Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
That depends on whether we're talking about the definition an average 'man on the street' might give or the definition that our government might give. Considering that the term terrorist carries with it the loss of many civil rights I'd personally opt to define it as narrowly as possible and not include crazy gunmen unless their efforts are also politically motivated to overthrow the government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...gs-meaningless
It IS an important point to consider and protect civil liberties. The term "terrorism", and by extension "terrorist" have reached the point in our society of being little more meaningful than "natural" or "artisan" or "awesome". When it comes to law the obvious problem is definition. There usually isn't any. Merriam Webster says:

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, and

Terror: a state of intense fear


There is a LOT of room for interpretation in those definitions. The people in Sandy Hook Elementary School almost certainly felt a state of intense fear (aka, they were "terrorized"). Does that make Adam Lanza a terrorist? If A=B and B=C does A always equal C? Do we treat gang members who shoot up a neighborhood the same way as we treat members of al-Qaeda? One of the hard parts about living in a society like ours is that we have to protect the rights of a mass killer the same way we protect those of a shoplifter. The big thing here in NE right now is to charge anyone who uses a gun to threaten another person with "making terroristic threats". To me that is the most absurd wording that could have been used because I associate terrorism with political goals. Most other people I've talked with have a similar view. Everyone, I guess, except for our lawmakers.