To: DCBryan1
I agree the guy needs to go to jail, but I am a bit disturbed by the charge of a "terroristic act". I mean, surely ANY act of agression could be said to cause "terror", but his purpose here wasn't to "terrorize" the populace, it was just to get back at someone who "terrorized" him with an obscene gesture.
To: CharlesWayneCT
"I agree the guy needs to go to jail, but I am a bit disturbed by the charge of a "terroristic act". I mean, surely ANY act of aggression could be said to cause "terror", but his purpose here wasn't to "terrorize" the populace, it was just to get back at someone who "terrorized" him with an obscene gesture." My thoughts as well. What's next - a terroristic hate crime?
20 posted on
10/17/2006 8:42:06 AM PDT by
VRWCtaz
("Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness." - Thomas Paine)
To: CharlesWayneCT
It's probably like California's legalese lingo...I was on a jury a few months ago (attempted murder), and one of the charges was "making terrorist threats"...because the perp had of course said "I'm going to kill you", before he emptied his .45 at his target (and missed)
23 posted on
10/17/2006 8:45:12 AM PDT by
ErnBatavia
(Meep Meep)
To: CharlesWayneCT
I agree the guy needs to go to jail, but I am a bit disturbed by the charge of a "terroristic act". I mean, surely ANY act of agression could be said to cause "terror", but his purpose here wasn't to "terrorize" the populace, it was just to get back at someone who "terrorized" him with an obscene gesture.Agreed. This is just like the fruitcakes who want to make certain crimes "hate crimes" in addition to whatever else the crime may be. That's a foolish abuse of the statutes.
29 posted on
10/17/2006 8:53:06 AM PDT by
bolobaby
To: CharlesWayneCT
"but his purpose here wasn't to "terrorize" the populace, it was just to get back at someone who "terrorized" him with an obscene gesture."
lol... your priorities are all screwed up. What is more terrorizing, chasing, trying to run someone off the road, and honking your horn trying to get them to stop so you can fight them, and shooting at them with a cross bow? or an obscene gesture? People with road rage terrorize everyone they share the road with. I think the charge of 'terroristic act' is perfectly appropriate.
35 posted on
10/17/2006 9:02:55 AM PDT by
monday
To: CharlesWayneCT
I don't think obscene gestures qualify as an effort to terrorize. It's more of an effort to humiliate someone.
Shooting or brandishing a crossbow at someone clearly is an effort to make them fear you, and if you're actually trying to kill them- even if too drunk to hit them- then it's attempted murder.
66 posted on
10/18/2006 2:40:16 AM PDT by
piasa
(Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
To: CharlesWayneCT
I understand your concern, but I believe it is merely a legal term that found it's way into laws before the present "High Profile" meaning the term has.
Teaxas and other states have similarly titled laws. The one in TX deals with acts against both and individuals and entities. I don't remember the date it wsa enacted off hand.
75 posted on
10/18/2006 4:08:50 AM PDT by
5Madman2
(There is no such thing as an experienced suicide bomber)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson