Under New York law, such a [terrorism] charge can be brought when an alleged crime is “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.”
So even unlawful gathering to redress grievances with the government is considered terrorism? Or to do so against a private (civilian) organization? Good to know.
If I understand your quotation correctly, unlawful gathering warrants the charge of terrorism only when “intended to […] (a) influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and (b) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping”. Then again, (a) and (b) seem redundant and the law and the judiciary might see intimidation or coercion where we do not.
To be fair, fearing for one’s life is understandable in a society where gun ownership, social injustice and mental illness are not only relatively widespread, but correlated, and the chances of being hurt in even simple altercations correspondingly high. The solution, though, is not allowing police to resort to violence routinely, disproportionately and indiscriminately, but to address the root causes of the danger with socioeconomic justice and safeguards, proper universal healthcare and at least some restrictions in gun ownership. Those who either aren’t willing to solve these underlying issues or deny their existence outright often resort to the charge of terrorism as both a convenient deflection and an instrument of suppression and oppression. It is in our interest to push back against such misuse and keep the public discourse centered on the origins of conflict.
Under New York law, such a [terrorism] charge can be brought when an alleged crime is “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
They may be a “person”, but they’re a private company/entity - not “the public”. So we’re clear here.
influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.
So even unlawful gathering to redress grievances with the government is considered terrorism? Or to do so against a private (civilian) organization? Good to know.
Does UHC run the fucking government now? I mean I know the answer is secretly yes, but aren’t we still pretending corpos don’t run the country?
“Hey US government, you dropped your fig leaf.”
“Oh nah, I’m good.”
If I understand your quotation correctly, unlawful gathering warrants the charge of terrorism only when “intended to […] (a) influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and (b) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping”. Then again, (a) and (b) seem redundant and the law and the judiciary might see intimidation or coercion where we do not.
Given how frequently and readily police officers fear for their lives, I think you have a point.
NYPD Officer: “Your honor the protestors made me fear for my life. Their signs said mean things.”
Judge: “Yep, they’re terrorists.” gavel
To be fair, fearing for one’s life is understandable in a society where gun ownership, social injustice and mental illness are not only relatively widespread, but correlated, and the chances of being hurt in even simple altercations correspondingly high. The solution, though, is not allowing police to resort to violence routinely, disproportionately and indiscriminately, but to address the root causes of the danger with socioeconomic justice and safeguards, proper universal healthcare and at least some restrictions in gun ownership. Those who either aren’t willing to solve these underlying issues or deny their existence outright often resort to the charge of terrorism as both a convenient deflection and an instrument of suppression and oppression. It is in our interest to push back against such misuse and keep the public discourse centered on the origins of conflict.
https://youtu.be/jv7jcciKB_s
To be fair :P, English is not my mother tongue, so I don’t necessarily realize how pedantic some expressions I use come across. Fair enough?
It’s ok honey bunny, I just can’t not think of Letterkenny when someone says that.
They may be a “person”, but they’re a private company/entity - not “the public”. So we’re clear here.
Wasn’t a government company. So we’re clear here.
Alright, boys. Nothing wrong - let’s pack it up!