| Terrorist vs Criminal |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2009 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Terrorist vs Criminal |
Protect
your files
your files
Protect
your identity
your identity
This one drives me nuts. When you hear people, particularly lawyers and diplomats, argue the definitions of
terrorist versus criminal, it’s an argument in search of a distinction not worth contemplating.
Terrorism and criminality are synonymous by degree. If you become a victim of a terrorist or criminal act,
you’ll experience physiological and psychological effects. The degree of the effects is dictated only by the
degree of the act.
Imagine yourself as a sales clerk in the jewelry section of a department store. You notice a woman browsing
the various displays. You’re about to approach the woman to offer assistance when you see her remove a
necklace from a display and slip the necklace into her coat pocket. You’ve just witnessed a criminal act of
theft/shoplifting. Even though this is a non-violent and arguably low level criminal act, your mere observation
will have a physiological effect on you evidenced by an increase in your pulse rate. Your pulse rate may even
increase further as you return to your counter to call for store security.
This scenario could end with the woman weeping and claiming she was only stealing to feed her babies.
However, this scenario is going to go a little differently:
A store security officer responds to your call, and you point out the suspect to the officer. As soon as the
officer identifies himself to the suspect, she swings her shoulder bag at the officer. The officer blocks the blow
with his forearm, and a violent struggle ensues. It’s clear to you that the officer was surprised by the violent
response as he and the suspect fall to the floor with the suspect kicking, scratching and attempting to bite the
officer. You also notice that the suspect is trying to open her shoulder bag with the clear intent to remove
something. That action doesn’t go unnoticed by the officer as he gains control of the bag and throws it across
the floor in your direction successfully denying the suspect any further access to the bag.
By now you can feel your heart pounding in your chest as you call for further assistance. Only seconds pass
before another security officer arrives. You begin to relax as the suspect is finally subdued and handcuffed.
But it’s not over yet. The suspect, now in custody, begins a profanity laced verbal assault on everyone. She
looks directly at you screaming that she knows you’re the one who “ratted” her out. As the suspect is dragged
away kicking and screaming, she continues calling you every four letter word imaginable and promising
vengeance on you. Oh yea… you’re wondering about the suspect’s bag. Well, after all the excitement, you
point out the bag to another security officer who opens the bag and removes a very large butcher knife.
Now, would you say that this criminal act escalated to a point where you felt a degree of terror? How about the
psychological effects you felt from the verbal threats only to find out that the suspect was in possession of a
weapon enabling her to carry out such threats. Of course, she could have just shoplifted the knife from the
house wares section, but the duct tape holding together the knife’s broken handle sort of precluded that
possibility.
Here’s a really simple way to view terrorist versus criminal. An act of terrorism is a criminal act, and any
criminal act can have an element, or elements, of terror.
When you hear the lawyers and diplomats trying to distinguish acts of terror from criminal acts, they’re only
debating politics. It’s just a turf war between our nation’s lawyer class and military professionals. There’s a
very simple reason why the lawyer class wants to treat all terrorist acts against Americans anywhere in the
world as a matter for law enforcement. In the United States, all law enforcement is controlled by the lawyer
class through prosecutors and judges who are… lawyers.
Let’s look at the Samolian pirate attack on the Maersk Alabama -- an American flagged cargo ship carrying
humanitarian aid to Africa. After 20 unarmed American merchant seamen fought off four pirates armed with
AK-47 automatic assault rifles, the pirates ended up on the ship’s life boat holding only the ship’s captain as a
hostage. Do you think it’s fair to say that the ship's crew and captain would find much difference between a
terrorist or criminal act when applied to their situation?
Prior to the resolution of the Alabama’s pirate attack, much was made about the F.B.I’s involvement in
hostage negotiation and crime scene investigation aboard the Alabama while its captain floated in the middle of
the Indian Ocean with AK-47’s pointed at him. In the end, resolution came from the muzzles of U.S. Navy Seal
snipers which can only be described as an extraordinary display of marksmanship skill and coordination.
There’s not a thing wrong with close cooperation and coordination between law enforcement and the military.
In the case of the Alabama, it was clear that the United States government was viewing the pirate attack as a
criminal act to be addressed with law enforcement. Theoretically, the Seal snipers could have been replaced by
F.B.I. snipers. Had that been done, the whole operation could have been a law enforcement show with the Navy
acting only in a supporting role. Of course, the lawyer class isn’t that stupid. So many things could have gone
wrong with the sniper assault on the pirates. Taking nothing from the skill of F.B.I. snipers, the lawyer class
realized that – politically -- any risk of failure would be better borne by the military.
