Domestic Terrorism - Should We Be Taking This More Seriously?

[Athena]

'Street of Dreams' fires coincide with UW ecoterror trial
12:53 PM PST on Monday, March 3, 2008

By DEBORAH FELDMAN / KING 5 News



TACOMA, Wash. - The "Street of Dreams" arsons near Woodinville coincide with the trial of one alleged Earth Liberation Front (ELF) member at the federal courthouse in Tacoma.

Jurors began deliberations in the case against Briana Waters, 32, on Friday. Prosecutors say she was the lookout in 2001 when the Earth Liberation Front set fire to the Center for Urban Horticulture on the campus in Seattle.

The arson cost the university $7 million to replace the building. The ELF claimed responsibility for the fire because it believed, mistakenly, the center was genetically modifying trees...

Full Story

----------

The most recent attack in Western Washington committed by the ELF reminds us that we're growing some very dangerous, unstable people who are looking to do damage to communities here for political gain, yet, we never seem to hear about them until they do something like this.

Why? Do we not consider them a threat because they're targeting less popular factions of society like developers, labs that test on animals and abortion clinics? Will we continue to be complacent until they attack people that are viewed in a more favorable light?

I really feel like we should punish those within our society who use terrorism to affect change especially harshly...But this woman will probably get a slap on the wrist.

[swivel]

These kids, when caught, get the death penalty within the year.

[Athena]

These kids, when caught, get the death penalty within the year.

Actually, they'll probably get fines and probation. All the PETA and ELF fuckers I've ever known have been trustfundians from affluent families.

[TXChris]

Why? Do we not consider them a threat because they're targeting less popular factions of society like developers, labs that test on animals and abortion clinics? Will we continue to be complacent until they attack people that are viewed in a more favorable light?

It's because they're not Muslim!

Seriously, it is my opinion that domestic terrorism of this sort deserves the same effort we are putting forth against terrorism throughout the rest of the world. One is not worse than the other, in my opinion.

[swivel]

It's because they're not Muslim!

Seriously, it is my opinion that domestic terrorism of this sort deserves the same effort we are putting forth against terrorism throughout the rest of the world. One is not worse than the other, in my opinion.

Well, ELF tries as hard as they can to NOT kill people. Which should probably factor in somewhere.

[TXChris]

I am not sure if you were being facetious in your post or not. I would hope you were. Obviously, setting bombs and fires are inherently dangerous, so whether one meant to hurt another or not, they should be tried the same.

[Athena]

I am not sure if you were being facetious in your post or not. I would hope you were. Obviously, setting bombs and fires are inherently dangerous, so whether one meant to hurt another or not, they should be tried the same.

Well, not exactly. Intent is a primary consideration when determining what charges apply. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter.

[TXChris]

Obviously. But in my opinion, when setting a fire or setting off a bomb, intent to hurt another should not be a consideration. Those things are inherently very dangerous and easily can get out of control. Just because one was not able to control the fire/bombing, or did not consider the full ramifications of his/her actions should not equate, in my opinion, to leniency. Responsibility for one's actions and all, you know.

[Athena]

So, you don't agree with intent being considered?

[swivel]

Texas, you are equating burning some houses, which were under construction, with the flying of planes into skyscrapers.

You'll have more luck in the Civil War thread.

Actually... you have a snowball's chance in hell either way. Why don't you post some pics of your Jeep?

[TXChris]

So, you don't agree with intent being considered?

Not at all when it comes to this. They shouldn't be setting fires and bombs in the first place. These, once again, are inherently dangerous to begin with. They should be willing to accept punishment for whatever damage occurs, and if that happens to be the loss of life, then they should be punished accordingly.

[TXChris]

Texas, you are equating burning some houses, which were under construction, with the flying of planes into skyscrapers.

You'll have more luck in the Civil War thread.

Actually... you have a snowball's chance in hell either way. Why don't you post some pics of your Jeep?

And just when I thought you had given up being an ass. LOL

I'm equating the "inherent danger" of setting a fire and bombs with the intention of destroying something with ANY kind of terrorism, whether it be people being shot, planes being flown into buildings, or whatever else happens to kill people in the name of a belief.

If setting a fire or setting off a bomb, in order to reach the end it did, inadvertently kills another human being, then why give them any leniency? Just because they didn't intend the death doesn't make it any worse. They were being negligent in doing what they did in the first place, much less not considering the full ramification of their actions.

[Morbid]

Obviously, setting bombs and fires are inherently dangerous, so whether one meant to hurt another or not, they should be tried the same.

Wow. In the drunk driving discussions, isn't this the exact opposite of what you were saying there? I mean, if an ELF member didn't actually hurt someone, nor was it their intention, how is that any different from the drunk driver who got home safely, and also didn't intend to hurt someone.

You are not suggesting that an ELF member should be charged as if he committed a crime that didn't happen, are you?

[swivel]

It's because they're not Muslim!

Seriously, it is my opinion that domestic terrorism of this sort deserves the same effort we are putting forth against terrorism throughout the rest of the world. One is not worse than the other, in my opinion.

Here is your quote, since your memory doesn't go back an hour.

You said that one is not worse than the other.

Domestic Terrorism OF THIS SORT. Was your original words.

OF THIS SORT is eco-terrorism. Attacks on lifestyles. THE OTHER SORT is blood terrorism, attacks on people.


I thought you had given up on being an idiot...

[TXChris]

No, not really at all. Driving cannot be equated to setting a bomb or a fire. The latter two acts are done with the sole intention of destroying "something." I'm not saying that just because they set the fire they should be tried as though they killed someone. My position is that if someone where killed in the course of what they were doing there should be no leniency shown just because they didn't intend to hurt anyone.

[Morbid]

No, not really at all. Driving DRUNK cannot be equated to setting a bomb or a fire. The latter two acts are done with the sole intention of destroying "something."

Fixed that for you. And yes, when combined with your earlier statement of

They were being negligent in doing what they did in the first place, much less not considering the full ramification of their actions.

I cannot tell which of the three actions you are talking about.

[TXChris]

Here is your quote, since your memory doesn't go back an hour.

You said that one is not worse than the other.

Domestic Terrorism OF THIS SORT. Was your original words.

OF THIS SORT is eco-terrorism. Attacks on lifestyles. THE OTHER SORT is blood terrorism, attacks on people.


I thought you had given up on being an idiot...

And I thought you had given up being an arrogant ass.

Once again, if someone is hurt or killed in the act of terrorism than the person pursuing such an act should face no leniency simply because they did not intend on hurting that person.

[swivel]

No, not really at all. Driving cannot be equated to setting a bomb or a fire. The latter two acts are done with the sole intention of destroying "something." I'm not saying that just because they set the fire they should be tried as though they killed someone. My position is that if someone where killed in the course of what they were doing there should be no leniency shown just because they didn't intend to hurt anyone.

Your mental gymnastics are entertaining, to say the least.

The drunk driver is not intending to hurt anyone.
The ELF member who sets a bomb, in a home under construction, at night, is not intending to hurt anyone.

The risk of the former hurting someone is much greater than the latter, since the latter is actually taking precautions to ensure nobody is hurt (looking through the house, barricading doors after setting the device, keeping a look-out to the last minute). The drunk KNOWS they are putting people at risk, but are willing to gamble a little.

You need to start backpeddling real quick before everyone here decides you can't be trusted to reason honestly, and starts ignoring you completely. Morbid pointed out blatant hypocrisy, and you are best to just laugh at yourself a little.

[Morbid]

And I thought you had given up being an arrogant ass.

Once again, if someone is hurt or killed in the act of terrorism than the person pursuing such an act should face no leniency simply because they did not intend on hurting that person.

I never even saw that argument. In fact, I thought the statement was that a eco-terrorist should be charged as if he had killed someone, even if they hadn't/

[Athena]

Well, there's some compromise, here.

If someone is doing something stupid, but not criminal, they are charged with manslaughter, typically. This, I agree with. Intent should absolutely be considered. The difference between intentionally and unintentionally killing someone ought to be reflected in the charges applied.

However, if someone is killed unintentionally during the commission of a felony, the criminal can be charged with felony murder. I bet, had someone died in a case like this, the people would be brought up on felony murder charges (assuming my state has provisions for something like that).


Note: I'm not entirely sure that I'm down with the logic behind the establishment of Felony Murder provisions, I am simply pointing out that the provision exists.

Edit - So long as we're on the topic...Swivel, what do you think about Felony Murder provisions?

[TXChris]

Fixed that for you. And yes, when combined with your earlier statement of


I cannot tell which of the three actions you are talking about.

You are talking about two entirely different situations here. One is a person driving drunk with the sole intention of getting home. The other is a person who is purposely destroying something because of their belief.

[TXChris]

I never even saw that argument. In fact, I thought the statement was that a eco-terrorist should be charged as if he had killed someone, even if they hadn't/

My bad. I didn't explain it thoroughly enough, I guess. Sorry about that.

[TXChris]

Your mental gymnastics are entertaining, to say the least.

The drunk driver is not intending to hurt anyone.
The ELF member who sets a bomb, in a home under construction, at night, is not intending to hurt anyone.

The risk of the former hurting someone is much greater than the latter, since the latter is actually taking precautions to ensure nobody is hurt (looking through the house, barricading doors after setting the device, keeping a look-out to the last minute). The drunk KNOWS they are putting people at risk, but are willing to gamble a little.

You need to start backpeddling real quick before everyone here decides you can't be trusted to reason honestly, and starts ignoring you completely. Morbid pointed out blatant hypocrisy, and you are best to just laugh at yourself a little.

As I pointed out to Morbid, you are talking about two entirely different situations here. One is a person driving drunk with the sole intention of getting home. The other is a person who is purposely destroying something because of their belief.

[swivel]

And I thought you had given up being an arrogant ass.

Being smarter than you doesn't make me arrogant, it just makes me a hominid. And why would I stop being an ass? What is in it for me? I enjoy smacking your ass up and down "Three Things", doesn't mean I can't follow the rules elsewhere. You always jump to this tactic when you know you have lost. I accept your defeat. Wave a handkerchief next time.

Once again, if someone is hurt or killed in the act of terrorism than the person pursuing such an act should face no leniency simply because they did not intend on hurting that person.

You can't be serious. Are you really this stupid? Is everyone seeing this?

Are you saying that the hippie who is sitting in a tree, to prevent it from being cut down, and how falls out of the tree, landing on and killing a reporter should be treated the same as a Muslim who blows himself up, killing a reporter? For real?

[swivel]

Edit - So long as we're on the topic...Swivel, what do you think about Felony Murder provisions?

I think they are great. I also know for a FACT that they do not apply in cases like this. There has to be an obvious danger to human life in the felony for the Felony Murder Rule to be applied.

There is a FAR GREATER likelihood of a severely inebriated driver getting the Felony Murder Rule applied than an ELF attack.

[TXChris]

Being smarter than you doesn't make me arrogant, it just makes me a hominid. And why would I stop being an ass? What is in it for me? I enjoy smacking your ass up and down "Three Things", doesn't mean I can't follow the rules elsewhere. You always jump to this tactic when you know you have lost. I accept your defeat. Wave a handkerchief next time.



You can't be serious. Are you really this stupid? Is everyone seeing this?

Are you saying that the hippie who is sitting in a tree, to prevent it from being cut down, and how falls out of the tree, landing on and killing a reporter should be treated the same as a Muslim who blows himself up, killing a reporter? For real?

You just seem to be missing the point here, as usual. Falling out of a tree is not committing an act of destruction. Purposely blowing up something, or setting fire to something, is a destructive act. I don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding this.

[swivel]

You just seem to be missing the point here, as usual.

Every time you call me an arrogant ass, I get to call you a hypocrite. You are the dickhead who always acts like an arrogant ass. I am just an ass. But, since I have never before called you out on this, it reserves the hypocrisy for YOU! That is two counts of hypocrisy in this one thread. The same shit I kept busting you for the last time you got stoned and tried to tangle with me.

Falling out of a tree is not committing an act of destruction. Purposely blowing up something, or setting fire to something, is a destructive act. I don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding this.

Oh, so now you are qualifying your argument with the term "act of destruction", eh? Backpeddling a little, are we? Good for you... you might back up far enough to find yourself in a defensible position.

What does burning a house down do? It removes a structure. What is the real cost? Time (hours of labor) and money, the biggest cost here being money. What does sitting in a tree do? It damages the owner of the tree by costing them time and money. The lack of progress in building by stifling there is no different than the lack of progress after the house burns down.

But really, there isn't any reason to point our how stupid you are being when this is a new, backpeddled, position. Do we need to go back to the first page and keep making an ass out of you, or would you like to state your new positions clearly, and start from here?

[Athena]

Note: I'm not entirely sure that I'm down with the logic behind the establishment of Felony Murder provisions, I am simply pointing out that the provision exists.

Edit - So long as we're on the topic...Swivel, what do you think about Felony Murder provisions?

And since I want absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this ridiculousness... :p

I'll take the opportunity to expound upon my thought process regarding "implied intent", the logic behind both Felony Murder and harsh DUI sentencing.

"Implied intent" is a concept employed in the application of charges and sentencing in a number of criminal acts. The belief is that you can reach a level of recklessness that automatically converts to intent. This is a little sketchy, as it tends to be unevenly applied. Expressed intent has always been a central focus regarding the classification of offenses (voluntary vs. involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter vs. murder, etc.). For the most part, it's either that you intended to hurt someone or you don't.

The most common example applied to Felony Murder is the armed robber who accidentally discharges his gun while committing the robbery. He didn't mean to kill anyone, but his behavior was SO reckless, intent to injure is implied. I think I'm mostly okay with this.

Unfortunately, that logic is applied to cases where the recklessness is not so blatant. Felony Murder can be applied to other major participants in the criminal act. Say there are two robbers. The one who accidentally discharged the gun and killed the victim is shot by cops and dies himself. The one who didn't even have a gun can be brought up on felony murder charges. I'm less okay with this. In this situation, the felony murder rule totally undermines the role intent ought to play in our justice system. Does the failure in the second example mean that the rule should be done away with? Perhaps.

[Athena]

I also know for a FACT that they do not apply in cases like this. There has to be an obvious danger to human life in the felony for the Felony Murder Rule to be applied.

You think so, huh? I understand the fact that obvious danger to human life needs to be present, but I don't know enough about what typically constitutes obvious danger in the eyes of the law.

[swivel]

The most common example applied to Felony Murder is the armed robber who accidentally discharges his gun while committing the robbery. He didn't mean to kill anyone, but his behavior was SO reckless, intent to injure is implied. I think I'm mostly okay with this.

Unfortunately, that logic is applied to cases where the recklessness is not so blatant. Felony Murder can be applied to other major participants in the criminal act. Say there are two robbers. The one who accidentally discharged the gun and killed the victim is shot by cops and dies himself. The one who didn't even have a gun can be brought up on felony murder charges. I'm less okay with this. In this situation, the felony murder rule totally undermines the role intent ought to play in our justice system. Does the failure in the second example mean that the rule should be done away with? Perhaps.

Yeah, yeah, I've had this argument a dozen times on SciForums. Oddly, everyone used the exact same scenario that you present here (with the robbers and who discharged). I got in a heated debate with a guy on SciForums, and I was CONVINCED that this dude was the sockpuppet of a different dude, who I had the same debate with. They were using the same lines, word-for-word.

I eventually figured out that both of them were referencing Wikipedia exclusively for their arguments, and after pointing this out, never heard from them again on the subject.

But, since this is probably just a coincidence here, the last thing I'll say on the subject is that this is a messy area in judicial theory. Which is why each case MUST be looked at in a vacuum of sorts. Which is precisely why TXChris is wrong to equate various threats as being "no different". Court proceedings are slow enough to take the details of each case into account, and don't require the shitty logic that Chris is employing here.

Which, I suspect, is just coming from his hatred of the war in Iraq, his desire to defend Muslim Extremists, and his loathing of his own country.