Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 454K
  • Politics 
Delta74 said:
January 6 protestors were peaceful protesters.

Tesla protestors are terrorists.

DJT and bosiders
Click to expand...

  • President Donald Trump suggested that people found guilty of damaging Tesla properties could serve their sentences in El Salvador prisons.
  • The threat came after Attorney General Pam Bondi touted federal cases against people accused of setting fire to Tesla cars and property, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick urged people to buy Tesla stock.
 
Delta74 said:
January 6 protestors were peaceful protesters.

Tesla protestors are terrorists.
Click to expand...
I get your point, but if people are setting fires, they aren't just protesters. They've graduated to vandals, or maybe arsonists (I don't know much about the legal definitions of arson and what the elements of that crime entail). They are also not terrorists.
 
superrific said:
I get your point, but if people are setting fires, they aren't just protesters. They've graduated to vandals, or maybe arsonists (I don't know much about the legal definitions of arson and what the elements of that crime entail). They are also not terrorists.
Click to expand...
Of course violence is not acceptable. That’s why all of this is so hypocritical to see and hear from the Magats.
 
superrific said:
I get your point, but if people are setting fires, they aren't just protesters. They've graduated to vandals, or maybe arsonists (I don't know much about the legal definitions of arson and what the elements of that crime entail). They are also not terrorists.
Click to expand...
ter·ror·ist
/ˈterərəst/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwjryNSf45uMAxWGiO4BHVUSMFcQ3eEDegQIOxAM
noun

  1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Even posters here recognize the political goals of this.

Politics - I believe Musk’s actions are harming Tesla’s stock price
 
18 USC 2331 (Definitions) (5):

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; and

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Burning Tesla vehicles in a parking lot is not intended for any of those purposes. Terrorism usually involves:

1. Organizations that use repeated terror attacks in order to advance a set of aims associated with the organization (examples: Hamas, Weatherman)
2. Manifestos. There are almost always manifestos of some sort. Baader-Meinhof had them; Unabomber had them; Luigi sort of had one.
3. Specifically targeted behaviors: this isn't always present, but there's usually some sort of triggering behavior. Kill the magazine writers if they put Muhammed on the cover; kill abortion providers or abortion patients; kill US military.

There are no indices of terrorism. It's just rage. Rage is not the same thing. By your definition, the riots after George Floyd would be terrorism, but they were just riots. I'm not even sure I would consider J6 to be terrorism. It was more insurrection.
 
BTW, the prohibitions on "terrorism" under the federal law apply to:

1. Murder related to terrorism activities
2. Destruction of property IF the conduct transcends national boundaries (i.e. the World Trade Center bombing)
3. Radiological devices, weapons of mass destruction, anti-aircraft missiles.
4. "a explosive or other lethal device into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility-"

Firebombing Tesla dealerships doesn't come close to meeting any of these types of conduct, in addition to not fitting the definition in 2331.
 
As a political crime, it's more like stealing campaign signs. There's more to it as a property crime but ,with the decreasing values of the vehicles, I'd be watching if I were their insurance companies as well.
 
superrific said:
BTW, the prohibitions on "terrorism" under the federal law apply to:

1. Murder related to terrorism activities
2. Destruction of property IF the conduct transcends national boundaries (i.e. the World Trade Center bombing)
3. Radiological devices, weapons of mass destruction, anti-aircraft missiles.
4. "a explosive or other lethal device into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility-"

Firebombing Tesla dealerships doesn't come close to meeting any of these types of conduct, in addition to not fitting the definition in 2331.
Click to expand...
Here's the FBI's definition:

Domestic Terrorism for the FBI’s purposes is referenced in U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5),
and is defined as activities:
• Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;

• Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
o Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and

• Occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

This is a definitional statute, not a charging statute. We talk about the threat these actors pose as
Domestic Terrorism threats, but each of the FBI's threat categories, described in further detail below,
uses the words “violent extremism” because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such
beliefs is not prohibited by US law.

www.fbi.gov

Domestic Terrorism: Definitions, Terminology, and Methodology | Federal Bureau of Investigation

As required by the National Defense Authorization Act, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, have developed standard definitions of terminology related to domestic terrorism and uniform methodologies for tracking domestic...
www.fbi.gov www.fbi.gov
 
ZenMode said:
Here's the FBI's definition:

