Topic: Arizona (Read 8113 times)

Vespertine · « **on:** April 04, 2007, 11:14:18 PM »

OK, my state, specifically the county I live in (Maricopa County), has done some bone-headed things in the past. Trust me. This one takes the cake (for now).

Quote

Teen accused in abduction faces charges of terrorism
Michael Kiefer
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 3, 2007 12:00 AM

A 14-year-old boy who allegedly kidnapped a classmate at knifepoint and was later found with a backpack full of restraining devices and weapons will be charged with terrorism, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said.

The Mesa boy, who attended Powell Junior High School, also faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping and carrying weapons on a school campus.

Mesa police said the incident began March 22 when Brent Clark confronted the girl with a knife as she walked home from school. She escaped and called police. When Clark did not show up for school the following day, police went to his home and found his backpack.

"From all indications, he was a good student and had never been in any trouble before," Mesa police spokeswoman Holly Hosac said shortly after the arrest. "His parents were beside themselves."

She said Clark told police he intended to kill the girl, whom he had picked at random.

TERRORISM??? I'm not saying the little bastard doesn't need help and/or jail time, but TERRORISM charges? This headline grabbing fuck of a county attorney just boggles my mind!!!

milifist · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:26:34 AM »

It all depends on intent. If he intended to well, terrorize his classmates, then terrorism charges would be appropriate. If it was just trying to kill for the sake of killing, then they should stick with the standard charges. I see no reason why those little worms that do things like shoot up their schools in an attempt to traumatize their classmates should not face terrorism charges.

Banshee · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:30:03 AM »

I'd prefer if people were charged according to what crimes they committed, not what they were thinking at an arbitrarily determined time.

milifist · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:22:11 AM »

It is interesting to see Arizona's definition of terrorism:

Quote

12. "Terrorism" means any felony, including any completed or preparatory offense, that involves the use of a deadly weapon or a weapon of mass destruction or the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury with the intent to either:

(a) Influence the policy or affect the conduct of this state or any of the political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of this state.

(b) Cause substantial damage to or substantial interruption of public communications, communication service providers, public transportation, common carriers, public utilities, public establishments or other public services.

Seems rather broad to me.

RelandR · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:33:10 AM »

Is there some alleged motive they aren't telling that would put this incident into such a category ?
... it sure smells more like they just can't wait to start using the

TerrorWord

.

per wikipedia:

Quote

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals (fear in latin).[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants". ...

RelandR · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:59:10 AM »

Quote from: milifist on April 05, 2007, 01:22:11 AM

Seems rather broad to me.

I don't see how it can be broad enough to cover this particular case, unless they twist into it his being on [public] school grounds to establish a terrorism facet to his crime ...

Quote

(b) Cause ... interruption of ... public establishments or other public services.

12AX7 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2007, 04:34:36 AM »

Quote from: Banshee on April 05, 2007, 12:30:03 AM

I'd prefer if people were charged according to what crimes they committed, not what they were thinking at an arbitrarily determined time.

milifist · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:01:30 AM »

We're not talking about thought crimes here. There was a definite act of violence. Intent determines what crimes were committed.

Actus reus and mens rea are fundamental to our criminal justice system. Here is an example to illustrate their importance:

While driving an automobile, you hit and kill a pedestrian. This is the actus reus. Should you be charged with murder or manslaughter? The answer depends on mens rea, your intent. If you lost control and accidentally hit the pedestrian, then you do not meet the specific intent necessary to be charged with murder. However, if you ran the pedestrian down intending to kill, then you do meet the specific intent.

Both elements are necessary. Wanting to kill the pedestrian isn't solely enough for a murder charge, there must be an act. Like wise, killing the pedestrian isn't solely enough, you must have wanted to kill the pedestrian.

It does matter what you were thinking at the time of the act.

If this kid committed the acts against his classmate intending to say, shut down the school for a while, then Arizona Title 13 (13-2308.01) would apply.

TheJudge · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2007, 08:19:51 AM »

Wikipedia definition is irrelevant as the decision will be based on the interpretation of the actual legislation. Acording to what milfist posted, unless the boy had explosives, he can't be charged with terrorism.

Condition a) can't be applied. The boy wasn't trying to politically influence the state trough his actions. His agenda was not political at all.

Condition b) can't be applied on the criteria of substantial interruption as this would normally refer to a longer term interuption, not half a day's interruption. All that is left is the criteria of substantial damage and for this to be applicable, prosecutors would need to demonstrate that the boy had the intent AND ability of blowing up the school. That would mean that the "weapons" described in the article would included explosives capabale of substantial damage. If the boy did have explosive, but only strong enough to blow up a wall in a classroom for instance, I don't think an unbiaised judge would consider that as substantial damage. The intent of that clause is likely for something of greater scale, but again it all has to do with interpretation and legal precedence, which is fairly limited for such cases. I know I personally wouldn't loose any sleep over that charge.

Wow... My usage of the bold function on the word substantial is substantial!

Vespertine · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2007, 11:13:32 AM »

Quote from: milifist on April 05, 2007, 08:01:30 AM

<snip>
If this kid committed the acts against his classmate intending to say, shut down the school for a while, then Arizona Title 13 (13-2308.01) would apply.

I disagree. He committed the acts off school property, after school hours. There was no shut down of the school, and even if he had successfully kidnapped her, there still wouldn't have been a shutdown of the school. They concluded that he had weapons while on school grounds, but he never used them or brandished them there.

Quote

Mesa police said the incident began March 22 when Brent Clark confronted the girl with a knife as she walked home from school

EDIT: Sorry milifist. I completely and totally misread the sentence that I snipped from your argument, and posted this reponse to it. For some reason, I missed the If at the beginning of the sentence, and just read it as "This kid committed..."

milifist · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:03:21 PM »

There really isn't enough information concerning the kid's motives to determine if a terrorism charge is justified. This may, in fact, be a case where prosecutors are wrong. However, they may have evidence to support such a charge. This is why felony charges must go through the grand jury process to determine if there is a basis for the charges.

Back in 2000, I spent the year on a grand jury handing down indictments. It was a very interesting experience. Of the hundreds of case that were brought before us, there where only two that I thought the charges were inappropriate for the crime.

ivan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:15:42 PM »

Under point B of Arizona's definition, arson could be prosecuted as a terrorist act. So, it seems to me, under certain circumstances, could a union walk-out. Point B redefines the word "terrorism" to mean any crime that affects a lot of people or government operation, no matter what the intent. I don't know if it's all that important to cling to this distinction when it comes to law, but I object to this muddying of a useful English word. A terrorist is a person who commits any crime with the intent of inducing social or political change. Robbing a bank and murdering a teller is not terrorism. But if you're the SLA, it is.

milifist · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2007, 12:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on April 05, 2007, 11:13:32 AM

...There was no shut down of the school, and even if he had successfully kidnapped her, there still wouldn't have been a shutdown of the school. They concluded that he had weapons while on school grounds, but he never used them or brandished them there...

It would not be at all necessary to commit a violent act on school property to disrupt the school's function. Suppose he intended to gut the girl, nail her upside-down to a tree (off school property) with her intestines dangling from the various limbs, and a note carved into her skin stating the he is going to target other kids in the school. Something like that would get the school closed down for a while. There is no telling what he had planned...

ivan · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:08:49 PM »

Good Lord.

12AX7 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:19:49 PM »

I see the danger here as being using an inappropriate law or precedent.
Terrorism? A 14 year old kid acting alone with no political or social agenda
and only one victim being classified as a terrorist? That seems extrememly
dangerous to me; even more dangerous than the kid actually was. Why
should you classify this kid as a terrorist, but not the snipers they recently
bagged there in AZ? Or the snipers in VA a couple of years ago, or the BTK
killer? Prosecutorial whim?
As I understand it; there are different murder charges (1, 2), voluntary
manslaughter, etc so that appropriate charges can be brought for the actual event(s).
"Terrorism" seems to be being used (inappropriately) as almost an adjective to the
real crimes the boy did commit. I suspect it's being included in the charges knowing
it will be thrown out; but the effect it will have is
a. HEADLINES for the prosecutor
b. raising the kid's bail (if bail is set) to an exhorbitant amount (a $$++ for the state coffers)
3. Injecting "bargaining" charges - bizarre, extreme charges put forth that the prosecution
will happily drop in exchange for a guilty plea. I suspect they have no intention of following through on the terrorism charges; but are simply waiting for the kid's lawyer to talk "deals".
"If your client pleads guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping and carrying weapons on a school campus, we'll drop the Terrorism charges."

RelandR · « **Reply #15 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:33:32 PM »

Quote from: ivan on April 05, 2007, 12:15:42 PM

... but I object to this muddying of a useful English word. ...

Quote from: 12AX7 on April 05, 2007, 01:19:49 PM

I see the danger here as being using an inappropriate law or precedent.
... That seems extrememly dangerous to me; even more dangerous than the kid actually was. ...

These are precisely at the heart of what is most disturbing to me. This reeks of a witch hunt mentality where the scarlet letter is now a big *T* or as 12 put out there, a grandstanding opportunity for the prosecutors to capitalize on the *latest buzzword*.

Greatly disturbed kid, Yes,
"Terrorist" ? ... OhFerFucksSake.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #16 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:12:47 PM »

So I guess terrorists are a dime a dozen now.

RelandR · « **Reply #17 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:17:44 PM »

And behind every Bush

pbsaurus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:18:49 PM »

Now, let's not get too sappy here.

12AX7 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:20:34 PM »

Yeh; besides, Bush is a different branch.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:24:52 PM »

Wood you be saying that if he were to leaf office?

RelandR · « **Reply #21 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:29:13 PM »

Only if he leaved deciduously

12AX7 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:32:01 PM »

Of course knot; the root of my comment stems from the branch of Bush being Executive; not Judicial.

RelandR · « **Reply #23 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:37:06 PM »

But as the twig was bent, so groved the Bush. Perhaps a good plucking by the roots is in order.

TheJudge · « **Reply #24 on:** April 05, 2007, 02:43:19 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on April 05, 2007, 01:19:49 PM

That seems extrememly dangerous to me

That seems extreemly American to me. No offense, but your politicians and law enforcers are taking the terrorism bit a little to far. While the whole situation seems completely absurd to me (charging this 14 year old under some terrorism act), it in no way suprises me to see such actions in the US.

Quote from: 12AX7 on April 05, 2007, 01:19:49 PM

"Terrorism" seems to be being used (inappropriately) as almost an adjective to the
real crimes the boy did commit. I suspect it's being included in the charges knowing
it will be thrown out; but the effect it will have is ...

While that may in fact be the strategy used, it makes Americans look like total idiots to outsiders. And a lot of insiders actually.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Arizona (Read 8113 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7