gang members charged with anti-terrorists laws

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=14&u=/ap/20040514/ap_on_re_us/gang_terror_charge_2

By LUKAS I. ALPERT, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Nineteen members of a street gang accused of menacing their neighborhood have been indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror, believed to be the first use of the state\'s anti-terrorism law against a gang.

 

Five of the 19 gang members indicted by a grand jury were arrested Thursday, police said. The other 14 were still being sought.


Charging that the St. James Gang acted with "the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population," Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson said the grand jury was justified in adding the terrorism stipulation to several counts including conspiracy, murder and gang assault.


Johnson said it was the first time he was aware of that the terrorism statute had been used in such a way. The law, passed by the state Legislature six days after the Sept. 11 attack, allows for more severe sentences.


Edgar Morales, 22, who was arrested Thursday, faces the most serious charge, second-degree murder as a terrorist act, for the shooting death of a 10-year-old girl in August 2002 at a baptism party.


Prosecutors allege 12 members of the gang crashed the party and confronted a man they believed was a member of a rival gang. The gang members chased the man outside and started shooting, hitting the girl with a stray bullet, prosecutors said.


If convicted on that charge, Morales, who also faces several other charges, would face a mandatory life sentence without parole. The charge without the terrorism stipulation would carry a sentence of 25 years to life.


The four other men arrested Thursday were charged with conspiracy and could face as much as 25 years in prison if
convicted.
______________________

Is this a mis-use of the terrorists laws? I tend to think so. Yes these guys are scumbags, yes they deserve to be locked in prison the rest of their lives, but what does this mean that prosecuters can charge them with terrorism? We already have a law against murder and trespassing, why not just use those charges? Can someone who is reckless driving get charged with terrorism now because they are technically causing fear in other citizens? It is this (in my opinion) mis-use of these broad hard to define laws that makes me (and others) nervous about the way our legal system is heading. Twisting laws intended for one purpose so you can use them for another is a disgrace.

What do you guys think.

And no, Im not feeling sorry for the poor unfortunate gangmembers. :rolleyes:

[Paul2]

sometimes I wonder if TSina is too liberal or it\'s just me?  But that\'s cool, I prefer liberal over reactionary anyday I guess.

This is a state law - don\'t confuse it with a Federal law.  As for the charges - I can see the logic behind charging them under the state law.  They are a gang who was using terror to intimidate the general public.

I am sure it will go throug the appeals process anyway... should be interesting to see what the final outcome will be.

Originally posted by Paul2
sometimes I wonder if TSina is too liberal or it\'s just me?  But that\'s cool, I prefer liberal over reactionary anyday I guess.

Yeah look where she lives... WPB :rolleyes:

Not like I was born and raised here.

Anywho...

It\'s like the shameful loopholes and twists defense lawyers use to get other scum off the hook instead of the DA "hooking" them.

Both are utterly disgusting.

I dont really agree with that b/c untill now, I have never, ever heard of gangmembers refered to as terrorists.

Well look at it this way.  According to their explanation of a terrorist they do fit.

If you agree with them serving harsh sentences, what difference does it make what they are charged with?

Same penalties...

Computer hackers can be considered terrorists now too...

good

What\'s wrong with simply charging them with the crime they actually commited? Isn\'t murder a strong enough charge? They could get the death penalty or they could spend their life in prison. Adding another charge so we can give them double life is stupid. They\'re not even going to live to "double life". In the meantime we\'ve sent the message that the spirit of our laws doesn\'t matter, all that matters is how you can twist them.

There were charges that could have been filled against the gang members before 9/11, so why do we need to have these new laws? Why not take the gang members and charge them with their real crimes. if they are demanding that a business pay them money or they will **** it up, there is already a law against that. If they are carrying weapons, there is already a law against that too. If they murdered someone (whicht they did), there is a law against that. If they are disturbing the peace, there is a law against that too. etc.

why the need for the redundancy? If I get in a heated argument with a neighbor because their dog craps on my yard, and I start "terrorizing" him by throwing his dog crap at his front door and house, will I have to go to jail for 25 years?


It\'s just like a white man beating a black man, a simple assault possibly turns into a hate crime now when often it isnt.

Bozco- By definition, it can and often does. When was the last time you heard gangmembers refered to as terrorists? We both know that the term terrorism, when used in respect to crimes, has always been used in reference to religious or politically  motivated groups.

Originally posted by TSina

Bozco- By definition, it can and often does. When was the last time you heard gangmembers refered to as terrorists? We both know that the term terrorism, when used in respect to crimes, has always been used in reference to religious or politically  motivated groups.

I know, I just feel they\'re committing the crime labeled in the law so I have no problem against it.  Also, you say it\'s overkill to give double life, but the other guys who aren\'t charged for murder will get mone penalties now that aren\'t overkill.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Tsina, there’s a difference between 1 person, and a population of people. If a gang is using fear and hatred on groups of people to do what they want, get what they want etc.  I\'d call them terrorists.



The Dictionary Meaning

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I\'d call them organized people using violence against people to intimidate or coerce them.  Wouldn\'t u?

Your obviously missing what Im saying soulgrind. I have no probs with them being locked away forever, but dont you think its a little retarded to charge them as terrorists when we already have laws on the book they can be charged with that already state they wont see the light of day?

If anything what the states office is trying to do may have the completely opposite effect.

Example....People sue for obscene amounts of money nowadays. How often do the judge and or juries decide the opposite b/c of how rediculous it seems?

The charges that most of them face is more than sufficient in making sure these punks dont see the light of the sun beyond the "day yard" if found guilty. Being charged as terrorists may even help them with a lesser sentence.

PS..I do know what the dictionary term for a terrorist is as I posted it in another forum that we are discussing it in. The dictionary term has been that way for years, yet gangmembers were not terrorists untill this case.

Eh, that\'s why gangs are bad.

Very true.

Similarly related... How come gang members dont get charged under RICO statue? How street gangs operate, espescially the larger ones is very much like the mob and they always try to hit mobsters with the RICO clause.