http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/nyregion/01terror.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

In the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, 36 states enacted laws that would guarantee harsher sentences in terrorism cases. Gov. George E. Pataki signed New York’s law within six days of the attack. Like the others, it was aimed at international terrorism organizations like Al Qaeda.

But yesterday, in State Supreme Court in the Bronx, jurors for the first time found a defendant guilty under New York’s statute, and he did not fit the stereotype of a terrorist. The defendant, Edgar Morales, is a 25-year-old recreational soccer player and gang member who fatally shot a 10-year-old girl and wounded a second man outside a christening party in 2002.

...

The Bronx jury convicted Mr. Morales of first-degree manslaughter, attempted murder, criminal possession of a weapon and conspiracy, each with the additional element of terrorism, which is likely to increase his prison term significantly when he is sentenced Nov. 14.

The terrorism component increases each crime one level — a B felony becomes an A felony, for instance, raising a potential 15-year sentence to 25 years to life.



Thought this was an interesting development in our Post-9/11 world and wanted to share.

Gee, i wonder when parking tickets will be elements of terrorism...

While I don't necessarily agree with the methods used, I would just as soon shoot any gangster in the face with a 12 ga. shotgun loaded with buckshot, than to look at them.
Besides, there are several similarities to insurgents and terrorist suicide bombers killing innocent civilians and ghetto gangsters that kill innocent bystanders.
If labelling gansters as terrorists will allow law enforcement to lay a harsher smack down on those degenerates, then I'm all for it.
I have no regard for anyone who has no regard for human life.

I'm all for strengthening the power of law enforcement, but i'd rather have a new set of rules/legislation giving them the powers than using the terrorism law, because the moment we confuse terrorism with regular violence, we can confuse opposition with terrorism as well.

I'm all for strengthening the power of law enforcement, but i'd rather have a new set of rules/legislation giving them the powers than using the terrorism law, because the moment we confuse terrorism with regular violence, we can confuse opposition with terrorism as well.
I see your point, but I've always considered street gangs (especially the bigger organized ones like MS-13) to be a form of terrorist groups anyway.
I agree with having a new set of rules for them, but I also think those rules should fall under a form of terrorism and they should receive similar treatment as terrorists.
They have no regard for the law or innocent human life. If they want to kill each other, that's totally fine by me. That's 'natural selection' that cops won't have to worry about, but if/when one of their stray bullets kills a child, the law should show the same regard for them as they did that child. Put 'em all in the chair and fry them!

This is what the right wanted. We all saw this comming.

I see your point, but I've always considered street gangs (especially the bigger organized ones like MS-13) to be a form of terrorist groups anyway.


Only for those that actually have to live with them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/nyregion/01terror.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin



Thought this was an interesting development in our Post-9/11 world and wanted to share.

That's absolutely fine with me - current sentences are far too light anyway.

And I agree with the one who said that street gangs are terrorists - they CERTAINLY are!! Their actions fit the definition perfectly.

just create a set of Domestic terrorism laws, just don't let it take away any of your rights thoiugh.

it doesnt.

And I agree with the one who said that street gangs are terrorists - they CERTAINLY are!! Their actions fit the definition perfectly.But the definition of terrorism includes motivation, not merely action. The essence of all the definitions of terrorism is:A form of extortion, Conducted by attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure, In the hope or expectation of forcing them to support a cause that is so unpopular among them, That the terrorists can find no other way to enlist this support.One of the things gangs routinely do that DOES qualify as terrorism is to kill people who have testified against them. In my recollection this is the most spectacularly successful terrorist strategy (involving Americans) in 62 years. There is a huge "Don't Snitch" campaign sweeping our inner cities. Rappers brag about it in their videos. People refuse to even talk to police, much less testify in court. A crime can be committed in front of twenty eyewitnesses and they will vanish before the police arrive to investigate. Anyone who is suspected of talking to police is labeled a "collaborator" and is assassinated as an example to intimidate everyone else in the region.

Gangsters are killing civilians, in the expectation of eliciting their support, at least their passive support by refusing to cooperate with the authorities. This is terrorism. It's hardly in a class with Al Qaeda, but it may have exceeded the body count of the IRA.

