Terrorism or Criminal Act of Violence? Thoughts on Boston Marathon tragedy.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke

 

The FBI has this under the heading Definitions for how they define terrorism; "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). "

OK, I opened this with a quote from a reknowned orator, statesman and philosopher.  Yes, I understand that this may quote may be misattributed to Mr Burke, but it is who is most readily identified with it.  The reason I put that first, is that I wish to add a caveat to this statement.  While it is important for good men to do something; they should so not alter their lives in fear of evil that they no longer live freely.

So, why do I think it is necessary to add this thought to such a timeless idea?  Today, in my beloved United States, some cowardly person or persons placed and detonated some explosive devices in the city of Boston.  At least three devices were in the area of the finish line of respected and honorable sporting event called the Boston Marathon, and at least one other was found at a library.  As of the time of this writing, three people were murdered and well over 100 have been injured, almost 20 critically. 

While it is probable that this was an act of some terrorist group (or lone terrorist), as far as I know, no person(s) have claimed any responsibility nor made any social/political (and in my own definition related to the one above, I add religion) demands against the government/society.  Since that has not happened, again to my knowledge at the time of this writing, this is not an act of terrorism, but a terror inducing violent crime. 

What follow will be two-pronged.  One prong will address what I believe needs to be a clear cut delineation between the crime of terrorism and other violent criminal acts.  The other will be to address what I feel how good people must act to not let evil ones triumph.

I once upon a time did a lot of research into the realm of crime.  Violent crimes to be exact.  I believe that violent criminal acts, whether they are committed against one lone person, or cover vast scenes and affected many, are all terror inducing crimes.  A crime of violence by its very nature is meant to intimidate and coerce a person(s) to do something or allow something to be done by threat of or causing of actual bodily injury or death.  A person who is raped or mugged, the victims of a home invasion is terrified.  Their friends and family, their acquaintances, and the people who hear the story of and its aftermath of such events all may feel some form of terror.  To just name a few, the shooting rampage in the elementary school in Newtown, CT; the movie theater rampage in Aurora, CO, the knife wielding attacker at Lone Star Community College, the attacker with the bow and arrow at a college who injured several people.  All of these heinous acts of cowardice and carnage instill a sense of terror.  A wonder at the utter depravity and senselessness that this world contains.  And it can, to some, be a debilitating feeling of fear, along with anger, sadness and despair that come up out of all of the things we feel after such things.  Whether it effects us directly being a survivor, a loving supporter of a survivor or victim, or we are just part of the social grieving of these, it can be a terror inducing event.

So, what makes these other crimes, NOT acts of terrorism, even though they can induce terror in us?  I refer you back to the definition in Federal code that the FBI uses to make a determination if something is an act of terror or not.  The perpetrator(s) of the act, use violence or the threat of violence in an attempt to influence government policy or society as a whole to change in a political, social, or as I personally add, a religious way. 

As of yet, no claims of responsibility have been made nor any demands of social/political/religious change have been made.  Thus, the bombings in Boston, no matter how much terror they have instilled ARE NOT YET acts of terrorism by definition.  They are ugly, horrific crimes of unimaginable evil.  Yes, EVIL.  Even if you have no belief in the metaphysical spirit, evil should still be a concept which you fully accept as existing in this world.  Evil, and this is my own personal definition, is any intentional act which is done to willfully inflict a physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, financial or some other harm upon any other person for your own gain, pleasure, entertainment or other selfish goal. 

Why am do I so fervently feel the need to stress upon you the difference between calling this a crime, and calling this a criminal act of terror?  Because when we label this an act of terror, certain safeguards to liberty and due process, which we have forsaken, rightly or wrongly, in the hopes of gaining some sense of safety and security, disappear.  And while, in the heat of the moment, some may say, "So What?"  so long as we get the bastards responsible for this hideous thing, there is a reason to answer that So What with a Because....  Do not get me wrong, every reasonable effort of professional criminalistics and forensics needs to be brought to bear.  From the collection, security, inventory, processing and storage of evidence to maintain a secure chain of custody, to the interviews, to the arrests, prosecution, and sentencing should be with all of the resources we have available.  But not at the expense of any due process of law.  Expedient justice is rarely ever just.  And as I noted, the forsaking of liberty for some semblance of safety and security in one instance sets a precedent for doing so again in the future.  Possibly for something that is still shocking to the conscience, but not as heinous as this event.  Then less so for the next, then less for the next.  Does this mean we are on a slippery slope?  Probably not.  Do those slopes always come to reality, just because we voice a concern that it appears as if they are?  No.  But, not voicing the concern is tantamount to the doing nothing that Mr Burke warned us about.

And I will use that as my segue into the second part of my long winded little adventure in wordsmithing.  Regardless of whether we are speaking of the BIG acts of terror, or the everyday acts that induce terror in us, we must not succumb to paralysis, fear and such severe alterations of our daily lives that we lose our own freedoms, not to a tyranical government, or even an overbearing nanny state government, but to our own inner limitations imposed by seeking absolute safety.

When things, large or small, such as these happen, we must, of course, process them in whatever way is healthy for us to do so.  Which means that for some of us, this will go quickly, and for some it may take a period of time that seems far longer to some than it ought.  Either way, unless it is to the point where it has frozen us into place, no one should be telling you that you havent waited long enough or are taking too long to process through the terror you have felt.  However once that process is complete, the changes that we make in our lives should not be so radically drastic that we have completely altered whom we are (unless you believe that who you are was directly linked to the violence you experienced - then maybe you are correct in making vastly more changes than I am going to speak of here).  You learn to become more vigilant of your surroundings.  Not to the point of paranoia, but also that you do not forget the time and place in which you are at and who is around you.  You learn to defend yourself.  While I am a proponent of individual firearms ownership, I do not mean you must get a gun.  If you don't like them, don't purchase or possess one.  But there are many other ways to learn how to protect yourself.  From just basic confidence building to empty hand martial combat techniques.  Learn how to render aid to yourself and to others who may be injured.  Just as law enforcement may not be able to arrive for some period of time (and when you want them, even two or three minutes can seem like hours, but also when they are overwhelmed, i.e. a bombing), the same can be said for emergency medical services.  They can be several minutes away.  They could be feet away, but are treating a critically injured person and unable to render aid to you or another.  Not because they won't, but they can't.  When they have more casualties than they have resources, you get categorized.  And if it isn't immediately life threatening, (and the dirty little secret, or is immediately life threatening, but more likely to be a futile effort to save you) you get to be second or third in line for care.  So, knowing how to help yourself or someone else helps Emergency Service Providers (Police, Fire, EMS, your ER staff).

Okay.  I've have probably either pissed you off, or bored you to tears.

Good thoughts, blessings and prayers for those effected by the tragedy in Boston today, be they the victims, the survivors, the witnesses to the horrors, the rescue personnel, the investigators, the families and friends, or our nation as a whole.

 

Curbing Gun Violence v Gun Control

Semantics  plural of se·man·tics (Noun)

Noun The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff" Ok the reason I opened with the above definition is because I know I shall be accused of playing the semantics game by what follows.  If you still think so, then I have no hope of putting forth an idea and having debate or civil discussion nor will we either be able to share facts or opinions in an effort of expanding knowledge and honing critical thinking skills. Obviously the title will most likely have caused you to immediately jump to one side or the other as middle ground appears to be more of a de-militarized zone than a space of potential commonality.  And I find sadness in that.  But before I digress into the lament of polar extremism, I shall endeavor to put forth my thoughts here. While to some the idea of cutting, curbing, (the false dream of) ending gun violence and the term gun control being synonymous is a "nice" thought, it is actually naive.  Gun control does not do much to curb, control, deter or (wishfully thinking here) end violence let alone violence with guns.  Violent acts stem from a lack of control of ones emotions and instead allows us to act in a very base sense.  A gun is a tool.  A very specifically designed tool.  And while it was designed to be used to commit violent acts: those actions are to be done by people who are in as much control of their emotions as is possible (think police, soldiers, etc).  This applies similarly to those who will use guns for defense of self, of loved ones and other innocents, and if necessary in defense of home, community, and a way of life (the purpose behind the militia - which only is under any government control when mustered; and therefore is not the National Guard, tho they are related).  So thus this means that any person deemed a citizen who has not been stripped of their rights under due process of law has the right to own arms for all lawful purposes (defense, hunting, sport shooting), if they so choose to exercise that right.   But alas, gun control is not about keeping guns out of the hands of persons with known violent tendencies, nor those who are dangerous to anyone including themselves because the reality they experience is not in congruence with actual reality.  Gun control is about those who have power and wealth using those to only allow themselves and those whom they pay to have weapons.  Ladies and gentleman, intimidation is a form of violence.  Let me repeat that:  intimidation is a form of violence.  And when you centralize who has control of all "legal" firearms, the only groups with guns are the criminals who have already shown a propensity to flaunt the laws and will not change just because their victims are less capable of protecting themselves, AND the politically powerful & the wealthy whose armed agents will be unrestrained from using their "legal" arms to intimidate te unarmed to do as they want.  If your home stands in the way of what they desire, and they can't "buy" you out at much less than what they are willing to pay, then the guns come out.  Don't think this will happen?  Ask your local Native American.  Need modern examples?  Ask the residents of the slums of Rio de Janerio.  Ask the Massai if they think giving up arms is in their best interest, when their own government is at least tacitly allowing developers to shove them off of ther lands.   Do not get me wrong, I am not one who screams that any and all laws that regard firearms are violations of the 2nd Amendment; but neither am I so childish wishful as to believe that when violent people see that others have put down their guns they will follow suit (hoping this recalls a certain US Senator from California to mind). If we want to curb gun violence, if we want to curb violence overall, let us find out what makes some people have so little or no empathy for their fellow man that they believe violence is the best method to resolve problems and get what they desire (not need just want).  Let us bring mental health onto an equal par with physical health.  Let us begin to destigmatize having mental health issues so that people don't feel like third or fourth class citizens because they seek help.  Let us quit glorifying violence in our entertainment.  Let us punish violent acts equally, regardless of how famous, rich or powerful the person who commits violence is.  Let us help and encourage victims of violence to not remain in the dark and feel intimidated and in danger so that they will come forward and say NO MORE!   4/14 Yep, I knew I'd have more! One of the arguments I keep seeing by those who wish to restrict what guns may or may not be available to those of us who still prefer to be able to defend ourselves.  That argument is "Why do you NEED..." Sounds like a legit question, right?  So here is my question to you in response?  Why do you need a car that goes 90+mph?  Why do you need an 8mpg 4x4 when you live in the burbs and your most difficult terrain is the mall parking lot?  Why do you need a house with 5000 sq ft for two people?  Why do you need to send your kids to a $50k a year private school when there is a public school just down the street?  Why do you need to retain money managers, tax attorneys and the like when besides a little savings you could put all that extra money towards, oh I don't know, providing some extra money to fund POLICE, Security in those public schools, mental health resources for the crazy nut jobs who shouldn't have guns.   Go ahead, ask me why again?

