The terrorism charge is because that’s the only way New York state can charge first degree murder. Weird as hell law.
They want to punish him harder than the law would allow so they’re charging him with something he clearly didn’t do? Am I understanding that correctly?
There are plenty of weird laws out there, but if the state is going to pull tricks like this, then do the laws mean anything or are they just weapons to be redefined at will?
they are really this stupid. ladies and gentlemen the “ruling class”:
“lets just throw in the word terrorism so it sounds veeery serious and people will stop rooting for him”
Terrorism straight up just means “violence but offensive to the particular sensitivities of the elite.” Always has. Go back to the Paris Commune and it’s the same shit.
Looks like a nice album cover.
…properly in a sentencing
That’s some good shit.
“Sentencing”, as in determining a sentence (punishment or remedy) for a crime. Still incorrect, though, since he was only charged at this point, not sentenced.
Completely agree. If I was the headline writer I’d have considered myself fucking brilliant but held it back because he isn’t sentenced and it’s inaccurate.
But then I thought deeper and considering the terror charge, image above, and US justice system - and decided maybe it is accurate that he’s effectively sentenced.
Phil McKraken
Not to be confused with the famous visual artist, Phil McCracken.
Clearly the aforementioned schools are not teaching law or idiots like you might realize the murder charges are state specific.
What is terrorism? And why does the United States support it?
…and a public option is extreme?
Terrorism is one option of a handful of prerequisites for a First Degree Murder Charge in New York State, which Luigi is being charged with.
If he had killed a person in another state he likely wouldn’t have Terrorism included in his charges despite it being the same crime.
Step into the arena, many many people far smarter than you or me have hashed this debate and still have no consensus.
There is no general consensus on the definition of terrorism. The difficulty of defining terrorism lies in the risk it entails of taking positions.
The political value of the term currently prevails over its legal one. Left to its political meaning, terrorism easily falls prey to change that suits the interests of particular states at particular times. The Taliban and Osama bin Laden were once called freedom fighters (mujahideen) and backed by the CIA when they were resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Now they are on top of the international terrorist lists.
General Assembly Resolution 42/159 acknowledges that the cause of terrorism often lies in the “misery, frustration, grievance and despair” that leads people to seek radical change. The resolution identifies the root causes of terrorism as occupation, colonialism and racism. A definition of terrorism should thus be comprehensive, in order to avoid double standards.
Well it’s a NY State charge and a prerequisite for First Degree Murder in the state so they clearly have the legal definition you spent your life searching for. Stupid.
If what Luigi did was terrorism then I support terrorism! Viva La terror!!!
Why is this terrorism, but a random lady shot in the Bronx is not?
Because the prosecutors didn’t pursue a first degree murder charge, or the murderer had other qualifications for the charge.
Going out of your way to not answer the question lol.
Why do you kill puppies with your heel?
