It has to be organized for one. One random person going out and doing something regardless of what they do, isn’t terrorism domestic or otherwise.
And it doesn’t matter, Pam bondy isn’t really charging anyone under the domestic terrorism act. She’s charging folks for malicious destruction of government property. And the reason she can charge them this way, is because Tesla receives financial assistance from the federal government. So this puts them under a clause in the law that allows the Pam to charge them as though they had set fire to Air Force One or something similar.
All of the domestic terrorism stuff, that’s just political propaganda. It doesn’t actually reflect what she is charging people with.
I disagree. Consider racist mass shootings by lone perpetrators. It’s clearly an act attempting to incite terror and tension, many of them make it clear in their manifestos that they’re trying to spark a ‘race war’. But it’s not organized, beyond being the result of stochastic terrorism.
I double checked my info above when you made your comment, I was wrong about it as far as the legal definition too. Your definition would fall under domestic terrorism legally too.
It seems like so far though Pam Bondi is using the malicious destruction of property charge.
It has to be organized for one. One random person going out and doing something regardless of what they do, isn’t terrorism domestic or otherwise.
And it doesn’t matter, Pam bondy isn’t really charging anyone under the domestic terrorism act. She’s charging folks for malicious destruction of government property. And the reason she can charge them this way, is because Tesla receives financial assistance from the federal government. So this puts them under a clause in the law that allows the Pam to charge them as though they had set fire to Air Force One or something similar.
All of the domestic terrorism stuff, that’s just political propaganda. It doesn’t actually reflect what she is charging people with.
I disagree. Consider racist mass shootings by lone perpetrators. It’s clearly an act attempting to incite terror and tension, many of them make it clear in their manifestos that they’re trying to spark a ‘race war’. But it’s not organized, beyond being the result of stochastic terrorism.
I meant the legal definition. But I apparently misread it the other day when I was looking at it.
Ah, right. I’m not familiar enough with US law to realize.
I double checked my info above when you made your comment, I was wrong about it as far as the legal definition too. Your definition would fall under domestic terrorism legally too.
It seems like so far though Pam Bondi is using the malicious destruction of property charge.