Larry Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Corcaigh said: The dangerous act was not directed to 'a civilian population', and by that my understanding is a particular group being targeted, it was to the bye-standers who intervened. Verbally abusing and intimidating the Muslim women resulted in him being charged with a crime (second-degree intimidation), but it is not an act of terrorism according to the law. If he'd assaulted the women it may have met the definition. Ah. So your reasoning that he's not a terrorist is that he did not physically assault anyone in the "target group", so to speak. I wouldn't have thought of that argument. But I can see it. I could see how, under the letter of the law, you might be right. (Although I'll point out: As I understand the law, "assault" does not require any physical contact, to be assault. I think the definition is any action which would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened. Battery requires physical contact.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now