Labour MP Jo Cox has died after being shot three times in the street near her office by an attacker

a reply to: CharlestonChew

I love how you don't get this.

In a court of law your dictionary definition means nothing only the legal definition has any weight

As such its utterly stupid when asking the question of weather or not a crime was or was not terrorism to turn to a bloody dictionary!

My heart goes out to our UK members.

a reply to: pavmas

That's not true.

He said: 'There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag. 'He was fighting with her and wrestling with her and then the gun went off and then she fell between two cars and I came and saw her bleeding on the floor.' It was earlier thought Ms Cox had intervened in a fight between two men but it is now believed that her attacker was lying in wait. One witness said he believed the attacker was waiting for Ms Cox outside the library where she was holding the surgery.

Daily Fail

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I love how you don't get this.

How I don't get what? That you place more clout in the opinions of talking apes with inflated senses of authority?

In a court of law your dictionary definition means nothing only the legal definition has any weight

Nice appeal to authority.

The state's courts have no more magical abilities to lend to them some mechanism for defining things than anyone else.

The state simply holds a monopoly.

As such its utterly stupid when asking the question of weather or not a crime was or was not terrorism to turn to a bloody dictionary!

Yeah, words having meaning sucks a lot.

It's far better to obfuscate the meaning of terrorism to make it wonderfully vague, that way we can arrest as many political dissidents as possible under the guise of defeating terrorism--while simultaneously ignoring our own acts of terror.

Piss on your courts, they have no more authority or innate ability for defining words than Webster.

I don't care about the courts, their rules, their definitions, or the state's laws. It's all one big appeal to authority, the reification fallacy used to imbue a concept with life.

originally posted by: Brotherman
Hey in Venezuela guns are out right banned, only the army, police, and certain government entities are permitted to have them and they are the world leader in gun related homicides.

Even your source rates Honduras higher and according to gunpolicy.org there are 3.25 million guns and:

In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Venezuela ranked at No. 27

That doesn't sound like they out right banned to me.

originally posted by: avgguy
That's impossible, guns are illegal there.

No they aren't never have been. You just can't buy them like a loaf of bread as you can in the US. How many times do we have to keep stating this ?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Sorry but OSOTC is right, he likely won't be charged under the terrorism act.
More than likely he will be done with a hate crime and murder.
We have legal definitions for a reason, you know so that laws can be understood.

a reply to: ElectricFeel

I have no idea what sort of an individual Jo Cox was, what she personally stood for, aside from her membership of the Labour Party, or how well liked she was by her constituents. All I can say from a human perspective, is that it is tragic that this woman, this mother, this wife, daughter, and all the other things that she was to people, is no longer walking the world.

I also have no idea precisely how it came to be, that an armed man shot her three times and stabbed her. What I do know, is that whether the individual in question was politically motivated, or just a psychopath who could have struck out at anyone, the truth must come to light, and the investigation must be thorough. There has been an awful lot of hearsay and implication so far, and very little certainty as to motive, so I would be eager to see some movement on that.

What we must remember, is that partisanship, gun law discussion, which side of the E.U. membership debate one might be on...these things are not important at the moment. Respect, mourning, and contemplation are the order of the day. I will be praying for the soul of this woman, and for the wellbeing of her family as they come to terms with the loss they will surely feel. Feel free to join in.

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: avgguy
That's impossible, guns are illegal there.

It's crazy how ignorance gets 14 stars

And how many times have we told them they are wrong! Some people prefer to remain ignorant, that much is clear from my time on ATS. The truth is an enemy to be avoided for some.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Well they haveto try and do damage limitation now as this could sink a lot of people who jumped on the bandwagon before the poor woman was even cold, they will say anything now to swing it.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

You do know that if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion then you are basicaly just saying the law does not apply to you because you define what is a crime not the law.

You are just basically taking a huge turd on the whole concept of democracy and justice by saying "no my dictionary is more relevant in a legal case than a actual legal act of parliament".

Your stubbornness and refusal to admit to being wrong on this is astounding.

Its almost like you are trying to argue a orange is blue.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Sorry but OSOTC is right, he likely won't be charged under the terrorism act.
More than likely he will be done with a hate crime and murder.

If you reread my post, you would see that I claimed the shooter wasn't a terrorist, I claimed that the labor mp (along with all government officials) was a terrorist.

My definition for terrorism is no more or less valid than the state's.

We have legal definitions for a reason, you know so that laws can be understood.

Terrorism isn't a law it's a word and it means "the use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

That definition suits me just fine, and it is no more or less invalid than the state's definition.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

CharlestonChew...

The issue here, is that you seem to be harping on about the dictionary.

We are talking about the real world though. You are not. An example... Go and look up democracy for me, and then compare that with the goings on in the free world, NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES, but the whole allegedly free world lately, and tell me if you think your dictionary definition is actually being played out, if any nation subscribed to even a democratic system of voting, is getting the dictionary definition, or the cold abomination that actually exists in its place.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: avgguy
That's impossible, guns are illegal there.

It's crazy how ignorance gets 14 stars

And how many times have we told them they are wrong! Some people prefer to remain ignorant, that much is clear from my time on ATS. The truth is an enemy to be avoided for some.

Not everyone with a different opinion to yourself is ignorant. Your truth is another members lie.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

My definition for terrorism is no more or less valid than the state's.

Sorry but its not the states definition it is the legal definition and in a court of law that is much more valid than your on-line dictionary.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: CharlestonChew

You do know that if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion then you are basicaly just saying the law does not apply to you because you define what is a crime not the law.

You are just basically taking a huge turd on the whole concept of democracy and justice by saying "no my dictionary is more relevant in a legal case than a actual legal act of parliament".

Your stubbornness and refusal to admit to being wrong on this is astounding.

Its almost like you are trying to argue a orange is blue.

No, I am arguing that the state has no authority.

You are the one placing human beings on a pedestal, separating our rulers from the rest of us.

You may as well make an argument for their divine right to define things.

Why is a court's definition of terrorism more valid than the definition that I posted? What basis according to their nature do they have that separates them from others for deriving the meaning of words?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: CharlestonChew

My definition for terrorism is no more or less valid than the state's.

Sorry but its not the states definition it is the legal definition and in a court of law that is much more valid than your on-line dictionary.

Because in a court of law they have people who threaten you with violence to follow their definitions.

But that's not terrorism

Sure, you're playground bullies aren't terrorists.

Seeing how politicians require the use of violence and intimidation to enforce their political aims, it can be said that the gunman--Tommy Mair--was acting in self-defense to help rid the world of terrorism.

Thank you, Tommy.

So you approve of this murder?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Honestly i am starting to find it funny.

Really funny that you cannot get this through your head.

Everyone else who is posting get its apart from you.

TERRORISM IS NOT DEFINED IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW USING A DICTIONARY.

As such when deciding if a act is or is not terrorism your dictionary means about as much as a skid-mark on bog roll!

a reply to: draoicht

So you approve of this murder?

If it's any consolation to you, I don't discriminate regarding political figures.