Terrorist Disc Jockey

[tekkieman]

...... Of course they will plead it out to the lesser charge.

...and give him more publicity in the process.

[gastorgrab]

Actually it is the opposite. Since he never intended to rob the store but play a joke, there was no criminal intent in that regard. He did simply and clearly break the law on masks etc which every state probably has, but there is no need for determination of intent on that part, it's obvious. Quite the opposite of intending to sell pot even though it's oregano.

If he had made verbal threats etc, then even as a joke there would have been intent. Without that he simply wore a mask.

And rediculous they charged him with terrorist acts etc, the actual crime he committed is the only thing he should be charged with. Of course they will plead it out to the lesser charge.

If you point an empty gun at someone, and asked very nicely for their wallet (and never mention shooting them), you don't intend to do harm.

It's not really robbery, is it.

The person willingly gave you their wallet without you threatening them.

[Tommyknocker]

Actually it is the opposite. Since he never intended to rob the store but play a joke, there was no criminal intent in that regard. He did simply and clearly break the law on masks etc which every state probably has, but there is no need for determination of intent on that part, it's obvious. Quite the opposite of intending to sell pot even though it's oregano.

If he had made verbal threats etc, then even as a joke there would have been intent. Without that he simply wore a mask.

And rediculous they charged him with terrorist acts etc, the actual crime he committed is the only thing he should be charged with. Of course they will plead it out to the lesser charge.

If you point an empty gun at someone, and asked very nicely for their wallet (and never mention shooting them), you don't intend to do harm.

It's not really robbery, is it.

The person willingly gave you their wallet without you threatening them.

Well, actually, they lift up their shirt to show you they're packing. So if the strong arm of the law comes down, they can say they had no criminal intent.

[vitualis]

IMHO, you Americans are crazy.

I think the spirit of "criminal intent" is fairly self explanatory -- you have the "intent" of committing a "crime".

This person obviously did not and you cannot reasonably construe that he did.

As for "terrorist threats", that is ridiculous as well. Are you people so scared now, that everything out of the ordinary is instantly associated with terrorism?

I assume it would be the same in the US as in Australia, but don't you people have something to the effect of a charge of "public nuisance" which usually just incurs a fine? It would seem appropriate in this case.

Regards.

[vitualis]

If you point an empty gun at someone, and asked very nicely for their wallet (and never mention shooting them), you don't intend to do harm.

It's not really robbery, is it.

The person willingly gave you their wallet without you threatening them.

Yes it is and that is a completely facetious argument.

You are intimidating someone to give you their money with full premeditation and understanding of what you are doing. Whether the gun is loaded or not is irrelevant. It is still armed robbery.

Regards.

[hech54]

There are two groups of people to thank for all of this nonsense. Lawyers and government big wigs(the ones you've never seen, heard of or voted for).
Big Wigs is not a good term for them now that I think of it but you know the ones I mean....the ones "appointed" by government high political officials.....who shall remain nameless.

[gastorgrab]

If you point an empty gun at someone, and asked very nicely for their wallet (and never mention shooting them), you don't intend to do harm.

It's not really robbery, is it.

The person willingly gave you their wallet without you threatening them.

Yes it is and that is a completely facetious argument.

You are intimidating someone to give you their money with full premeditation and understanding of what you are doing. Whether the gun is loaded or not is irrelevant. It is still armed robbery.

Regards.

Thats the only point i'm trying to make. Your life my not be in danger. Only the implied threat allowed the robber to "Talk-You-Out-Of" your wallet. Few would give up their wallet without a fight, unless a serious threat was implied.

The Disc Jockey clearly intended to scare the hell out of the Store Clerk, and whoever else happened to be in the store. He announced it On-Air to increase his audience. (He declared his intentions!)

When you call in a fake bomb threat, you clearly intend to scare people.
You INEND no harm, but you cause loss of workflow, and your customers don't feel welcome and they leave screaming. It costs you money, a few minutes off the end of your life, and occasionally loss of bowel control.

The guy should at least buy the Clerk a new pair of underwhere.

Here's an new idea for the Disc Jockey;
Why doesn't he pretend to be the city coroner, and randomly call people to tell them their families have been murdered. What fun that would be!!!!!

Imagine the looks on their faces when they find out it's only a joke.

---------from dictionary.com---------

terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

[vitualis]

By your own definition, explain exactly how the DJ is committing a "terrorist" act.

Walking around with a ski mask is BARELY comparable to phoning in a fake bomb threat. Even if you consider both to be the same, calling in a fake bomb threat is ALSO NOT a terrorist act. It is an act of public nuisance. If you consider it otherwise, then the US has silently degenerated into a police state without anyone even noticing.

Simply scaring someone is not against the law, especially the manner by which he did it. You have to be digging pretty deep to convince anyone that wearing a ski mask in public is a crime -- simply because it isn't. Apart from a "scary" appearance, the DJ made absolutely no other overtures in any way to be robber.

For goodness sakes people, can't you see that this stunt tells us a whole lot more about US society rather than the DJ? That the US public is so damn paranoid that it would actually agree with these ridiculous charges that completely undermine the concept of a free civil society.

Regards.

[Tommyknocker]

By your own definition, explain exactly how the DJ is committing a "terrorist" act.

Walking around with a ski mask is BARELY comparable to phoning in a fake bomb threat. Even if you consider both to be the same, calling in a fake bomb threat is ALSO NOT a terrorist act. It is an act of public nuisance. If you consider it otherwise, then the US has silently degenerated into a police state without anyone even noticing.

Simply scaring someone is not against the law, especially the manner by which he did it. You have to be digging pretty deep to convince anyone that wearing a ski mask in public is a crime -- simply because it isn't. Apart from a "scary" appearance, the DJ made absolutely no other overtures in any way to be robber.

For goodness sakes people, can't you see that this stunt tells us a whole lot more about US society rather than the DJ? That the US public is so damn paranoid that it would actually agree with these ridiculous charges that completely undermine the concept of a free civil society.

Regards.

I finally found a kindred spirit. Too bad he's on the other side of the world. Way to go, Virtualis!

[flaninacupboard]

why does everyone call you virtualis?

So those who think this should be considered criminal, do you still think so if someone on a motorbike (some of whom wear masks to keep their face warm at 110mph) stopped, went in the shop still wearing their mask because they were in a hurry?

[VCDHunter]

why does everyone call you virtualis?

So those who think this should be considered criminal, do you still think so if someone on a motorbike (some of whom wear masks to keep their face warm at 110mph) stopped, went in the shop still wearing their mask because they were in a hurry?

If the doofus is zipping about at 110 mph he is a criminal. If he is in such a rush I'd imagine he could forgo the trip to the shop and if he's got time to take off his crash helmet he could also take off his ski mask (what kind of a rush are you in that you can remove a helmet but not a ski mask ?).

So yes :P

[adam]

Ok, to put things a little more into perspective.

First off, the facts. If you read some other articles covering this incident you will see that the clerk triggered the alarm the second the guy walked in the door. The fact that the DJ was on a cell phone, tried to buy gum, and failed to make any verbal threats is irrellevant. The store clerk wasn't able to take any of this into account before making his decision, and even afterwards it doesn't change the fact that he was put in terror at the time. So were the clerk's actions reasonable? Well you be the judge but I wonder what happened the last time someone walked into his store wearing a ski mask?

Secondly, everyone here is operating under the assumption that he was brought up on charges for violating a Federal Terrorism Statute. He is being charged under a local ordinance, which most cities have, which prohibits terrorist threats. This has nothing to do with our Federal definition of terrorist (threats against government or political representatives). A terrorist threat ordinance simply criminalizes the act of making any threat of physical violence to anybody. Its nothing more than a class B misdemeanor analagous to an assault. (Note that an assault is just a threat of a battery, whereas an actual battery requires physical contact.) The headlines saying this is a "Terrorist Act" are just typical media tactics. The story isn't nearly as exciting when told truthfully.

