[Northern Light]

In the above, discussion, as a personal take, I'm inclined to @afransen 's view above that an act of property damage or other criminal act is already covered by criminal law, and that it ought to be prosecuted as such, generally, with the motive being a consideration for sentencing.

I tend to have real concerns over politically motivated charge stacking/inflation. Its also not as if the U.S. doesn't generally allow criminal sentences of a length/severity that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in much of the west.

That said.........the FBI's rather broad definition of terrorism, which doesn't generally correspond with its more typically understood vernacular use, probably does cover the event described, whether it ought to or not.

From: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

An arson charge under Nevada Law would carry the following penalty range:

Source- AI Overview - google search

Having reviewed the above statues, the most likely charge would be third-degree arson. The first generally applies to residence/dwelling or occupied by private property. The second to abandoned homes/dwellings/structures.

So, the person could be facing 1 to 4 years in jail plus a $5,000 fine for each count laid.

A terrorism enhancement could increase that penalty range substantially.

***

Worth noting that none of the January 6th actors were convicted of terrorism or sentence enhanced on that basis.. Though, some were convicted of seditious conspiracy and initially faced sentences up to 22 years. Of course, President Trump outright pardoned all but 14 convicted offenders..........and for the balance, immediately commuted their sentences to 'time served' So none will have served more than 2 years 10m, post-sentencing. (I'm not going back to find arrest dates and bail records)

 

[kEiThZ]

Worth noting that none of the January 6th actors were convicted of terrorism or sentence enhanced on that basis..

A mistake on the part of the Biden administration. Allow political violence and you'll get more of it.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I guess it's the case of not all political violence is terrorism, while all terrorism is most certainly political violence. So fire bombing a Tesla dealership, along with the burning of the Bastille, are certainly acts of political violence in the example, they are not really acts terrorism in the reasonably understood definitions of those terms, as far as I am aware...unless someone wants to make it that agenda.

...I agree however, that acts of any violence should not be encouraged. And violence should always be the last resort in only desperate situations that are given if even that...because at the end of the day, violence is a double edge sword that can be both wielded by citizens and their government oppressors alike. /sigh

 

[Admiral Beez]

A mistake on the part of the Biden administration. Allow political violence and you'll get more of it.

The whole sh#tshow in the US is on Biden. Imagine instead, it’s Jan 2022, two years into his term, Biden takes to the press room and declares, “as promised in the 2019 campaign, I would be a transitional president, and it’s now time to pass the torch. I will not be running in 2024 and ask that the DNC prepare a competitive convention in 2023.” We’d have no Kamala, and instead someone likely unexpected will shine.

 

[zang]

The whole sh#tshow in the US is on Biden. Imagine instead, it’s Jan 2022, two years into his term, Biden takes to the press room and declares, “as promised in the 2019 campaign, I would be a transitional president, and it’s now time to pass the torch. I will not be running in 2024 and ask that the DNC prepare a competitive convention in 2023.” We’d have no Kamala, and instead someone likely unexpected will shine.

It would likely still have been the same. The DNC would've just put up Gavin Newsom or Pete Buttigieg then, and neither would be tenable to the right. The DNC would still have had many of the same party advisors and economic and political grievances would have continued to sway people to the right.

Would any moderate Democrat have taken a hard stance against Israel? Would a Dem have vowed to cut off Ukraine? Would a Dem have declared war on DEI and trans sports athletes? Would any Democrat have told the US people they're "[…]going to become so rich you’re not going to know where to spend all that money."

We already know the answer is No.

These were the things voters wanted, right or (most of them) wrong. The Democrat at the top wasn't what mattered.

There are likely two Democrats who could've swayed the election back to sanity.

First, Bernie Sanders, who isn't even an actual Democrat. He's already considered "too old" and "too socialist" to ever again come close to winning the party's nomination. They may want fresh new faces, but only if they're able to fall in line. Bernie ain't that.

Second, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's considered "too young" and "too socialist" to even get the vote for Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee over the mealy mouthed human napkin that is Gerry Connolly. The dude is currently dealing with Esophageal Cancer at age 74, and the establishment considered him a safer bet than the savviest, smartest pit bull they've had in their party in forever.

Both Bernie and AOC have steadfastly kept their ears to the ground during their entire careers and know how to message to average Americans in a meaningful way. Sure, neither would likely pull votes from the far right, but it's not the far right that determines elections in that country.

