General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Charleston Shooter: Is He Or Isn't He?
Last edited Fri Nov 27, 2015, 01:20 PM - Edit history (16)
Let's get this straightened out once and for all: Did Dylan Roof commit an act of domestic terrorism, or did he not?
First things first: let's all get on the same page in terms of exactly what domestic terrorism IS. Okay then -- according to the Cornell University Legal Information Institute:
(5) 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 to:(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Now, let's look at the evidence available to us:
...Roommate Dalton Tyler told ABC News that Roof was planning something like that for six months...He was big into segregation and other stuff...He said he wanted to start a civil war. He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself."
Christon Scriven, a friend...who is black...told the New York Daily News...He flat out told us he was going to do this stuff...He was looking to kill a bunch of people. He and their other friends assumed he had been joking. Hes weird. You dont know when to take him seriously and when not to, he said.
I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.
Our next order of business is to determine if Roof's actions fit the legal definition of domestic terrorism -- did they:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State? Yes -- shooting people is considered a violation of criminal laws in the United States, including the state of South Carolina.
Appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population? Yes -- his writings and the statements he made to his friends, his very victims, and law enforcement strongly suggest that he intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
Appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion by assassination? Yes -- declaring a civil war on part of the civilian population is certainly a vote of no confidence in government policy.
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States? Yes -- they occurred in the United State of South Carolina.
All that's left do now is determine what part of the civilian population Roof was trying to coerce or intimidate. Well, by his own admissions, Roof intentionally traveled to a place that he knew would contain a lot of black people, and shot nine of them because they were black and he wanted to start a race war against blacks. So his act of domestic terrorism must have been based on race, and the black race in particular -- right?
There are victims on this young mans side of the family...Nobody would have ever thrown them into the whirlwind of events that they are being thrown into...We must find it in our heart at some point in time not only to help those that are victims but to also help his family as well. Gosnells...statement which was aired live on cable news drew the wrath of hordes of furious social media users...
Instead of talking about guns, Perry said, we should be talking about prescription drugs: "It seems to me, again without having all the details about this, that these individuals have been medicated and there may be a real issue in this country from the standpoint of these drugs and how theyre used.
He added that while the shooting was a crime of hate, he didnt know if it should be called a terrorist attack...
Business Insider: Reached for comment, a Perry communications adviser wrote in an email..."When watching the entire interview, it's clear from the context of his comments that Governor Perry meant incident."
Its obviously a crime of hate. We dont know the rationale, but what other rationale could there be?...(Y)ou talk about the importance of prayer at this time, and were now seeing assaults on religious liberty weve never seen before..."
Guest Bishop E. W. Jackson agreed that "most people jump to conclusions about race," and that "we don't know why he went into a church, but he didn't choose a "bar" or "basketball court."
Later, frequent Fox guest and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani theorized that "we don't know the motivation of the person who did this," saying "maybe he hates Christian churches."
And later that day on Fox News Radio, Brian Kilmeade speculated that maybe the shooter "hates Christian churches" or possibly just the state of South Carolina.
Asked again whether the shooting was because of race, Bush added, "I don't know. Looks like to me it was, but we'll find out all the information. It's clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, and they were African-American. You can judge what it is."
Wow -- I almost blew it, and I certainly owe Mr. Roof an apology. There I was, all set to brand him as a race-based domestic terrorist just because he admitted that he was trying to start a race war against blacks! Not once did I consider that Root might have been trying to intimidate or coerce the civilian populations of the religious in general, Christians in particular, the pharmaceutical industry, gun control advocates, or even his own relatives.
Roof told his acquaintances he wanted to start a race war against blacks; he told his victims he was murdering them because they were black; he confessed to law enforcement that he'd tried start a race war against blacks, and how do I thank him? With irresponsible speculating and baseless conclusions!
rocktivity
malaise
(277,091 posts)Rec
CaliforniaPeggy
(151,706 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)doc03
(36,475 posts)news media wants to call it that. He isn't a thug either, he was a troubled youth.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)was jealousy--the most powerful emotion a young man can experience. From what I've read, he had his eye on a girl who chose a black guy over him.
rocktivity
(44,818 posts)I thought maybe his sister was about to marry a minority.
rocktivity
alfie
(522 posts)Eom
rocktivity
(44,818 posts)As if you'd expect anything less...
rocktivity
MADem
(135,425 posts)He had a World Order POV, with colors assigned to continents, pretty much. Hateful asshole. Nutty ideas, but he's completely sane--and full of hate.
yuiyoshida
(42,497 posts)my post
daleanime
(17,796 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)It wasn't attached to any list of demands. It didn't attempt to change any specific US policy. It didn't coerce the American people into doing or not doing anything in particular. It wasn't like Palestinian terrorism against Israel or IRA terrorism against Britain, both of which carried a clear message.
You could certainly call it a hate crime -- even Bush did that when he said, "They hate us for our freedom." But how would it qualify as terrorism? Just because it was aimed at white people?
rocktivity
(44,818 posts)and an attempt to influence the government's mid-East policies -- if only with fear of it happening again.
rocktivity
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I believe it was an attempt to change our foreign policy and to terrorize our people into leaving Muslim countries alone. I think it was the absolute definition of a terrorist act.
salib
(2,116 posts)The definitions makes no mention of a requirement for demands, let alone a Los of demands. Yet OBL did have them. No mention of specific US policy in the definition, yet again OBL had demands.
