politics

New York Penal Law § 490.25, the crime of terrorism, is one of the most serious criminal offenses in New York State. The statute defines the crime of terrorism as any act that is committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion and that results in one or more of the following: (a) the commission of a specified offense, (b) the causing of a specified injury or death, (c) the causing of mass destruction or widespread contamination, or (d) the disruption of essential infrastructure.

Post bills every-fucking-where about Jury Nullification.

"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

So it's fine if you use large sums of money but someone goes with the more democratic route of using a gun and suddenly it's not cool

"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

I have no issue with the state correctly identifying this act as terrorism. I take great issue with the fact that this act is being defined as terrorism, while using a definition that clearly defines many things that get a pass as terrorism. Remember last Trump presidency, when his white house published an old-school violent videogames scare video to garner support for his policies while distracting from discussion on gun laws? An act committed with the intent to coerce a civilian population is terrorism.

And let's be real, I picked a low-stakes, innoculous example just to make a point: the state does a LOT to terrorize it's citizens. But when they do it, it's "law and order." When Luigi fights back in self defense? "Terrorism".

The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

No, see, that's clearly false. The civilian population did not get intimidated or coerced by fuck and all, and the government wasn't threatened.

So, nope. Not guilty.

"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

These CEOs are quite literally trying to kill us for profit. This is class warfare, and they are the aggressor. They are not civilians, and the terror is not directed at the population or the government.

New Yorkers and Pennsylvania residents need to show up to their jury duty summons and get your ass on a trail... You never know who's trail you'll end up on. Don't say nullification during the interview!

Storming the capital or shooting dozens of children are not terrorism, but shooting a CEO who murders thousands is. Got it.

They're clearly trying to send a message to scare his supporters

One person getting shot is not terrorism.

Terrorism to bring this to first-degree is very much a stretch in my eyes. The poor civilian CEO population are spooked by one person getting shot.

As happy as it made everyone with a brain: That was definitely the legal definition of terrorism (if he did it).

From a quick google, criminal possession of a weapon is because NY has laws against ghost guns (3d printed firearms).

Don't get the logic on both first and second degree for blapping the same guy though.

This guy is going to get a standing ovation when he enters the courtroom.

So the jury has their out now, jury nullification on the grounds of the act not being terrorism

Self defence, not guilty

Okay, so next time just make it look random. Got it.

Whatever. United Healthcare should be next for the countless murders they've done.