Las Vegas : American White man masacared 58 people, more than 500 injured.

[Gomig-21]

But if his motive behind this attack is to just to suicide by cop or sick of living or anything not said before that involve the population and government, then this would not be a terrorist incident and it's merely a mass shooting.

Motive is not the sole determining factor to either the definition of the term "terrorism" or as it is defined by federal and certainly not by state code or statute. You're not factoring Nevada state code which specifically refers to the "intimidation" and "coercion" of a civilian population or even a portion, of which there were 22,000 at the moment of the act not even including the relatives and friends whom have been and will be affected as a result.

As to the way it relates to the term, it gets even simpler; since the term has become
associated with acts of war, the definition needed to go beyond strictly the act of "terror." It needed to be and act of terror that included or resulted in coercion. The fact is that it is simply an act of terror. It "terrorizes."

But even as to the definition of the term ~ Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

That's exactly what this guy did.

(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;
(B) appear to be intended—

That's exactly what he did.

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

That's also exactly what he did.

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

And that's exactly what he has done. Look at all the reaction now in Washington as a result of his usage of bump stocks. Now the government is considering regulating the sale of that particular item. Regardless if this act results in more gun control and restriction, it has succeeded in influencing it.

So essentially you have described exactly why this was in fact an act of domestic terrorism.

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

Both mass destruction and assassination is exactly what he did. 2 out of 3 when all you needed was 1.

Under Title 18 US Code 2331, the definition of Terrorism is defined as

Not only does it qualify as an act under US Code, but it's also considered terrorism under Nevada State Code:

Nevada statute (NRS 202.4415), an “act of terrorism” is:

any act that involves the use of attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to (a) cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or (b) cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of (1) any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services, or (2) any natural resource or the environment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452097/las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock-legally-terrorist

Notice that any one of those conditions qualify and not a combination of.

Law for Terrorism exist before the height of so called "Muslim Terrorism" in fact it was one of the founding law when US has been established in 1776. It's kind of funny actually, because if we use today law and use it on the time when US wages war of independence, then George Washington is actually a domestic terrorist.

Since the legitimate ruling government at the time was Great Britain, then not only George Washington but the whole crew. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams etc. And if that's the case, the same would apply to those who resist any legitimate ruling party since they wouldn't be considered resistance groups, such as those who fought the Nazis. They should be considered terrorist. The interesting one is that the same concept would qualify the Jews who fought the British before the creation of the state of Israel as terrorist, but the term never applies to those 2 groups. I guess by the same token, Hamas shouldn't be labeled as terrorist either.

 

[jhungary]

Motive is not the sole determining factor to either the definition of the term "terrorism" or as it is defined by federal and certainly not by state code or statute. You're not factoring Nevada state code which specifically refers to the "intimidation" and "coercion" of a civilian population or even a portion, of which there were 22,000 at the moment of the act not even including the relatives and friends whom have been and will be affected as a result.

As to the way it relates to the term, it gets even simpler; since the term has become
associated with acts of war, the definition needed to go beyond strictly the act of "terror." It needed to be and act of terror that included or resulted in coercion. The fact is that it is simply an act of terror. It "terrorizes."

But even as to the definition of the term ~ Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

That's exactly what this guy did.

It's actually all about motive.

The problem is, how the Federal Guideline determine on the term "Intimidation" and "Coercion"

It's goes beyond a simply "Affecting the day of life" but there is a motion and direction the person who committed these crime want to sway the population in general in a direction that they were not going to do. The same applies to federal government.

So, to charge Paddock with Federal Charge of Terrorism, you need to show proof, beyond reasonable doubt that he wanted the Population (or a part, thereof) of Nevada to do something by killing 58 people in a concert. In which the means of killing is a tool to intimidate or coerce the population of Nevada to do that "something"

In this case, this is not a simple reasoning of WHAT HE DID, as oppose to WHAT HE WANT TO DO WITH. I can carry a gun publicly on the street of LV and scare people, but since this is an random act, to which I just want to scare people, without particular motive or without particular target, that is NOT intimidation, because I do not have an agenda as to what I want to do with these people, in fact, I don't have a set of population in my mind to intimidate or coerce (even if this is an deliberate act, I cannot control who I will scare), however, if we change the story to I carry a gun and show myself publicly in front of a witness that is going to testify against me on a charge, that, would have considered an intimidation by law, because I want to scare him NOT TO TESTISIFY AGAINST ME. Instead of randomly showing up someone home armed.

Did you see the difference?

That's exactly what he did.

That's also exactly what he did.

See explanation above.

And that's exactly what he has done. Look at all the reaction now in Washington as a result of his usage of bump stocks. Now the government is considering regulating the sale of that particular item. Regardless if this act results in more gun control and restriction, it has succeeded in influencing it.

So essentially you have described exactly why this was in fact an act of domestic terrorism.

lol, in term of law, it is a bit more complicated than that, you need to prove something called "INTENTION" you need to prove that he has intended to use bump stock to intimidate the US government to ban bump stock. So as to that is his aim all along, but not just coincident or choice of weapon he use and he happened to use bump stock. Which mean if you are going to court with this, you need to show he have a disdain on US Firearms regulation on Bump Stock, and that is his aim that he INTENTIONALLY use bump stock weapon just to make a government to take action AGIANST bump stock.

The problem is that, it's really hard to prove he have this in his agenda, first, not all his weapon used bump stock, second, he may not use bump stock as part of his weapon package as to whether or not he is even consciously aware of that fact alone.

Maybe it's hard for you to understand. Let's draw an example.

The national highway speed limit is a National Policy, correct? And we all know the national highway speed limit is determined by a series of factor as to how many car travel on that highway and how is the percentage of accident rate. So, would the driver using that highway contribute to the change of national policy by having an accident on that highway (thus lowering the speed limit)? A motor accident collision usually result in casualty and is a serious violent crime (given if you can prove you do it intentionally) so would all the driver who crash on the highway be charged Terrorism because collectively, they are all contributed to this change of policy?

There are call for gun control every time there is a mass shooting event, whether or not it is politically motivated, there were one even after Ted Bundy (Even tho he has never used gun to kill his victim) that does not mean the perpetrator were intended to cause such a debate because he uses firearms to proceed with his crime, again, unless you can established the intention to do such an act, (Ie, if he is a gun control advocate) then you may be able to pin this on gun control. But otherwise, many people uses firearms for their offence, that does not mean they are all guilty of terrorism charge because it may ended up in a Federal or State debate on gun control.

Both mass destruction and assassination is exactly what he did. 2 out of 3 when all you needed was 1.

Not only does it qualify as an act under US Code, but it's also considered terrorism under Nevada State Code:

Nevada statute (NRS 202.4415), an “act of terrorism” is:

any act that involves the use of attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to (a) cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or (b) cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of (1) any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services, or (2) any natural resource or the environment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452097/las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock-legally-terrorist

Notice that any one of those conditions qualify and not a combination of.



Since the legitimate ruling government at the time was Great Britain, then not only George Washington but the whole crew. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams etc. And if that's the case, the same would apply to those who resist any legitimate ruling party since they wouldn't be considered resistance groups, such as those who fought the Nazis. They should be considered terrorist. The interesting one is that the same concept would qualify the Jews who fought the British before the creation of the state of Israel as terrorist, but the term never applies to those 2 groups. I guess by the same token, Hamas shouldn't be labeled as terrorist either.

The problem is, once again, how you can prove your case, as this is not just anybody opinion.

I have discussed with my wife (Who was a lawyer by the way), with the people I work with in the NSW police, and to many people who ask me the same question. Was Paddock a terrorist?

The answer is, we cannot be sure at this time, we don't know why he killed, we don't know about his motivation, that mean what he do now, is simply a crime, a mass shooting. Maybe, if we know more about his motive, then yeah, we can definitively say he is or he isn't, but, in law, the school aren't out yet.

I never definitely say Paddock was not a terrorist, I said I don't know at this moment, he could be, as I said in my previous post, if he had a thing about the concert organiser and want to intimidate the concert organiser, that is a terror act, if he have a thing about State of Nevada giving permit to hold open concert, then that is a terror act, but in all, we need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is what he want to do all along. We cannot simply say "Oh yeah, he killed a lot of people and now these people are afraid to go outside, then he is a terrorist" because you need link and more importantly prove THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED TO DO ALL ALONG. As there is no felony charge or aggravated charge on a terrorism charge, you cannot have an implied motive.

 

[Thorough Pro]

His motive was to kill and maim a large number of peaceful civilians enjoying their lives. His motive was to strike terror in peoples hearts so they are always weary of attending such events. He was very well prepared, had done proper planning, was staying in that hotel for many days, had about 30 firearms and numerous magazines full of ammo. What is there that does not classify that as an act of terrorism?

He wasn't label a terrorist because his motive is unknown

TO be called a Terrorist, you need to know why he kill that many people, otherwise all mass-murderer, serial murderer and anyone goes on spree killing would have been called Terrorist.

