Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Brickley, you said there was no definition for "terrorism" in NZ law.
I/S pointed you to the definition of "terrorist act". That definition is very much in force (I checked).
Your attempt to argue that "terrorism" is not the same as "terrorist act" is an exercise in semantics.
Especially considering the legislation you pointed to clearly replaces the term "terrorism" with "terrorist act" to be consistent with the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, reflecting that as far as the legislature is concerned, the two terms mean much the same.
Sometimes it's just better to admit you're wrong. It's okay to do so in this forum.
-
Kyle, I may join you. Wait, doesn't that make us terrorists if there's more than one of us?
-
Does anyone else see a parallel with the "smacking" thread?
-
Saying the suspect arrested has ties to right-wing extremist groups is not the same thing as saying all pro-lifers are terrorists. You're attempting to deny a link that hasn't been made here. Thus you're arguing with yourself. I hope that goes well for you.
-
However it is grossly unfair and dangerous to paint all pro-life people as groups potential terrorists on the actions of one man.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone here doing so.
-
Then every single murder every day is the act of a terrorist and you've just removed all meaning from the word.
Nonsense. Whether an act is a terrorist act by any definition will usually depend on the intention of the person committing the act, as well as the consequences of the act. It has nothing to do with the number of people involved.
-
Russell. If you can point to the pro-life organisations that are celebrating Tiller's murder then you might be justified in linking the pro-life label to terrorism.
Does it really matter whether the man who killed (sorry, allegedly killed) Tiller was part of an organisation that advocated the killing of abortionists? Even if he acted alone, how does that make it any less a terrorist act?
-
We are entilted to make accusations of murder, for sure the guy who shot Tiller could sue us for slander but his burden of proof is going to be kind of difficult to overcome.
Sub-judice doesn't apply in this case. The US doesn't recognise the doctrine, and the matter's not before the NZ courts. So slander away, my good man! (or, more accurately, libel away!)
-
I am not Graeme but... I believe that's not the case. Can't a coronor pass a verdict of 'murder by person or persons unknown'? If not, a lot of British crime drama has shamelessly lied to me.
You are of course right. Someone can be acquitted of murder, but that doesn't mean the victim wasn't murdered. I think we need to be careful about reverting to overly legalistic definitions (this is not a courtroom), when commonsense ones will do.
-
Is there *any* sense in which the evidently premeditated gunning down of an unarmed man is *not* murder? Seriously?
I think perhaps what Brickley was trying to say (Brickley, please tell me if I'm wrong) is that there's a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, so we cannot call someone a murderer until they're convicted, ergo we cannot yet call it a murder. That's what I meant by "narrow legal sense".
I agree that in the "everyday" sense it looks like an awful murder.