Independent: terrorism definition under NV law would cover Vegas shooting.

[pnwmom]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-nevada-terrorism-state-law-act-police-stephen-paddock-a7978456.html

Police investigating the mass shooting of concert-goers at a music festival in Las Vegas have said they are not treating the incident as an act of terrorism.

But Nevada law suggests the Sunday night massacre of at least 50 people can be defined as such.

The state's statute says an “act of terrorism means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population”.

However, police, who are early on in their investigation of the shooting that also left at least 200 injured, said it was too early to label the incident as terrorism.

[Trust Buster]

1. What does this OP mean ?

[pnwmom]

5. A reasonable interpretation of that statute could result in calling Paddock's crime

an act of terrorism

If anyone helped him, that person would have been in a conspiracy to commit terrorism.

[Trust Buster]

10. Clearly those on the ground were terrorized.

[NightWatcher]

2. Why cant a horrible mass shooting just be a mass murder

Why do we try to put the Terrorism label on it?

[pnwmom]

4. Why not? Can't old white men be guilty of terrorism if their aim

is to inflict terror?

Or do "real" terrorists have to be a different religion or color?

[NightWatcher]

8. Im old skool. I remember when terrorism was to achieve political means.

What were his political desires?

Terrorism- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

It’s not about race or religion but his motivations and desires. A white guy shooting up a country music show doesn’t express his desires to show support for a cause.

This is why I’m looking for motive.

[pnwmom]

15. Different states have different laws. Apparently NV's definition of terrorism doesn't require

a political aim. If he were alive he would have been prosecuted under the NV law.

[burnbaby]

3. got me confused

the first thing I am hearing is this was not a terrorist shooting, than what the f@ck was it!!!!

[Girard442]

7. Exactly.

What tangled argument can you craft that defines this as not terrorism?

[anneboleyn]

9. It was NOT Islamic terrorism. I think calling it terrorism (esp. on Fox) confuses low-info types who

hear "terrorism" and think "Islamic terrorism" no matter what Stephen Paddock looks like or where he was born. Alex Jones nutters will argue that Paddock was in contact with ISIS or something ridiculous (or that it's some kind of "false flag" operation for some nutcase reason)

[Not Ruth]

6. Definitely white Christian terrorism

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. We don't know he was Christian, either nominally or actually practising

so, no, not 'definitely'.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Some people here assume every white person must be Christian

At least when it fits the picture they want to paint.

In their minds a white person as a Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, or anything else seems impossible.

It's actually a pretty racist line of thinking, but it seems accepted here.

[Lee-Lee]

12. State and federal definitions under law can differ

The the Nevada statute listed doesn't take into account the motivation, so we know this act would qualify.

Under federal law terrorism has to be motivated. Y a desire to push a political agenda or cause terror in the population in pursuit of a political agendas.

So for example under Federal Law if the guy ends up being a demented Trumpist who just wanted to divert attention away from Russia and PR this would be terrorism. If he ends up being just crazy with a desire to just kill people with no political agenda then under federal law it's not terrorism.

I'm not familiar enough with Nevada law to know if a labeling of terrorism on the state level is of any real consequence for something like this for any possible accomplices.