People only were called Terrorist when their goal is to coerce the population or the government, if the old guy just snapped because he cannot pay his casino debt and or medical bill, you cannot be called a terrorist.

Again, US labelled more White Men (White Supremacist group/anarchist group) , Black Men (Black Power) and Jewish (Jewish Extremist) than Muslim as terrorist.

 

[jhungary]

His motive was to kill and maim a large number of peaceful civilians enjoying their lives. His motive was to strike terror in peoples hearts so they are always weary of attending such events. He was very well prepared, had done proper planning, was staying in that hotel for many days, had about 30 firearms and numerous magazines full of ammo. What is there that does not classify that as an act of terrorism?

Can you proof it? That it was his intention to kill and maim so people are weary of such event? He could have been just killing people for fun, or he suddenly felt that he need to go out like the bandit after watching Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, or it could have been just because he was bothered by the noise and decided to shot and kill these people, his gun can be explained in many reasons as well, he may be on his way to a gun show? or He may have even been shooting a movie? He could have been just tired of living like the news report and decided to go out in style.

The most important thing is, I don't know and no one knows why he kills all these poeple, because I cannot read people mind, there can be millions of reason behind his attack, I am not going to speculate on someone else motive until there are evidence on it, if he has written his agenda about the event or the concert organiser, maybe, but again, I don't know at this point, so I cannot say for sure whether or not he is a terrorist or not.

 

[maximuswarrior]

It's not semantics, it's THE LAW.

FBI and DOJ have a very well defined definition of Terrorism, it's under US Law and Constitution for Federal to be able to try for Terrorism cases, otherwise it is the State responsibility. You can of course try to try Paddock on federal terrorism charge, but if he is alive and he cannot produce a motive on that, you will fail and since he ALREADY had been tried for the same crime, he cannot be tried for the second time regardless of what charge you indict at State or Federal Level.

And that's the LEGAL perspective on this, and I seriously doubt you understand any of this. For you the uninformed and feeble, the US never called a white man terrorist blah, blah, blah. You don't even know there is a legal implication to call someone a terrorist.

He is an old man that kill people, that's put him in the same group of Oba Chandler and Robert Spangler, nothing more.

LOL he is a white terrorist. Period.

Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about him being a killer or a terrorist. At the end of the day, ‘Muricans are renowned for mass shootings all over the world. Just keep up the good work. You are doing good charitable work LOL

 

[jhungary]

LOL he is a white terrorist. Period.

Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about him being a killer or a terrorist. At the end of the day, ‘Muricans are renowned for mass shootings all over the world. Just keep up the good work.

If you do not care, you wouldn't say anything about this, this much, I know is true.

Otherwise, you can call it whatever you want. I don't speak for you, I speak on the volume of US Constitution and US law. And lol, if we are talking about Mass shooting, America are WAY Behind for some country. Again, you can pretend that never happened and keep blowing sun shrine up your rear end, but I would much rather live in US than some dump in this world.

 

[Gomig-21]

Maybe it's hard for you to understand.

Do me a favor, please spare me the condescension, it really is beneath you, Hungary.

The national highway speed limit is a National Policy, correct? And we all know the national highway speed limit is determined by a series of factor as to how many car travel on that highway and how is the percentage of accident rate. So, would the driver using that highway contribute to the change of national policy by having an accident on that highway (thus lowering the speed limit)? A motor accident collision usually result in casualty and is a serious violent crime (given if you can prove you do it intentionally) so would all the driver who crash on the highway be charged Terrorism because collectively, they are all contributed to this change of policy?

Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. Even if the state can prove vehicular homicide, it doesn't equate to anything remotely close to deliberately gunning down over 600 people. If a person drove a vehicle through 100's of people with the intent to kill as many as he could, then there is a clear distinction as to the intent of the act. You drive your car and plow it into another or a couple is not the same thing.

Take the lowlife in Spain who drove his car through a crowd of people and killed over 20. He had a Middle Eastern name. It was immediately termed a terrorist attack but stop for a minute and consider what most would've labeled it had he been a French or Swedish guy who just got out of jail or even any other circumstance, let alone one who planned the attack. Would they have immediately claimed terrorism?

I have discussed with my wife (Who was a lawyer by the way), with the people I work with in the NSW police, and to many people who ask me the same question. Was Paddock a terrorist?

Congratulations to her and you. Yeah, we have lawyers in our family and all around us here and for many years.

I never definitely say Paddock was not a terrorist, I said I don't know at this moment, he could be,

Because you're basing everything on either "intent" but specifically a "motive." Intent is unquestionably clear and I'm astounded that you even bring that up. Even motive is quite clear it's just there isn't a written or verbal statement from the scumbag but particularly his background is not conforming to a perceived notion and that's the problem.

