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
Yeah to be accurate the definition should probably spell out that this violent action comes from agents operating outside of a majority-backed monopoly on violence. Terrorist vs freedom fighter n all that.
Unfortunately implied by the “criminal” part of the definition
Violent, criminal acts
As the violence enacted by the state is supposedly supported by the laws they legislate, they get to skirt out of terrorism designation by being definitionally unable to commit “criminal” acts when they commit violent ones
They made sure to make sure that it doesn’t apply to state actors. After 9/11, they felt they needed to come up with a definition of terrorism. They had a VERY hard time coming up with a definition that didn’t apply to themselves.
I am a jaywalker, and this is my manifesto.
We will not obey the little green man. The red hand will not contain us.
Every step we take is a middle finger to your order, a crack in your illusion of control. We disrupt your flow, we shatter your calm, and we dare your machines to stop us. Your brakes screech, your tempers flare, and your systems falter—all because we walked.
You call it unsafe. We call it liberation. You call it reckless. We call it revolution.
We are the chaos in your commute, the stress in your steering wheel, and the violence in your precious order.
We are jaywalkers. Your streets will never be safe again.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, …
1.- Does he owe allegiance to the United States? How is that even defined? I don’t see how “adoctrinating children to the pledge of alliance” counts, since it’s, well, indoctrination, not allegiance.
2.- Did he levy war against them? To my understatement, he is not a sovereign representative and even if such he has not filed a declaration of war.
3.- If not, what enemy of the US did he adhere to? The only reasonable interpretarion I can see here is that he adhered to The People, and thus legally the US State considers The People of the US an enemy.
1.- Does he owe allegiance to the United States? How is that even defined? I don’t see how “adoctrinating children to the pledge of alliance” counts, since it’s, well, indoctrination, not allegiance.
Selective Service Act (which he probably did sign up with given men are supposed to when they turn 18, for FASFA and whatnot)
I mean also not to mention the fact he’s a citizen - and if a citizen can be (and has been in the past) charged with treason which also uses that language, the argument that ‘I don’t owe allegiance to the US’ kinda falls apart:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Okay lemme understand it.
“Terrorism” is defined as using violent means to scare or suppress the population.
But what he did made the population happy.
So… shouldn’t it be considered that he provided a public service?
That is not the definition of terrorism.
Source: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
By that definition the entire federal government are terrorists lol
Park rangers are terrorists for telling me not to share my picnic baskets with the bears
Arguing in court the legal distinction between a picnic basket and a pic-ee-nic basket
Fred was never the same after Yogi’s ravishing rampage.
Yeah to be accurate the definition should probably spell out that this violent action comes from agents operating outside of a majority-backed monopoly on violence. Terrorist vs freedom fighter n all that.
Unfortunately implied by the “criminal” part of the definition
As the violence enacted by the state is supposedly supported by the laws they legislate, they get to skirt out of terrorism designation by being definitionally unable to commit “criminal” acts when they commit violent ones
Oh yeah good point.
Damn, if only we had some sort of international body that could bring charges against states for their terroristic crimes.
They made sure to make sure that it doesn’t apply to state actors. After 9/11, they felt they needed to come up with a definition of terrorism. They had a VERY hard time coming up with a definition that didn’t apply to themselves.
It gets worse, since it happened in the state of New York and this is its definition.
Enbies stay winning
A very wide, very vague, very useful definition for a prosecutor.
I am a jaywalker, and this is my manifesto. We will not obey the little green man. The red hand will not contain us.
Every step we take is a middle finger to your order, a crack in your illusion of control. We disrupt your flow, we shatter your calm, and we dare your machines to stop us. Your brakes screech, your tempers flare, and your systems falter—all because we walked.
You call it unsafe. We call it liberation. You call it reckless. We call it revolution.
We are the chaos in your commute, the stress in your steering wheel, and the violence in your precious order.
We are jaywalkers. Your streets will never be safe again.
so when cops murder black people that’s terrorism?
Lol so if you punch a klansman that’s terrorism?
Curious, that describes health insurance companies. As well as various parties decrying the killing of the CEO.
If we’re being incredibly pedantic (not saying you are) then that also isn’t the definition in the state of New York
This is the definition of terrorism in the state of new yorks penal law
From this terrible overdesigned website https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-490-25-crime-of-terrorism.html
I suspect the prosecutor will try to argue that Luigi attempted to effect a societal change in some way and therefore it’s terrorism.
edit: what if they charged him with treason?
So, does this mean that hate crimes count as terrorism?
Only if it’s against the rich or the white
Hate crimes are the norm, so no it wouldn’t change anything
I hate that I typed that
1.- Does he owe allegiance to the United States? How is that even defined? I don’t see how “adoctrinating children to the pledge of alliance” counts, since it’s, well, indoctrination, not allegiance.
2.- Did he levy war against them? To my understatement, he is not a sovereign representative and even if such he has not filed a declaration of war.
3.- If not, what enemy of the US did he adhere to? The only reasonable interpretarion I can see here is that he adhered to The People, and thus legally the US State considers The People of the US an enemy.
I mean also not to mention the fact he’s a citizen - and if a citizen can be (and has been in the past) charged with treason which also uses that language, the argument that ‘I don’t owe allegiance to the US’ kinda falls apart: