http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/08/philadelphia-cop-shooting-wounded-street-ambush/78499196/

The suspect in the wounding of a Philadelphia police officer in an execution-style ambush told officers that he carried out the attack "in the name of Islam," Police Commissioner Richard Ross said Friday.

Ross said the suspect, Edward Archer, 30, fired 13 shots from a semiautomatic pistol that hit Officer Jessie Hartnett and his car Thursday night. The 33-year-old officer returned fire, hitting the gunman at least three times.

Ross said Archer, who was wearing a long white robe over dark pants during the attack, "confessed to committing this cowardly act in the name of Islam. He said he believes that the police defend laws that are contrary to the teaching of the Koran."

The commissioner said Hartnett, who was hit three times in his left arm, sustained "very serious injuries."

A police captain involved in the interrogation of Archer told reporters that the suspect told them he pledges allegiance to the Islamic State terror group, follows Allah and that he was called upon by his faith to commit the shooting.

Surveillance video, apparently taken from a building or post behind the incident, shows the gunman running into the street and right up the police car. He puts the gun directly into the driver-side window and fires at point-blank range.

Mayor Jim Kenney, who also spoke to reporters Friday afternoon, played down the Islam connection. "This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers, " he said. "It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith."

Ross said the weapon was a stolen police gun.

Archer pledged allegiance to ISIS...how...danger zone?

Already being discussed

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/675344.page#8367725

And he isn't an islamic terrorist. He's a gang thug.

 Breotan wrote:
Already being discussed

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/675344.page#8367725

And he isn't an islamic terrorist.

No? Why is that?

I'm not sure that his membership in a gang prevents him from being a terrorist any more than some neckbeard's membership in a militia grants him immunity from being the star of a 10+ page thread calling him a "domestic terrorist."

Glad the officer survived and was able to return fire and wound the suspect.

Although, this statement from the mayor is a bit perplexing.

Mayor Jim Kenney, who also spoke to reporters Friday afternoon, played down the Islam connection. "This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers, " he said. "It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith."

The suspect is admitting that his faith influenced this attack.

I know, I know, the style of Islam that ISIS adherents follow isn't "real" Islam (whatever that is), but the motivation for this shooter certainly had everything to do with a version of the Islamic faith.

It's probably just viral marketing for the next season.

DarkTraveler, I agree - the mayor is an idiot.

Man admits that his motivation for an attack is religion and pledges allegiance to an international terror organization called the Islamic State = not terrorism and it has nothing to do with islam.

Gun used in the crime was stolen from police = the feds need to pass more gun control on citizens.


Talk about a distorted reality...

ISIS are Salafist-Jihadist, they're as literal with the Qur'an as you can be.

Westernised Muslims don't take the Qur'an as literally and are moderates who denounce them - they're also targets of Salafists for this reason.

Who knows why he did what he did. Could be related to Salafism, or not. Most likely a loner who became radicalised when looking for purpose and meaning for his life.

 Wulfmar wrote:
ISIS are Salafist-Jihadist, they're as literal with the Qur'an as you can be.

Westernised Muslims don't take the Qur'an as literally and are moderates who denounce them - they're also targets of Salafists for this reason.

Who knows why he did what he did. Could be related to Salafism, or not.

Is there something preventing you from simply taking the suspect's word for it?

See the edit on my post which I was adding while you wrote this.

I never disagreed it was related to religion

 Wulfmar wrote:
See the edit on my post which I was adding while you wrote this.

I never disagreed it was related to religion

Fair enough, sorry for misinterpreting your intent.

 Wulfmar wrote:
I never disagreed it was related to religion

I do. We have a gang member who washed his brain in bigotry and hate for years. He then shoots a cop with a stolen gun and is "claiming" he did it for religious reasons. He is using Islam as an excuse, but it is not the actual reason for it. I'd sooner connect this with the Black Lives Matter movement than ISIS.

 Breotan wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I never disagreed it was related to religion

I do. We have a gang member who washed his brain in bigotry and hate for years. He then shoots a cop with a stolen gun and is "claiming" he did it for religious reasons. He is using Islam as an excuse, but it is not the actual reason for it. I'd sooner connect this with the Black Lives Matter movement than ISIS.

SERIOUSLY can people read the thread and not just select quotes to throw things out of context?

