I agree. We should stick to the meanings of words. Here is the definition of “domestic terrorism” from 18 USC 2331:
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.
Key words are “appearance of intent.” A single, mass murdering scumbag may or may not have the appearance of intent. I’d argue that his specific scumbag was looking to intimidate or coerce the female civilian population. A criminal gang almost certainly fits the definition above. Whether its prosecuted as such is the question.
“(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”
Sorry. You lose. You’re obfuscating and contorting to make a jilted lover issue sound like it fits this description. Trying to say it “intimidates the female pop” is as absurd as stating that white people not hiring a black person constitutes racism.
I’m glad to see the code gets it right.
And I’ve been griping about this for years. Since 9/11 we’ve been calling about every act “terrorism”, dumbing it down just like other words. By this absurd theory, every common criminal murder or battery is “terrosism”.