• JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      21 days ago

      They also don’t charge people who blow up abortion clinics with terrorism either. They haven’t since the 60s - 70s.

      If you look it up the courts have been petitioned several times to associate abortion clinic bombings with Christian terrorism but they keep refusing to call it what it is.

      After reading about that fiasco I have very little faith our government actually has a working definition of terrorism that doesn’t shift at their convenience.

      • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        21 days ago

        Hardly shocking that the christofascist courts of America refuse to classify abortion clinic bombings as domestic terrorism.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      21 days ago

      Local militias are perfectly acceptable as per the second amendment, as long as they’re “well regulated”, whatever that means…

      • unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        21 days ago

        it means that it needs to be an actual maintained organization, not Jim bob and his buddies threatening anybody they don’t like. it’s also not a requirement, it’s only the reasoning provided.

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 days ago

          Well, that’s when Jim Bob and his friends can get together and form a neighborhood watch group and suddenly it’s perfectly legal.

  • Tgo_up@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    How tf can killing a single person with a handgun be classified as terrorism?

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      21 days ago

      Because they don’t like him.

      I mean Dylan fucking Roof shot dead 9 black people and they didn’t consider it terrorism.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        Dylan Roof did get charged with hate crimes and was convicted on all 33 counts, leading to a death sentence. Stacking terrorism charges on top of that would have been pointless.

        Mangione, by contrast, is getting charged in a state without capital punishment. You need the terror charge to make this a First Degree Murder case. Otherwise he’s looking at parole after 15 years.

        • sean@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          This sounds like a legal playbook for would-be assassins. Kill at the cost of 15 years with parole max

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      “They’re making us CEO’s afraid, terrified even, so he’s clearly a terrorist. The implication that the working class could actually fight back against the systemic oppression we inflict on them? That’s horrifying. We can’t allow them to believe they could ever fight back. Make an example of this person.”

      The rich assholes or something

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        20 days ago

        Our most sacred 21st century nobility. Guess we’ll have to cut their taxes to show our deference

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        They used to be terrified a lot more often when history was closer to JFK, Mussolini, Lincoln, and the French Revolution. When the leaders really thought the punishment for bad leadership was their ass, they gave a shit more.

    • dumbass@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      20 days ago

      As long as the action terrorised a large enough group of people it’s terrorism, it’s just this time, the terrorised people are the rich cunts hiding in their mansions like the traitorous cowards they are.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      21 days ago

      I’m pretty sure it’s up to the state attorney to decide what charges to bring is all I’ll say.

          • wieson@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            21 days ago

            I think that for terrorism you need the goal to instill terror in the population. Since it was so specifically targeted and only one victim, I don’t know how well it fits. Also, most of the population doesn’t feel terror, maybe he should be hit with satisfaction charges.

            • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              21 days ago

              The definition of terrorism doesn’t say you need to terrify people at all.

              Besides, there’s been a lot of acts that are generally agreed to be terrorist acts, that have targeted a very small group of people, such as a religious group, or even one specific individual. The IRA’s famous reply to Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.

              It seems his goal was to terrify one small group of people, namely senior people in the healthcare industry, and I think that counts.

    • FanBlade@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      21 days ago

      Have you done actual research or are you assuming because it feels right, it must be?

    • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      21 days ago

      They charged him with terrorism so a regular jury won’t get to make that decision. It will be a federal grand jury of selected stooges, and maybe even a secret court.

      • EpeeGnome@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 days ago

        A federal grand jury isn’t a replacement for a regular federal trial jury. They’re completely different things. A grand jury decides if there is a strong enough case to take the charges to trial, or if they should just be dismissed. When a grand jury isn’t used, the trial judge makes that determination themselves. I agree that the terrorism charge will affect how the trial is conducted, but I don’t know enough on that topic to comment further.

        • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          That’s true but the way that a federal jury works is very different.

          It allows them to choose people from outside of the area in which the crime occurred.

