I think that for terrorism you need the goal to instill terror in the population. Since it was so specifically targeted and only one victim, I don’t know how well it fits. Also, most of the population doesn’t feel terror, maybe he should be hit with satisfaction charges.
The definition of terrorism doesn’t say you need to terrify people at all.
Besides, there’s been a lot of acts that are generally agreed to be terrorist acts, that have targeted a very small group of people, such as a religious group, or even one specific individual. The IRA’s famous reply to Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.
It seems his goal was to terrify one small group of people, namely senior people in the healthcare industry, and I think that counts.
Uhuh… And the school shooters? No terrorist charges?..
I’m pretty sure it’s up to the state attorney to decide what charges to bring is all I’ll say.
Those tend to be a personal grudge, not a political statement.
Pretty sure you could agree he had a personal grudge as well
Potentially, but I think that’s true of most terrorists.
I think that for terrorism you need the goal to instill terror in the population. Since it was so specifically targeted and only one victim, I don’t know how well it fits. Also, most of the population doesn’t feel terror, maybe he should be hit with satisfaction charges.
The definition of terrorism doesn’t say you need to terrify people at all.
Besides, there’s been a lot of acts that are generally agreed to be terrorist acts, that have targeted a very small group of people, such as a religious group, or even one specific individual. The IRA’s famous reply to Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.
It seems his goal was to terrify one small group of people, namely senior people in the healthcare industry, and I think that counts.
I’m starting to think your username isn’t true, at all!
“Unlimited scope of people” does not require political statement.
Have you done actual research or are you assuming because it feels right, it must be?
Research on what?
Cool