I would make the claim on the basis of the DA’s statements at the time of charging. I don’t know anything about his parent’s politics (or why that would matter) and the descriptions I’ve seen of the shooter’s notes, etc., are entirely consistent with a serious mental disorder. But, when announcing the charges, the DA did not suggest that there was a underlying motive that would support terrorism charges as contemplated by the statute. Rather, she said that it was “terrifying” to be “in close proximity of another student shooting and killing fellow students. I mean, it’s terror.” And it surely would be terrifying, but that’s not “terrorism”. If it is terrorism, then (to address the OP’s question), I think there is a real chance that “terrorism” gets expanded dramatically.
The idea that simply knowing something about a parent’s politics, whatever that something is, means that it’s legally reasonable to charge someone with terrorism is a perfect example of why this makes more sense as politics than it does as sound prosecutorial decision-making.
Is a public school a “unit of government”? I think I can see an argument there.
Goes to brainwashing. The mother’s political statements suggest she has allowed herself to be brainwashed, and in such a way as to suggest she’d be the sort to brainwash her son in turn. The whole buying a handgun for a fifteen year old as a wholesome activity thing is also suggestive. Not only of her leanings and her views on political violence, but of the strength of those leanings.
BUT–and I must emphasize this–the much more significant aspect here (I suspect and hope) will be statements the murderer made on social media. Any statements the parent’s may have made is just window-dressing. The meat of it is that we know this kid was active on social media, to including some disturbing commentary. It’s entirely plausible that his own statements may reflect a political motivation. Presumably the prosecutor in this case has access to those statements and they have informed them in bringing the charges they brought. This may well amount to a “sound legal reason” to bring terrorism charges.
I’d restate what @ASL_v2.0 said this way:
No, the parents’ beliefs alone won’t tell us if this is terrorism. But it’s a decent starting point to investigate the possibility. If this was a terrorist act, then the belief that inspired it must come from somewhere.
Since we don’t currently know why the charge of terrorism is bring brought, we can only speculate on information we have, which would include the parents’ statements. It doesn’t mean that those are the actual legal evidence.
Idunno, and IANAL (if memory serves, you are), but …
If I place my emphasis on this component of the Statute here:
An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion.
Then I can see a possible argument, regardless of whether or not it will be persuasive.
If this kid went in with even a soupçon of vengeance in his little black heart (for perceived grievances not yet fully disclosed), rather than just a fit of abject homicidal sociopathy and/or frank mental illness, then maybe the argument will be that he intended to intimidate everybody in the school, and to kill as many of them as he could.
Y’know … maybe.
The charges at this point have been filed, and the person responsible for the decision has spoken about it. This isn’t the time to investigate whether there was some terror angle. If there is some concrete ideological basis for the violence, the time for it to be discovered was before now.
Again I’d like to not focus so much on this particular crime, but more on what are the implications and limits for applying terrorism charges on other crimes where people are legitimately frightened or terrified.
This is not a federal terrorism charge, but one brought under state law. He won’t ever end up in a federal prison.
Absent some messaging by the perpetrator which seeks to address the violence to a larger issue or cause, I agree that it shouldn’t be enough to simply say that people were scared to charge terrorism.
I suppose, though, that this case could stand for the proposition that violence done publicly, and in front of bystanders, could invite this additional charge. So, if you shoot and kill your spouse at home after an argument, it might be murder. But if you do it while she is at work, or out shopping, and in the presence of others who have a legitimate reason to fear also being hurt (either because they are collateral damage or possible witnesses), it would also be terrorism.
I think terrorism charges are appropriate in the case of someone like Elliot Rogers who definitely had ideological reasons for committing his acts and who wanted to inspire fear while calling others like him to action. Whether the Michigan shooter had those sorts of beliefs and motivations remains to be seen.
I respect that, but what you’re asking for borders on question begging. It’s as if you’re asking us to proceed with this discussion in the abstract, in some hypothetical alternate reality in which “terrorism charges” are brought merely for committing a crime that causes people to be “legitimately frightened or terrified.” But you picked a real world example where the terrorism statute requires more than that.
Which is perhaps why, according to the statute, it isn’t. It’s not just that the outcome was fear or intimidation, but that the intent was to coerce and intimidate a population or the government or a unit of government.
What do you think is the purpose of an investigation? Obviously the intent will have had to have been fostered at or before the commission of the crime, but that doesn’t mean it must have been discovered “before now” wit ha criminal investigation still ongoing.
Based on that definition, I have to believe that there was something in his notebook or on a video that indicated a reason for this attack. Terrorism seems to require a purpose, no matter how misguided. Mayhem alone doesn’t seem to suffice.
ETA: unless they are going with “intimidate” the school “population”
I don’t know what your deal is here exactly. They already filed the charges, like I said, and they already made a public statement about why. Investigating to find out whether you should have filed the charges you already filed is not sound prosecutorial decision making. I don’t know what else you’re looking for. The purpose of an investigation is not to figure out whether you had a reason to do the thing you already did, that’s what I think.
Given the parents’ apparent extreme pro-2A leanings, depending on the facts of what actually transpired between parents, child and school, I could imagine some kind of case being made for a terroristic implementation of the “cold, dead hands” philosophy. The parents may have inculcated their child with the idea that If anyone tries to place any restriction on his right to carry a gun, he should shoot them with it. It seems a stretch though.