Murder of Innocents by Civilians Equal to Terrorism?

I have 3 questions regarding how the classification of murders as terrorists legally plays out. Please give them so thought and your feedback. Thanks.

Besides going nuts and killing people, are these murderers terrorists by revised U.S. code, rulings or executive orders?

If they are classified as a terrorist what are the legal ramifications regarding investigations and reported findings?

Are there any other legal ramifications for the places in which they communicated with others regarding motives, planning, purchasing of weapon and such?


[edit on 23-3-2005 by 00PS]

a civilian who kills an innocent for his own personal gain is a murderer. a civilian who kills for political purposes like coercing the public to change their policies is a terrorist. thats what terrorism is about, terrorizing the public to change to their point of view.

What about former serial killers that targeted prostitutes? Aren't they sending a message to society saying prostitution is wrong?

Anyways this thread is to analyze the laws of the USA and how they ahve changed ot classify murderers as terrorists.

If they have then how does this change 3 things... the investigation, reports and effects on communication methods these people used prior to their crimes.

maybe they can charge serial killers who did it for social or political purposes. the U.S. laws have not been updated for dealing with these issues since we tend to be cautious and people who would oppose if such terms like terrorists on serial killers is branded them. for now its murderers and killers so we will have to see.

Originally posted by 00PS
What about former serial killers that targeted prostitutes? Aren't they sending a message to society saying prostitution is wrong?

Maybe indirectly, but they actually do it because they hate prostitutes personally. That, and they're usually insane. Many terrorists may be fanatical, but I don't think you could classify them as medically crazy (there are just as many people who are fanatical about religion who don't strap a bomb to their chest, they just go door to door handing out Bibles).

Originally posted by deltaboy
a civilian who kills an innocent for his own personal gain is a murderer. a civilian who kills for political purposes like coercing the public to change their policies is a terrorist. thats what terrorism is about, terrorizing the public to change to their point of view.

done.

in the first response, it is defined and the arguement over with.

yeah right.

how do you argue this point any further? well, i'm sure you guys will find a way.

Originally posted by 00PS
What about former serial killers that targeted prostitutes? Aren't they sending a message to society saying prostitution is wrong?

Anyways this thread is to analyze the laws of the USA and how they ahve changed ot classify murderers as terrorists.

If they have then how does this change 3 things... the investigation, reports and effects on communication methods these people used prior to their crimes.

no, muderers who kill prostitutes pick them because they are easy, easy to hide, not missed and, in many, they have a hatred of women.

something to understand about serial killers: they do it all for themselves, not for any other reason than to satisfy themselves or to fight a part of themselves, everyone else just gets in the way.

Originally posted by deltaboy
maybe they can charge serial killers who did it for social or political purposes. the U.S. laws have not been updated for dealing with these issues since we tend to be cautious and people who would oppose if such terms like terrorists on serial killers is branded them. for now its murderers and killers so we will have to see.

these tend to be spree killers, not serial killers, and they are usually not of sound mind and so i doubt any prosecutor would try to charge them as terrorists rather than murderers.