Gang Member Charged As Terrorist

**Confed999** · 29 Dec 04,, 23:15

New York Gang Member Faces Trial as Terrorist

Wed Dec 29, 8:57 AM ET

By Maria Castro

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Every time Lourdes Morales watches the TV news and sees a story on terrorism, she weeps.

Family members have stopped trying to console her, but they, too, cannot understand why Edgar Morales, the family's youngest son, will see the new year arrive in prison where he is waiting to be tried as a terrorist.

"They are comparing my son to (Osama) bin Laden ... and all those people who used bombs and killed thousands of people at random," said Morales.

"They are making him look as if he was this cold-hearted person, and he is not like that."

Morales, 22, was indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror in May, along with 18 other members of the St. James Boys Gang, a Mexican and Mexican-American street gang.

Morales faces the most serious charge of second-degree murder as a terrorist act. A New York grand jury returned the charges against him in connection with the shooting death of 10-year-old Melanie Mendez, who died from gunshot wounds two years earlier.

Morales plans to plead innocent, said his attorney, Lewis Alperin. No date has yet been set for his trial.

Morales is the first gang member in New York to be indicted under the state's terrorism statute, which became law shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

If the charges did not include the terrorism stipulation, he would face a sentence of 25 years to life if found guilty. With the stipulation, he faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

MORE

**barrowaj** · 03 Jan 05,, 04:28

Q: What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

**Bill** · 03 Jan 05,, 04:45

The cause, but more importantly...

HOW IT'S IMPLEMENTED.

Freedom fighters dont strap bombs on and intentionally blow up school kids.

Ever.

Terrosists do.

**~~Broken~~** · 03 Jan 05,, 05:20

Originally Posted by Confed999

New York Gang Member Faces Trial as Terrorist

Interesting article. I find it disturbing that domestic crimes by US citizen's are being treated as "terrorist acts". Where is this leading to?

**Bill** · 03 Jan 05,, 05:59

To serious sentences for maruading and murdering gangs, who are terrorists by almost any reasonable sense of the word.

**~~Broken~~** · 03 Jan 05,, 06:18

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

To serious sentences for maruading and murdering gangs, who are terrorists by almost any reasonable sense of the word.

Certainly true. However, US criminal law has always been the venue for dealing with common criminals. If we extend the definition "terrorist" to include common crimes, where does it stop? Why not prosecute pot smokers as "terrorists", too?

**ChrisF202** · 03 Jan 05,, 11:20

Originally Posted by Broken

Interesting article. I find it disturbing that domestic crimes by US citizen's are being treated as "terrorist acts". Where is this leading to?

These people are gangmembers (scumbags and slime, the ldirt on my lawn has more dignity then these people) who think its fun to go around attacking, raping, robbing, etc innocent people. There are like 12,000 gangmembers alone on Long Island. If only the Suffolk County DA would take the same example as Bronx County does ......

**Ray** · 03 Jan 05,, 12:33

Domestic crimes can be equally taken on by the existing statutes of law.

We had a anti terrorist law. It has been repealed for domestic crimes that are not connected to terrorism.

To make murders an act of terrorism is indeed draconian.

Also the differentiation between the genuine terrorists and the criminals wane and thus loses its value.

**Bill** · 03 Jan 05,, 22:54

If a gang is terrorizing and killing in a neighborhood, they ARE terrorists, by their very nature.

**Julie** · 04 Jan 05,, 03:44

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

If a gang is terrorizing and killing in a neighborhood, they ARE terrorists, by their very nature.

I have to agree.

**Ray** · 04 Jan 05,, 04:10

I wonder if 'gangs terrorising a neighbourhood' can be termed as terrorists, apart from the English language interpretation that they are scaring people to death = terrorising.

Legally the contention would not hold a candle; UNLESS there is an all encompassing statute in law to that effect. I presume the NY law is such an all encompassing law.

Would a stalker who is terrorising a person also be a terrorist?

Would a serial murderer also be a terrorist?

Would those chaps who were shooting guys (the young boy and that man in a pickup) in Maryland (?) {I forget the names, but they have been caught and there was a lot of publicity for the Afro American police chief} also terrorists?

Therefore, an all encompassing terrorist law is probably draconian. Tomorrow, one could be hauled up for any misdemeanour and charged.

It is not to say I feel that these gangs should not be prosecuted. Prosecuted they must be. Throw the law book at them. Give the maximum to them. I am sure the present laws are quite capable of doing so, without resorting to a terrorist law, which must be used with discretion as also minimum use will ensure the 'shock and awe' for such law, so that when used, the person terrorised would no that he has no hope in hell.

**Gio** · 04 Jan 05,, 04:43

Well, as far as I know they do call making threats aganist anyone, "Terrorist threats."

**ChrisF202** · 04 Jan 05,, 11:13

Would a stalker who is terrorising a person also be a terrorist?

Would a serial murderer also be a terrorist?

Would those chaps who were shooting guys (the young boy and that man in a pickup) in Maryland (?) {I forget the names, but they have been caught and there was a lot of publicity for the Afro American police chief} also terrorists?

In my opinion, all of those is terrorism (according to the definition which you posted). John Malvo and John Mohammad (the DC snipers) were (I belive) not charged with terrorism and instead with murder (again I think only one count as they could only be positivly linked to one murder). In the eyes of the law (in most jusridictions) only something like the KKK, Osama Bin Laden, drug lords blowing people up, etc are terrorism. Stalkers are charged with harrasment and sometimes sexual crimes, serial killers and murder, etc

**Ray** · 04 Jan 05,, 13:44

Originally Posted by Gio

Well, as far as I know they do call making threats aganist anyone, "Terrorist threats."

So would they be brought to book by the Terrorism Act?

What about guys who pull a gun but do not shoot. They also terrorise, don't they?

But then you would know better since you live there.

I sure would be uncomfortable if in my country I tell a chap that I will sort him out and I get tucked into the jail under a Terror Act for terrorising the other joe.

**Confed999** · 05 Jan 05,, 01:34

Originally Posted by Broken

Why not prosecute pot smokers as "terrorists", too?

If they were violent pot smokers, never met one myself, then anything that adds to their jail time is fine by me. Add a terrorism charge to all violent crime.