Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Malthus]

A legal Question: I read that the attacker of Rushdie was charged with attempted second-degree murder. Yet I also read that the authorities are stating that the attack was pre-planned.

I know nothing of the criminal law of New York - but why, if the attack was pre-planned, would he not be charged with attempted first-degree murder?

I guess at this point, they do not have the formal evidence to charge him with that, but that might come in later.

Could be - I'm thinking that they know it was pre-planned because he had some sort of manifesto about it, but they don't want to give it any publicity. If there was a manifesto, that would be all the evidence they need.

[Valmy]

Outrageous.

While it's great news that he's survived seeing that is likely to lose an eye and needs serious help is really awfuly.

It is amazing that some people are so delusional to think this kind of barbaric nonsense  is somehow defending the honor of something.

[Josquius]

Is there further potential charges due to the bounty on Rushdie?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Outrageous.

While it's great news that he's survived seeing that is likely to lose an eye and needs serious help is really awfuly.

It is amazing that some people are so delusional to think this kind of barbaric nonsense  is somehow defending the honor of something.

that's because we're looking at this from another frame of reference.
And that frame doesn't change when crossing the borders into a western country.
Which is why it's a bad idea to let so many people with that faulty frame of reference into our societies.
Expecially since we have nutters enough of our own.

[Valmy]

Outrageous.

While it's great news that he's survived seeing that is likely to lose an eye and needs serious help is really awfuly.

It is amazing that some people are so delusional to think this kind of barbaric nonsense  is somehow defending the honor of something.

that's because we're looking at this from another frame of reference.
And that frame doesn't change when crossing the borders into a western country.
Which is why it's a bad idea to let so many people with that faulty frame of reference into our societies.
Expecially since we have nutters enough of our own.

Well obviously we don't want every Pashtun in Pakistan moving in or something crazy but having Muslims here is pretty important. That is how ex-Muslims and liberal Muslims are made. And that is the only way that the fundamentalists can ultimately be defeated. Building walls and boxing them out will only make the situation worse I think.

Especially as in some of these countries, like Malaysia (and there are like 20 countries that do, all Muslim countries, I only single Malaysia out because I was always told they are a moderate nice Muslim country. Yikes), it is illegal to even be an ex-Muslim and that's insane. That's not a religion, that's a cult. You are born into a religion without your consent and then it is illegal to leave if you want to? That is such an abuse of human rights.

[The Minsky Moment]

A legal Question: I read that the attacker of Rushdie was charged with attempted second-degree murder. Yet I also read that the authorities are stating that the attack was pre-planned.

I know nothing of the criminal law of New York - but why, if the attack was pre-planned, would he not be charged with attempted first-degree murder?

Because pre-planning is not an element of 1st degree murder in New York.

1st degree can be charged if the victim was killed in furtherance of an act of terrorism; Rushdie's case presents an interesting definitional question.  Because the fatwa was directed against him personally, it could be said not to fall within the definition of terrorism because it does not target the US government or the civilian population more generally. However, the target of the fatwa was not merely Rushdie himself but anyone that would exercise their free expression in a manner offensive to the ayatollahs.  The intent is both to harm Rudhdie and to intimidate others who might seek to do similarly.

[Malthus]

A legal Question: I read that the attacker of Rushdie was charged with attempted second-degree murder. Yet I also read that the authorities are stating that the attack was pre-planned.

I know nothing of the criminal law of New York - but why, if the attack was pre-planned, would he not be charged with attempted first-degree murder?

Because pre-planning is not an element of 1st degree murder in New York.

1st degree can be charged if the victim was killed in furtherance of an act of terrorism; Rushdie's case presents an interesting definitional question.  Because the fatwa was directed against him personally, it could be said not to fall within the definition of terrorism because it does not target the US government or the civilian population more generally. However, the target of the fatwa was not merely Rushdie himself but anyone that would exercise their free expression in a manner offensive to the ayatollahs.  The intent is both to harm Rudhdie and to intimidate others who might seek to do similarly.

