Then possibly yes.

from the 32nd floor of a hotel in a rapid manner and for an extended time (some ground reports claim almost 20 minutes), THAT is "terrorizing".

This selective definition of "terrorism" is complete and utter bullshit.

Dylan Roof was a terrorist. Adam Lanza was not.

They were both mass shooters and deeply disturbed individuals.

they had difficulty calling people like Roof or even Timothy McVeigh a "terrorist". Whites are not called "terrorists". They are "lone wolf" (the term being bandied about alot this morning on the news).

They won't call the fucking KKK "terrorists".

Terrorism for thee, but not for me!

The definition of "terrorism" was altered. When the IRA was setting car bombs and blowing up stores in London, they were called "terrorists". Anyone shooting/bombing/killing "randomly" is a "terrorist".

There is gang violence where a gang member will attempt to shoot at certain individuals and others get caught in the cross-fire (which terrorizes a community but their focus was on an individual or individuals). But what is going on with these so-called "lone wolf" types is that they are spraying bullets at anyone near them, regardless of motive or intent, and that is terrorizing.

"The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."

That's my definition also, no matter how ignorantly or opportunistically the term may be used.

Paddock reportedly lived in Mesquite, NV, so he was at least for a time intensely immersed in the Bundy standoff controversy and at least surrounded by the people who flooded in to participate, including journalists. The trials have been going on all year, so while we mostly move on, it's still happening there.

Whether that had anything at all to do with this, of course, is only speculation.

Btw, according to our government's definition of terrorism, here's who committed all known domestic attacks:

Right wing, non-Islamic: 74%
Islamic: 24%
Left wing, non-Islamic 2%

Almost all Islamic terrorists are right wing, so I'd really like to know if any of those were left wing. 100% are extremist though, not just angry people acting out.

BTW, I keep pointing out to people that Timothy McVeigh was a native-born Irish Catholic, trained to kill by the US Army.

shaped like several guns into a hotel, even though he was the same color/ethnicity as the large majority of American terrorists.

stayed at a Vegas hotel? That has a casino? It's people of all shapes, sizes, colors, ages, types of dress, degrees of mental alertness, carrying just about anything, walking in all directions. The only place you are less likely to be noticed for what you are doing is Times Square on New Year's Eve.

The point is the obvious one I was making. I actually used to work in Harrah's in Reno, a long time ago, but even then they had security guards and cameras all over the place.

and grab onto else in an attempt to justify dishonesty. Why on earth these people are so invested in this, I can't imagine. I am a great respecter and admirer of well constructed law. It's not something to be pushed aside any time a mob mentality arises.

And why ARE they so invested in it? Why and how is it even happening? This seems to be an attempt to turn this tragedy into a DIVISIVE racial injustice issue. One white man murdered dozens of mostly white people, and PoC are supposed to grab their torches at the outrageous injustice of not declaring him a terrorist before the investigation's even started? If anyone wanted to do that, it should be Muslim Americans.

Think Putin, because this fake division for sure isn't originating from Democrats.

occurred. You are aware that murders are routinely prosecuted under state laws, aren't you? Under your point of view, the Nevada terrorism law would never come into play.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-federal-prosecution.html

In order for the government to have power to regulate any kind of behavior, it must have “jurisdiction.” In most cases, jurisdictional issues are straightforward—the crime occurs within a particular state’s boundaries, violating that state’s laws, and therefore giving that state the power to prosecute. Likewise, a crime that occurs on federal property—for example, Yellowstone National Park—authorizes the feds to deal with the suspect. But some crimes violate both state and federal law, enabling both governments to bring criminal charges. (Some crimes, on the other hand, are left only to the states—see Supreme Court: Why a Love Triangle Isn’t Chemical Warfare.)

SNIP

In many instances, one government with jurisdiction over an offense will defer to another. The deferring government will step in only if the other prosecution fails. That said, sometimes both governments will pursue criminal charges.

We know the why. Btw, if you go to the black forum you won't find this stuff there. Some may be posting on the GD forum, but It's not coming from there.

to refer to religious terrorism carried out by brown people?

Why can't we recognize that white people can also be terrorists? By Nevada law, Paddock would qualify. And if he were alive he could have been prosecuted by Nevada law.

... for the future debating benefit of being able to say "Look, not all terrorists are dark skinned and religiously motivated?"

As an academic and professional point, it's not terrorism until certain qualifiers are met.

We aren't there yet. We might get there later.

Nothing yet though...

Nevada law prevails in Nevada.

searching for a possible accomplice" in the same breath.

was suggested as some sort of accomplice. But oddly, they couldn't seem to find a picture of him (although I know pics have been posted on this forum).

always has been this way....now if the shooter had some melanin in their skin or were an immigrant, terrorist for sure as explained by the media and society(white) at large. KKK nightriders-charlottesville type nazis/KKK, terrorists...Dylan Roof-terrorist, this POS-terrorist.

Urging the KKK be classified as a terrorist organization.

since they have been tracking them all...

https://www.splcenter.org/

Used to live in Alabama. Glad I don't any more.

They are a low-keyed but powerful organization that pulls no punches.

Seriously!

was the one who I recall seeing out there for decades. I think he is just a fellow there now and working for various media, but he kept a bonfire going under the far right nuts.

Because daddy thought he was incredible, and if I wanted cartoons, I had to watch news.

(and I have become one too)

Time, Newsweek, Life, Look, National Geographic and the occasional Teen..........

(and my parents had it before then) and NYT subscription since 1976, among other magazines and papers. Information overload!

Of living their lives. Talking to someone this am who says he will now think twice about going to the State Fair here in NC. Guns are easy to get and open carry here.

and their comment at the end was that given what occurred, they no longer feel safe attending open-air events such as this.

The issue being that attendees were pretty much patted down/checked for weapons to enter the grounds, but it made no difference when you have a shooter who can haul off and fire hundreds of rounds from a hotel room overlooking the event.

into the Hotel? Just asking.

both here in the U.S. and overseas, and have never had my bags checked before going to my room. If he had "long guns", he could have easily put them in a soft side guitar case or as others have suggested, a golf bag (although I would think the guitar case might conceal better unless you put a huge sock over the golf bag). They could even fit in some of those long duffel bags I see guys use.

Never been to Las Vegas, just asking.

but none of the hotels I have stayed at ANYWHERE (including places like Egypt, just after the Gulf War) have had any metal detectors.

The only places I have had metal detectors outside of airports, was at concerts (indoor or out), museums, government buildings (all levels of government), movie theaters (and here in the Philly area, that was back in the '80s), & some schools. Never at any hotel.

happen now to stop incidences like this, cause you know how certain people love their 2nd amendment correct esp. the NRA who continues to say it's not guns it's the owners.

often backed by the local Chambers of Commerce.

It's less about it being a hotel and more about it being a tall building with advantageous position over an area where crowds gather.

A private room is a perk but this could happen in any appropriate location.

I am uninterested in whether you consider that definition bullshit. It's the one I use and one I will continue to use.

Cheers.

but nothing is written in stone in this country and with enough demand from the people (via that pesky First Amendment), the U.S. code CAN be changed.

Requiring the violent act to have as its objective the furtherance of a political or social agenda is what makes such acts different than killers who are obeying the commands of their neighbor's Labrador retriever. Son of Sam, for example, terrorized NYC (I know, I was there and I had long brown hair), but he was not a terrorist.

Having said that, it's awful that the media and powers that be are so ready to frame events like this as perpetrated by "lone wolves". It becomes a blatant illustration of white male priviledge, albeit perverse.

where this country REFUSES to call any white "Christian" male maniac a "terrorist" after they hunt and kill anyone who does not practice their "brand" of religion, or is a physician who performs abortions, or who is a person of color, or is part of the LGBTQA community, etc. When they yell that "Sodomy is a sin!!!11!!!!" and go after a gay, or spray-paint "N****RS GET OUT!" on the side of someone's house or shoot up some poor bible-study members while in a church, they are patted on the head, even taken to get something to eat because they were hungry, and coddled. But if someone yells "Allahu Akbar", then suddenly that person is a "terrorist".

I.e., this narrow-interpretation of a definition bullshit is part of why people are out there kneeling during the national anthem because there is no "equal protection" under the law, but it is often a skewed protection FROM the law for some.

All are examples of terrorism. But I agree with you, the media (and law enforcement and criminal justice) are very selective in its application. White male priviledge is applied first, and if the perpetrator happens to be white and male, then rather than own him as one of their own he is rejected as a "lone wolf" crazy man that (take your pick from the false memes this morning) just converted to Islam or is antifa or he's a liberal leftist extremist. The paranoid right rejects the killer, won't recognize him as one of their own, probably due to their deep seated fear that their identities (and priviledge) are (false) already under attack.

"he is mentally ill" and thus the "terrorism" label falls away.

Yet for some reason, if someone yells "Allahu Akbar" before wildly firing off shots, wielding a machete or running through a crowd with a knife, they are somehow "sane" and immediately labeled "a terrorist".

IMHO, ANYONE willingly engaging in heinous acts against another human, and in this case, many many human beings, is a "terrorist", and they are mentally ill. Period.

It makes the term useless if it's too broadly applied.

