cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639322
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639321
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639317
Vamanos Doyers!
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639322
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639321
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639317
Vamanos Doyers!
People typically have definitions like this in mind:
Acts (1) dangerous to life (2) designed to coerce a population or a government. Otherwise, any threat inimical to life would qualify.
Death is dangerous to life and groups of chuds threatening people who don’t sing their national anthem in their preferred language are attempting to coerce a population.
I think people in America typically have a definition like this:
They also think that politics is operated purely on lies and name calling for power grabs and so therefore since they gave the terrorist label to brown people, they can’t ever be one and all their actions are excusable since it’s impossible for them to be a terrorist.
An act directed to a single person isn’t an act intimidating or coercing the civil population. In contrast, such an act directed at/broadcast to the general civil population does qualify as intimidation or coercion of the civil population.
They’re directed at all brown people
Unless the threat was public as a general statement to the public, it was directed only to the individual. Until the individual publicized it, did the public know?