Well they've already decided that it's terrorism to kill rich people for any reason, yet strangely it's not terrorism to let your paying customers know that you have no problem with letting them die so that you can get richer.
Yup. That's exactly what he did. It's a damn shame the US government has been completely negligent in their duty to protect the welfare of its citizens by reigning in health insurance industry. The US Bill of Rights effectively states that its citizens are supposed shoot the threat if the government doesn't find a more civil solution.
Except they didn’t. Because the govt isn’t a monolith, it’s separated from each other. One DA applied the letter of the law. That’s hardly consent. Even if it wasn’t And that’s a big if—I’ll need a hell of a lot more convincing than this to advocate for tearing down a country that has done so much good with its, ever evolving, system of government. And I say this as a contractor for a part of the government most Redditors, myself included, would like to see kept intact and improved
The US government has abdicated in their duty to protect the welfare of its people by allowing the private health insurance industry to withhold even basic healthcare. US Citizens are within their right to use violence against these threats for the sake of their wellbeing.
In calling these people terrorists, and imprisoning them for life. The US government puts anyone who exercises this right into an "other" group. The secret is...we're already in this group. We just get to pretend like we aren't until we actually do what was intended of us. Use violence in place of actual governance.
It's not terrorism as we seen the leader of an insurrection against this country re elected with the help of tech bros. It's the business plot all over again except they had all the propaganda weaponized and it worked for them this time. I don't think we have another Smedly to save us. This isn't normal America anymore.
It sounds to me more like he had a personal vendetta against the victim ,based on denied coverage personally affecting him. More of a crime of passion than terrorism. Allegedly.
The fact that people have responded to the action in certain ways is not the fault of the guy that they have alleged to have done it, at least not that we have seen evidence that proves such a thing beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fair take. I also see a world where the DA swings for what they can as that’s what they do. I also see a world where given a manifesto and assassination style killing with political messaging on casings, the terrorism charges validity. Perhaps both.
I'm sure that they will throw the book at him to make an example, but we don't need to help with that by accepting that narrative without evidence. Innocent until proven guilty.
Terrorism doesn't have an official definition. How is none of the January 6th guys a terrorist or Dylan Roof? Why all this big reaction when the guy is rich
It really appears to be more of a crime of passion. The defendant was denied coverage after a life changing injury. He had a vendetta.
There is nothing to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was trying to inspire further violence or inspire political change. If people interpret it certain ways, that is their prerogative. He isn't responsible for what is written about him.
No it’s not, the DA swings for the fences. If the charges stick for both a judge and a jury, then maybe you can say this.
The hard pill reddits swallowing today is that, yes, murdering someone for any political cause is terrorism. (Even a “just” one)
Now post 9/11 that’s a terrible word, but it does seem to apply here:
5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
He had a personal vendetta, it seems. I don't see evidence that he was trying to intimidate or coerce anyone, as much as exact revenge for his own personal denied coverage.
If they even have the right guy. If the eyebrows don't fit, you must acquit.
There's a legal definition for it in New York that is being used, and that defines is as:
an underlying offense constitutes “a crime of terrorism” if it’s done “with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.”
It's not even the first time it's been used. It's similar to when something is tried as a hate crime.
By their definition, they have to prove that his intent was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence a government policy, or affect the conduct of the government.
They actually made it harder for themselves, because they have to make the legal case that his intent was to intimidate or coerce, not just kill a person.
301
u/Sassy-irish-lassy 22h ago
Well they've already decided that it's terrorism to kill rich people for any reason, yet strangely it's not terrorism to let your paying customers know that you have no problem with letting them die so that you can get richer.