Domestic Terrorism for the FBI’s purposes is referenced in U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5),
and is defined as activities:
• Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;

• Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
o Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and

• Occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

This is a definitional statute, not a charging statute. We talk about the threat these actors pose as
Domestic Terrorism threats, but each of the FBI's threat categories, described in further detail below,
uses the words “violent extremism” because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such
beliefs is not prohibited by US law.

www.fbi.gov

Domestic Terrorism: Definitions, Terminology, and Methodology | Federal Bureau of Investigation

As required by the National Defense Authorization Act, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, have developed standard definitions of terminology related to domestic terrorism and uniform methodologies for tracking domestic...
www.fbi.gov www.fbi.gov
Click to expand...
So that's a long way of saying, "not terrorism."
 
superrific said:
So that's a long way of saying, "not terrorism."
Click to expand...
Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or

You don't think the vandalism and destruction is meant to intimidate or Elon and those around him?
 
ZenMode said:
Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or

You don't think the vandalism and destruction is meant to intimidate or Elon and those around him?
Click to expand...
1. No, it is not meant to intimidate Elon and if feels intimidated, then he is even more of a thin-skinned idiot than I thought. But anyway, objective standard so it doesn't matter what Elon thinks. It also doesn't matter because:

2. The word civilian population does not mean a person. If it meant to apply to a person or a small set of persons, that language would be used. Civilian population is a term of art that refers to a collectivity of people. Like the civilian population of Gaza, or Germany, or Tokyo. Or the civilian population of a US state. You could probably talk about the civilian population of sports fans if someone is bombing baseball stadiums.

The other aspect of population that doesn't fit is that a "civilian population" is non-specific. The person who tried to kill Trump was not aiming at the "civilian population" of MAGA. He was aiming at a person. So what he tried to do was assassination, which is a form of homicide, but it's not terrorism.

3. Bombings at Tesla stations are not attempts to influence the policy of government. The way you know this is that there have been no demands associated with them. If the bombers left manifestos saying, "Free Mohamed Khalil," that might plausibly fall within the statute's scope, but in practice courts would apply the ejusdem generis canon to require a higher bar than a single flier. Weatherman perpetrated a series of bombings with the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam. They were accompanied by communiques.

This just isn't terrorism. I've said everything I'm going to say on this topic now. I've quoted statutes; I've explained the terminology. I'm not going to engage further, because a discussion presumes both sides being able to respond in an educated, informed and reasonable way. Obviously you can't, not on this issue, as you have zero training or experience with law and don't understand how it works. This is a lecture class. You can learn something, or you can choose not to.
 
superrific said:
1. No, it is not meant to intimidate Elon and if feels intimidated, then he is even more of a thin-skinned idiot than I thought. But anyway, objective standard so it doesn't matter what Elon thinks. It also doesn't matter because:

2. The word civilian population does not mean a person. If it meant to apply to a person or a small set of persons, that language would be used. Civilian population is a term of art that refers to a collectivity of people. Like the civilian population of Gaza, or Germany, or Tokyo. Or the civilian population of a US state. You could probably talk about the civilian population of sports fans if someone is bombing baseball stadiums.

The other aspect of population that doesn't fit is that a "civilian population" is non-specific. The person who tried to kill Trump was not aiming at the "civilian population" of MAGA. He was aiming at a person. So what he tried to do was assassination, which is a form of homicide, but it's not terrorism.

3. Bombings at Tesla stations are not attempts to influence the policy of government. The way you know this is that there have been no demands associated with them. If the bombers left manifestos saying, "Free Mohamed Khalil," that might plausibly fall within the statute's scope, but in practice courts would apply the ejusdem generis canon to require a higher bar than a single flier. Weatherman perpetrated a series of bombings with the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam. They were accompanied by communiques.

This just isn't terrorism. I've said everything I'm going to say on this topic now. I've quoted statutes; I've explained the terminology. I'm not going to engage further, because a discussion presumes both sides being able to respond in an educated, informed and reasonable way. Obviously you can't, not on this issue, as you have zero training or experience with law and don't understand how it works. This is a lecture class. You can learn something, or you can choose not to.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know how you can say it's not meant to intimidate Elon. This has nothing to do with Tesla as cars and everything to do with going after something that is clearly important to Elon. If the goal is not to get him to stop what he's doing at the federal government level, then what is the purpose?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top