[orionblamblam]

> It is a misapplication of justice to call any crime that invokes fear terrorism, because by definition most crimes invoke fear.

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?

[coconutt2000]

If the goal of the person who did this was to create fear of movie theaters, or to create a fear of going to watch this movie - I'll give you that as a political motive, albeit an idiotic one. In which case, it would be terrorism.

But if his intent was a single, one time, ill advised, criminal prank - then he's not guilty of terrorism, so much as he's guilty of stupidity. In either case, he should be given the maximum penalty for the maximum charge that he can be charged with.