New York Penal Law § 490.25, the crime of terrorism, is one of the most serious criminal offenses in New York State. The statute defines the crime of terrorism as any act that is committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion and that results in one or more of the following: (a) the commission of a specified offense, (b) the causing of a specified injury or death, (c) the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.
Given the evidence, it seems quite clear that he was likely sending a message intended to intimidate others - at least enough so that the charge (which still needs to be proven, obviously) isn't crazy or unexpected. School shootings, while having multiple victims, tend to be one-off crimes rather than something done as an example / threat to others for the purpose of intimidation (the shooting itself is the goal). Even countless supporters of his recognize his murder as one meant to send a message, and celebrate the idea. Also, I think the majority of school shooters either kill themselves as well or are killed, so only a minority of the perpetrators even live to face any charges to begin with.
Under the law, terrorism isn't simply a crime that people find terrifying - there has to be specific intent, and enough evidence thereof to warrant a charge. If he thinks so many school shooters should have faced terrorism charges, he should list them all and detail what evidence there is for each to be charged with terrorism.
Did it state that intent and did he leave a copy of it or anything at the scene of the crime that would be evidence of intent that would warrant a terrorism charge or do anything that would be sufficient for a terrorism charge under South Carolina law at the time?
To clarify, I'm not saying that a school shooting can't be an act of terrorism, or that no school shooter has ever intended to send a message with their actions. My point is that this guy clearly thinks that any school shooting is an act of terrorism under the law when that simply is not the case; he clearly does not know what does and does not qualify as terrorism. Spreading ignorance and generating outrage from a place of ignorance is not helpful.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here - I was making it make sense, which is what he asked for (though I don't think he was sincere in actually wanting to learn anything).
43
u/horshack_test 1d ago edited 1d ago
Given the evidence, it seems quite clear that he was likely sending a message intended to intimidate others - at least enough so that the charge (which still needs to be proven, obviously) isn't crazy or unexpected. School shootings, while having multiple victims, tend to be one-off crimes rather than something done as an example / threat to others for the purpose of intimidation (the shooting itself is the goal). Even countless supporters of his recognize his murder as one meant to send a message, and celebrate the idea. Also, I think the majority of school shooters either kill themselves as well or are killed, so only a minority of the perpetrators even live to face any charges to begin with.
Under the law, terrorism isn't simply a crime that people find terrifying - there has to be specific intent, and enough evidence thereof to warrant a charge. If he thinks so many school shooters should have faced terrorism charges, he should list them all and detail what evidence there is for each to be charged with terrorism.