When you become a police officer, you’re going to be exposed to a lot of ridiculous arguments. In almost every
instance, if you rely on logic and remove the politics, a simple and efficient solution will become obvious.
terrorist versus criminal, it’s an argument in search of a distinction not worth contemplating.
Terrorism and criminality are synonymous by degree. If you become a victim of a terrorist or criminal act,
you’ll experience physiological and psychological effects. The degree of the effects is dictated only by the
degree of the act.
Imagine yourself as a sales clerk in the jewelry section of a department store. You notice a woman browsing
the various displays. You’re about to approach the woman to offer assistance when you see her remove a
necklace from a display and slip the necklace into her coat pocket. You’ve just witnessed a criminal act of
theft/shoplifting. Even though this is a non-violent and arguably low level criminal act, your mere observation
will have a physiological effect on you evidenced by an increase in your pulse rate. Your pulse rate may even
increase further as you return to your counter to call for store security.
This scenario could end with the woman weeping and claiming she was only stealing to feed her babies.
However, this scenario is going to go a little differently:
A store security officer responds to your call, and you point out the suspect to the officer. As soon as the
officer identifies himself to the suspect, she swings her shoulder bag at the officer. The officer blocks the blow
with his forearm, and a violent struggle ensues. It’s clear to you that the officer was surprised by the violent
response as he and the suspect fall to the floor with the suspect kicking, scratching and attempting to bite the
officer. You also notice that the suspect is trying to open her shoulder bag with the clear intent to remove
something. That action doesn’t go unnoticed by the officer as he gains control of the bag and throws it across
the floor in your direction successfully denying the suspect any further access to the bag.
By now you can feel your heart pounding in your chest as you call for further assistance. Only seconds pass
before another security officer arrives. You begin to relax as the suspect is finally subdued and handcuffed.
But it’s not over yet. The suspect, now in custody, begins a profanity laced verbal assault on everyone. She
looks directly at you screaming that she knows you’re the one who “ratted” her out. As the suspect is dragged
away kicking and screaming, she continues calling you every four letter word imaginable and promising
vengeance on you. Oh yea… you’re wondering about the suspect’s bag. Well, after all the excitement, you
point out the bag to another security officer who opens the bag and removes a very large butcher knife.
Now, would you say that this criminal act escalated to a point where you felt a degree of terror? How about the
psychological effects you felt from the verbal threats only to find out that the suspect was in possession of a
weapon enabling her to carry out such threats. Of course, she could have just shoplifted the knife from the
house wares section, but the duct tape holding together the knife’s broken handle sort of precluded that
possibility.
Here’s a really simple way to view terrorist versus criminal. An act of terrorism is a criminal act, and any
criminal act can have an element, or elements, of terror.
When you hear the lawyers and diplomats trying to distinguish acts of terror from criminal acts, they’re only
debating politics. It’s just a turf war between our nation’s lawyer class and military professionals. There’s a
very simple reason why the lawyer class wants to treat all terrorist acts against Americans anywhere in the
world as a matter for law enforcement. In the United States, all law enforcement is controlled by the lawyer
class through prosecutors and judges who are… lawyers.
Let’s look at the Samolian pirate attack on the Maersk Alabama -- an American flagged cargo ship carrying
humanitarian aid to Africa. After 20 unarmed American merchant seamen fought off four pirates armed with
AK-47 automatic assault rifles, the pirates ended up on the ship’s life boat holding only the ship’s captain as a
hostage. Do you think it’s fair to say that the ship's crew and captain would find much difference between a
terrorist or criminal act when applied to their situation?
Prior to the resolution of the Alabama’s pirate attack, much was made about the F.B.I’s involvement in
hostage negotiation and crime scene investigation aboard the Alabama while its captain floated in the middle of
the Indian Ocean with AK-47’s pointed at him. In the end, resolution came from the muzzles of U.S. Navy Seal
snipers which can only be described as an extraordinary display of marksmanship skill and coordination.
There’s not a thing wrong with close cooperation and coordination between law enforcement and the military.
In the case of the Alabama, it was clear that the United States government was viewing the pirate attack as a
criminal act to be addressed with law enforcement. Theoretically, the Seal snipers could have been replaced by
F.B.I. snipers. Had that been done, the whole operation could have been a law enforcement show with the Navy
acting only in a supporting role. Of course, the lawyer class isn’t that stupid. So many things could have gone
wrong with the sniper assault on the pirates. Taking nothing from the skill of F.B.I. snipers, the lawyer class
realized that – politically -- any risk of failure would be better borne by the military.
When you become a police officer, you’re going to be exposed to a lot of ridiculous arguments. In almost every
instance, if you rely on logic and remove the politics, a simple and efficient solution will become obvious.