Homicides tend to be associated with specific criminal acts that are 1-1 interactions (whether it be through robberies, domestic violence, personal disputes, or gang-related, etc).

However in the case of "terrorism", it's not individuals being targeted but groups (whether the groups represent similar demographics or have no similarities at all except "being at the wrong place at the wrong time" ). And as often as such has happened of late, it's still not a significant part of the total and thus a "broad" application shouldn't be anticipated because of the relative rarity of such mass casualty events (compared to other homicides). The individual or individuals set(s) out to kill many people as they can for a reason or for no reason at all, and that in itself is terrorizing for those who are the victims and survived (including their family and friends), who would now be reticent to engage in whatever activity was underway when the attack happened. And this also goes for those who are watching the events unfold on television and have to make decisions on whether to participate in similar activities.

I.e., one only need look at how broad an impact one sees after the act occurs.

The application is so broad that the term is useless.

Right now we have no targeted group, no identified motivation or political goals and until that happens it isn't terrorism by a professional definition.

One crime targets an individual (or their relatives/acquaintances/coworkers, etc) and the other crime targets large groups, usually in spectacular fashion (in many cases, groups that are completely unrelated to each other except for being in a specific place at the time). These are 2 distinct types of actions.

We have shootings here in Philly every single day (as do most cities). Crime "happens" and in the most newsworthy incident here, a couple days ago a 6 year old child was shot - caught in the crossfire, but fortunately a suspect was arrested not long after. However my level of vigilance or concern has not been increased because of that incident (desensitized).

However when you have a mad man spraying bullets from a high-rise hotel room on a crowd at an outdoor event, using what is speculated as being a high-powered, fully automatic weapon, where the attendees WERE screened before entry into the venue, NOW you are talking about ratcheting up my concern level for attending similar such events - including concerts that might be indoors as well, etc.

"Terrorists" target groups in public spaces. That garners the attention they apparently crave. You see this with shopping mall shootings, subway shootings, night club shootings, theater shootings, stadium shootings, or bombings in urban areas on well-known/crowded thoroughfares and so forth. But for some reason in the U.S., if you are not a "foreign-looking" or "foreign-sounding" or "foreign-born" or "foreign-descended" individual who has ties to some "foreign" entity or nebulous version of what has been deemed a "foreign religion", then suddenly you are not a "terrorist" when you carry out a similar crime that causes mass casualties.

The end result is the same no matter where you come from or what you look like, but in America, there is this pretzel-twisting of circumstances when it comes to WHO this applies to. You can go back to how long it took to declare Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice "terrorists", when during the early hours and days after the Oklahoma bombing incident, LEO were hunting for "Middle East men of dark complexion".

Intent distinguishes mass murder from terrorism.

Maybe that will come later but right now it's null and it's intellectually dishonest to shoehorn it in there.

Again my argument is this narrow definition that is out there that is crafted to target certain demographics and give a pass to others, notably because it is never applied consistently and cop-outs are used.

If one "intends" to get attention, one can fire hundreds of shots in a crowd or even threaten to blow up a school. There are statues in every state that define a "terroristic threat". Yet when the "threat" is actually carried out, the rules "change", and some get called "terrorists" while others are called "lone wolves" or "mentally ill".

IMHO, every "mass shooting" should be considered a "terrorist attack". And although they feel like they are "common" due to the number of people impacted when they do happen, these incidences are a fraction of all homicides, and are sufficiently distinguishable from the others.

It's apparent that we will have to agree to disagree.

in plain words - not ISIS nor Al Qaeda. WTF!!!

How come Jason Dalton and Adam Lanza didn't go on their shooting sprees with a banana or a hair dryer?

since it was harder for them to get guns there

But in America people think any random person is going to be a hero and take down a mass shooter so we need more people to have guns in more places.

No offense to the great state of Florida but, usually the stories that you are looking for tend to come out of Florida. It is usually a local headline that starts with "Florida Man", which then is followed with something that would put Florida Man's sanity into question.

Examples (true):
Florida Man robs bank with spatula.
Florida man threatens youths with air rifle, claims he "runs this street"
To get a seat, Florida Man threatens Red Lobster: 'I work for the Taliban, and I have a bomb in this bag'
Florida Man assaulted with poultry

who takes out several people with a machete doesn't make national news.

A serial killer would be a terrorist by that definition.

Play with them. It's not heresy to construct categories on our own apart from the dominant narrative.

I guess it depends on how people define the terms. I always thought terrorism, by definition, had to have a political motive.

We're angry and specifically wanted to punish them. And I think there were Amish and Candadian massacres of young women too. The method of serial vs spree killing may be different, but many have targeted women and terrorize them deliberately which is political. They'd all like women to be less free.

