In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
In article .com,
"bpnjensen" wrote:

Thanks for the story. I do not support the types of actions we
read about in the article, which are needlessly destructive and
have potential to harm living things. While I sympathize with
their motives, their actions are wrong and, frankly, do not serve
their causes well.

I will also say that simple property destruction does not
automatically "terror" make. Expensive and needless vandalism,
perhaps - but application of the "terror" moniker for many things
- like knocking over a transmission tower - is hyperbole.
Starting fires or bombing is borderline, however, and certainly
unwarranted.

Sometimes what starts out as "simple property destruction" ends up
injuring or killing people.

Knock over a transmission tower and you end up with live wires on
the ground that can kill people.

A vacant building may have someone like a homeless transient in it
for example. Starting a fire could kill someone in the "empty"
building. A fireman showing up to fight the fire could get killed.
The fire company showing up to fight the deliberately set fire
would not be able to attend to another accidental fire that
threatens people.

A rule of life is that if you initiate an action of violence it is
then out of your control and sometimes takes on a life of its own.

Destroying peoples property has consequences intended and otherwise
the least of which is physiological and that my friend is terror.

We have laws on the books for people that start fires. They're call
arsonists, and the crime is called arson.

We have laws on the books for people that kill people. They're called
murderers, and the crime is called murder.

Murder when combined with the commission of another felony, such as
arson, can be charged as first degree murder, a capital crime, in
most states.

One could stretch and call any arson or any murder a terrorist act..
but I don't believe that to be logical, lest we call every crime a
terrorist act. I also disagree with calling any crime a hate crime.
It's a crime, there are laws on the books to cover it. Period. To
call it a hate crime or a terrorist crime gives more credit to the
perpetrator and less to the victim in every case. To call something a
hate crime is to marginalize the victim as someone worthy of
someone's hate.. but I digress.

I don't want to continue an off topic thread but I was addressing the
contention that just because the "intent" was to destroy property and
not life or limb it could turn out that way due to the destructive
force unleashed.

You put a force in motion and there is the law of unintended
consequences to contend with. Think about it, now many times does
something work out exactly the way you envisioned it?

As for "lest we call every crime a terrorist act" the intent or state
of mind of a perpetrator in criminal law is well established as to the
extent of charges brought against an individual and the penalty paid
for an offense.

If it could be proved that the offense was intended to strike fear in a
a racial group or society in general as a terrorist act that would carry
additional penalties over the crime committed as another offense. This
can manifest as a degree, level or enhancement in the penalty phase of
adjudicating a case.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California