Finally, it is well established that what you wear can constitute a criminal act, and that your clothing may only amount to a criminal act under certain contexts. When your clothing falls into one of the limited categories defined as Constitutionally unprotected speech, (obscenity, fighting words, etc..) then the government can lawfully regulate what you are wearing. Wearing a ski mask itself does not constitute fighting words (note that fighting words doesn't actually require that you say anything.) But wear that same mask in a convenience store in the middle of summer in a town where it snows maybe once every 10 years, and your Constitutionally protected rights are severely diminished.

Here's the basic question they will ask in court... Did the DJ intend to invoke terror in the clerk? If yes, was the clerk in fact put in terror? If yes, was his terror reasonable? If yes, then the guy is guilty.

If he accidentally wore the ski mask or his motorcycle into the store then he lacked the requisite intent under the ordinance. The fact that he was broadcasting this on air as a stunt pretty much eliminates that argument.

[vitualis]

I think it is without question that the store clerk did his duty by firing a silent alarm.

It is also arguably right that the DJ should be apprehended by law enforcement and the case investigated so that the facts can be laid out.

I agree with your interpretation adam, but I think many members here take this much more seriously than you do -- and actually consider what the DJ did to be an act of "terrorism" in the vernacular sense of the word.

Fine the idiot for doing an foolish and perhaps irresponsible stunt. Fine him even more for wasted public money and time that was required for the investigation.

But when people start thinking of this DJ as some sort of serious criminal they've lost all perspective on society.

Regards.

[hech54]

But when people start thinking of this DJ as some sort of serious criminal they've lost all perspective on society.


Exactly

[Capmaster]

You can argue the legality of it. I personally think he should at least be fined for it.

As for "his right" to wear a ski mask there, you also have a right to freedom of speech, but if you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater as a prank, and someone gets hurt in the stampede, see how far that argument goes

Just try walking into a bank with a fake rifle The crime is not in whether or not the gun is real ...the crime is in the perceived effect the rifle will have That's where the criminal intent comes in, like selling oregano as pot, screaming "FIRE" in a theater, or passing counterfeit money (nothing "illegal" about owning paper and ink, right??).

As for whether he is a "terrorist", sure he is. A terrorist is anyone who creates terror in another to further his own agenda. He doesn't have to be an arab to be a terrorist. It has nothing to do with the middle east or politics.

At the very least, he's not one of the great thinkers of our time for pulling that stunt and should be punished for being such a stupid *******. If he isn't, some kid is going to try it himself, to get attention, and get himself blown away.

[flaninacupboard]

As for whether he is a "terrorist", sure he is. A terrorist is anyone who creates terror in another to further his own agenda. He doesn't have to be an arab to be a terrorist. It has nothing to do with the middle east or politics.

An American who knows not all terrorists are Arabs?!

Well i never...

[Capmaster]

As for whether he is a "terrorist", sure he is. A terrorist is anyone who creates terror in another to further his own agenda. He doesn't have to be an arab to be a terrorist. It has nothing to do with the middle east or politics.

An American who knows not all terrorists are Arabs?!

Well i never...

We're not all knee-jerk "nuke-em first, then ask questions later" types here ......well .....Indo is........but not all of us

You guys know better than anyone that terrorists come in all nationalities - terrorism isn't exactly an abstract concept in the UK

[flaninacupboard]

very true, more people killed by the IRA than in the attack on the world trade centre. STILL don't see america pressuring the UN to sort that out, or taking independant military action.

oh, but Irish/British people are white

[Capmaster]

very true, more people killed by the IRA than in the attack on the world trade centre. STILL don't see america pressuring the UN to sort that out, or taking independant military action.

oh, but Irish/British people are white

We've had our own domestic terrorists here - the mob, the Ku Klux Klan, white supremist groups, Canadian hockey teams .....

