Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shisty t1_j318bpw wrote

TBF they should still be charged with domestic terrorism regardless of what their "intent" was. They still took down multiple substations causing thousands to go without power during a winter storm.

20

zeatherz t1_j322jdv wrote

But the whole definition of terrorism is based on intent- to cause political/social change through fear. You can’t just redefine legal terms because you don’t like it

12

Shisty t1_j32n1zj wrote

You're right, I was about to type up the ol "BuT tHeY sHoUlD!" but then my mind went to how that could be used terribly wrong.

2

[deleted] t1_j332p12 wrote

You are correct, and it certainly codified that way in some laws, but you always need to be careful about taking commonly accepted definitions and applying them in legal cases. For example, in straight up, being charged with terrorism, intent is called out, but in crimes about funding terrorism, there’s a lot less requirement to have proven intent.

Here’s some info that may be pertinent.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terrorism

0

vertigoacid t1_j32lg7b wrote

there is no federal domestic terrorism statute in the US. they can't be charged with something that doesn't exist.

4

Shisty t1_j32mul2 wrote

Really? I actually thought that would be a thing.. Well, I learned something today. Thank you!

2

vertigoacid t1_j32oebx wrote

5

Shisty t1_j32rrde wrote

Thank you!

3

De_Roche22 t1_j33tn0u wrote

IIRC, the major crime they've been charged with is 'Conspiracy to damage energy facilities" which is still a federal charge and I'm sure will just as thoroughly fuck their lives up as they deserve.

2

Shisty t1_j34gm7i wrote

Good to know, glad they aren't just being charged with a misdemeanor.

1