I have a real problem with this.
There are plenty of laws the guy broke, why would a terrorism statute apply?
I consider this to be abuse of the anti-terror laws, the very thing the moonbats have been shrieking about.
Thought of that, too. Using "terrorism" in this context desensitizes us (and the law) to actual terrorism. Attempted murder, felonious assault, etc. -- all options. Probably went for the terrorism charge, though, because it carries the harshest penalty.
****
I have a real problem with this.
There are plenty of laws the guy broke, why would a terrorism statute apply?
I consider this to be abuse of the anti-terror laws, the very thing the moonbats have been shrieking about.
The Arkansas Code indicates that this language is just a bit of legalese unique to that state and pre-dates the "anti-terror" laws that we've heard so much about in recent years. Here 'tis, oddly worded though it seems to be:
5-13-310. Terroristic act.
(a) For the purposes of this section, a person commits a terroristic act if, while not in the commission of a lawful act, the person:
(1) Shoots at or in any manner projects an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by another person with the purpose to cause injury to another person or damage to property; or
(2) Shoots at an occupiable structure with the purpose to cause injury to a person or damage to property.
(b)(1) Any person who commits a terroristic act as defined in subsection (a) of this section is deemed guilty of a Class B felony.
(2) Any person who commits a terroristic act as defined in subsection (a) of this section is deemed guilty of a Class Y felony if the person with the purpose of causing physical injury to another person causes serious physical injury or death to any person.
(c) This section does not repeal any law or part of a law in conflict with this section, but is supplemental to the law or part of a law in conflict.
History. Acts 1975, No. 312, §§ 1-3; 1979, No. 428, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 41-1651, 41-1652, 41-1652n; Acts 1993, No. 544, § 1; 2005, No. 197, § 1.
That’s the thing that jumped out at me, too.
A “terroristic act” is threatening to kill someone or do them grave harm, above and beyond merely threatening to assault them. In short, saying or doing something that makes another fear for their life. Waving a gun at someone in road-rage incident will usually be classified as a “terroristic act.” Such infractions predate the WOT.
I agree. It falls more into the “domestic violence” category.
The main reason I read through the replies was to see if anyone else picked up on this. I gotta agree with you on this. If I were on a jury, and was presented with someone in a similar circumstance, I'd vote "not guilty" on that charge. People need to realize that we're the final break on this insanity.
I totally agree. I thought that terrorism had to have some sort of political component.
No. I doubt the dad had any political or ideological changes he wanted to make in government or society.... ;-)