In fact, bush gave into those demands immediately: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/09/432042/-Bush-surrendered-to-bin-Laden
starroute
(12,977 posts)Terrorism can be used as a weapon of war to strike fear into an enemy population. It can be used by a faction to intimidate voters or to make the ordinary processes of government unsustainable. It can be used to demand the release of political prisoners or a cash mayment. It can be a means by which the disenfranchised make their grievances known in a way that cannot be ignored.
But 9/11 wasn't any of those. It's never been clear who was actually behind it. Bin Laden kinda-sorta took credit for it, but it's pretty clear it couldn't have been coordinated from a cave in Afghanistan. And though we've assumed that the goal was the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia -- which did occur in 2003 -- that's never been entirely clear either.
Perhaps the secrets are all hidden in those 28 pages. Maybe people at the highest levels of the Saudi government pulled it off to get us out of their country and we were so terrified that we not only protected the perpetrators but gave into their demands. If that's true, it would be the revelation to end all revelations, and I'd love to see it come out.
But if it is true, that may be why the Bush administration couldn't clearly define it as an act of terror -- despite using the word "terror" incessantly -- but had to pitch it as a seemingly motiveless hate crime. And that puts it on the same level as the Charleston shootings.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)However, reading all the rightwing bullshit is unbearably nausea-inducing.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Excellent!
Brian66
(13 posts)If he re-loaded five times and "only" killed 9 people, he must be a really bad shot.
Definitely in need of some remedial shooter training, something I'm sure the NRA would be happy to provide.
-none
(1,884 posts)He wanted to make sure.
I don't know about the terrorism part, but it was most diffidently racism. They were shot because they were Black.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,390 posts)Skittles
(157,747 posts)you'd have to be racist to think otherwise
WillyT
(72,631 posts)niyad
(118,979 posts)why we must call dylann roof a terrorist:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026862199
nightscanner59
(802 posts)this hogwash they are peddling. Just in a quick channel surf shortly after this incident I saw empathetic, reasonable reporting on CNN, MSNBC and HLN...
Oh, but Fox... oh, my. Was spreading paranoia about "Now Obama will be coming to take your guns!!!!!" aside from the christian victimization syndrome in attempt to mask this blatantly racist... and yes... terrorist act.
I hope Fox has lost several thousand of the more moderate viewers with this Scroogery.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I'm not particularly wound up over whether "terrorism" is applied -- we've abused and tortured (ahem) that term so much that it doesn't carry much meaning at this point.
But what we're seeing isn't just a string of random criminal events either. And you can be sure that if leftwing extremists shot doctors and bombed clinics, murdered police and draped the bodies in Gadsden flags, or pointed rifles at BLM agents because they "don't recognize the authority of the U.S. government, " we'd have a national call to root out the leaders and organizations behind it in a heartbeat.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)uppityperson
(115,767 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)To be charged under U.S. Code § 2331 he would have to be tried in a US Federal Court. Now it is possible that he could be AFTER he is tried on the state level. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) South Carolina gets the first crack at convicting him. When his trial is over he could be charged and tried in the Federal court, but in the mean time a the federal case could be put together against him concurrent with the trial in South Carolina.
madokie
(51,076 posts)plain and simple. No if and or buts about it
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)dakdirty
(90 posts)What's the difference between the Klan and ISIS? Color of the mask?
Spazito
(53,689 posts)Thanks for all the work you did to put this together.
Yes, he is definitely a terrorist by the very criteria set down in US law.
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)After reading his manifesto it was clear to me that he wasn't attacking specific African Americans who he thought had done wrong, but attacked and killed them because of who they represented.
This was a political act of terror and intimidation. sure, it's possible drugs and mental illnesses may be involved but he had a plan based on white supremacy principle.
rocktivity
(44,818 posts)rocktivity
napkinz
(17,199 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)Heidi
(58,237 posts)rocktivity
(44,818 posts)which might explain the GOP media blitz about taking down the confederate flag (thanks DU-ers Dixiegrrrl and Herding Cats):
rocktivity
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)rocktivity
(44,818 posts)rocktivity
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Yup, we are being so terrible to him, aren't we? We should be ashamed of ourselves for assuming he is a racist domestic terrorist just because he killed 9 black people after they welcomed him into their church with open arms and open hearts. We are being so horrible to the poor little fella.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and have been torturing them to find out more what their buddies are doing before we go after them with drone strikes. Perhaps that is in order for some of these white racist terrorists if they continue to do so, and if we continue to do these kind of things to other people that we define as terrorists.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I wish all questions were this easy...
rocktivity
(44,818 posts)rocktivity
(44,818 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 10:41 AM - Edit history (2)
Michael Moore has offered to pay Bree Newsome's bail and legal fees, but he's about a week late and $125,000 short!
rocktivity
sjk.fly4ever
(11 posts)rocktivity
(44,818 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 22, 2015, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Charleston Shooting Suspect Roof To Be Indicted On Federal Hate Crime ChargesDylann Roof...will face federal hate crime charges along with more than a dozen other serious charges he's already accused of...(T)he Justice Department will unveil (the) charges...today.
We've won a battle, but not the war. Where's the domestic terrorism charge?
rocktivity
rocktivity
(44,818 posts)He also faces federal charges including hate crimes and obstruction of the practice of religion, some of which are also eligible for the death penalty in that system. US attorney general Loretta Lynch has said federal charges were necessary to adequately address a motive that prosecutors believe was unquestionably rooted in racial hate. South Carolina has no state hate crimes law.
Where's the domestic terrorism charge? VIOLENT "obstruction of the practice of religion" surely qualifies as terrorism, especially when there's a pile of criminal intent aforethought!
rocktivity
rocktivity
(44,818 posts)rocktivity