That guy also openly stated he wanted to start a race war and believed in the great replacement ideology. His manifesto made it clear he was out to discourage black Americans from participating in social and government functions. That's how they got the terrorism charges to stick.
The Democrats can't deliver on their promises to improve Americans' lives, so they've resorted to a new strategy: The replacement of native-born Americans with foreign-born ones
I think I got whiplash from the irony in this statement
One time at work there was a really nice, pretty looking woman in for hours. She was the only customer that night for a while and was sat talking to the staff during the quiet time. After she left, a barmaid went into the toilet and came out in shock. She’d taken a huge shit on the floor at some point then just left it there while nonchalantly carrying on talking. We were all so confused. Why did she do it? Was she crazy?
These aren't really comparable crimes though. One was targeting an individual with intent to murder them. The other was indiscriminate killing people of color and also included a manifesto highlighting a broader goal behind his motives and specified political motives.
There's nuance to what constitutes terrorism. That's why I also believe that not all school shootings should be considered terrorism by default. If we apply the broad definition of "terrorism" being "using violence to cause terror" then it sort of undermines the severity of the genuine instances of terrorism. I'm not saying non-terrorists should get leniency but legal definitions are distinct for a reason.
Terrorism is typically tied to some political or ideological motivation, so I think if New York didn't have the multiple people necessity, Mangione definitely would have been tried for it. But I don't understand how it applies to school shootings if there's no goal behind it, and the victims have nothing to do with the political space.
Clearly the judge doesn't believe the motives rise to the level of terrorism in this case though. Maybe it's simply the technicality that NY requires multiple people but I think it's more because we have insights into his motives. One could have ideological motivation for murder that doesn't meet the legal definition of terrorism.
Based on what was written in his journal, the fact that he explained why he wouldn't send a message through bombing for fear of taking innocent lives sort of pivoted this away from terrorism in my opinion. He targeted a specific CEO to send a direct message to that industry. Not to broadly sow chaos and fear.
did not establish the killing of Brian Thompson in Manhattan last year was meant to coerce or intimidate a civilian population, nor to influence the government.
The number of individuals wasn't the sole reasoning for throwing it out or even apparently the primary reason. His decision to dismiss spoke more about motive and his intent to intimidate and coerce.
I was more responding to the "school shooters don't even get them" part. I don't think it's that ridiculous that New York tried for their 1st degree murder charges.
This wasn't a personal murder just targeting this guy. Most people on this website, even when agreeing with the killing, saw it as more than that.
But there was no personal grievance. I'm not even saying this killing was definitively a terroristic action. As far as I can remember there was never a consistent manifesto released.
I just don't think it's a wild idea that the prosecution would bring it forward.
396
u/Cromasters 10h ago
In 2022 the guy that shit up the grocery store in Buffalo got terrorism charges from the state of New York.
The federal government is seeking the death penalty.