It seems like maybe party members are *finally*, maybe starting to wake up (especially in calling AOC to primary Chuck Schumer), but it certainly wasn't going to happen before this past election, and it may already be too late. While the party desperately needs to hit rock bottom, hitting rock bottom doesn't always give one the resolve to claw their way back to the top.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

A mistake on the part of the Biden administration. Allow political violence and you'll get more of it.

I don't think you can necessarily lay it on Biden - he was not wrong to maintain some semblance of executive-judicial separation, and Jan 6 attackers were by and large successfully convicted (to varying degrees in their sentencing). The problem here is that we always knew that presidential pardon is a get out of jail card. It really is a power that should not exist.

The whole sh#tshow in the US is on Biden. Imagine instead, it’s Jan 2022, two years into his term, Biden takes to the press room and declares, “as promised in the 2019 campaign, I would be a transitional president, and it’s now time to pass the torch. I will not be running in 2024 and ask that the DNC prepare a competitive convention in 2023.” We’d have no Kamala, and instead someone likely unexpected will shine.

Wouldn't necessarily be the panacea that you saw it. Less messy than the last minute withdrawl from the race; sure - but there is no guarantee whoever you got as a replacement will perform any better - and draw their base to vote.

AoD

 

[PinkLucy]

Agree. No shining star was coming forward. American politics likes to keep dragging out the same old same old

 

[lenaitch]

In the above, discussion, as a personal take, I'm inclined to @afransen 's view above that an act of property damage or other criminal act is already covered by criminal law, and that it ought to be prosecuted as such, generally, with the motive being a consideration for sentencing.

I tend to have real concerns over politically motivated charge stacking/inflation. Its also not as if the U.S. doesn't generally allow criminal sentences of a length/severity that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in much of the west.

That said.........the FBI's rather broad definition of terrorism, which doesn't generally correspond with its more typically understood vernacular use, probably does cover the event described, whether it ought to or not.

View attachment 637819
From: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

An arson charge under Nevada Law would carry the following penalty range:

View attachment 637820

Source- AI Overview - google search

Having reviewed the above statues, the most likely charge would be third-degree arson. The first generally applies to residence/dwelling or occupied by private property. The second to abandoned homes/dwellings/structures.

So, the person could be facing 1 to 4 years in jail plus a $5,000 fine for each count laid.

A terrorism enhancement could increase that penalty range substantially.

***

Worth noting that none of the January 6th actors were convicted of terrorism or sentence enhanced on that basis.. Though, some were convicted of seditious conspiracy and initially faced sentences up to 22 years. Of course, President Trump outright pardoned all but 14 convicted offenders..........and for the balance, immediately commuted their sentences to 'time served' So none will have served more than 2 years 10m, post-sentencing. (I'm not going back to find arrest dates and bail records)

One difference between our system and that of the US is criminal law (arson, etc.) is the purview of the individual state, but terrorism (and assuming hate crime) is federal law. State law enforcement have no authority WRT to federal crime and visa versa. Whether a case is made out to invoke federal charges I guess remains to be seen, but if the FBI needs to claim federal jurisdiction in order to investigate. In terrorism/hate crime investigations, the ultimate act - the what - might be criminal (arson, assault, etc.) its the motivation or intend - the why - that makes to difference.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think you can necessarily lay it on Biden - he was not wrong to maintain some semblance of executive-judicial separation, and Jan 6 attackers were by and large successfully convicted (to varying degrees of sentencing). The problem here is that we always knew that presidential pardon as a get out of jail card. It really is a power that should not exist.

AoD

Biden picked a Republican AG who convicted a bunch of rioters. Refused to go after the main instigators. And refused to call it what it was: terrorism.

I guess it's the case of not all political violence is terrorism, while all terrorism is most certainly political violence. So fire bombing a Tesla dealership, along with the burning of the Bastille, are certainly acts of political violence in the example, they are not really acts terrorism in the reasonably understood definitions of those terms, as far as I am aware...unless someone wants to make it that agenda.

In my quarter century in the military, the definition I have taught has always been the same. Political or ideologically motivated violence that aims to intimidate a group or the wider public is terrorism.

Burning Teslas, in the hopes of intimidating current owners or potential customers, is terrorism. Storming Congress to intimidate Congressmen and Senators? Terrorism.

