← Back to context

Comment by diggan

1 day ago

I mean, it is. Just because you agree with it doesn't mean the label changes. And I don't necessarily hate what happened either, nor would I probably personally prosecute the guy. But lets not mince words, if you (try to) use violence against civilians for political/ideological/religious motives, that's pretty much the agree-upon definition of "terrorism".

It was a targeted murder, it was not terrorism.

  • Could you provide what definition you use for "terrorism"? Otherwise your comment might as well just say "No" and it contributes the same amount to the discussion.

    Besides, I'd say it's both. There is no denying it was a murder, nor that it was targeted and based on what I understand "terrorism" to be, it seems like that too.

    • One of the key components of terrorism is random or at least very loose targeting and some degree of disregard for collateral damage.

      The United Healthcare murder was basically a reverse Eric garner. Instead of the government killing someone over something petty to keep the peasants in line a crazy peasant killed a member of the ruling class to send the same message in the other direction.

      Politically both of these are more like a good ol' fashioned lynching than terrorism though obviously the line between the two becomes a bit blurry. Most targeted political violence is not terrorism (though of course the statues are so broad that if you crop dust an elevator in a government building you're probably open to prosecution).

      4 replies →

    • There is a legal distinction and definition, Legal Eagle on YouTube had an episode on exactly this a few weeks ago, about that the DA might have picked a more difficult crime to prove than murder. IANAL but IIRC the terrorism charge has to prove there is an intent to intimidate larger swaths of government or bodies of people. Just "other CEOs of Health Companies are now scared" is not enough.

      4 replies →