Anybody who murders, rapes or commits other violent- crimes-against-persons needs to be caught and prosecuted 'to the max' IMO, but does that make them a terrorist?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/14/gang.terror.ap/index.html "NEW YORK (AP) -- Nineteen members of a street gang accused of menacing their neighborhood have been indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror, believed to be the first use of the state's anti-terrorism law against a gang.... ....Charging that the St. James Gang acted with "the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population," Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson said the grand jury was justified in adding the terrorism stipulation to several counts including conspiracy, murder and gang assault. Johnson said it was the first time he was aware that the terrorism statute had been used in such a way. The law, passed by the state Legislature six days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, allows for more severe sentences. Edgar Morales, 22, who was arrested Thursday, faces the most serious charge, second-degree murder as a terrorist act, for the shooting death of a 10-year-old girl in August 2002 at a baptism party.... ....If convicted on that charge, Morales, who also faces several other charges, would face a mandatory life sentence without parole. The charge without the terrorism stipulation would carry a sentence of 25 years to life...." I think that anybody who kills "by accident" when they were literally gunning for someone else should be convicted of murder (not homicide or any other lesser charge), but I wouldn't call this guy a "terrorist." He might be a piece of scum, and I might even agree with a life sentence, but I wouldn't call him a child molester either. This seems wrong to me. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