[flaninacupboard]

We've had our own domestic terrorists here - the mob, the Ku Klux Klan, white supremist groups, Canadian hockey teams .....

Ah but they're different, the KKK is very specific about who it kills, as are the mob. the IRA just blow up anyone who happens to be around, including women and children.

[Capmaster]

We've had our own domestic terrorists here - the mob, the Ku Klux Klan, white supremist groups, Canadian hockey teams .....

Ah but they're different, the KKK is very specific about who it kills, as are the mob. the IRA just blow up anyone who happens to be around, including women and children.

A method the palestinians seem to favor :P (Oops! No politics. Sorry .... )

[flaninacupboard]

yeah, anyone who cares, www.politick.org.uk

[vitualis]

Just try walking into a bank with a fake rifle The crime is not in whether or not the gun is real ...the crime is in the perceived effect the rifle will have

Actually NO.

This is why most places (except perhaps for the US ) make it SPECIFICALLY illegal to carry firearms in public places or at least there are by-laws on carrying firearms into places like banks/public transport, etc.

That's where the criminal intent comes in, like selling oregano as pot, screaming "FIRE" in a theater, or passing counterfeit money (nothing "illegal" about owning paper and ink, right??).

Think CLEARLY now. Selling oregano isn't illegal. Selling pot IS. Thus, your act of selling "pot" (even though the item is misrepresented) can be construed as an illegal act.

Screaming "fire" in a theatre as far as I know is not illegal UNLESS there was a specific law. It would be an act of public nuisance if in fact it was a prank. If someone was INJURED as a consequence of your actions, then they can sue you as a civil case. If someone DIED, then you can probably be charged with manslaughter depending on the circumstances.

As for counterfeiting money, it is usually specifically illegal and in any case, there is an obvious intent to defraud. Unintentially passing counterfeit money is NOT a crime.

Now let us consider this DJ wearing a ski mask in a shop.

Is wearing a ski mask illegal? No.
Did he have an intent of committing a robbery? No
Did any of his subsequent actions would lead one to think he was committing a robbery? No.

As for whether he is a "terrorist", sure he is. A terrorist is anyone who creates terror in another to further his own agenda. He doesn't have to be an arab to be a terrorist. It has nothing to do with the middle east or politics.

You've just degraded the term "terrorist" to mean absolutely diddly then. Hell, every news editor of every major newspaper and TV news network should be arrested and charged with "terrorism".

And for EVERY robbery, theft, assault, etc., why not now tack on the EXTRA crime of "terrorism" as well?

I'm sure your Mr Bush was pretty darn scary and invoked plenty of terror to the Iraqi and Afghani civilians when he announced the respective invasions. Does that make him a terrorist?

At the very least, he's not one of the great thinkers of our time for pulling that stunt and should be punished for being such a stupid *******. If he isn't, some kid is going to try it himself, to get attention, and get himself blown away.

Let us keep "punishment" with a sense of perspective. Exactly what danger did this guy make? Apart from getting himself potentially blown away in a trigger-happy society, nobody else were really at risk were they? I would contend that your regular guy speeding down the highway is a much greater menance to society than this guy.

What are you people trying to "punish" him for anyway? Reminding you all that you live in a climate of fear?

Regards.

[Capmaster]

Capmaster wrote:
Just try walking into a bank with a fake rifle The crime is not in whether or not the gun is real ...the crime is in the perceived effect the rifle will have


Actually NO.

Actually, yes. The fake rifle constitutes intimidation.

"US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 103 > Sec. 2113
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any building used in whole or in part as a bank, credit union, or as a savings and loan association, with intent to commit in such bank, credit union, or in such savings and loan association, or building, or part thereof, so used, any felony affecting such bank, credit union, or such savings and loan association and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

That's where the criminal intent comes in, like selling oregano as pot, screaming "FIRE" in a theater, or passing counterfeit money (nothing "illegal" about owning paper and ink, right??).

Think CLEARLY now. Selling oregano isn't illegal. Selling pot IS.

Wrong again.

"APn 01/28/93 1224
Copyright, 1993. The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Little rock Ark Deputy Attorney General Jack Gillean:
"If the police found someone who was involved in the (drug) trade and they happen to be in possession of oregano packaged that way, clearly conditions would be met," Gillean said. "

Screaming "fire" in a theatre as far as I know is not illegal UNLESS there was a specific law. It would be an act of public nuisance if in fact it was a prank. If someone was INJURED as a consequence of your actions, then they can sue you as a civil case. If someone DIED, then you can probably be charged with manslaughter depending on the circumstances.

AAHHHNNNTTT!!!<sound of buzzer> Do we have a parting gift for the ill-informed aussie, Johnny?

Three strikes ...you're out The crime is threatening the public safety. It isn't necessary that someone be injured.


Northern State University - Journalism and Law course MCOM201:
"Other limitations on free press have included: libel; protection of defendants' rights to a fair trial (setting up a conflict of constitutional rights), threats to the public safety (the journalistic equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater)"

As for whether he is a "terrorist", sure he is. A terrorist is anyone who creates terror in another to further his own agenda. He doesn't have to be an arab to be a terrorist. It has nothing to do with the middle east or politics.

You've just degraded the term "terrorist" to mean absolutely diddly then. Hell, every news editor of every major newspaper and TV news network should be arrested and charged with "terrorism".

Wrong bucko Every news editor doesn't walk into a convenience store with a ski-mask on.

Exactly what danger did this guy make? Apart from getting himself potentially blown away in a trigger-happy society, nobody else were really at risk were they?

A naive viewpoint children often use. You can't see the subtleties. For instance: what if the clerk pulled out a gun, missed the ski-mask guy and killed a woman customer? What if the clerk had a heart condition and dropped dead from the stress? What if the cops arrived, shot at the guy, missed and killed the clerk? What if ....... on and on. The point is the guy instigated a sequence of events that could have had a tragic outcome. The fact that it didn't end up that way doesn't diminish the danger.

The DJ jeopardized the public's safety as well as his own.

My references were the first I came across. There are many pages of examples of each point, but it wasn't worth my time to itemize each one

[adam]

"Screaming fire in a crowded theatre" is our (US) catch-all phrase referring to any conduct which creates a "clear and present danger." Publicly brandishing an object resembling a gun (whether its a real gun or not) is another example. These acts are made illegal in probably every state of the United States by local ordinances much like the "terrorist threat" ordinance raised in this DJ incident.

These ordinances are misdemeanors. We aren't throwing the book at these people, they will generally just get off with a fine. Usually this is enough to deter this kind of behavior. If someone is in fact hurt or killed as a result of such conduct, then that subjects the responsible party to further punishment like manslaughter or even murder. The punishment fits the crime in this instance, in my opinion. I don't see aything wrong with punishing this DJ to the fullest extent that this terrorist threat ordinance allows, which isn't much.

These types of acts most certainly do have the potential to cause real harm even though they are intended as pranks. We got our "screaming fire in a theatre" expression from a highly publicized case where this happened and it resulted in a large number of deaths due to trampling as everyone tried to escape.

Vitualis I disagree that the DJ's prank only subjected himself to danger. Who knows what kind of emotional impact it would have had on the clerk if he had killed the guy as a result of a prank. Or, he easily could have missed or the bullet could have richocheted, and that obviously has the potential to cause an unmeasurable amount of damage to human life or property.

As far as the reefer is concerned... If you sell oregano misrepresented as pot then its either because you are intentionally defrauding people or because you were defrauded yourself, and you actually think that it is pot. Most jurisdictions specifically make the first act illegal and attach the same penalties as if it were real drugs. This is done because most of the undesirables of selling drugs are still there (ex: promote/attracts violence, lowers property value, etc..) As for the second scenario, this is always illegal under our general laws criminalizing the sale of drugs. Its considered a mistake of fact and its never an excuse because the criminal intent is still there. You will get off on the possession charge though.

