CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 27, 2015 06:48 PM UTC
14 Comments
Good. Terrorism is an act, not a set of beliefs.
How about you wait to find out why first? If it was because it is Planned Parenthood then yes, very good idea.
But if it turns out to be an ex employee upset about being fired or a case of a husband going after his (ex) wife – those are both awful but they're not terrorism.
Because he wouldn't be trying to terrorize his ex-wife or ex-employer?
Really, David. Did you even read the Pols explanation? If the act meets the definition, they will call it that. The reason for the act has nothing to do with whether or not it meets the definition.
The reason very definitely is part of whether a criminal act is also an act of terrorism. A person shooting up a nightclub because he wasn't admitted is not terrorism because it is not "systematic;" instead, it is to further an individual idiosyncratic goal.
The gray area is a lone-wolf type criminal who may have been influenced by, and sees himself acting on behalf of, a political ideology but is not actually associated with any particular group. Let's say the CS killer turns out to be a card-carrying, dues-paying member of Operation Rescue. He's probably a terrorist under any reasonable definition of the term. But what if he's just become unhinged by reading anti-PP propaganda without ever having communicated with anyone else. Terrorist? Maybe, but only because the crime is politically motivated–so, again, it comes down to the reason for the act.
The reason has everything to do with it. Unless you see every shooting, every murder as an act of terrorism in which case there's no need for the word at all.
Suthers won't say it officially, but he says we can imply something from the location.
I'd say he's heard it's terrorism. This ought to be an interesting trial…
I get that it might not be a bad idea to point out the double standards with which those terms have had common, general application
But, honestly, I don't know — those terms pretty much lost all meaning for me fourteen years ago when Cheny/Bush/FOX/et al started tossing them around so loosely at any target they didn't like, or had issues with.
Those terms, or the lack of the application of those terms, doesn't make despicable any more, or less, despicable for me.
Ok.
But just so we are all clear- the terrorist's religion, declared, affiliated or apparent only matters if he is Muslim. Or black separatist Christian.
Or maybe Jewish – “Judeo-Christian” is ok. Or maybe Jewish – “Judeo-Christian” is ok ish.
The dictionary definition isn't complete. I would assert that there is the additional element of provoking terror to achieve an ideological purpose or goal. In this case obviously to frighten away or intimidate clients and workers of Planned Parenthood.
From news reports, it was a 59 year old bearded white guy. Just your average off his rocker Christian militia type. Since he decided that this wasn't going to be suicide by cop today, at least we should learn what or who inspired his wanton murder spree.
You're right, Davie. I don't know why Colorado Pols failed to quote the definition of terrorism set out in the link he provided but let me do that for ya'll:
Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.
We must be careful when we throw around this term. A mass killing in a simple bank robbery is not terrorism. It may well be terrifying, but it is not terrorism.
If it turns out that this guy targeted Planned Parenthood in an effort to stop them from doing their work (as I suspect), then he is a terrorist. Maybe, this time, the criminal justice system will prosecute a white, male Christian for terrorism. I won't hold my breath.
Maybe, this time, the criminal justice system will prosecute a white, male Christian for terrorism.
In El Paso County no less. If he goes to trial, jury selection should be interesting……to put it mildly. And then there will be the question of whether the DA goes for the death penalty.
If I had been present for this horrific act, I'm quite sure I would have been terrorized.
Thanks for this.
Congressional Research Service has a pretty clear definition in a document "The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress."
“… domestic terrorism. First, the Code of Federal Regulations characterizes “terrorism” as including “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” 5 28 C.F.R. §0.85.