Posted: Thursday, 22 January 2009 13:02
by Dave Mindeman
Note to Susan Gaertner:
There is a report of a terrorist act in St. Paul. An SUV intentionally rammed the Planned Parenthood clinic on Ford Parkway. Am I interpreting the Minnesota Patriot Act correctly by stating that this consititues a terroist act?
Minnesota Patriot Act:
“a crime is committed to ‘further terrorism’ if the crime is a felony and is a premeditated act involving violence to persons or property that is intended to: (1) terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act; and (2) significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful exercise, operation, or conduct of government, lawful commerce, or the right of lawful assembly”.
Was the act pre-meditated? Yes.
Was it a felony? Yes...if charged with felonious assault.
Was their violence to persons or property? Yes. (property damage)
Was the act intended to "terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act"? Yes. Intended to affect all supporters of Roe v Wade.
or
Did it significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful excercise....of lawful commerce? Yes.
Can we assume such charges will be forthcoming?
Whoever did it shot into the buildings at nighttime, when no one was presumably behind the wall to get hit, but these are the type of factual scenarios where intended property damage and acts that are so reckless as to be dangerous to human life seem to run into each other.
I think that a line should exist, however, so that mere property damage (i.e. grafitti or minor vandalism) should not constitute an act of "terrorism." That's why the "Minnesota Patriot Act" should be repealed or re-drafted to be more like the definition of "acts dangerous to human life" found in the federal Patriot Act