And the jury acquitted him on the original theft charges ? WTF? I am sick of the word "terrorize" -they apply that to everything now. It must be the standard way to enhance charges against someone.
OK- he resisted arrest-we have laws for that, eh?
or he assaulted a cop-we have laws for that too.
As a matter of fact, I bet the prosecutor could have found 10 different legitimate laws to apply to this guy-
So why the "terrorize" bullpucky? Maybe it carries a heavier penalty because he made someone feel bad or scared them?
"terror" is a thought crime.
What, exactly, would be the criteria for "terrorizing" someone,anyway?
Is not "terror" a feeling or emotion, experienced differently by all?
Is it not, then, based ENTIRELY on the emotional state of the "victim", rather than on the defendants actions?
If a suburban housewife sees an individual open carrying and is afraid of guns, is she being "terrorized"?
But a soldier, in the exact same scenario, is not being "terrorized"?
Or reverse it- the soldier, riding in his hummer, is in a state of "terror" or great fear, as his buddies have been blown to pieces doing this. But the housewife, having no idea of the danger, is complacent.
"Terror", is entirely a state of mind- to find another guilty of YOUR state of mind is obscene.
This is a example of a law and a punishment, that is completely divorced from the actions of the accused, and completely dependent on the mental state of the "victim".
It seems like a new and novel approach to thought crime- instead of the thought crime being something the accused did, the thought crime now is created by the victim, and applied to the accused.
This is an Orwellian dystopia. Every trace of reason is gone.