Maybe it should be changed. Or, if changed, just discarded because then it won’t mean anything. But today, the law is clear.

Terrorism or being labeled as such in the US can lead to a loss of certain rights under the Patriot Act.

Also, labeling everything as such will lead to it becoming a watered down definition.

Until you can find convincing evidence that he had zero intent to create terror, he's a terrorist

Were they terrorized?

See terror in those poor people's faces?

Yes paddock was.

At least that is my understanding.

The raw violence thrown down on an unsuspecting crowd makes one feel vulnerable, and generates anxiety where there once was none. One cannot live a peaceful existence when one is hypervigilant most of the time.

Regarding the families and friends of those who were killed, their lives are forever changed. Those who were present at the event and survived, their lives are also altered, and not for the better. For those who tend to worry in general, hearing the media repeat (and repeat) the gory details of a mass shooting like this will cause anxiety for many when they're in crowds, concerts, etc. Some people will start refusing to go to outdoor venues.

It's terrorism all the way.

Anyone with that many guns in a hotel room -- or a closet at home, for that matter -- is disturbed at best.

People can argue whether the law should be changed, but for now, it is what it is.

Or any criminal violence for that matter. The important question is whether it is part of a larger threat, a politically motivated individual or an act caused by mental illness. Mental illness obviously could play a role in all three. Each is dealt with differently if law enforcement wants to prevent similar incidents.

The term is politically significant when it is an act motivated by politics, race, religion or the like because it can be unevenly applied between racial, religious or political motivations to avoid association, or on the other side, to color the less radical members of a group or political association.

By the way, if it is a personal political motivation, it could be from any side. There are crazies on both sides.

you just don't gather this stuff w/o planning. He used his (out of the country) girlfriends ID according to the sheriff. A man with a plan, but for what end.

Also I can't help but imagine all the nasty racists comments that would be out there if he had fired in to a black rap artist concert or Mexican music gathering

It doesn't seem to matter , if the killer OR victims are not white , it changes the outlook of a lot of white people and triggers how they respond

Period!!

since they terrorize people and commit lots of murder. The reason for it shouldn't matter. No one ever suspects that Muslim terrorists might be mentally ill.

Media doesn't have to use legal definitions and they are not so careful about reporting lots of other things. They have spewed outright falsehoods like posting pictures of the completely wrong person as suspects and providing info that hasn't been verified. Media organizations have made a choice to avoid using the term on whites.

Old white male rules apply here.

Just like the chart in the pic.

And the usual NRA solutions will be applied as well.

MOAR GUNZ!!!!!!!

Pretty sure.

So was McVeigh, Lanza, Whitman, and others.

Pretty sure.

Have you?

He was labeled one by the very same wingers who also mischaracterized him as being part of BLM which, of course, he wasn't.

But it didn't stop the racist fuck bags that I used to contend with on the Discussionist from calling him AND BLM "terrorist."

mass shooters terrorists...

Maybe there should be some kind of meeting of the minds and a simple agreement? Or we can just follow what the LEA define as terrorism.

Without a gathering though you won't have agreement alone. Maybe Skinner can arrange some planned group meeting with the Jim Rob Bob douchebag of FR?

But most of us around here have noticed that it's remarkable because white mass shooters are rarely labeled as such, even when they're obviously radicalized, intent on attacking random targets for effect and are out to create as much havoc as humanly possible.

...over and over and over. In post offices sorting rooms, in preschools, elementary schools, gay night clubs, churches, movie theaters, temples, bedrooms -- in each and every place a human being has the expectation of safety and enjoyment.

30,000 times a year.

Until we confront our own demons, this IS us.

That we're already a terrorized society, in spite of the way that rare attacks by Muslims are used to promote Islamophobia in this country.

This is what we have allowed ourselves to become.

He lived " a quiet life" and "liked to listen to country music" .

Before he put a bullet into his own head.

Him, Dylan, Omar, etc: These names represent evil that transcends race or religion. I hate that I know these names and the events tied to it.

(1). mass killing of civilians.

(2). in an effort to make a political or social statement.

Link to tweet

Lets say it together ..out loud..

Hi actions were "terrifiying", and he "terrorized", but without a political agenda he is not a "terrorist."

Chris Harper-Mercer was not called a terrorsist.


Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were not called terrorists.


Omar Mateen - People right here insisted he was not a terrorist!

So, I don't know. Does it really matter, at this point?

Murdering people is a terrorist tactic. The goal is to terrorize the people who are left alive in order to coerce them into doing something they otherwise wouldn't do, or to punish them for something they have already done.

If that was what this fuckball was trying to do, then he's a terrorist.