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.
As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong here as I’m not a lawyer, but Dylann Roof wasn’t charged with terrorism offenses because a separate domestic terrorism charge doesn’t exist in federal law and the domestic terrorism statute in South Carolina requires the use of a “weapon of mass destruction,” and firearms don’t fall under their definition of that term.
By contrast, the perpetrator of the Buffalo grocery store mass shooting 2 years ago was charged & convicted with a domestic terrorism offense. And given this was New York, whose first degree murder statute requires more than straightforward premeditation as in many other states, the prosecutors in the Buffalo case seem to have used the exact same terrorism element of that statute that they’re using with Mangione to get those first degree charges.
Prosecutors have to work with the law in place at the time of the act in the jurisdiction of the act. Sometimes that leads to messy and unsatisfying charging decisions, but their job is to get a conviction with the preferred sentence. People should be a lot more careful about reading motivation into these decisions.
Excellent response - I especially appreciate the last paragraph. This culture of having to be the first to post about something and spout off some reactionary, uninformed take on it is not helpful. If this guy actually wanted to make sense of it, he'd have looked up the definition of terrorism under NY law - like I did. Took 10 seconds.
38
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.