• lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Generally, the question should be: Was he trying to instill terror in a group of people to manipulate their behaviour? If the answer is “yes”, then it was indeed terrorism and the charges should reflect that; otherwise not.

    • Hominy_Hank@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s what the question should be, yes. But now it’s only used if corporate America is the target. Actual acts of terrorism against us degens is just another Tuesday.

    • fishabel@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      The problem with that is, you’d have to ask him if he wanted to strike terror into a group of people. Otherwise you’d be charging him with a crime he didn’t commit. Just because you feel terrorized, doesn’t make it a terrorist act.

      For instance, just because you kill a single CEO, certainly doesn’t mean you’re a terrorist. Other people can feel scared for their own lives as punishment for their killings in the name of greed, but that’s really just on them.

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Terrorists often want their goals to be known, because it tells the group they want to manipulate with fear what they are expected to do. That is the reason why terrorist groups publish videos claiming the deed after they, for example, bombed a recruitment centre. They want people to know it was them and threaten everyone going to that place to join police/military. Even if an actor works solo, it helps their goal to go public and also claim there are like minded people.

        So I think it’s actually reasonable to just ask.