Occupier Carries Sign Into Bank . . .

[m00]

Not all of them.



He could face one year and/or up to $250k if convicted.

Ugh. Robbing a bank should not be considered an act of terrorism, and threatening to rob a bank should not be considered a threat of terrorism. Last thing I want is Homeland Security getting involved in day-to-day crime, and then "needing" more money because of all the cases they're handling.

Does this mean a bank robber is an enemy combatant / terrorist, and can be held indefinitely?

[Rockntractor]

Ugh. Robbing a bank should not be considered an act of terrorism, and threatening to rob a bank should not be considered a threat of terrorism. Last thing I want is Homeland Security getting involved in day-to-day crime, and then "needing" more money because of all the cases they're handling.

Does this mean a bank robber is an enemy combatant / terrorist, and can be held indefinitely?

He wasn't robbing a bank nor did he have any intent to rob a bank.
He was yelling fire in a theater, I won't try to explain to you any closer, either you understand the concept or you don't.

[m00]

He wasn't robbing a bank nor did he have any intent to rob a bank.
He was yelling fire in a theater, I won't try to explain to you any closer, either you understand the concept or you don't.

Do you think that someone who yells fire in a theatre should be considered a terrorist (in the legal sense of the word)?

[Rockntractor]

Do you think that someone who yells fire in a theatre should be considered a terrorist (in the legal sense of the word)?

Not to the same degree as a hijacker no, but to a lesser degree yes.

[m00]

Not to the same degree as a hijacker no, but to a lesser degree yes.

So my concern is simply the following: once we start applying the word "terrorism" (legally) to these sorts of crimes that have been around long before we've had a concept of terrorism, then Homeland Security & the federal government will start getting involved which will lead to bad things down the road.

[Rockntractor]

So my concern is simply the following: once we start applying the word "terrorism" (legally) to these sorts of crimes that have been around long before we've had a concept of terrorism, then Homeland Security & the federal government will start getting involved which will lead to bad things down the road.

I think Homeland Security should be shut down, we had more than enough laws and departments devoted to law enforcement before it came along, the problem we had pre 911 was communication and not a need for anther government behemoth.

[m00]

I think Homeland Security should be shut down, we had more than enough laws and departments devoted to law enforcement before it came along, the problem we had pre 911 was communication and not a need for anther government behemoth.

We agree on something!

[Eupher]

So my concern is simply the following: once we start applying the word "terrorism" (legally) to these sorts of crimes that have been around long before we've had a concept of terrorism, then Homeland Security & the federal government will start getting involved which will lead to bad things down the road.

I'd argue that since 9/11, this country has a well-developed concept of terrorism. And while the methodologies in arresting and otherwise dealing with terrorists is wrapped up in untold layers of government bureaucracy and political correctness, that doesn't change the fact that we know WTF terrorism is. Ask those 3,000 people murdered on 9/11 if they know what a concept of terrorism is.

That is, if you could. They're not around any more.

[JB]

He last job was Bible salesman in Mecca.

[ABC]

I would have laughed if the bank guard shot him lol

And I, being a female, would have loved to be the bank guard that might have shot at him.

I would have aimed for the "family jewels!"

Why waste good ammo, if it doesn't cause lasting damage? ...

~ ABC