Making excuses because you like/agree with the cause removes all credibility to combat it when the side you don't like is resorting to it.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

In my quarter century in the military, the definition I have taught has always been the same. Political or ideologically motivated violence that aims to intimidate a group or the wider public is terrorism.

Burning Teslas, in the hopes of intimidating current owners or potential customers, is terrorism. Storming Congress to intimidate Congressmen and Senators? Terrorism.

Making excuses because you like/agree with the cause removes all credibility to combat it when the side you don't like is resorting to it.

Somewhere collecting dust in the library of my memes there's that saying, "You keeping using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means." As my quarter of a century experience of being an anarcho-syndicalist that distrusts authority, that's likely a bad way of looking at it, to put it mildly. As it also gives powers the excuses to suppress such, perceived, imagined or otherwise, without questioning, accountability and/or consequence...as aptly demonstrated by the jurisdiction below us in the subject matter.

...so with that said, I am going to have agree to disagree on that point. And move on. Because I don't think any minds will be change in the parleying of that no true Scotsman here. >.<

 

[Admiral Beez]

This is horrific. Ottawa needs to declare a travel advisory now.

I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped

I was stuck in a freezing cell without explanation despite eventually having lawyers and media attention. Yet, compared with others, I was lucky

www.theguardian.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

Wouldn't necessarily be the panacea that you saw it. Less messy than the last minute withdrawl from the race; sure - but there is no guarantee whoever you got as a replacement will perform any better - and draw their base to vote.

There are no guarantees. But in the 2008 election everyone said it was "Hilary's turn".... but with a competitive DNC out from nowhere came the junior senator from Illinois. Maybe there would have been another Obama in the wings, someone we haven't considered. Though against Trump in 2024 I would not want to run anything but a straight white guy. I bet Walz would have smoked Trump.

 

[zang]

In my quarter century in the military, the definition I have taught has always been the same. Political or ideologically motivated violence that aims to intimidate a group or the wider public is terrorism.

Burning Teslas, in the hopes of intimidating current owners or potential customers, is terrorism.

Intimidation is a blanket definition for terrorism?

That's dangerous territory you're venturing into here. Especially when the target has almost exclusively been Tesla dealerships, and not the vehicle's end-users.

There's a reason why I mentioned The Boston Tea Party in an earlier post. The Tea Party intentionally attacked a joint stock corporation (The British East India Company) in bed with the Crown. It intended to send a message to the government through destruction of capital. The parallels here aren't imaginary.

Storming Congress to intimidate Congressmen and Senators? Terrorism.

Yes, but I'm sorry, burning Tesla cars on dealership lots is not anywhere comparable to a very large and sparsely armed group threatening death, and attempting to overthrow the results of a fair election.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Intimidation is a blanket definition for terrorism?

That's dangerous territory you're venturing into here. Especially when the target has almost exclusively been Tesla dealerships, and not the vehicle's end-users.

There's a reason why I mentioned The Boston Tea Party in an earlier post. The Tea Party intentionally attacked a joint stock corporation (The British East India Company) in bed with the Crown. It intended to send a message to the government through destruction of capital. The parallels here aren't imaginary.

Yes, but I'm sorry, burning Tesla cars on dealership lots is not anywhere comparable to a very large and sparsely armed group threatening death, and attempting to overthrow the results of a fair election.

There is a point, but that's also a *very* dangerous game - remember who called themselves the Tea Party back in the 2010s - and who the direct descendants of these folks were. Using history to justify acts in the now need to come with a big caveat.

AoD

 

[zang]

There is a point, but that's also a *very* dangerous game - remember who called themselves the Tea Party back in the 2010s - and who the direct descendants of these folks were. Using history to justify acts in the now need to come with a big caveat.

AoD

Yeah, but the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was not about the relatively peaceful (as in, no injuries to humans) destruction of government-adjacent property in the name of protest. The 2007 group were an astroturfed libertarian small government anti-tax movement that chose to coopt the very famous name of a group who were revolting against a lack of representation in government. They used a familiar name to gain ground, not because they actually represented what the Boston Tea Party stood for. My point stands though that destroying property to send a signal to the government has quite literally been enshrined in US history as a valid form of protest, and not an "act of terrorism". If a government insists solely on revolving around free-market capitalism, what other form of protest is going to send as strong as message as destruction of capital?