I something that said that this event fit the state of nevadas definition of terrorism, but not the federal definition. Ether way, personally I see it as an act of terrorism. Just my opinion. Concerts, gatherings and festivals are a big part of our culture. I'm sure there are many people who's decision to attend them in the near future at the very least had this tragedy in their minds. Whether it needs to fit an official description or not in not sure is important. The so far very vague intent of this is most likely terrorizing anyone going into a large public gathering of any kind at the moment .
No, you used the definition that you thought best suited what you wanted to say. My use of "in pursuit of a political aim" is not in any way a red herring, the term terrorism has been around for centuries longer than the definition you want to use, the phrase, "in pursuit of a political aim", was used to define terrorism long before they amended U.S. Code. But getting beyond that, even using your definition, "f the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population", Where is the act intended to intimidate or coerce? Merely having people scared is not what this clause means, that you can't see that is your problem. In fact you just admit that you don't know there was coercion intended, at that time that we find there was an intent to coerce the population, at that time it can be called terrorism. Until that time you are wanting to call it terrorism absent any proof.
I can certainly dispute your claim that you believe it "appears" when you continue to fail to cite the evidence to support the claim. It's clear you are just grasping at straws at this point. simply claiming that merely committing the act reflects intent to intimidate and coerce has no "reasonable" merit. No reasonable person would conclude a mass shooting inherently reflects intent to intimidate or coerce when the there is a reason why we have different terms for mass shooting and terrorism which aren't interchangeable. Mass shootings can certainly be terrorism but are not without evidence of the intent to intimidate or coerce. You've voluntarily proven you aren't a reasonable person in your continued ignoring of the elements required and therefore the reasonable man claim doesn't apply to you.
The word "timid" is the root of intimidate and an action designed to make someone timid or afraid is the definition of the word intimidate. Getting people to be afraid to travel, afraid to visit popular areas, large gatherings, transportation systems is precisely what happens every time one of these incidents happens, whether or not there are political aims involved. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you insist on using a faulty definition for a legal term? Why does it bother you you that scaring thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people into changing the way they live their lives is, indeed, terrorism without the necessity of political intent? Once again, you must read, and understand, the legal definition. Coercion is not a requirement as your quote above shows by using "or" between intimidation and coerce. Either meets the standard. People have been terrorized - can you honestly deny that?
and yet people being intimidated isn't what defines terrorism. I see you've completely abandoned the intent of the perpetrator to cause intimidation again. Rape intimidates women; by your misunderstood definition rape would be terrorism.
No, you cannot dispute my claim as to how things appear to me; you can have your own opinion of appearance but you can't dispute mine. We need not agree. What's been proven is that you are either unwilling or incapable of understanding that the only element required is the appearance of intent rather than intent itself. If, out of the five hundred plus victims in Las Vegas, there had been a single one with whom Paddock had a gripe I suppose the rest could be considered collateral damage which could possibly negate a claim of terrorism but so far, at least, that is not the case. Whether he was striking out at Las Vegas itself, concert-goers in general, younger generations, those he deemed lesser people or any other category his pathetic mind conjured up is yet to be seen but the damage has been done. There certainly are be people who are intimidated sufficiently by his actions to avoid Las Vegas, to avoid concerts, to avoid large gatherings - many have already been quoted as such in the media. That is enough to label his actions as terrorism.
No. Read this once again: "A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population..." The bolded portion is crucial to making the distinction between any other violation of criminal laws and terrorism. Once again, there is no all-encompassing inclusion. You have repeatedly failed to understand this point - the appearance of intent is sufficient in and of itself, an actual intent is not required. We may never know what Paddock's intent was but judging by the planning and logistics required for him to commit his horror it appears this was no crime of passion but was designed and intended to create great fear - that's terrorism.
