ones.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that street gangs don't attempt to recreate a new state.



You use the existing laws against murder, manslaughter, extorsion, witness tampering, weapons possesions, assualt, so forth and so on- and then you can add a hate crimes addendum if you want.

There is more than enough law to handle the situation you mention. This is an issue of a DA trying to get a harsher penalty than the existing law gives him by creating a charge.

I meant how would you draft a law against TERRORIST acts, that cant also be used by a DA against gangs.

You could of course refrain from having any specific law against terrorist acts.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by GePap
Dictionary definitons aren't legal ones.

New York state defines terrorism differently than the FBI.


That should be obvious.

By New York's definition this could be terrorism.

If they guy is tried, convicted, appeals are overruled. Then NY's definition is right.

If not, they are wrong.

ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

You're being pedantic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So what? gang violence is closer to warfare then to singular crime- does that make gang violence recognized warfare? Should we treat gang members as prisoners of war if caught!?

Well of course even a gang territory were recognized as a state, they arent legal combatants, the criteria are clear. Similarly the modern criteria for being a state are fairly clear.

The criteria for being a terrorist you have put forth are, however dependent on the intentions of the group perpetrating the act. Its one thing to use such criteria in international relations, quite another in a criminal court.


Defense Attorney: My client, Abu Jihadi, is NO terrorist, only an ordinary criminal
Prosecutor: But he blew up a bus and killed 50 people!
Defense Attorney: He did so only because no one in the area was paying protection money, ergo it was not terrorism
Prosecutor: He hated the locals cause they didnt follow Sharia, sold alcohol, wore western clothes, etc
Defense Attorney: Prove it.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're being pedantic.

And?

If he had quoted the FBD, instead of the FBI, I would have nowhere to go.

ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

Defense Attorney: My client, Abu Jihadi, is NO terrorist, only an ordinary criminal
Prosecutor: But he blew up a bus and killed 50 people!
Defense Attorney: He did so only because no one in the area was paying protection money, ergo it was not terrorism
Prosecutor: He hated the locals cause they didnt follow Sharia, sold alcohol, wore western clothes, etc
Defense Attorney: Prove it.

Show statements by the person, or show that the person is a member of an organization with the stated goal to enforce sharia.

[St Leo]

If I hijack an airliner demanding ten bags of gold bullion and a fully-fuelled fleet of Hummers, am I a terrorist?