• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the South Carolina chuch shootings an act of terrorism

was he South Carolina Churc shooting an act of terrorism

  • It was aTerroist act.

    Votes: 26 53.1%

  • It was a hate crime only

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • It was a crazy Guy

    Votes: 6 12.2%

  • terrorist 1st hate 2nd nut job 3rd in that order

    Votes: 13 26.5%
  • Total voters
    49
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Is racially motivated crime terrorism? I dont know.

Anecdotal but: when I travel to other countries I get identified by my nationality, not by my race. When I go back to the US I seem to be defined by my race- its on government forms, its on the news, its everywhere. I think as a country we seem overly obsessed with race even though there is no scientific basis for it- its a cultural/social construct. What we need to do is to start eliminating race as a concept both legally and culturally- I believe its the only way we can move forward.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

tres borrachos said:
Janet Napolitano said in 2009 that we aren't supposed to use the term "terrorism" anymore. She said we're to call it a "man-caused disaster".

He was a man. He caused a disaster. He was probably filled with rage. He wanted to instill fear.

Does it matter?
Click to expand...
Quote please.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

JayDubya said:
"Hate crime" is thought crime, however, and no one who values personal freedom can ever support "hate crime" prosecution.
Click to expand...
:lol: Oh boy.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Is trying to begin a race war a terrorist act?

Whatever his alleged motives, Dylann Storm Roof is a mass murderer.
 
it is a terrorist attack caused by hate ..
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

It has been my experience that the term "terrorism" is usually defined according to a person's agenda rather than using any sort of concrete criteria, and is either expanded or limited according to such an agenda. Radical leftists defending Islamist terrorism like to expand the term by what they describe as "state terrorism", which includes any scenario in which people die. The hard right tends to exclude any action that does not fit the template of Islamic actions carried out for Jihad.

In the case of the church shootings, yes, it is terrorism because it fits the criteria for inclusion as defined. It is also a hate crime for the same reason.

As to those prattling on with their misunderstanding of the term "hate crime" and who lack the ability to distinguish between it and another crime, I would point out that a hate crime is committed against a random person because of what they represent, and not because of previous contact between the two parties involved or as a result of robbery or other criminal actions. As such, the act affects a much wider group of people because of the intimidating effects. A drug dealer killing another drug dealer over a turf war affects only those people and their associates. Killing people because of their race affects all people of that race.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

plutonium said:
Since the 9-11 terrorist attack I believe USA have named acts of terrorism.. one I heard was that even if a gang threatens or hurt innocent people it is an act of terrorism ..if a Muslim kills an American it is an act of terrorism. radical Muslims hate Americans right? and if they kill a group of Americans like in Boston they were called terrorist well this boy hated blacks Americans and he killed a group of Americans does that make him a terrorist? or does the color make the difference between terrorism and a hate crime? what do you think. sorry for the miss spelling of the poll heading should read (Was the South Carolina church shooting an act of terrorism)
Click to expand...

All of these crimes have something in common which is hatred.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Gardener said:
It is also a hate crime for the same reason.
Click to expand...

I was reading some information earlier that stated that South Carolina has never been able to get a hate crime bill passed so they don't actually have any hate crime laws on their books.

I checked other sources to verify it because I thought surely that can't be right. Unfortunately it is.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Serenity said:
I was reading some information earlier that stated that South Carolina has never been able to get a hate crime bill passed so they don't actually have any hate crime laws on their books.

I checked other sources to verify it because I thought surely that can't be right. Unfortunately it is.
Click to expand...

This doesn't surprise me.The same people that just cannot understand that anybody would see their Confederate state flag in terms of the image it projects would have no use for hate crime laws.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

But South Carolina does have the death penalty. I don't know whether confessing takes this off the table, but having confessed to nine murders, Dylann Roof will never be free again, so whether "hate crime" can be attached doesn't matter.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

soot said:
Not terrorism.

Not a "hate crime".

Just your good, ol' fashioned, vanilla mass murder.
Click to expand...

Though I think you are right as this individual was apparently going to go on a shooting spree of some sort sooner or later, his stated goals in the shooting spree that he did commit was to "start a race war". That is a political objective and makes the crime and act of terrorism. The fact that he targetted blacks specifically also makes it a hate crime.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

nota bene said:
But South Carolina does have the death penalty. I don't know whether confessing takes this off the table, but having confessed to nine murders, Dylann Roof will never be free again, so whether "hate crime" can be attached doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

What you have is a hate crime that South Carolina cannot officially recognise as such even though the Charleston Police Chief, the Mayor and the FBI are defining the incident as a hate crime.

Why did you use quotation marks for "hate crime" Nota? :confused:
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Unaffiliated said:
Republican, Fox News caused Terrorist Act.
Click to expand...

:bs

maybe the most ridiculous comment about this tragedy we have seen so far
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Serenity said:
I was reading some information earlier that stated that South Carolina has never been able to get a hate crime bill passed so they don't actually have any hate crime laws on their books.

