I mean whether he was a terrorist or just workplace violence…I miss the edit feature.
It is a clear example of the privilege this guy has when people are looking for an alternative explanation. A non-white individual does not get the same benefit of the doubt.
eyemamom has a great example. (Almost) no one would have suggested “workplace violence” during the Ft Hood shooting.
Actually our president declared it workplace violence, not terrorism.
That was the Army’s initial finding, then they changed it to terrorism after the investigation.
I’m not sure how to narrowly tailor the law, but doxxing (publishing the names and home addresses of people you want to target with your hate) ought to be illegal. People do it to terrorize and to incite vandalism and violence.
This as an issue with Prop 8. Donors had their addresses mapped on websites, names were publicized and businesses were targeted. No one should be harassed at their homes or place of business.
Re: terrorism. Strictly speaking ‘terrorism’ is violence in pursuit of a political goal. So the gang violence in Chicago, for example, while so violent that many live in fear is not terrorism. Their goals are not political. Columbine and Newtown were not terrorism. Oklahoma City was terrorism. Paris was terrorism.
As someone who is pro-life…which makes me an outlier on this forum…I am appalled by what happened as the rest of you. I also happen to be absolutely appalled by the threat to shut down the federal government over funding for PP. Believe it or not, the vast majority of pro-lifers I know, agree with me.
It’s not just conservatives who broadcast the names of those who oppose them. It is, unfortunately, a tactic than has been used by both sides of almost every political issue you can name–abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, sexual assault,etc.
The reason the fort Hood shooter was changed from “Workplace violence” into terrorism was when they investigated why he did the shooting. The Fort Hood Shooter went out to kill soldiers apparently because he had decided that the US was at war with Muslims, and that it was his duty to kill soldiers who were killing ‘his people’. Among other things, they had direct evidence he was reading Jihadist websites and such, and also had been corresponding if I recall correctly with some radical Iman.
Most pro life people I suspect abhor the violence of the extremes and don’t believe the end justifies the means. Likewise, a lot of pro life people are not the anti sex ed, anti sex position that is behind at least some of the anti PP stuff out there (they aren’t just against PP because it provides abortions, the funding for abortion is separate from the health services, they are against PP because it supports sex education and promotes things like contraception use; a significant minority of pro life people also are the same people who promote abstinence only sex ed, fight against condom distribution and the like, and claim that family planning and sex ed promote promiscuity). That contradictory position was shown by the self destructive act of Komen by allowing some born again Christian type to try and cut off funding for women’s health programs at PP, real smart that an organization dedicated towards women’s health and stopping breast cancer to cut off funding for health screenings (to this day, after that one, I won’t give a dime to Komen, I donate to other women’s health organizations who have a clear focus on the end goal).
The way the news articles are painting the guy it is leading towards him being some sort of loner, a nut, who lived in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, who wasn’t particularly friendly, who had only a dog that appeared abused, etc. That might preclude this guy being some sort of ‘religious warrior’, but it may raise questions about how someone who seemed off the rails could get his hands on an assault weapon, if it was purchased legally.
The really sad part of this is 3 people are dead and others are injured and probably traumatized, around a time of the year that is supposed to be about families and good tidings.
For a little background: Colorado Springs is quite conservative. There are many very fundamentalist Christian organizations there (Focus on the Family, for example,) lots of conservative Republicans, some groups identified as Neo Nazi and a lot of residents with a very western libertarian streak that often aligns them with anti-government movements. This dude – the shooter – could have been ANYTHING, and might possibly represent an amalgamation of all these beliefs.
Oh, you mean like the liberal and progressive newspaper terrorists who published the names addresses of law-abiding handgun owners in New York and elsewhere? Yep, “Terrorist thuggery at its best” is everywhere I guess.
^ Let’s look at the intent here. You think anybody is crazy enough to go after a registered gun owner in a state with strict gun laws? In the Texas mosque case, what do you think the intention was to publish the Muslim congregation addresses?
I said I thought doxxing should be illegal, and I stick with that, whether it’s publicizing home addresses of health providers or gun owners.
Businesses are a different story. Business storefronts are not entitled to privacy.
Given where the incident happened, PP, my gut says that this had a political purpose and was therefore an act of terrorism. (Unless there is some unusual circumstance such as the gunman knew someone inside and was after that person). I’d also say that the Chattanooga shootings at two military recruitmant centers was also an act of terrorism, yet I don’t think the government has labelled it as such. (Maybe this helps in the statistics so the politicians can say ‘there have been no acts of terrorism on my watch’ or some such inananity).
I would doubt that. I think it’s fair to separate terrorist action planned and committed by organized political entities from terrorist action committed by lone gunmen who may have been inspired by political or religious movements either abroad or at home no matter what the particular outlook of the “inspirational” organization.
Oh. it is intent that matters now.
Terrorism no longer is about bullying actions on people who have done nothing to you. Therefore, some good-intentioned people meant no harm in publishing the names and addresses of private people.
So exactly what were the good intentions of listing handgun owners names and addresses? More specifically, the addresses were needed so people could not find them??? Yes, that was sarcasm.
Well, this post explains today’s college students if these are the parents raising them to think like this.
Planned Parenthood clinics are frequent targets of violence, and that violence is increasing since the faked Planned Parenthood videos started to be publicized and people started to tell lies about them. It’s dubious that the shooter just by chance happened to bring a gun and all that ammo into a Planned Parenthood instead of a florist or a camera shop.
It explains a lot about people with anger issues.
As people predicted at the beginning of this thread, I see on social media that the portrayal of the shooter as a “mentally ill” lone wolf – who just randomly chose Planned Parenthood, uninfluenced by all the anti-P.P. rhetoric (because mentally ill lone wolves can’t possibly be influenced by propaganda!) – is well underway. We can’t possibly know his motive! (Even though there are already stories about his history of violence towards women. Never mind animal cruelty.)
And that’s wholly apart from the firestorm on Twitter of idiots saying that even if he was motivated by opposition to abortion, anyone who was visiting Planned Parenthood – including pregnant women, apparently – deserved what they got whether or not they were there for an abortion. Because the shooter supposedly “saved” more babies than the lives he ended. (Oh, murdering a pregnant woman means her baby is dead too? It seems that there’s a justification for terminating a pregnancy after all! It reminds me a little of those who advocate dropping bombs in the Middle East in areas with large civilian populations, no matter how many civilians – including pregnant women – are killed. It’s OK for the government to kill “unborn children” as collateral damage, for reasons of national security, but not for individual women to make decisions about their own bodies.)
I just read that model Chrissy Tiegen is getting vicious feedback to her statement that whenever these events happen, she and her husband John Legend donate money to PP. No hate for the murderer, but plenty calling her crude words describing female genitalia and calling her a baby killer.