[flaninacupboard]

Exactly what danger did this guy make? Apart from getting himself potentially blown away in a trigger-happy society, nobody else were really at risk were they?

A naive viewpoint children often use. You can't see the subtleties. For instance: what if the clerk pulled out a gun, missed the ski-mask guy and killed a woman customer? What if the clerk had a heart condition and dropped dead from the stress? What if the cops arrived, shot at the guy, missed and killed the clerk? What if ....... on and on. The point is the guy instigated a sequence of events that could have had a tragic outcome. The fact that it didn't end up that way doesn't diminish the danger.

Surely the same can be said of someone driving a car while drunk, but they aren't branded a terrorist

And if you're going to quote Vitualis, don't call him Virtualis!

[Capmaster]

Exactly what danger did this guy make? Apart from getting himself potentially blown away in a trigger-happy society, nobody else were really at risk were they?

A naive viewpoint children often use. You can't see the subtleties. For instance: what if the clerk pulled out a gun, missed the ski-mask guy and killed a woman customer? What if the clerk had a heart condition and dropped dead from the stress? What if the cops arrived, shot at the guy, missed and killed the clerk? What if ....... on and on. The point is the guy instigated a sequence of events that could have had a tragic outcome. The fact that it didn't end up that way doesn't diminish the danger.

Surely the same can be said of someone driving a car while drunk, but they aren't branded a terrorist

And if you're going to quote Vitualis, don't call him Virtualis!

Thanks. Wouldn't want to get his handle wrong

Someone driving drunk is still committing an illegal act. Not everyone who commits a crime is a terrorist. My point was more that his actions were illegal - who cares what law is used to arrest him? The 128-bit encryption used on so many PCs used to fall under the description of a weapon according to US export laws, until the laws were made more sane.

The issue is jeopardizing people's safety as a prank, which he clearly did. Hell, call him a runaway elephant and charge him with that for all I care, just as long as he's busted and punished for it

And thanks Adam for adding that information. Good post

[gastorgrab]

Surely the same can be said of someone driving a car while drunk, but they aren't branded a terrorist

Someone driving drunk is intentionally being wreckless, but someone driving drunk isn't intentionally trying to scare people.

Funny how differents persons, who supposedly speak the same language, could have different definitions of the same word.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/t/t0122600.html

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82104&dict=CALD

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=terrorism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

[vitualis]

"US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 103 > Sec. 2113
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any building used in whole or in part as a bank, credit union, or as a savings and loan association, with intent to commit in such bank, credit union, or in such savings and loan association, or building, or part thereof, so used, any felony affecting such bank, credit union, or such savings and loan association and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Perhaps you missed the point of my arguement. Why is the above specific law even necessary if you can already by charged and arrested for simply being scary? The reason is that being "scary" in itself is not enough.

Think CLEARLY now. Selling oregano isn't illegal. Selling pot IS.

Wrong again.

"APn 01/28/93 1224
Copyright, 1993. The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Little rock Ark Deputy Attorney General Jack Gillean:
"If the police found someone who was involved in the (drug) trade and they happen to be in possession of oregano packaged that way, clearly conditions would be met," Gillean said. "

Sorry, but what was so wrong about that?

Selling oregano is not illegal (are you going to trying busting up your local grocer now)? But selling pot is and what I said was selling oregano as if it were pot is obviously illegal too.

The point I was making is that YOUR EXAMPLE IS NOT CONGRUENT and NOT A VALID ANALOGY to the actual case.

The crime is threatening the public safety.

You should obviously know that this is not an absolute law. Threating public safety is only a principle and can mean everything and nothing.

Which is why I said before that for most things, it is actually specifically stated (e.g., firearms in public, dangerous driving, drunk driving).

I'm fairly certain that nowhere is it written that "wearing a ski mask in a shop" is a crime... and thus, you are only going on the principle of "threating public safety". There is enough descent in THIS thread that I think makes it obvious that it is not a forgone conclusion that it is.

You've just degraded the term "terrorist" to mean absolutely diddly then. Hell, every news editor of every major newspaper and TV news network should be arrested and charged with "terrorism".

Wrong bucko Every news editor doesn't walk into a convenience store with a ski-mask on.

Yes, but according to YOUR definition of terrorism it is "A terrorist is anyone who creates terror in another to further his own agenda". Your US media has created more terror in the US population than this guy ever will and for an agenda somewhat in complicity with the govt and party to better sales.

And you ignored completely my other examples. Real robbers and criminals cause much more REAL terror in their victims. Why not call them "terrorists" as well?

And your president would have caused plenty of terror to the Iraqi and Afghani civilians to further his "agenda". Terrorist too?

A naive viewpoint children often use. You can't see the subtleties. For instance: what if the clerk pulled out a gun, missed the ski-mask guy and killed a woman customer? What if the clerk had a heart condition and dropped dead from the stress? What if the cops arrived, shot at the guy, missed and killed the clerk? What if ....... on and on. The point is the guy instigated a sequence of events that could have had a tragic outcome. The fact that it didn't end up that way doesn't diminish the danger.

No. Your arguement is speculative. Every action can have multiple unforseen consequences. A person jaywalking could cause a traffic accident. An elderly man standing on the side could have a heart attack from fright. What if... and on and on. Why don't we bust every jaywalker for all these potential consequences too?

A saw a thread here just recently telling Floridans to get into the slow lane because basically if you weren't speeding on the highway, you were an idiot. Not too many people seemed to be too offended by this casual speeding BUT think of what can happen! Why don't you think THAT to be a travesty of justice. A speeding car is a REAL crime and and REAL PALPABLE risk to society.

The man with the ski mask is ONLY a risk even by your OWN mouth because:
(i) you not only live in a society full of firearms but there are plenty of trigger happy people around
(ii) you live in a climate of fear
... and neither of the above is his fault.

Firstly, it is NOT reasonable to assume that the DJ has full responsibility of someone starts pulling out a firearm and starts shooting. The responsibility is with the bearer of the firearm. Has the DJ done anything that would justify someone pulling out a weapon and shooting him? Honestly?

The answer is NO. He looked scary but did not do anything that would indicate he was going to commit a crime. Anyone who pulls out a weapon on him and actually fires is in the wrong.

Thus, if it isn't actually even reasonable that someone should shoot him, how can he be responsible in that HYPOTHETICAL case if the bullet actually hit someone else?? That arguement is emotic and spurious.

Next case:
The clerk may have had a heart condition and had a heart attack from stress. Again, spurious. If in a fit of rage, one driver honks his horn at another and that second driver has a heart attack, is the "honker" responsible for the heart attack? NO. It is simply back luck.

The DJ jeopardized the public's safety as well as his own.

I argue that the DJ did not jeopardise public safety. Looking scary is not jeopardising public safety. And public safety itself is only a guiding principle. Driving a car (even without speeding) causes risk. Everything we do has risk. There is a trade off between civil freedoms and "safety" and I think charging someone on a law, be it local ordinances, with a loaded-term like "terrorism" is completely wrong. It is not only completely disproportionate, but also debases the term "terrorism" itself.

Regards.

[tekkieman]

blah...blah...blah....I'm fairly certain that nowhere is it written that "wearing a ski mask in a shop" is a crime...

Not to take anything away from your lengthy and though provoking response, but I do need to point out that there are indeed local laws in some places in the U.S. that do make it illegal to enter establishments with a ski mask on.

On an earlier point on gun-toting civilians, in most places in the U.S. it is completely legal to walk down the city streets with your firearm strapped to your hip. There are however laws against concealing it, or entering certain places with it such as bars, banks, and schools.

Anyway, back to the great debate......