Michigan DA politicizing school shooting tragedy by charging parents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

And yet he not only posted on Instagram, but recorded a manifesto on his site joke and within a journal according to the county sheriff. Seems like they have intent to commit terrorism down. I think the defense will try to argue ambiguity in the law.

To note, if his statement about shooting in the school was known to the school before the shooting, then contributory negligence may be in order. Civil lawsuits would also be a slam dunk if true.

---

What political or religious motivation was behind it? You know, the things that are required in order for something to be considered terrorism.

You didn't reply last time it was asked, and you won't reply this time either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What political or religious motivation was behind it? You know, the things that are required in order for something to be considered terrorism.

You didn't reply last time it was asked, and you won't reply this time either.

---

Because political or religious motivation isn't required under the Michigan statute. Such qualifications only exist in your dementia addled mind. Yours and Dreaven's insistence that everyone answer to your dumb ass hypotheticals is inane and a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

And yet he not only posted on Instagram, but recorded a manifesto on his site joke and within a journal according to the county sheriff. Seems like they have intent to commit terrorism down. I think the defense will try to argue ambiguity in the law.

To note, if his statement about shooting in the school was known to the school before the shooting, then contributory negligence may be in order. Civil lawsuits would also be a slam dunk if true.

---

That isn't a manifesto or coercion. Do you know what a manifesto is?

Also...

(a) "Act of terrorism" means a willful and deliberate act that is all of the following:
(i) An act that would be a violent felony under the laws of this state, whether or not committed in this state.
(ii) An act that the person knows or has reason to know is dangerous to human life.
(iii) An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct
of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion.

It has to be ALL three, their definition is the same as everywhere else. I didn't see anything saying he was trying to do anything in the 3rd one. He is overcharged.

And what Methais meant by religious or political is that terrorism requires the person be pushing a specific goal using violence. It is usually based on political or religious ideologies, but it doesn't have to be.

What position was he trying to push? Or was he just a bullied kid getting pay back?

https://video.dailymail.co.uk/previe...1645525524.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Because political or religious motivation isn't required under the Michigan statute.

---

You're wrong and stupid, but that's nothing new.

Quote:

---

Such qualifications only exist in your dementia addled mind.

---

Today I learned that everyone who disagrees with Soyran has dementia. Or maybe Soyran is so stupid that he can

Quote:

---

Yours and Dreaven's insistence that everyone answer to your dumb ass hypotheticals is inane and a waste of time.

---

It's really just pre-emptively calling you out because of the way you like to selectively respond only to certain things (but still being wrong 99% of the time though) while going out of your way to avoid responding to things that you either already know you're wrong about and/or that answering honestly will make you look even more stupid than everyone already thinks you are, either because you're so full of shit all the time, or because you had a rare moment of self awareness and actually realized how stupid you are.

Remember how the other day you had no clue what a pyramid scheme was while calling something a pyramid scheme, and then you shut the fuck up extra quick after, for example? :rofl:

It's like that, but with almost every thread/topic/post you're a part of.

Do better and be less stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

Also...

(a) "Act of terrorism" means a willful and deliberate act that is all of the following:
(i) An act that would be a violent felony under the laws of this state, whether or not committed in this state.
(ii) An act that the person knows or has reason to know is dangerous to human life.
(iii) An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct
of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion.

It has to be ALL three, their definition is the same as everywhere else. I didn't see anything saying he was trying to do anything in the 3rd one. He is overcharged.

And what Methais meant by religious or political is that terrorism requires the person be pushing a specific goal using violence. It is usually based on political or religious ideologies, but it doesn't have to be.

What position was he trying to push? Or was he just a bullied kid getting pay back?

---

The Michigan statute doesn't require someone to be acting upon a political or religious ideal, so the federal definition has no relevance as to whether or not the State of Michigan charges the teen.

Also in case you weren't following the final page, the little dude premeditated what was going to happen and recorded himself talking about committing the act. Between that and the Instagram post, the third clause was met. That the first two were blatantly covered by the act itself should be apparent.

If that weren't enough, the DA has sooo much more information that would have had to been approved by a grand jury or a judicial officer in a preliminary hearing to even bring those charges in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

The Michigan statute doesn't require someone to be acting upon a political or religious ideal, so the federal definition has no relevance as to whether or not the State of Michigan charges the teen.

Also in case you weren't following the final page, the little dude premeditated what was going to happen and recorded himself talking about committing the act. Between that and the Instagram post, the third clause was met. That the first two were blatantly covered by the act itself should be apparent.

If that weren't enough, the DA has sooo much more information that would have had to been approved by a grand jury or a judicial officer in a preliminary hearing to even bring those charges in the first place.

---

I didn't say it did, I said that is the usual motivation. Premeditation isn't terrorism, it is why we have 1st degree murder charges. So again, what ideal was he trying to coerce people onto accept by using violence? Stop bring opposite just to be opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

I didn't say it did, I said that is the usual motivation. Premeditation isn't terrorism, it is why we have 1st degree murder charges. So again, what ideal was he trying to coerce people onto accept by using violence? Stop bring opposite just to be opposite.

---

Soyran can't help it. It's his natural defense mechanism kicking in when he realizes that he's wrong and stupid but doesn't want to admit it.

I really enjoy how some folks have become experts in state and local laws and that they communicate that expertise so eloquently through this forum.

I had no idea the constitutional scholars and law experts we had here!