Brian Thompson is not a politician, nor did he have plans to become one, nor was he in the public eye. This killing was public but it was not specifically publicized beyond just being a broad-daylight street killing which happens literally dozens of times daily across America. There wasn’t even a manifesto until the police “found” one inside of the backpack that they “found” on Luigi without due process. Why would this be considered politically motivated?
And if it is considered politically motivated, while having nothing to do with politics or politicians, then where does that definition end?
This is partially me being snarky to make a point but this is also a real question. I don’t think there are any grounds to call this “terrorism” on account of being “politically motivated”. However, it sure is being called this in court. I know the reason why this is (scared rich boys want this to be a capital offense), but I do not understand the legal reasoning why.
I worry about the manifesto. Supposedly, they have some stuff ‘by him’ along the same lines on a substack or something.
If he gets fucked, it’ll likely be on this level, something that is loosely defined, used as a hammer and the jury being told they’ll be forced to apply the logic of it. The police and prosecutors are being led around by their noses to make sure he’s held as an example to keep corporate america untouchable.
That’s … a definition of “terrorism,” I suppose. I thought it was understood to be systemic and used against a general populace. This was a single, targeted killing.
Putting quotes around the word doesn’t change anything. He can still be designated a terrorist and held indefinitely without charge or trial.
I don’t think he’s a terrorist. But my opinion doesn’t matter.
My point is that it’s just a magical justification for torture.
That’s fair. But at the same time, I think his actions fit the definition of terrorism - politically motivated violence - to the letter.
Brian Thompson is not a politician, nor did he have plans to become one, nor was he in the public eye. This killing was public but it was not specifically publicized beyond just being a broad-daylight street killing which happens literally dozens of times daily across America. There wasn’t even a manifesto until the police “found” one inside of the backpack that they “found” on Luigi without due process. Why would this be considered politically motivated?
And if it is considered politically motivated, while having nothing to do with politics or politicians, then where does that definition end?
This is partially me being snarky to make a point but this is also a real question. I don’t think there are any grounds to call this “terrorism” on account of being “politically motivated”. However, it sure is being called this in court. I know the reason why this is (scared rich boys want this to be a capital offense), but I do not understand the legal reasoning why.
I worry about the manifesto. Supposedly, they have some stuff ‘by him’ along the same lines on a substack or something.
If he gets fucked, it’ll likely be on this level, something that is loosely defined, used as a hammer and the jury being told they’ll be forced to apply the logic of it. The police and prosecutors are being led around by their noses to make sure he’s held as an example to keep corporate america untouchable.
his actions? luigi hasn’t done anything but look similar
That’s … a definition of “terrorism,” I suppose. I thought it was understood to be systemic and used against a general populace. This was a single, targeted killing.