PDA

View Full Version : Why, that's not terrorism at all



Abbey Marie
12-11-2012, 03:43 PM
In light of our recent discussions on terrorism, perhaps we should see where this fits in.


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Street gangsters who commit assaults and killings
are not terrorists under the statute enacted after hijackers crashed jets (http://features.rr.com/topic/jets) into the
World Trade Center on Sept. 11,
New York's highest court ruled unanimously Tuesday.

There's no indication New York lawmakers passed the law to elevate gang-on-gang
street violence to the status of terrorism, which carries tougher
penalties, the Court of Appeals said. The court ordered a new trial for
Edgar Morales, a member of the St. James Boys gang who was convicted of fatally shooting
a 10-year-old bystander and paralyzing a rival gang member at a
christening party.

Bronx prosecutors argued the gang sought to intimidate the entire Mexican-American
community in the neighborhood. The anti-terrorism law applies to crimes committed
with "intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

The six judges, agreeing with a midlevel court, concluded there was insufficient proof
of that. They also said that prosecutors' terrorism theory, which
allowed evidence of the gangs' alleged criminal acts over three years,
probably prejudiced the jury.

"If we were to apply a broad definition to 'intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,'
the people could invoke the specter of 'terrorism' every time a Blood
assaults a Crip or an organized crime family orchestrates the murder of a
rival syndicate's soldier," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote.

"But the concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk
being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations
that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a
terrorist act," she wrote.

Graffeo noted that the legislative findings in support of the statute cited seven terrorist
acts, including the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in
Manhattan and the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal office building
in 1995.
...

Full story: http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/55254887/78798966/NYs_top_court_NYC_gang_member_not_a_terrorist

fj1200
12-11-2012, 04:12 PM
In light of our recent discussions on terrorism, perhaps we should see where this fits in.

... The court ordered a new trial for
Edgar Morales, a member of the St. James Boys gang who was convicted of fatally shooting
a 10-year-old bystander and paralyzing a rival gang member at a
christening party.
...
The six judges, agreeing with a midlevel court, concluded there was insufficient proof
of that. They also said that prosecutors' terrorism theory, which
allowed evidence of the gangs' alleged criminal acts over three years,
probably prejudiced the jury.

"If we were to apply a broad definition to 'intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,'
the people could invoke the specter of 'terrorism' every time a Blood
assaults a Crip or an organized crime family orchestrates the murder of a
rival syndicate's soldier," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote.
...

Full story: http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/55254887/78798966/NYs_top_court_NYC_gang_member_not_a_terrorist

Sounds like a good decision. Almost along the lines of hate crimes; murder is just murder.

jimnyc
12-11-2012, 04:17 PM
If anything, just try and pass legislation to make the sentences tougher on criminals. But I don't think your everyday gang activity rises to the same level as terrorism. But I believe they should, if they don't already, have different charges for gang activity, and rightfully so.

jafar00
12-11-2012, 06:25 PM
Sounds like a good decision. Almost along the lines of hate crimes; murder is just murder.

But if you ask Tyr, murder is proof of a worldwide Islamic conspiracy.

jimnyc
12-11-2012, 06:44 PM
But if you ask Tyr, murder is proof of a worldwide Islamic conspiracy.

The overall majority of posts I see him making, from religionofpeace.com, would be classified as terrorism and not your everyday murder, although I believe some are.

aboutime
12-11-2012, 07:05 PM
Everyone reading this thread should be reminded, or might want to remember...The Obama administration has been pounding the table, trying to eliminate, erase, or do away with any references to the use of the words TERROR, TERRORISTS, TERRORISM...in any way. So...why should this COURT decision...in, of all places... New York. Surprise anyone?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-11-2012, 07:56 PM
The overall majority of posts I see him making, from religionofpeace.com, would be classified as terrorism and not your everyday murder, although I believe some are.

Jim , the vast majority there are verified cases of terrorism and/or inter -religious savagery between competing Islamic groups. The site is one of the best around that keeps track of the violence and terrorism Islam promotes. It is not a hate site except to those that hate the truth that it records and presents. -Tyr

jimnyc
12-11-2012, 08:05 PM
Jim , the vast majority there are verified cases of terrorism and/or inter -religious savagery between competing Islamic groups. The site is one of the best around that keeps track of the violence and terrorism Islam promotes. It is not a hate site except to those that hate the truth that it records and presents. -Tyr

The more detailed one is in keeping records, the more information they gather, the more "racist" and "intolerant" they are labeled. The facts and truth hurt a lot of people.

gabosaurus
12-11-2012, 08:11 PM
I think the delineations of which groups or organizations should be categorized as "terrorists" are remarkably grey.
If gangs are terrorists, wouldn't organized crimes be the same? How about armed militias?
I have always considered terrorists to be foreign instead of domestic.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-11-2012, 08:33 PM
The more detailed one is in keeping records, the more information they gather, the more "racist" and "intolerant" they are labeled. The facts and truth hurt a lot of people.

One is never attacked harder than when daring to tell a TRUTH that others despise! I know of no other acton that will get a person attacked more than attempting to exspose the lie about Islam being a religion of peace! I bear witness to that and have spent over a decade being viciously attacked for daring to present proof of Islam's deceit.
Look at the appeasors and Islamic defenders here that have attacked me.
Still , I shall endeavor to persevere, endeavor to persevere, always endeavor to persevere..
Much to the disappointment of Islam and its appeasors that hate me so.. -:laugh2:--Tyr

A reminder of previous accusations against me..




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=577917#post577917)
Perhaps you confuse patriotism , sad remembrance and heartfelt anger with rude behaviour. Perhaps you confuse a damn lot of things here. For you have listed me as
1. troublemaker
2. malevolent
3. traitorous
4. bigot
5. headed for hell

I especially want to see your proof of my being traitorous!
Here not on that thread !--Tyr



. Methinks tis best not to cast stones about so carelessly when so near to one's own glasshouse.. To which I offer this...

John Wilkes
Perhaps the most celebrated retort in the history of wit occurred in a famous exchange between two 18th century political rivals, John Montagu, also known as the Earl of Sandwich, and the reformist politician, John Wilkes. During a heated argument, Montagu scowled at Wilkes and said derisively, "Upon my soul, Wilkes, I don't know whether you'll die upon the gallows, or of syphilis" (some versions of the story say "a vile disease" and others "the pox"). Unfazed, Wilkes came back with what many people regard as the greatest retort of all time:

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether
I embrace your principles, or your mistress."
<!-- edit note -->
Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 09-12-2012 at 11:27 AM.

fj1200
12-12-2012, 12:20 PM
I think the delineations of which groups or organizations should be categorized as "terrorists" are remarkably grey.
If gangs are terrorists, wouldn't organized crimes be the same? How about armed militias?
I have always considered terrorists to be foreign instead of domestic.

And we already have a RICO statute.