I said it may or may not be religiously motivated.

Here:

Wulfmar wrote:

Who knows why he did what he did. Could be related to Salafism, or not. Most likely a loner who became radicalised when looking for purpose and meaning for his life.

Let me give you an example of how you changed the context:

Breotan wrote:I'd sooner connect this with the Black Lives Matter movement than ISIS.

How dare you blame black people for this *insert moral outrage* making out they are worse than ISIS.

- clearly this isn't what you meant and I know that, but it's what has just been done to me

If I wanted to do something that was off the deep end, claiming sunspots fried my brain when I forgot to put my tinfoil hat on also seems plausible.

 Breotan wrote:

I do. We have a gang member who washed his brain in bigotry and hate for years. He then shoots a cop with a stolen gun and is "claiming" he did it for religious reasons. He is using Islam as an excuse, but it is not the actual reason for it. I'd sooner connect this with the Black Lives Matter movement than ISIS.

That is pretty out there as a theory, man. How can you make the claim that the suspect is using Islam as an excuse with such authority? Are you in Mr. Archer's brain?

Ross said the suspect, Edward Archer, 30, fired 13 shots from a semiautomatic pistol that hit Officer Jessie Hartnett and his car Thursday night. The 33-year-old officer returned fire, hitting the gunman at least three times.

good on the cop, gets hit point blank with an semiauto and yet still manages to fire back and hit the guy firing at him 3 times thats some good shooting on his part.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do. We have a gang member who washed his brain in bigotry and hate for years. He then shoots a cop with a stolen gun and is "claiming" he did it for religious reasons. He is using Islam as an excuse, but it is not the actual reason for it. I'd sooner connect this with the Black Lives Matter movement than ISIS.

That is pretty out there as a theory, man. How can you make the claim that the suspect is using Islam as an excuse with such authority? Are you in Mr. Archer's brain?

Simple. I look at what happens with disaffected people in gangs and how they behave and compare that to how Islamist terrorists conduct their affairs and choose their targets.

In Boston, they set up bombs in a crowded area. In San Bernardino they targeted a group of civilians before fleeing. Soft targets with many casualties. Killing infidels in public spectacle to cause terror.

Now we have a lone male who ambushes a police officer. A deliberate and specific target given the crowds of people on the sidewalks that were available to shoot at. This screams "gang" and not "Islamist". This demonstrated the attack was personal to the attacker and not a display intended to terrorize infidels.

 Breotan wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do. We have a gang member who washed his brain in bigotry and hate for years. He then shoots a cop with a stolen gun and is "claiming" he did it for religious reasons. He is using Islam as an excuse, but it is not the actual reason for it. I'd sooner connect this with the Black Lives Matter movement than ISIS.

That is pretty out there as a theory, man. How can you make the claim that the suspect is using Islam as an excuse with such authority? Are you in Mr. Archer's brain?

Simple. I look at what happens with disaffected people in gangs and how they behave and compare that to how Islamist terrorists conduct their affairs and choose their targets.

In Boston, they set up bombs in a crowded area. In San Bernardino they targeted a group of civilians before fleeing. Soft targets with many casualties. Killing infidels in public spectacle to cause terror.

Now we have a lone male who ambushes a police officer. A deliberate and specific target given the crowds of people on the sidewalks that were available to shoot at. This screams "gang" and not "Islamist". This demonstrated the attack was personal to the attacker and not a display intended to terrorize infidels.

That's a strange criterion. Would you argue that the Muslims in Israel who attack individuals with knives and ram into them with cars are not Islamic terrorists? These aren't necessarily displays considering that more often than not, they're eliminated after stabbing one person.

What is an "execution style ambush?" An ambush attempting to kill a guy? I have never heard that term before.

 Easy E wrote:
What is an "execution style ambush?" An ambush attempting to kill a guy? I have never heard that term before.

Sames as Tactical style weapons.

its all buzzwords.

Also, he is technically not a terrorist because he did not have a political goal.

 Easy E wrote:
What is an "execution style ambush?" An ambush attempting to kill a guy? I have never heard that term before.

I've heard it a lot from news agencies trying to make something sound more exciting/dangerous.

 Alex C wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
What is an "execution style ambush?" An ambush attempting to kill a guy? I have never heard that term before.

I've heard it a lot from news agencies trying to make something sound more exciting/dangerous.

This guy was an armour piercing assault high capacity magazine.

Execution is a thing ISIL have done so his style must be execution style.

Could also be referencing the Caliphates Summer collection.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do. We have a gang member who washed his brain in bigotry and hate for years. He then shoots a cop with a stolen gun and is "claiming" he did it for religious reasons. He is using Islam as an excuse, but it is not the actual reason for it. I'd sooner connect this with the Black Lives Matter movement than ISIS.

That is pretty out there as a theory, man. How can you make the claim that the suspect is using Islam as an excuse with such authority? Are you in Mr. Archer's brain?

Simple. I look at what happens with disaffected people in gangs and how they behave and compare that to how Islamist terrorists conduct their affairs and choose their targets.

In Boston, they set up bombs in a crowded area. In San Bernardino they targeted a group of civilians before fleeing. Soft targets with many casualties. Killing infidels in public spectacle to cause terror.

Now we have a lone male who ambushes a police officer. A deliberate and specific target given the crowds of people on the sidewalks that were available to shoot at. This screams "gang" and not "Islamist". This demonstrated the attack was personal to the attacker and not a display intended to terrorize infidels.

That's a strange criterion. Would you argue that the Muslims in Israel who attack individuals with knives and ram into them with cars are not Islamic terrorists? These aren't necessarily displays considering that more often than not, they're eliminated after stabbing one person.

I would point out that this guy isn't authentically Muslim and that this didn't happen in Israel. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I made this post because I have pledged allegiance to ISIS. Or maybe I am just saying that?

By all means investigate if there is a link but there is not a great deal here that suggests an ISIS link other than the gunmans claim.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Also, he is technically not a terrorist because he did not have a political goal.

From what I have heard, he claims he attacked a cop because "they defend laws which go against the Koran".

Let's wait awhile till we get his background before the shootout.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Also, he is technically not a terrorist because he did not have a political goal.

From what I have heard, he claims he attacked a cop because "they defend laws which go against the Koran".

The Police Commissioner quoted in the OP shared that confession.

I am honestly confused why people are doubting the suspect's claims. Why would this guy align himself with ISIS if he really wasn't motivated by their propaganda? It isn't like a claim of ISIS affiliation will endear him to the American public and make his trial go any easier.

What benefit would he get for making this claim?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Also, he is technically not a terrorist because he did not have a political goal.

From what I have heard, he claims he attacked a cop because "they defend laws which go against the Koran".

The Police Commissioner quoted in the OP shared that confession.

I am honestly confused why people are doubting the suspect's claims. Why would this guy align himself with ISIS if he really wasn't motivated by their propaganda? It isn't like a claim of ISIS affiliation will endear him to the American public and make his trial go any easier.

Because "oh noes, thats racist to assume he's with ISIS!" or "Stop being mean to Muslims" seems to be the misguided left-wing approach these days if you do that.

What benefit would he get for making this claim?

None really.

Different set of charges in play....

Grey, I understand that, but some of the push back in this thread isn't coming from posters I'd necessarily associate with the left.

Radical Islam seems to be gaining mystique with today's angry young men. Reminds me of the anarchists from a hundred years ago.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I made this post because I have pledged allegiance to ISIS. Or maybe I am just saying that?

By all means investigate if there is a link but there is not a great deal here that suggests an ISIS link other than the gunmans claim.

Anonymous claim online =/= an attempted murder where the attacker proclaims it was done in the name of [insert belief]

I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Adrenaline overcomes pain initially.

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Remember this the next time someone says the cops should have just shot someone in the leg and incapacitated them.

On another note, wasn't the guy who was in the planned parenthood shoot out used as an example to paint brush Christians and /or those against abortion.

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Training
Adrenaline
Survival instinct

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Its not exactly uncommon. There are many stories of soldiers not noticing they've been shot immediately. In a high intensity situation you can power through anything that doesn't immediately incapacitate you. Its why if you are shooting at someone you shoot till they stop moving because one bullet rarely does the job.

I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

I've always said that in this climate, the worst thing that America can do is to treat its Muslim population as the 'other,' as some kind of fifth column, similar to the hysteria surrounding the Communist witch hunts in the 1950s.

If you as a nation see any crime committed by a Muslim through the lens of terrorism, rather than dealing with it case by case, like your example, then America is heading for trouble.

The Bundy's have aptly demonstrated that things are not as clear cut as a lot of people thought they were, with regards to terrorist incidents.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Grey, I understand that, but some of the push back in this thread isn't coming from posters I'd necessarily associate with the left.

You guys absolutely need to take on board that if one person -- a white, a black, a muslim, a christian, an atheist, a gay, a straight, a man, a woman, a transgender, a republican, a democrat, an immigrant, a native -- does something bad, it does not make all the other people who share the same trait into criminals.

You all may remember this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/new-york-police-attacked/index.html

Or the attacks in Canada and the UK where soldiers were targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html

Jihadist attacking authority figures is not new. The choice of target here is not 'proof' the guy did not consider himself as killing for Allah. In fact, it fits an established pattern of target selection we've seen more than once. Another example, the attacks on recruiting stations.

 CptJake wrote:
You all may remember this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/new-york-police-attacked/index.html

Or the attacks in Canada and the UK where soldiers were targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html

Jihadist attacking authority figures is not new. The choice of target here is not 'proof' the guy did not consider himself as killing for Allah. In fact, it fits an established pattern of target selection we've seen more than once. Another example, the attacks on recruiting stations.

Yeah. Even in Afghanistan, the vast majority of attacks take place on authority centers. Police stations, training centers, etc... Civilian targets are much softer over there, but they rarely hit them.

If you instill enough terror into those who are supposed to provide the protection, it makes the eventual overthrow that much easier.

Any further updates? Have they raided his Internet history yet to determine if he self radicalised or is making the statement to sound like he's part of something bigger? Etc. And so on possible motives

 Wulfmar wrote:
Any further updates? Have they raided his Internet history yet to determine if he self radicalised or is making the statement to sound like he's part of something bigger? Etc. And so on possible motives

He made two trips to the middle east in 2011 and 2012. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Meeting people who put him onto the path of radicalization probably took place there I'd be willing to bet.

 djones520 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Any further updates? Have they raided his Internet history yet to determine if he self radicalised or is making the statement to sound like he's part of something bigger? Etc. And so on possible motives

He made two trips to the middle east in 2011 and 2012. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Meeting people who put him onto the path of radicalization probably took place there I'd be willing to bet.

Thanks for the info! Guess we have our answer now.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You all may remember this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/new-york-police-attacked/index.html

Or the attacks in Canada and the UK where soldiers were targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html

Jihadist attacking authority figures is not new. The choice of target here is not 'proof' the guy did not consider himself as killing for Allah. In fact, it fits an established pattern of target selection we've seen more than once. Another example, the attacks on recruiting stations.

Yeah. Even in Afghanistan, the vast majority of attacks take place on authority centers. Police stations, training centers, etc... Civilian targets are much softer over there, but they rarely hit them.

If you instill enough terror into those who are supposed to provide the protection, it makes the eventual overthrow that much easier.

You guys are correct, assuming this can't have anything to do with terrorism simply because its one man shooting a cop is limited view of what terrorism is. It is possible to be a lone gunman operating as a terrorist in the name of a group like ISIS thats kind of one of their main points of recruitment isn't it. that any of the faithful should take up arms against their western governments and destroy any way they can. Just because this lone guy who was recruited some time ago and decided to strike in the name of his group decided to go the lone gunman route probably because thats all that was available for him at the time doesn't not make him a ISIS member/terrorist. Not all terror strikes are large scale.

People should be more worried about this kind of thing tbh it proves, if proven true that ISIS influence is spreading and now anyone could end up recruited/making a random strike at any time in their name. Home grown terrorism where any dick and harry can go shooting people in the name of ISIS, I doubt its long before some home grown terrorist bombs an American building as a lone bomber in the name of ISIS either. Its harder to pull off soem big bombing but any ISIS recruit can pick up a gun or firebomb a building or knife some authority figure. Its actually pretty classic guerrilla tactics. What better way to spread than having literally hundred of individuals willing to make small strikes while larger cells make the big strikes in the heart of the enemies home base. It spreads panic and fear and the message that anyone can be a soldier for ISIS any attack no matter how small is a holy one and that America is vulnerable when it can be any of their own citizens.

Bombs are harder for a variety of reasons. There are lots of recipes/instructions if you search, but many of those are not going to really work, or involve buying things that may draw attention. It is also harder to 'practice' with a bomb. Plenty of ranges to practice shooting, and in many places popping off a few rounds in the woods doesn't attract too much attention, but set off an explosion to test a design and folks take notice. Plus there is a lot more inherent danger constructing a bomb than in getting a gun.

Having said that, the Tsarnaev brothers and the crap bag who set one off in Atlanta for the Olympics show it is an option, but those were pretty small. Building destroyers like the one McVey and crew used (or the one from the Blind Sheik's attempt at the world trade center) are likely to remain rare. Pipe bombs are likely to see an increase, but honestly, there have been many made by bad guys that never get used, again in part because practicing is harder.

Gun and blade weapon attacks are going to be the most used form in the US for a while.

For the sake of focus, as a society we first need to go back and label all the people who have done similar acts while claiming to be motivated by the Christian Bible/Faith as terrorists, if this story qualifies this guy as a terrorist, rather than a donkey cave with relogious leanings.

Plenty of horrible people have done similar to this deed for every reason possible.

People need to be reminded that the Muslim part (or indeed any religious faction) of an act does not in and of itself automaticallymake it terrorism, because that's become far too much of a gut reaction because of the media usin it as a bunch of buzzwords to get attention. They keep slapping "terrorist" on every violent act.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
For the sake of focus, as a society we first need to go back and label all the people who have done similar acts while claiming to be motivated by the Christian Bible/Faith as terrorists

Except he's doing it in the name of a terrorist group thats religiously motivated not just the religion itself. If a Christian man blows up a building or stabs someone in the name of a Christian terror group who go around killing and bombing then yes, you're right he would be a terrorist.

Distinctions you see, very important. Just look at the Irish terror attacks, once again the difference is that people did bombings and attacks in the name of the IRA and were members of the IRA and yes they were terrorists. Had some Irish random guy just attacked someone out of the blue because of religion he would not have been a terrorist.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
For the sake of focus, as a society we first need to go back and label all the people who have done similar acts while claiming to be motivated by the Christian Bible/Faith as terrorists

Except he's doing it in the name of a terrorist group thats religiously motivated not just the religion itself. If a Christian man blows up a building or stabs someone in the name of a Christian terror group who go around killing and bombing then yes, you're right he would be a terrorist.

Distinctions you see, very important just look at the Irish terror attacks the difference is again that people did bombings and attacks in the name of the IRA and were members of the IRA and yes they were terrorists. Had some Irish random guy just attacked someone out of the blue because of religion he would not have been a terrorist.

What about someone attacking an abortion clinic because it goes against his interpretation of the bible?

He is using violence to attempt to terrorise people into political change, despite not doing it in the name of any specific terrorist group.

You do not need to be doing something in the name of an established group in order to be a terrorist. Killing people because you believe it is the right thing to do according to your religion can be terrorism without being affiliated to an organisation.

The latest abortion clinic attack (in Colorado) did get the perp labeled a terrorist, and he claimed himself some to be some type of holy warrior.

So I'm not sure what point you are making.

Frankly, label the gak bags as you will. Labels make no real difference, what matters is do the facts of the case support the charges which will be brought.

What we do know that in this case, the perp self identifies as a DaIsh supporter and claims the attack was due to that support. Terrorist or not, I see zero reason at this point to not take this guy at his word, just as I don't see a reason to not take Robert Dear's word for his motive in shooting up the Planned Parenthood in Colorado.

I'm with Malus.

Attacking abortion clinics is terrorism.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What about someone attacking an abortion clinic because it goes against his interpretation of the bible?

He is using violence to attempt to terrorise people into political change, despite not doing it in the name of any specific terrorist group.

It all really depends why, if a religious man attacks say a homosexual because he disagrees with homosexuality thats not terrorism. If a man attacks say a group for homosexuals or a building or peoples claiming wanting political change or social change ect thats a terrorist. Terrorists are generally people or groups who attack to spread fear and of course terror to illiciate political religious or social changes in their favour. Those other cases are just people attacking out of prejudiced or internal hate rather than a wider goal in mind. When it comes to terrorism I think the governments have to look at it case by case.

Some dude attacks a cop because he thinks his religious told him to, more likely just a religious fanatic. Some dude attacks a cop claiming hes part of ISIS (if proven) and did it in the name of the cause yeah a terrorist.

There has been plenty of Christian attacks that can be defined as terrorism in the past as well as a lot which really aren't. We can go around making excuses for every Muslim just because of political correctness. If this guy is found to be a terrorist then hes a terrorist doesn't matter the scale of his attack or what colour his skin is people shouldn't make excuses for him if it turns out he was recruited by ISIS on his trips abroad.

If we start trying to claim either all similar attacks are terrorism or none of them are terrorism then any bar fight between two football fans would be terrorism because its an attack on an opposing side motivated by similar beliefs to religion. There is a disconnect between terrorism and religiously motivated attacks. Its up to each case to see which is which and it all depends on a few things. This case will probably leans terrorism because the defendants admittance of been ISIS and supporting the cause been the reason for his attack.

 CptJake wrote:
The latest abortion clinic attack (in Colorado) did get the perp labeled a terrorist, and he claimed himself some to be some type of holy warrior.

So I'm not sure what point you are making.

Frankly, label the gak bags as you will. Labels make no real difference, what matters is do the facts of the case support the charges which will be brought.

What we do know that in this case, the perp self identifies as a DaIsh supporter and claims the attack was due to that support. Terrorist or not, I see zero reason at this point to not take this guy at his word, just as I don't see a reason to not take Robert Dear's word for his motive in shooting up the Planned Parenthood in Colorado.

I was just pointing out that the definition that LPH was applying didn't take into account individuals who are not affiliated, or claiming to be affiliated, with terrorist groups.

Lone Wolf Insurgent....

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

San Bernardino "started" with a work dispute too.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

San Bernardino "started" with a work dispute too.

The media threw out there that there may have been a argument between people
No... Pipe bombs, 1000 rounds of ammo in the suv, taking out loans, giving their child to the grandmother..ect. This was pre planned

 Chute82 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

San Bernardino "started" with a work dispute too.

The media threw out there that there may have been a argument between people
No... Pipe bombs, 1000 rounds of ammo in the suv, taking out loans, giving their child to the grandmother..ect. This was pre planned

Right, and this guy either stole or purchased a pistol stolen from a cop. It's not as if this act was spur of the moment, executed with items obtained at the scene.

How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

What does that have to do with the current discussion?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

Not sure,guess the only way to know is contact the ATF or the PA State Police but I'm sure most people who buy guns off the streets aren't going to do this

As far as I'm aware (living in PA but never privately buying a handgun), you have to take the weapon to a FFL, who runs BOTH the serial of the gun and background checks on both people involved. And if it was stolen and sold to a dealer, the serial would have been run. We do track stolen weapons that have been reported, and any that were confiscated by the police and later returned.

So yeah, either he stole it, or bought it illegally from a friend that stole it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

What does that have to do with the current discussion?

Nothing?

Are we discussing the motives of the guy (spur of the moment vs pre-meditation)? Or is the thread gonna now devolve into an argument about gun control?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

Not sure what point you are attempting to make. The attacker's criminal record meant that he was ineligible to legally possess a firearm.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

Are you asking how the purchaser would have known?

I'll answer with a question, why would he give a crap either way? He was a criminal looking to buy a gun for criminal activities, legal purchase was out of the question. He bought/got/stole what he could.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I made this post because I have pledged allegiance to ISIS. Or maybe I am just saying that?

By all means investigate if there is a link but there is not a great deal here that suggests an ISIS link other than the gunmans claim.

Anonymous claim online =/= an attempted murder where the attacker proclaims it was done in the name of [insert belief]

Random nutjob shooting at cops and claiming links with larger organisation =/= a person with actual substantial links to a larger organisation.

I'm happy for police to follow up on any links that exist but given the nature of the attack and how different it is from most other attacks I can immediately recall by people who are actually associated with these kinds of groups I would be willing to suggest he was working on his own.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I made this post because I have pledged allegiance to ISIS. Or maybe I am just saying that?

By all means investigate if there is a link but there is not a great deal here that suggests an ISIS link other than the gunmans claim.

Anonymous claim online =/= an attempted murder where the attacker proclaims it was done in the name of [insert belief]

Random nutjob shooting at cops and claiming links with larger organisation =/= a person with actual substantial links to a larger organisation.

Doesn't matter if the individual has no direct link to the organisation in question, he can still do it in their name. I mean, he doesn't exactly need their permission to dedicate the act to them, does he?

And its still terrorism regardless of whether he's a member of a wider organisation or a lone wolf.

How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

The answer to your first question, in all probability was "He didn't -care-."

Your assertion following is also not correct. Stolen firearm serial numbers get added to the NCIC database and can be checked by LE agencies nationwide. They are not open to access by a random private citizen, but if one is really that concerned you could always ask your local PD to run the number. There are also several private databases (admittedly, with less complete records.) you could check.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And its still terrorism regardless of whether he's a member of a wider organisation or a lone wolf.

He isn't either of those. He's a thug who wanted to kill a cop and did so. This is simple murder, not terrorism.

 Breotan wrote:
He's a thug who wanted to kill a cop and did so.

Is that mutually exclusive to terrorism?

I think the man himself is a better authority on what he is, and his own motivations, than you.

From the OP.

Ross said Archer, who was wearing a long white robe over dark pants during the attack, "confessed to committing this cowardly act in the name of Islam. He said he believes that the police defend laws that are contrary to the teaching of the Koran."

OxfordDictionaries.com describes terrorism thus:

terrorism
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

The guy himself stated that he believes the Police enforce laws that violate Islamic teachings and wanted to punish them. That is a political aim.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

You can quite reasonably argue that his actions don't represent the wishes and actions of all Muslims (that is self evidently true).
You can quite reasonably argue that his actions are misguided, and a poor interpretation of Islam.
You can quite reasonably argue that his actions may have been influenced by mental illness, or mind affecting drugs.
You cannot reasonably argue that he did not carry out this attack for the political purpose of striking at those he regards as enforcers of laws that violate Islam. To do so is to wilfully ignore the man's own confessed motivations.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Doesn't matter if the individual has no direct link to the organisation in question, he can still do it in their name. I mean, he doesn't exactly need their permission to dedicate the act to them, does he?

And its still terrorism regardless of whether he's a member of a wider organisation or a lone wolf.

In the same way you could say you played for Manchester United and kick a ball into a net... you may still be playing football and scoring a goal, but you are not playing for Manchester United. The point being that where there are substansive links between an individual and a group, these need investigating to try and expose the group and their plans. When there is a lone nut job with no real links and a lot of mouth, you can treat it more as a standard act of crime.

And note, I did not mention terrorism at all in any of my previous posts (that I recall).

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

What does that have to do with the current discussion?

The discussion involves criminal use of guns.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Doesn't matter if the individual has no direct link to the organisation in question, he can still do it in their name. I mean, he doesn't exactly need their permission to dedicate the act to them, does he?

And its still terrorism regardless of whether he's a member of a wider organisation or a lone wolf.

In the same way you could say you played for Manchester United and kick a ball into a net... you may still be playing football and scoring a goal, but you are not playing for Manchester United. The point being that where there are substansive links between an individual and a group, these need investigating to try and expose the group and their plans. When there is a lone nut job with no real links and a lot of mouth, you can treat it more as a standard act of crime.

Huge difference. DaIsh seeks out 'lone wolf' followers and actively attempts to influence folks to actions just as this. They have a propaganda wing who very specifically puts out material encouraging and enabling 'followers' who are outside the theater of war to commit acts for the team. I doubt Manchester United does this.

Someone mentioned this guy traveled overseas to places where radicalization may have been furthered, that could indicate even more than a self radicalized lone wolf. But even if completely self radicalized, he still sought out to kill a cop for DaIsh, and DaIsh approves of that action.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Random nutjob shooting at cops and claiming links with larger organisation =/= a person with actual substantial links to a larger organisation.

I'm happy for police to follow up on any links that exist but given the nature of the attack and how different it is from most other attacks I can immediately recall by people who are actually associated with these kinds of groups I would be willing to suggest he was working on his own.

Immaterial. Terrorism is violence with a political/religious rationale, which this clearly had. Membership of a larger organization is not a prerequisite. ISIS and other groups have asked repeatedly for those sympathetic to their cause to carry out lone wolf attacks.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Random nutjob shooting at cops and claiming links with larger organisation =/= a person with actual substantial links to a larger organisation.

