Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, um..., I'd be leery about applying a 'workplace violence' label - though POTUS might like to go there.
For it to be workplace violence, as a rule, both the offender and the victim have to work there.
I investigated a clinic shooting back in 1984. Estranged husband came into a clinic where his estranged wife worked as a nurse and gunned her down. It was domestic violence that took place at her place of employment. (She survived, bless her heart. He did not.)
I suppose he could be called that. Lone attacker would be more apt. The question about calling this "terrorism" comes down to numbers and level of organization. Was he "sponsored" or was he active in an organized "terror group"? One that has carried out organized, planned attacks, and that promotes a propagandized agenda , and openly advocates violence?
This, seems to be the depraved act of a loner. While the act, itself, can certainly be call an act of terror, there doesn't seem to be an organized force behind it. No group claim responsibility, threatening further attacks unless demands are met, serious proclamation of an ideology that motivates the attack., all things lacking, from what is generally seen as terrorism. These supposed" right wing domestic terror groups" seem to be more of a fear mongering fabrication, than a real threat.
There hasn't been any kind of organized attack by any such group. Nothing. Yet, we hear about this looming "threat" all the time. How dangerous these "groups" are, that they're organized, armed and motivated to wreak havoc. Umm...well, where are they? Who are they? Of they do exist (which I doubt) more "terror" is being whipped up and panic caused by media and politicalhype than by aanything being attacked. Honestly, why actually do anything when the hype is doing it all already.
So is he just a lone attacker or a terrorist?
. Was the PPS shooter Radicalized by These supposed" right wing domestic terror groups?
If a Muslim by himself attacks some where, will he be a lone attacker or a terrorist?
Won't a single Muslim Lone attacker be a Radicalized Terrorist?
Why shouldn't the PPS shooter be a Radicalized Terrorist?
So what's the actual story? Was this guy targeting the PP or did he start somewhere else and duck inside the PP for cover? I have seen both versions in the media.
So what's the actual story? Was this guy targeting the PP or did he start somewhere else and duck inside the PP for cover? I have seen both versions in the media.
Sounds pretty clear at this point that he deliberately attacked PP.
So what's the actual story? Was this guy targeting the PP or did he start somewhere else and duck inside the PP for cover? I have seen both versions in the media.
I think that's because the Media doesn't really know so as usual they make stuff up.
So what's the actual story? Was this guy targeting the PP or did he start somewhere else and duck inside the PP for cover? I have seen both versions in the media.
...And that's the point. We don't know yet. But we all seem to have opinions...
So is he just a lone attacker or a terrorist?
. Was the PPS shooter Radicalized by These supposed" right wing domestic terror groups?
If a Muslim by himself attacks some where, will he be a lone attacker or a terrorist?
Won't a single Muslim Lone attacker be a Radicalized Terrorist?
Why shouldn't the PPS shooter be a Radicalized Terrorist?
And who "radicalized" him? Was he part of some larger group, that indoctrinated him, or just some nut job pulling stuff off the internet from various sources? A one man terrorist organization, so to speak. He wasn't tasked to do this act by anyone, in the name of anything. He radicalized himself. There's no higher authority claiming responsibility for this. This clown was not anyone's foot soldier. Lone wolf? Or just a rabid dog?
You can call him whatever you like. It doesn't bother me if people want to label him a "terrorist". I'm just dubious as to any benefit to doing so. Does applying the label do anything to prevent attacks from people like him, in the future? Does giving him the title make us more prepared, or heighten security in any way? Perhaps we need another agency and a czar to focus on these "lone wolf" types.
IDK, it just seems like calling this guy anything more than a murderer gives an air of...legitimacy...to his acts, and could encourage other such attacks. As if there really is some cause or another motivating such things. We don't call gang related drive by shootings terrorist acts, or call the shooters terrorists, but they are far closer than loons like this PP murderer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
