Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Terrorism, it was [View all]

Recovered Repug

(1,518 posts)
2. According to 18 USC § 2331
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:10 PM
Jul 2012

(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—
(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.


How does this apply to what Holmes did?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Terrorism, it was [View all] nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 OP
... zappaman Jul 2012 #1
According to 18 USC § 2331 Recovered Repug Jul 2012 #2
Are people scared nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #4
So any act that scares people is automatically terrorism? Recovered Repug Jul 2012 #5
In this case they won't use the term nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #7
So to sum up. Recovered Repug Jul 2012 #14
Conveniently I notice you fail to adress the weapons of mass destruction. nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #15
Conviently I noticed that you failed to address any political motive. Recovered Repug Jul 2012 #16
If I were privy to the pd investigation nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #17
So unless or until a political motive is established, how can it be considered terrorism? Recovered Repug Jul 2012 #20
Go try that one somewhere else nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #26
"Sorry if this makes no sense to you." zappaman Jul 2012 #28
"Going there" IS a political decision. Recovered Repug Jul 2012 #33
(5)(b)(ii) cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #11
Oh come, the guy was as white as you get joeybee12 Jul 2012 #3
What was his political goal? Robb Jul 2012 #6
You go ask him Robb. nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #9
You just said it was terrorism. Robb Jul 2012 #18
You go ask nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #19
It's like diagnosing heart failure over the phone. Robb Jul 2012 #21
Good, it's mutual nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #22
Good to hear. I look forward to the inevitable self-deleted OP. Robb Jul 2012 #23
I look forwards to the ignore nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #24
Does this mean you won't answer a simple question? zappaman Jul 2012 #30
Oh, it gets better. Recovered Repug Jul 2012 #25
Yes, that is what happens when someone learns a new term zappaman Jul 2012 #31
Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #8
How would a universal background check restrict you? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #12
Seems to me the major reason they won't is because it wasn't. Brickbat Jul 2012 #10
Terrorism is a tactic TouchOfGray Jul 2012 #13
Agreed, it's DOMESTIC Terrorism Iggy Jul 2012 #27
Good lord everyone!!! greytdemocrat Jul 2012 #29
"Terrorism, it was" zappaman Jul 2012 #32
.. Robb Jul 2012 #34
what movie was this from? demtenjeep Jul 2012 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Terrorism, it was»Reply #2