> "terrorism" or not
What would *you* call it? "Terrorism for dumbass laughs" rather than "terrorism for religious or political goals," but "terrorism" it still seems to be.
That's like justifying applying RICO to people who hold signs outside of abortion clinics.
It is a misapplication of justice to call any crime that invokes fear terrorism, because by definition most crimes invoke fear.
Terrorism is specific to actions aimed at political goals. If the person who released the snake in the theater issues a note stating that this was a political act, then it would be terrorism. Until then, it is a purely malicious, a potentially lethal crime that should be punished as such, and if any deaths resulted as a result, then the perpetrator should be charged with manslaughter. But not terrorism, at least not if there was no political motivation.
terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
I call it attempted murder.