I've showed how his actions not only fall under the criteria outlined in the US federal code (which you brought up and what prompted me to respond), but specifically the Nevada state code which you choose to ignore. This could be effectively argued in a federal court which is really the basis of your entire argument but before even going there, here's a fantastic article that really describes the travesty that is happening to this situation and besides the "constitutional implications of officially terming such acts as terrorism", (which is another HUGE part of this unfortunate saga but a whole other debate), this article perfectly outlines the travesty that is preventing the labeling of this and other similar acts committed by non-Muslims as terrorism and specifically using the Nevada statute:

The president and others can skirt the word, but Nevada may very well know that what happened last night was terrorism. Even before the shooting, its state law defined terrorism as “any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion, or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.” Survivors have already begun to share their stories of shielding each other’s bodies and carrying each other to ambulances on makeshift stretchers, in some cases only to see the stranger they tried to save die before their eyes. It sounded like all of them had lived through terror—but we haven’t heard anyone say they wondered, as they ran for their lives, whether or not the shooter was politically motivated.

The complete article: https://www.vogue.com/article/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-terrorist

We cannot simply say "Oh yeah, he killed a lot of people and now these people are afraid to go outside, then he is a terrorist" because you need link and more importantly prove THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED TO DO ALL ALONG.

Prove that he wanted to do this all along? It's not enough that he had all those weapons and ammunition in the hotel and at this house and he used them to try to kill more than 600 people? It's not enough that he had ammonium nitrate in his car? I guess he had that because he wanted to clean his kitchen tile floor when he got back home after committing his despicable act of terror, and not really to blow anything up. I think a prosecutor would have a tough time litigating that point in court? ~ 'Sacrcasm" FYI. It's not enough that he had cased and reserved a room in Chicago overlooking a park area where there were upcoming venues that would hold large crowds? Or that he rented a hotel room and was casing our MLB team here in Boston in the Red Sox overlooking Fenway Park where there's anywhere between 20,000 to 50,000 people at any given game in the stadium or walking in a jam-packed Yawkey Way? I'm quite sure there are overwhelmingly more lawyers who would rather argue in favor than against.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well due to so many Sepratist movement in USA

a) Native Indian central USA
b) Confederate Southern Cross movement
c) AfricanaAmericana (Black People country movement in Detroit / New Orleans
d) Seperation of California from US states and merger with Mexico
e) Imminent Take over of Alaska by Russia
f) Canada has always wanted to take over few states close to it's border with US

There is some push by local 5% ellites to take away the weapons from every day american and restrict it to the guards of the ellite who are paid salaries to protect the 5% ellites

The emphasis of gun control and recent seperatist demonstrations goes hand in hand

Obviously Canada will act when moment is right to reclaim it's land

 

[jhungary]

Do me a favor, please spare me the condescension, it really is beneath you, Hungary.

I am not being condescending, Law is really hard for people to understand, otherwise you will not need the service of a Lawyer.

Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. Even if the state can prove vehicular homicide, it doesn't equate to anything remotely close to deliberately gunning down over 600 people. If a person drove a vehicle through 100's of people with the intent to kill as many as he could, then there is a clear distinction as to the intent of the act. You drive your car and plow it into another or a couple is not the same thing.

It actually is the same case, in most States, law does not require the number of victim to charge a particular crime, I can kill 1 person (or even none) to get a Federal Terrorism indictment, I can get a Federal Terrorism indictment for killing 600. That would have been the same charge, but instead you got charge that 1 time for 1 victim, you got charge 600 times if you kill or wounding 600. If I can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that my intention is to cause havoc and intimate the government or population, I can get charge for a Federal Terrorism indictment even if I have not actually killed anybody with my car.

The problem is, what you refer to as a "Clear intention of the act" is a conjecture at your end, you cannot support it with actual physical evidence, let's say Paddock was not dead and being apprehended and we actually did charge him with terrorism, then his motive would be what we called "Circumstantial" because there are no physical linkage to his motive, unless he told you (or otherwise confess) what is true motive was or there are physical evidence pointing to his actual motive (like an angry letter or manifesto or some sort) otherwise there is ALWAYS a reasonable doubt about why he do what he do.

You can claim he try to terrorise people by killing 58 people, the problem is, you have no physical evidence supporting your claim, other than 58 dead bodies, which in itself Is not an evidence. His lawyer can argue he simply wanted to fire some round outside because the concert if bothering him, and you cannot prove or disprove it, as much as you cannot prove or disprove he intentionally want to terrorise these people by open fire, that is the reasonable doubt on the issue, and that is what lawyer call "Met the burden of Proof"

Take the lowlife in Spain who drove his car through a crowd of people and killed over 20. He had a Middle Eastern name. It was immediately termed a terrorist attack but stop for a minute and consider what most would've labeled it had he been a French or Swedish guy who just got out of jail or even any other circumstance, let alone one who planned the attack. Would they have immediately claimed terrorism?

That lowlifes have an agenda, he wanted to have force the Spanish government to pull troop out of Mali and the attack was directly or indirectly funded by ISIS-related organisation. These people being Muslim have no bearing on whether or not they were terrorist, many Muslim (in US, Australia and UK) was arrested for murder and assault every week, are all these people being labelled Terrorist? So when Hazairin Iskandar killed his wife and son in 2012 in NSW, then he must have been called a Terrorist then? Because he is Muslim? On the other hand, We also label non Muslim terrorist, Anders Breivik was being labelled a Christian Terrorist. And in the US, you may not believe it, but according to DOJ figure, more Non-Muslim was charged/labelled with Terrorism than Muslim. form 2010 to 2017.

The charge of terrorism is related to the nature of the crime, and the nature is related to the motive. You cannot prove motive, then you cannot charge him with certain crime, that's how the law works, that's also why the US have First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, (Third Degree Murder), Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter

Another thing the law does not care is your race or religious belief, I don't know why people keep saying US only officially condemn Muslim for terrorism, this may be true in US Media, but the US Government does not differ on the race and religion front. For example.

Non-Muslim terrorist act between 2010-2017 according to FBI Database

1. Feb 10, 2010 IRS Office attack in Austin Texas by Andrew Joseph Stack III ( attack on Federal Government, he was anti-IRS)
2. March 4, 2010 Pentagon Shooting by John Patrick Bedell (quite straight forward, attack on Federal Government, he was an anarchist)
3. May 20, 2010, West Memphis by Jerry and Joe Kane (Anti-Government Group Sovereign Citizen Movement against Police officer)
4. September 1, 2010, Discovery Communication Hostage by James J. Lee (Anti-Immigration protest turn hostage taking)
5. August 5, 2012, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting by Wade M. Page ( Anti-Indian/Anti-Immigration, White Supremacist group attack)
6. Feb 3, 2013, LA Shooting by Christopher Dorner (Anti-Police, he was fired by LAPD and plot a manifesto on revenge on Facebook)
7. April 15, 2013, Senator Roger Wicker attack by Everett Dutschke (Federal Government attack using Weapon of Mass Destruction - ricin.)
8. Nov 1, 2013, LAX attack by Paul Anthony Ciancia (Killing a TSA Agent (Federal Employee), Ciancia belong to an anti-government group called NEW WORLD ORDER)
9. Dec 13, 2013, Wichita Mid-Continental Airport bomb plot, by Terry Lane (Use of weapon of Mass destruction- Bomb on an airport, although he is not Muslim (From his wife) his motive is Islamic extremism, authority believe he had converted)
10. April 13, 2014, Overland Park Jewish centre shooting by Frazier G. Miller Jr (White Supremacist group attack on Jewish Centre)
11. June 8, 2014, Las Vegas Police Shooting by Jerad and Amanda Miller (Anti-Government, Anti-Police group associated/attributed to Bundy Standoff, which involve BLM (form Department of Interior) vacating Clive Bundy)
12. Sept 12, 2014, Pennsylvania State Police shooting by Eric M. Frein (Attacking on State Police and he mailed a letter to his parent stating that he wanted to start a revolution)
13. June 17, 2015, Charleston Church Shooting, by Dylan Roof (Need I say more??)
14. Nov 27, 2015, Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting by Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. (Christian Extremist attack)
15. July 7, 2016, Dallas Police Officer Shooting by Micah Xavier Johnson (Black Power, racially motivated attack against white Police officer, in reaction to the recent police shooting.)
16. March 20, 2017, New York Stabbing by James Harris Jackson (Attack on black people to prevent interracial marriage, White Supremacist)
17. August 12, 2017 Ramming in Charleston by James Alex Fields Jr (Senate review the attack and labelled it of domestic terrorism, Field is a White Supremacist)

On the other hand, Muslim Extremist contribute to

1. May 1, 2010 Time Square Bomb Plot
2. Oct 29, 2010 East Midland Airport Bomb Plot (target is US Cities)
3. Nov 26, 2010 Portland Car Bomb Plot
4. April 11, 2011 Arlington, Virginia Bomb plot
5. April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing
6. April-June 2014, Washington-New Jersey Spree Shooting.
7. September 24, 2014, Oklahoma Beheading
8. Oct 23, 2014, New York Hatchet Attack (This is by a convert the dude is black)
9. May 3, 2015 Curtis Culwell Center attack
10. July 16, 2015, Chattanooga Shooting
11. Dec 2, 2015 San Bernadino, CA Attack
12. June 12, 2016, Orlando Night Club Shooting
13. Sep 17, 2016, Minnesota Cross Road Center Attack
14. Sep 17-19, 2016 NYC and New Jersey Bomb Attack
15. Nov 28, 2016 Ohio State University Attack

So, there are 17 attack carried out by non-Muslim was labelled by FBI as terrorist attack (even if you claim the mid-continental bomb plot is not, it still 16) and 15 was labelled by FBI who are Muslim, well, the ratio to population is alarming (given only about 3% of US citizens are Muslim) but to claim the US call tend to call Muslim terrorist if the people who pull the trigger was brown, then I don't think that's correct.

Congratulations to her and you. Yeah, we have lawyers in our family and all around us here and for many years.

Well, just saying we had been talking about this, at home and at my work, my current employment is with NSW Police Force.

Because you're basing everything on either "intent" but specifically a "motive." Intent is unquestionably clear and I'm astounded that you even bring that up. Even motive is quite clear it's just there isn't a written or verbal statement from the scumbag but particularly his background is not conforming to a perceived notion and that's the problem.

I've showed how his actions not only fall under the criteria outlined in the US federal code (which you brought up and what prompted me to respond), but specifically the Nevada state code which you choose to ignore. This could be effectively argued in a federal court which is really the basis of your entire argument but before even going there, here's a fantastic article that really describes the travesty that is happening to this situation and besides the "constitutional implications of officially terming such acts as terrorism", (which is another HUGE part of this unfortunate saga but a whole other debate), this article perfectly outlines the travesty that is preventing the labeling of this and other similar acts committed by non-Muslims as terrorism and specifically using the Nevada statute:

The president and others can skirt the word, but Nevada may very well know that what happened last night was terrorism. Even before the shooting, its state law defined terrorism as “any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion, or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.” Survivors have already begun to share their stories of shielding each other’s bodies and carrying each other to ambulances on makeshift stretchers, in some cases only to see the stranger they tried to save die before their eyes. It sounded like all of them had lived through terror—but we haven’t heard anyone say they wondered, as they ran for their lives, whether or not the shooter was politically motivated.

The complete article: https://www.vogue.com/article/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-terrorist

In law, motive and intent is basically EVERYTHING, I am not beating around the bush to say "no man this is not the case or yeah, this is the case) but for a crime to be able to get an indictment, you will need to show the prep have intented to do something and are motivated to do something, at this point, I am not talking about actual trial here, but simple a Grand Jury indictment.

That is the different between how someone is going to get charge a First Degree Murder (which is Life without Parole) or Second Degree Murder (25/30 to life) or Manslaughter (20 to life) - The different is the motive and intent.

Law are quite straight on this point, You have demonstrate nothing in the court of law beside the fact that 58 people has died you have not prove he has intimated and coerced both the US government and the population. Again, just by killing 58 people is not enough to shown as proof, there are people kill more than 58, Gary Ridgeway have confessed to kill 71 women, should we also put Gary Ridgway in the list of terrorist? As I said before, the number of people Killed in the attack is NOT IMPORTANT at all to the charge itself Paddock could have killed just 1 in the right condition to get into the list, killing 58 in term of law, is the same as killing 1. So, if the number of victim is not important, then what is? The answer is his Motive and his Intent.

About NRS, had he make the case with Nevada State Law too? Because all I can see is the term "General Population" under NRS, so, what is General Population? Is it a person? A group of People? or the whole population?

If this is the first one, then every murderer in the state of Nevada is a terrorist. If this is the second one, then every murderer in the state of Nevada that killed more than 3 people is a terrorist. If it is the third one, then no one in Nevada can ever be called a Terrorist.

You can of course claim whoever you want as terrorist, but there are law and guideline settle this is a court of law, and as I demonstrated above, not just because you are brown and you are Muslim, even in this Islamic Extremists era, the US labelled more Non-Muslim as Terrorist than Muslim, that is because the law does not care who you are and what you are, but rather what you do and why you had done it. You can object to this all you want but I mean, if you do that, you are just burying your head in sand.

I don't mind or care you call Paddock a terrorist, but under US law, he is not, at least at this point, until more detail on his crime surface. This is what I am saying.

Prove that he wanted to do this all along? It's not enough that he had all those weapons and ammunition in the hotel and at this house and he used them to try to kill more than 600 people? It's not enough that he had ammonium nitrate in his car? I guess he had that because he wanted to clean his kitchen tile floor when he got back home after committing his despicable act of terror, and not really to blow anything up. I think a prosecutor would have a tough time litigating that point in court? ~ 'Sacrcasm" FYI. It's not enough that he had cased and reserved a room in Chicago overlooking a park area where there were upcoming venues that would hold large crowds? Or that he rented a hotel room and was casing our MLB team here in Boston in the Red Sox overlooking Fenway Park where there's anywhere between 20,000 to 50,000 people at any given game in the stadium or walking in a jam-packed Yawkey Way? I'm quite sure there are overwhelmingly more lawyers who would rather argue in favor than against.

It is not enough, as I said, there are numerous explanation as to why he kill and why he had that much weapon and ammunition in the hotel room, any two bit lawyer can claim he could be on his way to a gun show somewhere else, and that would met more than enough reasoning as to why he have that much weapon in his hotel room.

You can claim he shoot all these people in cold blood and prepare himself and arm himself with all these weapon, and have a manifesto on killing, but since you have no hard evidence back up these claim a good defence lawyer can claim He is on his way to a gun show, he have brought a truck and don't want to leave his gun on his car, so he rented a hotel room, and bring all the guns with him, then one night the concert is pretty loud, and he decided to fire into the crowd and finish off with what he does and he kill himself at the end. This is also a story which can related to the circumstantial evidence present at the scene, because to be honest, what you know to have actually happened without disputed and without doubt is the following

1.) He had 32 firearms in that hotel room
2.) He fired into the crowd of concert going
3.) He killed himself.

That's it. Anything other than the 3 facts you know is hearsay and conjecture, you cannot proof that, and if you can present a scenario that fit these 3 facts, in a court of law, you had presented a reasonable doubt and by law, you have to acquitted the man of whatever charge you are charging him if the fact does not suit the bill.

I am not talking about a beer talk amongst mate at a bar, but an actual court of law. That is the different. You can of course say whatever you want as protected by 1st Amendment, but I would say we need more evidence to show he either is or is not a terrorist.

 

[GiannKall]

Then of course if he was a muslim we wouldnt even talk if he was a terrorist or not. He obviously would be a terrorist. Correct?

 

[Jlaw]

Heard there is actually multiple gunmen . One shooting from 4th floor, the other from 10th floor. Confirmed by a lady who was in a taxi and saw the shooting from both floors as well as initial police report of multiple gunmen. There were car dash camera that recorded gun flashes from multiple sources. Steven paddock was the scapegoat.

 

[katsung47]

986. My analysis on Stephen Paddock (10/14/2017)

The gunman of Las Vegas shooting case is described as a gray-man:
No criminal record.
No political ties.
No religious affiliation.
No history of mental illness.
No history of violence
That also fits for a figure works for intelligence unit such like FBI.

Paddock worked for the federal government from about 1975 to 1985. He was a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service from 1976 to 1978. After that, he worked for six years as an Internal Revenue Service agent, until 1984. Then, he was a federal auditor for one year, in 1985, focusing on defense contractors. Towards the end of the 1980s, Paddock worked for three years as an internal auditor for a company that later merged to form Lockheed Martin.[15] His work career after this period is not entirely clear. He is known to have run a real-estate business with his brother Eric.[16]

It's not so easy to find a job in those offices yet he jumped among them. That means he had a special background. Then he went into real estate business.

FBI and DEA have no fat budget. Most operation fund comes from victim's. (see #8)

8. FBI's profit

Everything shows that law enforcement agent use isotope money tracing if you have cash savings at home. But how could they steal from innocent people?

Later I learned from 'National Geography' (1961, June) In article " FBI: public friend number one ". ' Mr. Hoover prides upon the "profit" it shows annually. During fiscal 1960 the FBI received $113,600,000 in operating funds. Fines, savings, and recoveries of stolen property and contraband in cases investigated by the FBI amounted to $142,822,244, or $1.25 returned for every dollar invested by the taxpayer.' It's that 'profit' chase makes FBI a looter. It's that black box practise makes FBI closed and untouchable and new high tech weapons killing without trace makes them ruthless. How do you expect them be in justice while their purpose is pursuing 'profit'?

And I found the Feds made a large profit from real estates business.

430. Monopoly the house in north San Jose (8/25/2006)

.....

3. The most important thing is that housing market becomes the best way for Feds to make a profit. They take it as a business. e.g. In my community, a 4 bedroom single family house in 1991 was about 200k. (When Feds started to buy in. The first stage) In 1997, the price went up to high 200k. (when Feds started to buy in house in large scale, the second stage) Now the price is about 600k. If they bought a house in 1991 with 20k down payment, the profit is 400k. (Or 100k after deduct 15 years housing cost if the house haven't been rent off.)

Stephen Paddock might then worked for the Feds as its housing business team member. News said he gambles big in casino. Because the money came too easy and it's not his? He probably lost his life as a scapegoat for this reason.

 

[katsung47]

989. O.J. almost became a collateral victim (11/2/2017)

O.J. simpson was a target of Las Vegas shooting, I allege.

O.J. was released at 0:08 a.m. 10/1. That night at 10:05 p.m. the Las Vegas massacre took place. The jail he left is near Reno, Nevada, about 450 miles from Las Vegas - where O.J. was going to live. They gave him plenty of time for the journey. The Feds arranged everything - from timing to location. Be noticed that Friday was only two days to the shooting date Sunday.

Simpson has four adult children, two of whom live in Florida, and LaVergne told the Associated Press that “there’s no doubt he’s going to Florida.” Tom Scotto, a friend and golfing buddy, has offered his home in Naples to Simpson.

However, that state’s attorney general informed the Florida Department of Corrections on Friday that he is not welcome there.


news/early-lead/wp/2017/10/01/quietly-and-with-little-attention-o-j-simpson-is-released-from-prison-early-sunday-morning/?utm_term=.749632819400

The original release time was Monday (10/2), but the shooting which had to accord with the Concert of 10/1 night. So they gave an excuse of "to ensure public safety" to make it on 10/1.

Keast said the overnight release from the prison about 90 miles east of Reno, Nevada, was conducted to avoid media attention. No media were near the front gate at the time when Simpson's car left the prison by a back road and entered nearby Interstate 80, she said.

"We needed to do this to ensure public safety and to avoid any possible incident," Keast said.

She acknowledged Nevada prison officials misled the media with word about the timing and location of Simpson's release. They had advised it would be no earlier than Monday and possibly in Las Vegas.

/news/oj-simpson-future-plans-las-vegas-area-parole-jail-release/

I have noticed that the jail system won't do parole job in week-ends. I've talked about that if the Feds want to kill a victim in jail, they used to arrange the arrest on Friday because following would be week-ends. Parole job is on vacation. Of course, for "public safety", there was exception.

O.J.Simpson is a celebrity, his death would increase the influence of a massacre shooting. That's what a distraction needs. O.J. almost became a collateral victim.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

989. O.J. almost became a collateral victim (11/2/2017)

O.J. simpson was a target of Las Vegas shooting, I allege.

O.J. was released at 0:08 a.m. 10/1. That night at 10:05 p.m. the Las Vegas massacre took place. The jail he left is near Reno, Nevada, about 450 miles from Las Vegas - where O.J. was going to live. They gave him plenty of time for the journey. The Feds arranged everything - from timing to location. Be noticed that Friday was only two days to the shooting date Sunday.




The original release time was Monday (10/2), but the shooting which had to accord with the Concert of 10/1 night. So they gave an excuse of "to ensure public safety" to make it on 10/1.



I have noticed that the jail system won't do parole job in week-ends. I've talked about that if the Feds want to kill a victim in jail, they used to arrange the arrest on Friday because following would be week-ends. Parole job is on vacation. Of course, for "public safety", there was exception.

O.J.Simpson is a celebrity, his death would increase the influence of a massacre shooting. That's what a distraction needs. O.J. almost became a collateral victim.

Some sniper is going to pick out OJ in the middle of a crowd of thousands late at night? He better have super night vision goggles.

 

[katsung47]

FBI Wipes Phones & Laptops of Las Vegas Massacre Eyewitnesses

Route 91 workers get devices back with videos, messages deleted
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet
October 12, 2017

Workers at the Route 91 festival during which Stephen Paddock unleashed his massacre have reportedly been given back their phones and laptops by the FBI only to discover that all messages and videos from the night of the attack have been wiped clean.

According to a Las Vegas resident who posted a status update on Facebook, “A bunch of people that worked the Route 91 said they got their cell phones back today. They all said that all their phones are completely wiped clean! All messages and info from that weekend are completely gone. Anyone else experience this?”

“A few different people who were vendors there are all saying the same thing,” the woman later comments.

/2017/10/