4 ms·
The FBI defines “domestic terrorism” as follows: > Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from dom
by philwelch 6y ago
The FBI defines “domestic terrorism” as follows:
> Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Let’s compare that to your description of the suspect’s behavior here:
> ...an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly”
So by the definition already established, either this person was just a criminal who was engaging in this premeditated, violent, criminal behavior for purely antisocial reasons, or he was a domestic terrorist.
Maybe you could argue that the definition of domestic terrorism is overly broad, but at that point you’re basically splitting hairs to pick and choose which forms of political violence are acceptable.
- bladegash 6y agoAgreed, 100%. The challenge with using the criminal statues related to "domestic terrorism" (and even "foreign terrorism") has to do with intent. Because there is a legal element requiring behavior that is in furtherance of "ideological goals", there is a pretty high bar to meet from a legal perspective. This individual's criminal defense could easily argue the individual had no stated ideological goal they were promoting (unless there is specific evidence to suggest otherwise, such as leaving a manifesto explaining rationale). It's much easier to demonstrate probable cause and/or prosecute via other criminal statues.
- philwelch 6y agoThere’s no federal statute, at least, against “domestic terrorism”. Domestic terrorists are usually prosecuted for the actual crimes they commit. For instance, Dylann Roof, who murdered black people in a black church, was prosecuted for murder and for a number of federal civil rights offenses, including hate crimes and violent obstruction of the free exercise of religion. However, from an investigative and enforcement standpoint, it’s useful to have certain distinctions even if those distinctions have no statutory power. If you rob a jewelry store because you, personally, are greedy, that is investigated differently than if you rob a jewelry store in order to fund your anarcho-communist militia or in order to persuade the jewelry store across the street to sign up for your gang’s protection racket. It’s still robbery all three ways, but it could be terrorism or organized crime in addition, which would also imply certain other crimes (e.g. conspiracy).
- bladegash 6y agoGreat point and you are 100% right - it has been a while since I went through Title 18. Thank you for taking the time to clarify!
- jokethrowaway 6y agoAs a non american, looking at the amount of video clips from violent protests or people undercover in Antifa (Crowder, Project Veritas), I'm surprised there are still doubts: it's a terrorist organisation by definition.