That's interesting - the laws are truly different. What's the significance of designating something as first degree in New York? Is there a distinction made between premeditated and non-premeditated murder? In Canada, that's an important distinction.

I would imagine this ought to be a terrorist crime, as the idea was certainly to intimidate others and not just him, but I suppose again each place has its specific definition.

[HVC]

I'm glad he made it. Tried reading the satanic verses once. For a book with so much buzz on it I was expecting something better.

[Sheilbh]

I'm glad he made it. Tried reading the satanic verses once. For a book with so much buzz on it I was expecting something better.

I'd recommend Midnight's Children (particularly appropriate today), Shame or The Moor's Last Stand.

I think The Satanic Verses is good - but it's probably my least favourite of his books I've read. I think Midnight's Children especially is just incredible though.

[HVC]

Thanks, I'll give Midnight's Children  a try.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's interesting - the laws are truly different. What's the significance of designating something as first degree in New York? Is there a distinction made between premeditated and non-premeditated murder? In Canada, that's an important distinction.

Premeditation was significant under the common law, under at least some versions of the Model Penal Code, and still exists in many state codes.  But some states have moved in the direction of defining capital (1st degree) murder by listing specific aggravating factors, like killing a peace officer, multiple killings, murder for hire, etc.  The notion that "cold blooded" planning killers are worse than "hothead" killers is not universally embraced anymore - IMO for good reason.

I would imagine this ought to be a terrorist crime, as the idea was certainly to intimidate others and not just him, but I suppose again each place has its specific definition.

I don't know much about the New York state case law defining terrorism.  It's possible the offense may be upgraded depending on results of investigation.

[Malthus]

I think there's a good debate to be had over whether premeditation makes murder worse. Though I admit I've never really considered it, I always just assumed that it did.

I suppose the main reasons are that it is more a reflection on one's essential character that they made a planned, deliberate decision to go out and kill someone, rather than acted on the impulse of the moment; and that such people are more dangerous because more likely to successfully kill someone they attack in the future and also more likely to get away with it. Certainly, we don't want people who can't control their impulses wandering around, so they are still murderers who should be locked up; but it seems more likely that an impulsive killer would be quickly caught (as they will not have planned out how to get away with it), and so less of a danger to society as well as being arguably less morally blameworthy.

[Admiral Yi]

I always figured that we gave the heat of the moment guys a break because we could empathize a bit with them.  Dude walks in on his wife banging the mailman and caps him (or both), we think, "yeah that could've been me."

[Sheilbh]

Premeditation was significant under the common law, under at least some versions of the Model Penal Code, and still exists in many state codes.  But some states have moved in the direction of defining capital (1st degree) murder by listing specific aggravating factors, like killing a peace officer, multiple killings, murder for hire, etc.  The notion that "cold blooded" planning killers are worse than "hothead" killers is not universally embraced anymore - IMO for good reason.

Premeditation is an aggravating factor in sentencing here. I can see it making sense as almost a higher level of intent than is sufficient for murder is not a worse crime but can warrant higher punishment.

A bit like the amount of pain or suffering someone is put through when they're killed is an aggravating factor.

I always figured that we gave the heat of the moment guys a break because we could empathize a bit with them.  Dude walks in on his wife banging the mailman and caps him (or both), we think, "yeah that could've been me."

Yeah in England there's a partial defence for "loss of self-control" which was created when the defence of provocation was abolished. Sexual infidelity is now explicitly excluded as a "qualifying trigger" for loss of self-control. Which means there's a particularly grim explanatory note in the legislation that walking in on your partner sexually abusing your child would be a qualifying trigger but because of the anger over abusing your child, not the sexual infidelity

[The Brain]

A suspicious bag in central Stockholm during a festival with lots of people was removed by the police. It has been confirmed that it was a bomb. No info about suspects or leads is available.