When Is A Crime Terrorism?

Or, is terrorism crime? Much hinges on the distinctions, even given the Democrats desire to coddle both terrorists and criminals to their little hearts content. Ever notice how the worse is someone or something, the more vigorously the far Left wishes to embrace and protect it? They destroy tradition and define down deviance from the extremes because it's the most effective way to do it.

The tragic events at Virginia Tech were the work of a psychopath (that left untreated, developed into a full blown psychosis), to be sure. The question that must be addressed is whether or not the events of that horrible day was primarily an act of terror or a crime.

The sort of intelligent insight into the Va Tech tragedy ... you won't get much of it from the MSM.

Comments

[Kelvin]

OMG, it WAS terrorism!!! South Korea must be liberated immediately!

[Zifnab]

I think terrorism implies a greater agenda. This kid was a member of a one-man suicide cult. What's more, is it a crime if you can't punish the perpetrator? I mean, he shot himself in the face at the end of it. Other than kicking the body around like a hacky-sack, there's not much more you can do to punish him.

Thus, the emphasis can't really fall on "how do we catagorize this" but "how do we prevent this". If the kid had saved 32 other people a stake in his own misery and just blown his own brains out from the start, this would be a private tragedy instead of a public one.

And if you know how to rid the world of tragedy entirely, I'd love to hear it. But, for all the flak the idea gets, there is something to be said for linking this with Islamic Extremism at large. The persecution complex, the martyr syndrome, the feeling that everyone is against you and the only way you can fight back is by killing them - how to overcome that sort of spiraling psychosis is a riddle we don't have the answer to yet.

Democratic "coddling" attempts to bridge the gap between the sane and the insane. Republican "hard-lining" attempts to wall off one group from the other in self-defense or pre-emptively strike out at preceived aggressors.

The first method can fail because some people just prefer to be martyrs for their causes. The second can fail because it simply cultivates the same feelings of isolation and persecution that were the root of the problem.

I've yet to see an effective instant cure-all. Only time and patience and an inevitable willingness to compromise seem to work in the long run.

[Purple Avenger]

"What's more, is it a crime if you can't punish the perpetrator?"

What kind of retarded statement is this? Obviously he did crimes PRIOR to becoming unavailable for prosecution.

[Hard Right]

He's not a terrorist per the definition. He did it out a false sense of revenge. Not for a political or religious purpose. I'd say he's a just a mass murderer and not a terrorist.

[Cindi]

So much for the "Terroristic Threat laws which cover acts or threats of physical violence.

I suppose instead of the Murders at VT, we should call it the incident at VT? After all, we no longer are fighting a GWOT

[Cindi]

He's not a terrorist.

According to his grandpa, he's a SON OF A BITCH.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_headline=we-are-glad-he-is-dead-by-cho-s-family--&method=full&objectid=18931479&siteid=89520-name_page.html

[Zifnab]

"What kind of retarded statement is this? Obviously he did crimes PRIOR to becoming unavailable for prosecution."

Let me rephrase. He can never be convicted in a court of law. He can never be a "criminal" per say. Labeling him a "criminal" doesn't really do us any good, since we can't punish or rehabilitate him after the fact. Calling the incident a "crime" doesn't serve much good because it can never be redressed. He was as much a criminal as he was a force of nature - rampaging through the campus and causing endless grief and pain, then vanishing into untouchable oblivion.

But it's all semantics, so why going pawing through the dictionary trying to define him as anything at all except "crazy murderer guy." The question of "what do we do now?" and "how can we keep this from happening again?" can't be answered by giving Cho a label.

[Cindi]

If not mistaken, removing labels is the cause of this murderer being on the loose.

[Hard Right]

So because he can't be tried in a court of law because he's dead, he's not a criminal? He's in a grey zone? Ummm, nope. He's a mass murderer. He WAS a criminal-period. Same page, right?

I say arm the teachers and increase campus security, and arm them too if they arean't allready.

[jong]

Act of a homicidal maniac - yes. Terrorism? Definitely not. He's got no network, no one to carry on, no real cause others buy into. So no, he's not a terrorist. Unless you want to buy into the whole Culture of Fear agenda where everything scares you. Me, I'm no more scared of the world out there today than I was before the shooting. I know lots of people that have died in car wrecks, motorcycle wrecks, from various diseases, in weird accidents, or committed suicide. Some of simple old age. Many millions to one, those are the things that are going to kill you, not terrorism.