          Making it a federal trial jury instead of a state trial jury allows them to charge this single murder against an individual perpetrated by another individual who made no public statement with a much more severe crime than the state laws that he broke would normally allow.

          It’s also important to note that making it a federal trial makes it less public as there will be no cameras allowed. They don’t want him tried in the state of New York because that could legally be televised which is a bad look when you’ve already got judicial homicide lined up and the trial is purely performative.

          Being that they can choose people from all over and that the process of jury selection is even more opaque at the federal level they can make sure there won’t be any nullification issues.

          The way they are treating Luigi whether or not he’s guilty indicates that it’s not relevant whether or not he’s guilty. They legitimately don’t care, this is about sending a message that the poors don’t get to fight back.

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            “Nothing will meaningfully improve” is a good translation of biden/harris’s “nothing will fundamentally change” promise.

            • DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              21 days ago

              It also addresses people pretending like knocking down statutes and similar moral victories are meaningful progress twoards addressing real problems.

  • Panda (he/him)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 days ago

    See, his mistake was not killing him during a Career Day at an elementary school. If he took out kids as well, he wouldn’t get a terrorism charge.

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    CEO’s: Second degree murder is the highest you can charge him with for killing a CEO in NY? But we want to torture him and make an example of him so the proles don’t get uppity!

    DA: No problem sirs, we can make that happen.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    21 days ago

    From what the manifesto found on him allegedly said, it sounds like his actions were politically motivated. And violence in pursuit of a political goal is kinda the definition of terrorism.

    • Fleur_@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      21 days ago

      No?

      It’s very obviously an action made with intent to cause terror. It doesn’t have to be political or violent. There is often an aspect of violence and political motivation but it isn’t a requirement

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          Well then define non-combatants. The person he shot was at fault for hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Saying he didn’t personally do them would be like saying a general is not responsible for their troops actions.

          • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            Well then define non-combatants.

            “a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner.”

            Sure he was responsible for deaths due to denying health coverage. But he’s still a civilian.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              21 days ago

              So it was a civilian on civilian kill. Not a militant group/gang/mercenary.

              If the “battle” was pertaining to healthcare denials, he was currently battling and his group took up battle after he was gone.

              • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 days ago

                The perpetrator of an act of terrorism isn’t part of the definition. They need not be affiliated with a group or military.

                I find it curious how many people on Lemmy were gleefully posting about CEOs and billionaires being scared because of this attack, and then to see push-back about the label of terrorism (where fear is part of the outcome, hence the name).

                The saying is “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” right?

                • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  20 days ago

                  I get that we aren’t likely to agree. But “my version” of what terrorism is… You know because I’m an entitled person who gets to make shit up… but you’ll get what I mean… is to instill fear in the masses by performing an act. When you fly into a building, people say “they could have flown into my building”. When you launch a missile at a housing complex, people think that could have been my housing complex (gave up on quotes). When you blow up a communication device or a car… People think that could have been my car, phone, pager.

                  When you kill a CEO, no one is worried for their life when they say “that could have been my CEO”. They are more like shit… I wonder if Tim would get that job? Fuck I hope it’s not Pam. So unless the masses are being terrorized by an army of Pam’s… I just think it’s not terrorism

        • Fleur_@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 days ago

          “Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.”

          From the article you cited

        • kreskin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          Its wildly overused though isnt it. Anyone can say almost anything and claim its political. And in the case of your definition, governments leverage terrorism on many of us on a day to day basis. Every protest met with force is terrorism, by that definition you proffered. So do we have a right of self defense against politically motivated violence?

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            It’s usually applied to a non state actor, not a government.

            The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, for example, isn’t generally considered a terrorist attack.

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      There’s only one country who thinks like that, and they happen to be the whitest, most prolific terrorists on the planet

    • spujb@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      thank you for this comment. it’s not a huge detail as i approve of the overall rhetorical goals of this post but there was absolutely no need for middle eastern folks to be catching strays for this 😭