I am only going to bother with one more response since you just don't comprehend. You yourself said that you don't know if there was any intent to coerce anyone, I am going to guess you don't know if there was any intent to intimidate anyone either. Absent those 2 things, you have no terrorism, that's according to your definition. Someone going bat shit crazy and killing a bunch of people is not automatically terrorism because some people got scared. That was from your definition. The fact that you can't seem to comprehend there is more than one definition and the one I used has been around much longer than the United States Code you quoted. But once again, at this point, the act does not meet the definition of terrorism even by the code you quoted.
no You are entitled to use whatever definition you choose but if there ever was a prosecution related to this case it would be based not on an historical definition, not on your definition, not on my definition, but on the definition in the law. You seem to be hung up on the inclusion of a political motive which would be superfluous. Once again, you are simply wrong about there being no terrorism when there is no coercion or intimidation and your claim in the bold above is nothing I have stated, maintained or believe. In fact the standard is lower than that. Only the appearance of coercion or intimidation is required. There is that appearance in my mind and the minds of thousands, maybe millions of others demonstrated by the number of people swearing they will never go to Vegas again or never go to a concert or other large gathering. They say this because they have been made timid, have been frightened; they have been terrorized.
there is a part missing from that ... it also says in furtherance of political or social objectives Edit.. never mind, yours is the definition of domestic terrorism
The classification isn't important unless someone wants to make it a race/religious battle and bring up white privilege. I worked for my company as a vendor at New York City Comic Con this weekend. And I'd be lying to you if I wasn't extra aware of my surroundings, where the exits are, suspicious looking characters, etc. Luckily NYPD is excellent and there were several stations that had anti-terror units armed to the teeth with what I presume was AR-15's. I felt safe. I'm shocked nothing happened this weekend there. It's an event that hosts over 600,000 people over 4 days and can create some very crowded quarters that would certainly be an easy target. I have to praise NYPD though as their mere extreme presence at the event hopefully deterred mass murderers.
Looks like this thread has been totally derailed while I was away... Meanwhile, Las Vegas gunman shot security guard a full six minutes before opening fire on concertgoers, police reveal So, the security guard is no longer the hero who stopped the alleged gunman. Now the question is why Paddock, if it was indeed Paddock, stopped shooting after 10 minutes.
Hmm. And six minutes is a short time period but one would think he radioed in an armed gunman in the hotel and officers would've responded immediately no?
I saw a video today where a reporter was going to a bunch of hotels in the area trying to ask questions.... all employees of the hotels are staying very tight lipped.... despite the fact that at least 5 hotels had teams enter for calls of active shooter. I would have thought there would be a good amount of interviews with workers from the hotels , especially mandalay. Strange there isnt. Also, the police got a call from medical responders that claimed they were taking fire(all can be confirmed on the police scanner recording). One of the calls definetly came from staff of one of the hotels claiming the gun man was on the escalator. The scanner audio tells a story of a bit more going on, like the police confirming shots coming from the direction of gate 7, which is all the way across The concert venue. I realize that the confusion must have been profound. But still..: something about this all is straight up f--ky.
Also, listening to the whole incident on the scanner, they didn't know he was on 32nd until the end of the shooting. So, security guard shot doesn't radio in exact location?they were being told first the tenth , then the 29th.
Why was this security guard there to begin with? Did he hear the sound of the windows being broken? Those are huge freaking windows, the sound of them hitting the ground below would have been heard by quite a few people.
I wonder how soon before he started shooting he broke the glass. I can't picture someone that intends on doing this breaking that glass, having it fall 32 floors then sitting there for any time taking the chance of getting caught. I'll bet he broke them out and shot right away. Leaving the question why was security there. Also, if security may have just been doing a routine floor check, why would paddock fire at him, unless the security guard was there for paddocks room.
Yes, it's very peculiar. How often do security guards patrol the hotel floors, especially that's high up? I'd like to know this security guards story. Hopefully it come out. Yes I would imagine it all happened in succession or else one would think that the floor would've been flooded with security and police instantly thinking someone was going to jump.
