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.
Depending on your jurisdiction, you could probably get at least Murder 2. Releasing poisonous snakes into a theater probably carries substantial certainty that someone will die.
For most crimes, "fear" isn't the *goal.* In this case it was.
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
> and if any deaths resulted as a result, then the perpetrator should be charged with manslaughter
How about 1st degree murder? And why not attempted murder as it is?