AFAIK, the last time a campaign of terrorism involving Americans was this successful was in 1945, when our military destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. It had the desired effect of terrorizing Japan's civilians into ceasing their support for the war effort and urging their own military to surrender. Since Japan had no hope of winning the war, its no-surrender policy would have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Japanese civilians and military personnel on both sides, probably doubling WWII's death toll of sixty million, until the last six-year-old girl was gunned down while charging a battalion of U.S. Marines with the samurai sword she pulled from her dead daddy's hands.

(Terrorism looks a whole lot different from the standpoint of the terrorists, especially in the rare cases when they (we) win, doesn't it?)

We need to know more about the shooting in question before we can classify it as terrorism. Was this an assassination for the purpose of intimidating witnesses, or in some other way to gain passive support for a gang? If it was "merely" a revenge shooting, punishment of a rival gang by killing their children, or just a thrill killing, it's murder and a lot of other things, but it's not terrorism.

Terrorism is extortion. What was the killer trying to extort?

We need to know more about the shooting in question before we can classify it as terrorism. Was this an assassination for the purpose of intimidating witnesses, or in some other way to gain passive support for a gang? If it was "merely" a revenge shooting, punishment of a rival gang by killing their children, or just a thrill killing, it's murder and a lot of other things, but it's not terrorism.

Terrorism is extortion. What was the killer trying to extort?

Most of this part I'll buy - especially about needing to know more about the circumstances. But even a revenge killing is STILL an attempt to terrorize as much as it is anything else. Along with the revenge factor it clearly carries a warning as well - "don't mess with us." Would you dare deny that?????

In the meanwhile, until more facts are available, I'll still stick with my stand on the issue - including the part about violent crimes not drawing serious enough sentences under the current laws in most states.

Hum. Forum a little slow today. I know:

I've never understood why it is that motorcycle gangs like Hell's Angels et al are just allowed to wander about, buy property, bid to get their little clubhouses back and so forth. Same with the mafia. The police know full well who they are. Why can't we just have a nice little clear and sweep and shoot them all? A little revolution.

Cheers!

Gee, i wonder when parking tickets will be elements of terrorism...the dick head murdered a 10 year old girl, I hope he rots in prison forever.

I've never understood why it is that motorcycle gangs like Hell's Angels et al are just allowed to wander about, buy property, bid to get their little clubhouses back and so forth. Same with the mafia. The police know full well who they are. Why can't we just have a nice little clear and sweep and shoot them all?

'Cause the mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals don't like us shooting those vicious, murdering criminals .....they prefer that those vicious, murderin' savages have the freedoms to kidnap, rape and kill more little girls!

Vicious, murderin', rapists are people, too, ya' know. They should be afforded all the freedoms and rights to commit crimes against little girls if they want to.

Baron Max

We need to know more about the shooting in question before we can classify it as terrorism. Was this an assassination for the purpose of intimidating witnesses, or in some other way to gain passive support for a gang? If it was "merely" a revenge shooting, punishment of a rival gang by killing their children, or just a thrill killing, it's murder and a lot of other things, but it's not terrorism.

Terrorism is extortion. What was the killer trying to extort?

It appears from the news report that the boys were a regular nuisance. What worries me though, is that this boy was previously arraigned on a misdemeanour charge which was later converted to a shooting charge with terrorism attached. Of course, his stepfather cannot be considered an unbiased party, but since most of the gang members have run away, or have made deals with the cop, it looks like this guy is going to be the "example".

In the case of Mr. Morales, who is also known as Puebla, prosecutors say that population was the Mexican community in an impoverished area of the west Bronx just north of Yankee Stadium...

The district attorney's office charged Mr. Morales not with murder, but with misdemeanor trespassing. He served 11 months in jail. Detectives originally believed that the gunman had escaped and fled to Mexico.

But in May 2004, a Bronx grand jury charged Mr. Morales and 18 others under a 70-count indictment for crimes including second-degree murder, conspiracy, gun possession and gang assault for a series of criminal acts committed between 2001 and 2004. Mr. Morales and several others were also charged under the terrorism statute for several of the crimes, including the murder of Malenny.

Last year, Justice Steven Barrett of Bronx County Supreme Court ruled that the antiterrorism statute could be applied in the Morales case over the objections of Mr. Morales's lawyer. So far, 9 of the 18 defendants in the case have reached plea deals with the district attorney. Eight others are at large, believed by prosecutors to have gone to Mexico. The 18th may testify in the Morales case.

There is little question that the St. James Boys were a menace to Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants in the area around St. James Park. When gang members were not playing soccer, according to the district attorney's indictment, they robbed restaurant patrons, fired shots into crowds, beat and harassed strangers and slashed rivals with knives.