I checked other sources to verify it because I thought surely that can't be right. Unfortunately it is.
Click to expand...

maybe in some cases, the lack of a hate crime statute may lead to too light a sentence

in this case, it has no relevance given 9 counts of first degree premeditated murder means that this shooter is toast. pure and simple. and there are plenty of people in law enforcement that wonder about the usefulness of "hate crime" designations. rather we are better off with what is called "aggravating" circumstances that don't appear to be the product of political correctness or pandering to various interest groups
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

TurtleDude said:
maybe in some cases, the lack of a hate crime statute may lead to too light a sentence

in this case, it has no relevance given 9 counts of first degree premeditated murder means that this shooter is toast. pure and simple. and there are plenty of people in law enforcement that wonder about the usefulness of "hate crime" designations. rather we are better off with what is called "aggravating" circumstances that don't appear to be the product of political correctness or pandering to various interest groups
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that it's not a hate crime? Why would there be so much reluctance to call it what it is in this instance?

I'll ask the same of you as I did Nota. Why did you use quotation marks for "hate crime"
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Serenity said:
What you have is a hate crime that South Carolina cannot officially recognise as such even though the Charleston Police Chief, the Mayor and the FBI are defining the incident as a hate crime.

Why did you use quotation marks for "hate crime" Nota? :confused:
Click to expand...

Only to signify the category, not to diminish.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Serenity said:
Are you suggesting that it's not a hate crime? Why would there be so much reluctance to call it what it is in this instance?

I'll ask the same of you as I did Nota. Why did you use quotation marks for "hate crime"
Click to expand...

the problem with that question is I don't know what definition you are using

hate crime can be a generic term where "hate" motivates the action rather than other nefarious motives

or it can be a specific legal term which in this jurisdiction may not exist

certainly someone trying to start a race war is motivated by unfathomable levels of racist hatred which appears to be the case here

but if SC has no hate crime designation, then under their law its premeditated murder

in my position, premeditated murder of purely innocent victims is bad enough whatever the motivations are
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Serenity said:
I was reading some information earlier that stated that South Carolina has never been able to get a hate crime bill passed so they don't actually have any hate crime laws on their books.

I checked other sources to verify it because I thought surely that can't be right. Unfortunately it is.
Click to expand...

Maybe they realized that someone who is murdered because of the color of their skin is no less dead than someone who is murdered for any other reason.Maybe they realize that the loved ones of most murdered people are not saying "oh thank god my loved one wasn't murdered because of their skin color".
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Ockham said:
The one reported item that makes me say "Yes" to the terrorist act is that he left the one woman alive and told her he was doing it on purpose so she would tell people what he did here. THAT is not just a nut job, not just a mentally ill murderer, not just a drug addled racist but an act of terrorism. IF that turns out to be accurate as it's been reported so far, yeah it was a terrorist act on top of everything else against the black community.
Click to expand...

So the media acting like useful idiots are giving the scumbag his 15 minutes of fame and thus spreading his message.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Yes it was obviously.

From a biological perspective the kid ended his line. He won't have any kids unless he gets a prison worker pregnant which isn't all too likely. From what I saw he only actually killed two young black men the other people were all much older and likely had kids so basically he ended a white line and only ended two black lines for his one. Not a very good "trade off" according to his own racist ideology. Basically a failed attack if he was attempting to stop "Blacks from taking over the country" as he claimed.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

plutonium said:
Since the 9-11 terrorist attack I believe USA have named acts of terrorism.. one I heard was that even if a gang threatens or hurt innocent people it is an act of terrorism ..if a Muslim kills an American it is an act of terrorism. radical Muslims hate Americans right? and if they kill a group of Americans like in Boston they were called terrorist well this boy hated blacks Americans and he killed a group of Americans does that make him a terrorist? or does the color make the difference between terrorism and a hate crime? what do you think. sorry for the miss spelling of the poll heading should read (Was the South Carolina church shooting an act of terrorism)
Click to expand...

To my thinking, the difference between a terrorist attack and a hate crime is that a terrorist attack includes an element of wanting to disrupt society. It isn't just an act of hatred or bigotry -- it's also an act of psychological warfare.

Because Roof wanted to send a message to America as a whole and cause fear in the black community, I would class him as a terrorist.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

Terrorism is defined not least by it's intention. He fits the bill.
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

He killed in order to achieve a sociopolitical end. If that isn't terrorism, what is?
 
Re: Was the South Carolina church shootings an act of terrorism

TurtleDude said:
maybe in some cases, the lack of a hate crime statute may lead to too light a sentence

in this case, it has no relevance given 9 counts of first degree premeditated murder means that this shooter is toast. pure and simple. and there are plenty of people in law enforcement that wonder about the usefulness of "hate crime" designations. rather we are better off with what is called "aggravating" circumstances that don't appear to be the product of political correctness or pandering to various interest groups
Click to expand...

The point of "mitigating circumstances" is to *lessen* the culpability, not to define a crime as more severe than usual. Perhaps the real problem is that charges like "assault" don't have a wide gap in sentencing. Then again, some judges are crazy and it's bad news to give them that leeway

Forget this particular case because yeah a murder case itself makes hate crime charges pointless

But consider an assault when the attempt is to steal a wallet, versus an attack by several cowards in white robes because the target is black or some other characteristic. The trauma to the victim can easily become more lingering because he thinks no precaution can be taken, he's not safe anywhere, and it aligns with hostility he's faced in the past. He may internalize it as a deserved beating, since it's so personal

The potential damage to victims is routinely a factor in sentencing. Rape and kidnapping for instance are dealt with far more harshly than a physical beating, because the psychological long-term effects are usually different. Hate crimes can leave the victim a wreck and the reason south carolina doesn't have such a law isn't because they're oh-so astute public policy makers think that it's wise. It's the same reason they still have the confederate flag at the capitol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom