Judge Napolitano tells why the shooter isn’t classified a terrorist. Note to libs, it’s not because he’s white

The worst mass shooting in US history cannot be classified as an act of terrorism unless there was a political motive behind the attack.

Among other questions surfacing about the deadly shooting that claimed the lives of 59 people and injured more than 500 others was why the gunman was not being called a terrorist for the despicable act.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano expounded on defining terrorism in the wake of the massacre in Las Vegas Sunday as the lone gunman opened fire at an open air music festival from his hotel room window on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.

Congress stepped in with legislation to counter outrage by citizens in the past when mass shooting suspects in states without a death penalty did not face the ultimate consequence, Napolitano noted on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday.

“Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act which said that terrorism is two or more acts of violence done in order to affect the policy of the government, that is, for political reasons,” Napolitano said.

Unless the government is able to establish that the deceased Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock, was motivated by a political cause or was seeking to change government policy, the horrendous crime cannot be classified as an act of terror, he explained.

Liberals questioned the absence of labeling Paddock a terrorist and objected to the distinction established in the law which requires political motivation.

Nephew of Vegas shooter’s girlfriend tells what his impression was when he met ‘aunty’s’ mass murderer

Vogue magazine, in a piece titled, “Why Won’t Anyone Call the Las Vegas Shooter a Terrorist?” argued:

According to the dictionary, violence must be politically motivated to truly constitute terrorism. Paddock’s motives are not yet known, which is how some would explain not calling him a terrorist. But whether or not Paddock ever meets the technical definition of terrorist, we know without question that he “created and maintained a state of extreme fear and distress” among the innocent crowd in Vegas. By definition, he terrorized them. But nobody is saying that word, either. When words fail, it seems platitudes prevail.

There were other liberals who were quick to spout the same rhetoric.

“Had he survived this, had he not killed himself, had the SWAT team captured him, he would have been subject to the death penalty because there is a death penalty in Nevada,” Napolitano continued on Fox News. In states where there is no death penalty, the suspect could be subject to the federal terrorism act and subsequent execution if convicted, “but you’d have to show the political motive.”

Others on Twitter understood the terrorism distinction and echoed Napolitano’s explanation.

Napolitano also discussed how the suspect “illegally altered” the gun he used in the deadly shooting after he had legally purchased it, describing the difficulty of obtaining a license for the type of automatic weapon.

Singer John Rich let off-duty cop borrow his gun the night of Vegas massacre; hear him tell riveting story

“Any person familiar with a gun would know how to change it. But the act of changing it is a felony,” he said. “So at the time he bought it, it was legal. At the time he used it, it was criminal.”

Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE

Frieda Powers

Comments

Latest Articles