Prosecutors said their activities were all part of an effort to be the toughest Mexican gang in a swath of the Bronx running from 170th to 205th Streets and from University Avenue in the west to Webster Avenue in the east.

Unlike many other contemporary gangs however, the 100 or so members of the St. James Boys did not seek to make money through drug sales or by controlling prostitution or gambling. They sought only power — and they tormented only those identifiable as being of Mexican origin. Everyone else was left alone.

It is not precisely clear how large a role Mr. Morales played in the gang, but his lawyer, Dino Lombardi, denies Mr. Morales was a gang member. And Mr. Morales's stepfather, Inocencio Hernandez, said that gang members might have befriended his son, but that the relationship ended there.

The real culprits, said Mr. Hernandez, have fled to Mexico.

"He was in the wrong place at the wrong time," said Mr. Hernandez, who helped raise Mr. Morales.

The terrorism charges, Mr. Hernandez said, were little more than a joke.



The evidence is also part of a deal:

The shooting occurred on Aug. 18, 2002, when Malenny Mendez, 10, went with friends to a christening party at a church.

Also at the party were Mr. Morales and a group of other members of the St. James Boys, who had come uninvited and with at least one handgun.

After getting into a fight with other partygoers, the St. James Boys decided to seek retribution.

Mr. Morales, who did not testify at the trial, had previously acknowledged handling a gun that evening and being a member of the gang.

The only witness who testified that he saw Mr. Morales shoot the gun was Enrique Sanchez, another member of the St. James Boys, who was among those present that night. In a deal with prosecutors, Mr. Sanchez agreed to testify against Mr. Morales in exchange for the chance to plead guilty to second-degree murder.

Mr. Sanchez said he watched Mr. Morales fire the .38-caliber revolver, killing Malenny with a bullet to the head, and striking Javier Tocchimani, 32, three times, leaving him paralyzed.

Though jurors said they did not believe portions of Mr. Sanchez’s testimony, they blamed Mr. Morales for not leaving once he felt that a shooting would take place.

“He knew about the gang, he knew what it was all about, he saw there was a problem that night, why didn’t he leave?” one juror said. “Why didn’t he drop the gun when it was handed to him?”


Its hard to know what the truth is.

I've never understood why it is that motorcycle gangs like Hell's Angels et al are just allowed to wander about, buy property, bid to get their little clubhouses back and so forth. Same with the mafia. The police know full well who they are. Why can't we just have a nice little clear and sweep and shoot them all?
”
'Cause the mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals don't like us shooting those vicious, murdering criminals .....they prefer that those vicious, murderin' savages have the freedoms to kidnap, rape and kill more little girls!

No, it's called proof under a court of law.

Sure, we all think we know what the mafia (or whichever group) does, but if nobody catches em in the act or has proof that so-and-so did what, then it's a no-go.

- N

Bah. It's known who these people are. Round them up and shoot them. Done and done.

Naomi Wolf, among others, predicted that the anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of 9/11 would be used against American citizens in cases of ordinary crime - something specifically denied by the proponents of these laws, both before and after enactment.

It was obvious, reading the Patriot Act and watching it's enactment for example, that these new laws had little to do with combatting Islamic jihad or AQ type terrorism.

They are going to be a lot harder to repeal than they were to pass.

Panic and cowardice makes people do strange things.

Thought this was an interesting development in our Post-9/11 world and wanted to share.
The scumbag deserves death. The increase in his sentence, whatever it may be, is just. Really, the law should be changed so that any "civilians" killed by gangs should all be considered first degree murder with a sentence of death or, at the very least, life without the possibility of parole.

But, we should not mix anti-terrorism with normal crime. I support damned near any measure against terrorists. It's war. But there should be absolutely no blurring of the line between terrorism and crime.

It's just this sort of thing that is the best argument against the agressive measures we've been using against terrorists.

Naomi Wolf, among others, predicted that the anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of 9/11 would be used against American citizens in cases of ordinary crime - something specifically denied by the proponents of these laws, both before and after enactment.

It was obvious, reading the Patriot Act and watching it's enactment for example, that these new laws had little to do with combatting Islamic jihad or AQ type terrorism.

They are going to be a lot harder to repeal than they were to pass.

Panic and cowardice makes people do strange things.

I disagree. I'm certain the Patriot Act has been used to round up jihadi swine.