3 ms·
Agreed, 100%. The challenge with using the criminal statues related to "domestic terrorism" (and even "foreign terrorism") has to do with intent. Because there
by bladegash 6y ago
Agreed, 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!