Do You Suffer or Do You Cope?

I will beg your forgiveness now, as I haven't had a lot of sleep and there are some personal issues that may affect my abilities to compose in complete coherence (well my norm of coherence) and proper spelling, grammar and the like. The title of this particular thought exercise comes about from two personal things that have happened to me, one that has been a part of my make up for some time now and one in which I am on the outside looking in upon someone whom I love deeply and dearly. I dedicate these thoughts to her. If I recall correctly at some point or another I have kinda sorta told my story and probably either said "I suffer from..." or "I used to suffer from, but now cope with...". It is not uncommon for any person to have some condition, be it physical, mental, emotional, financial, spiritual or what have you that effects their life in some manner, and not always to the betterment of their life. We have a tendency to say about ourselves or someone else whom we know has such a condition as "suffering from...". For me, that condition is PTSD. It presented itself with clinical depression, and some pretty reckless behavior. And before I really even knew I had this stress disorder, I can look back now and say I suffered. Tho, in actuality, the suffering was by those who put up with me when I was insufferable; those who tried to tell me that I had changed and I thought they were the ones were just slightly off. But eventually I came to realize I needed help. I got that help. That help gave me mental tools that helped me to move from suffering, with all of the negative connotations and the oh woe is me self-victimization that attaches to it, to coping with that very same condition. The condition still exists within me. It will most likely be a part of my life until the day I die. But instead of allowing that condition to limit me in what I can and will do, by realizing that coping with this condition, the only limits I must abide by are the ones that I set for myself. Granted, with PTSD, I have to know (or at least learn to recognize when I come up against) what my trigger(s) is to sending me on a "wonderful" no expense not thought of to charge me with trip back to some dark and ugly event(s) that put me in Freeze, Fight or Flight. Oh what joys come from over reacting (or under reacting, no reaction at all) due to being in a different place altogether even tho physically I never left the spot I was in. Flashbacks are fun! NOT! Especially not when you are bouncing your own vehicle off of the side of a semi trailer at 70 mph to avoid the piece of tire scrap that you thought was something else entirely. So, knowing what my triggers are and not allowing myself to let my condition and those triggers limit me, but for me to set my own limits (goals, dreams, these are limits - the limits to which you would strive to find the life and live it as you most desire) I don't allow myself to suffer (ok ok, yes I have "bad" days and still suffer from my condition), but instead have harnessed it, and make it work for me, I now COPE with my condition and live life as fully as I am capable of doing. So, after all of that above, to my daughter, and also to my friends and family who have some injury, illness or other condition that makes your life harder than it should be. It is my fervent wish and desire that you will look past the negatives of whatever you "suffer" from, decide that you are not going to allow that condition to be your master and control you any longer. That instead you will find some slight glimmer of inspiration in my story, and find your way to cope with whatever it may be. Learn to cope so that the limits you face as to what you want to accomplish are not set by anyone or anything but your own conscious, rational, thinking mind. That you will find your way to strive to make the best of what all you have, in spite of something that says you can't do that. My hope is that you cope!