That’s not terrorism
I’m not sure this qualifies as terrorism:
In the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, 36 states enacted laws that would guarantee harsher sentences in terrorism cases. Gov. George E. Pataki signed New York’s law within six days of the attack. Like the others, it was aimed at international terrorism organizations like Al Qaeda.
But yesterday, in State Supreme Court in the Bronx, jurors for the first time found a defendant guilty under New York’s statute, and he did not fit the stereotype of a terrorist. The defendant, Edgar Morales, is a 25-year-old recreational soccer player and gang member who fatally shot a 10-year-old girl and wounded a second man outside a christening party in 2002.
……………
“When you fire a gun into a crowd, whether you hit your intended victim or not, you scare people, you make them fearful for their lives, and that’s why, in my opinion, the terrorism charges applied,” said a juror who identified herself only by her first name, Linnea. Like the other jurors, she did not want to be identified because the case involved gang members and a killing.
Another juror said she had been hesitant about using the terrorism statute against Mr. Morales when prosecutors presented evidence, but once Justice Michael A. Gross told them on the trial’s final day that terrorism was defined as an act meant to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” her reluctance dissolved.
Wait a sec.
Hold up.
You can’t seriously have such a broad definition of terrorism. “Intimidate or coerce a civilian population?” That could include virtually anything. Under that definition, a protest that got a little rowdy could be construed as a terrorist act. I’m a fan of this definition of terrorism:
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
I understand that what happened to victims was terrible, but it doesn’t meet the standards of terrorism. September 11th was a politically motivated act designed to coherence the United States into a particular political action; it really only differed from a conventional military strike in degree. A gang member shooting into a crowd terrorizes and frightens the populace – and that should be taken into consideration – but it isn’t politically motivated and it isn’t done to force some action on part of the authorities.
Yep, I don’t like this at all.
