Skip to comments.
New York Gang Member Faces Trial as Terrorist
Reuters ^
| 12-29-04
| Maria Castro
Posted on 12/29/2004 8:48:06 AM PST by debboo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
1
posted on
12/29/2004 8:48:09 AM PST
by
debboo
To: debboo
Yep, serves him right! Gangmembers are domestic terrorists and should be treated/punished as such.
2
posted on
12/29/2004 8:49:25 AM PST
by
Kurt_D
To: debboo
But Eve Santana, owner of a bridal shop, said while maybe not on the scale of bin Laden, "of course they are terrorists." Darn right! Hang 'em high!
3
posted on
12/29/2004 8:51:02 AM PST
by
Sociopathocracy
(The Left is the ally of Islamo-fascism.)
To: debboo
Morales, 22, was indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror in May, along with 18 other members of the St. James Boys Gang, a Mexican and Mexican-American street gang.
Guest worker
4
posted on
12/29/2004 8:51:07 AM PST
by
Afronaut
(Press two for English.)
To: debboo
Is there some reason why laws against murder aren't enough? This seems to be in the same category as "hate crimes" legislation.
5
posted on
12/29/2004 8:51:38 AM PST
by
inquest
(Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
To: debboo
"They are comparing my son to (Osama) bin Laden ... and all those people who used bombs and killed thousands of people at random," said Morales. "They are making him look as if he was this cold-hearted person, and he is not like that."
Murder is murder. Period.
'Nuff said.
6
posted on
12/29/2004 8:52:02 AM PST
by
mhking
To: debboo
I wonder if 10-year-old Melanie Mendez would agree that "Gang violence and terrorism are two different things"...if she were still alive, that is
7
posted on
12/29/2004 8:54:01 AM PST
by
Lekker 1
To: Lekker 1
The tree hugger nazis should be hit with this law next.
8
posted on
12/29/2004 8:56:30 AM PST
by
speed_addiction
(Ninja's last words, "Hey guys. Watch me just flip out on that big dude over there!")
To: debboo
"But it should never be justifiable to use laws with purposes other than their original intent. "Like the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Congress has used this clause to circumvent the limitations placed on its powers by the Constitution. That body has taken the phrase---to regulate commerce
among the several States, and transformed it into the constitutional basis for a multitude of federal regulatory schemes for everything from civil rights to gun control. It has also been used to unconstitutionally expand the federal governments criminal jurisdiction over the people of the several States. In addition, the expansion of federal power through the Commerce Clause has all but nullified the Tenth Amendment
link to article
9
posted on
12/29/2004 9:00:13 AM PST
by
Mr. K
(Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. god Bless America, Our Troops, W, and Ann Coulter!)
To: debboo
Its about damn time. Street terrorism is what gangs are anyway.
But, as always I can find the cloud behind any silver lining, I see a downside to this. If gangs are now prosecuted as terrorists this may allow the further militarization of the police.
10
posted on
12/29/2004 9:02:31 AM PST
by
AreaMan
To: inquest
I think there's quite a difference between this and "hate crimes." It sounds like the terrorism statute is based on the nature of the crime itself, while hate crimes statutes punish the offender for his motives in commiting the crime. Although racism is a repugnant sin, it shouldn't be and isn't a crime, and hate crimes laws basically punish you extra for something that isn't a crime to begin with. Whereas, I got the impression from the article that the terrorism law doesn't punish you for your motives but for what you actually did - something that the state has decided goes beyond the scope of just murder. I think punishing gang members like this is a great idea.
11
posted on
12/29/2004 9:02:58 AM PST
by
sassbox
To: debboo
A spokeswoman for state Sen. Michael Balboni, who sponsored the bill, said he does not mind that prosecutors have decided gang violence is a form of domestic terrorism and are using the statute to prosecute Morales. Wasn't there a thread here earlier about how drug dealers and gangs have "taken over" Camden New Jersey? Sure sounds like they could use this application.
In my view, that state of affairs certainly qualifies as terrorism...
12
posted on
12/29/2004 9:04:57 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.)
To: debboo
"Local store manager Lidia Chavez added: "Gang violence and terrorism are two different things." "
I disagree. I think they're exactly the same thing.
13
posted on
12/29/2004 9:06:09 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: sassbox
Terrorism statutes, as I've seen them described, describe the crime on the basis of whether the person was trying to influence the actions of the government by committing his crime. Recently (I don't have a link hand right now, unfortunately) a federal terrorism statute was invoked against someone who was allegedly making "harassing" calls (actually, calling up and complaining repeatedly) to a federal agency. If I come across something more solid on this I'll post it.
14
posted on
12/29/2004 9:06:16 AM PST
by
inquest
(Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
To: debboo
RICO updated for the modern gang element.... something sort of comforting about that.
To: debboo
"Terrorism" = Crimes Against the State. Scary.
The violent acts of terrorism are already covered by existing law. Even RICO plays against terrorists, but we knee-jerk emotional reactionaries want new laws, as thought we believe laws alone will protect us such that any level of terrorism must mean we didn't have the right laws in the first place.
To: AreaMan
I see a downside to this.You darn right! We ALL should!
17
posted on
12/29/2004 9:15:05 AM PST
by
houeto
(<--------brewing the coffee, black and strong....)
To: Afronaut
"...Guest worker..."Just doing the killing that Americans no longer want to do.
18
posted on
12/29/2004 9:15:12 AM PST
by
albee
(The best thing you can do for the Poor is.....not be one of them.)
To: inquest
Is there some reason why laws against murder aren't enough?
I agree, after all, how many times can you execute a murderer, or how many years will you keep the body in jail after he dies from old age or anal rape or whatever. If the sentence for violent crime is what it should be, you don't need any additional charge to keep the perp in jail. We have too many laws on the books now, don't need any more, just enforce the ones we have.
Jack
19
posted on
12/29/2004 9:19:10 AM PST
by
btcusn
(Giving up the right to arms is a mistake a free people get to make only once.)
To: debboo
There are already laws against criminal and gang activity. To prosecute a gang member as a terrorist should cause any freedom loving person to be tremendously concerned.
At what point will any person accused of a crime be prosecuted as a terrorist...?
20
posted on
12/29/2004 9:20:07 AM PST
by
freebilly
(Go Santa Cruz Basketball! Beat Palo Alto!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson