Judge; Occupy terrorists not terrorists

| April 26, 2014

Occupy terrorists

The Washington Times reports that three fellows from the totally innocuous Occupy movement who planned to fire bomb a NATO summit in 2012 were sentenced the other day, but they were cleared of charges that they were terrorists, you know, despite the fact that everything they planned to do clearly fits the definition of terrorism;

Jared Chase was sentenced to eight years, while Brent Betterly got six and Brian Church got five.

Judge Thaddeus Wilson said “throwing Molotov cocktails … might not be terrorism… but it is terrorizing.”

Two of the defendants made brief statements before the judge pronounced the sentences. Betterly said their plans weren’t serious and the alleged plottings of attacks were “fits of dark humor.”

They planned to use deadly incendiary devices to make a political statement, but that’s not terrorism. And the judge’s statement about “not terrorism…but…terrorizing” is strange and contradictory. It must be because that it was only intended as humor. We’ll be hearing from them again.

Category: Shitbags

21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sparks

Well they didn’t get what they deserved as terrorists, maybe they’ll get what they deserve behind bars…every day.

JarHead Pat

They are just misunderstood young dudes hahahah Ihope they get ass raped in prison,code pink she try and get them out on early release.

Just an Old Dog

Five to eight years is more than I expected.

Wray

Violence is a form of protest, and a valid one at that. The American revolution wasn’t won by throwing tea off a boat. It was won by shooting authoritarians in the fuckin face.

Resistance is not terrorism.

The Other Whitey

Why is anybody surprised? An outspoken radical Moslem with known AQ ties shouting, “allahu ahkbar!” as he murdered defenseless people on an Army base wasn’t terrorism, it was “workplace violence.” Ergo, a trio of filthy stankass hippies trying to pitch Molotov cocktails at a NATO summit is just something innocuous like, maybe “vandalism.”

Of course as we all know, the only “terrorists” in this country are anybody who disagrees with the Glorious Leader and owns a gun. It doesn’t matter if they (we) have no history of violence, mental illness, or criminal activity. They (we) are “dangerous domestic terrorists!”

UpNorth

Judge Wilson, if someone engages in an activity that is “terrorizing”, then they are terrorists.
Then again, Judge Wilson is a judge in the Cook County Circuit Court, so, what happened may be the best that can be expected.

wat

I guess you gotta look to Nevada for the true domestic terrorists…..

Alemaster

Looks as though we’re raising the next leadership generation of Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn. Ah the young, they blow up so fast.

LebbenB

That’s funny, right there. I don’t care who you are.

UpNorth

In the absence of a “like” button or a way to upvote a post, I’ll give you a few upvotes. ↑↑↑↑↑↑

OWB

He really needs to walk us through this one. Exactly what is the difference between a “terrorist” and “one who terrorizes?”

Erik in Temple

The distinction is one of ideology, and clearly points out the judge’s own sympathies. These are the sorts of unsubtle distinctions that allowed Lois Lerner to exercise the coercive power of the IRS to punish her ideological enemies, and for our former Army Chief of Staff to be more concerned about the reaction of American soldiers to the jihadist massacre at Fort Hood than the. Massacre itself.

Erik in Temple

The distinction is one of ideology, and clearly points out the judge’s own sympathies. These are the sorts of unsubtle distinctions that allowed Lois Lerner to exercise the coercive power of the IRS to punish her ideological enemies, and for our former Army Chief of Staff to be more concerned about the reaction of American soldiers to the jihadist massacre at Fort Hood than the. Massacre itself.

PigmyPuncher

Ol Billy already laid (pun intended) the ground work for the Judge – “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is……

A Proud Infidel®™

Bubba & Thor will have a ball with their asses!

BOILING MAD CPO

Terrorist vs terrorizer. For the USN Personnelman who were classifiers: This is the same as a ‘forman, labor’ or “labor forman”.

According the the Occupational Handbook, they were entirely different. Never could get them straight as a Yeoman, assigned as a NTC GLakes classifer (during the big push of 1968).

Nit picking anyone.

FatCircles

You know for once this statement isn’t even ironic.

That’s racist.

Steelbreeze

Maybe I misread the article, but it seems that the judge’s comments are aimed more at the jurors than the defendant; The jury is who acquitted them of terrorism, the judge seems to be commenting that, while they were acquitted of terrorism, they certainly intended to terrorize.

Just Plain Jason

These guy just don’t illicit a terror response in me. They just seem the type to fuck up a blow job.

2/17 Air Cav

I visited the Illinois criminal code to read the source material under which these clowns were charged with terrorism and I now fully understand why a jury did not convict them of being terrorists. The way the law is written, I couldn’t have voted for conviction either. And I agree that this–the statute defining terrorism–was what the judge had in mind when he made his comment. From a common sense perspective, it seems crazy but the letter of the law and common sense are too often at odds. On the flip side, some of you recall the prosecutor in Martinsburg WV who charged a fellow with terrorism for running near a school before the school day with a toy gun. Technically, she may have been correct but it was clearly not the type of thing the legislature had in mind when it passed the anti-terrorism laws. So, every state has “done something” to combat terrorism. That’s frightening stuff right there because the consequences of that approach are always bad.

2/17 Air Cav

I visited the Illinois criminal code to read the source material under which these clowns were charged with terrorism and I now fully understand why a jury did not convict them of being terrorists. The way the law is written, I couldn’t have voted for conviction either. And I agree that this–the statute defining terrorism–was what the judge had in mind when he made his comment. From a common sense perspective, it seems crazy but the letter of the law and common sense are too often at odds. On the flip side, some of you recall the prosecutor in Martinsburg WV who charged a fellow with terrorism for running near a school before the school day with a toy gun. Technically, she may have been correct but it was clearly not the type of thing the legislature had in mind when it passed the anti-terrorism laws. So, every state has “done something” to combat terrorism. That’s frightening stuff right there because the consequences of that approach are always bad.

[If this appears twice, it’s b/c the first was in moderation b/c I screwed up my email address w/ a typo.)