I'm happy for police to follow up on any links that exist but given the nature of the attack and how different it is from most other attacks I can immediately recall by people who are actually associated with these kinds of groups I would be willing to suggest he was working on his own.

Immaterial. Terrorism is violence with a political/religious rationale, which this clearly had. Membership of a larger organization is not a prerequisite. ISIS and other groups have asked repeatedly for those sympathetic to their cause to carry out lone wolf attacks.

Not to mention, I have already given links to similar attacks by DaIsh and other Islamic lone wolves, this attack was not all that different and in fact fits in nicely.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Doesn't matter if the individual has no direct link to the organisation in question, he can still do it in their name. I mean, he doesn't exactly need their permission to dedicate the act to them, does he?

And its still terrorism regardless of whether he's a member of a wider organisation or a lone wolf.

In the same way you could say you played for Manchester United and kick a ball into a net... you may still be playing football and scoring a goal, but you are not playing for Manchester United. The point being that where there are substansive links between an individual and a group, these need investigating to try and expose the group and their plans. When there is a lone nut job with no real links and a lot of mouth, you can treat it more as a standard act of crime.

And note, I did not mention terrorism at all in any of my previous posts (that I recall).

Ah so you're now back tracking and agreeing with my point.

The guy is still committing a terrorist act. Whether or not he is a member of a wider organisation is irrelevant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

What does that have to do with the current discussion?

The discussion involves criminal use of guns.

Right, but who said anything regarding whether or not he knew the weapon was stolen?

It really depends on what definition of terrorism you go by. Many definitions define terrorism as deliberate violence against civilians in pursuit of political goals. A policeman is not a civilian, he is part of the government. Therefore it is not terrorism.

I also fail to see any political goal or aim in this. Targeting the police because you don't agree with what they do is not really a political goal. Not every frustrated American who attacks someone is a terrorist. Calling things like this "terrorism" really damages the value and seriousness of the word.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

What does that have to do with the current discussion?

The discussion involves criminal use of guns.

Right, but who said anything regarding whether or not he knew the weapon was stolen?

People who want to shift the discussion to gun control?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

Actually, yes there is a database that tracks stolen firearm serial numbers. Given that this was a police service weapon, it's a given this handgun was in that database. Any dealer is required to check the firearm being sold is not on that data base.

So he had to have purchased this pistol from an illegal source.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.

What does that have to do with the current discussion?

The discussion involves criminal use of guns.

Right, but who said anything regarding whether or not he knew the weapon was stolen?

How would anyone know the weapon was stolen? Tracing the weapon is a necessary part of any criminal investigation of this sort.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ah so you're now back tracking and agreeing with my point.

More you misunderstanding my original point... and his membership to a larger organisation is important to establish as it can lead to the identification of that organisations networks and methods of working.

And for the record I was born in the middle east and have travelled to many middle and far eastern countries... that in no way makes it more likely that I am linked with a terrorist organisation that anyone in the modern world with an internet connection...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It really depends on what definition of terrorism you go by. Many definitions define terrorism as deliberate violence against civilians in pursuit of political goals. A policeman is not a civilian, he is part of the government. Therefore it is not terrorism.

I also fail to see any political goal or aim in this. Targeting the police because you don't agree with what they do is not really a political goal. Not every frustrated American who attacks someone is a terrorist. Calling things like this "terrorism" really damages the value and seriousness of the word.

Terrorism isn't just attacking civilians thats silly thinking. Terrorists attack government officials and buildings all the time including police forces just look at any country rife with terror attacks and suicide bombings/car bombs. Do you really intend to try paint any terror attacks against government of countries police force as not terrorism and just dismiss everything like it as disgruntled people? because thats some serious denial at work.

Example:
Group of armed ISIS members storm government building nahh they must be just disgruntled dock workers angry at pay cuts.....
911 terrorists try to fly plane into the pentagon, nah drunk pilots not terrorists


and this wasn't a normal citizen disgruntled at police you're attempting to shift what happened. The guy already said he did it in the name of ISIS and Islam and that it was politically motivated he did it to strike at the people enforcing infidel government rule.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It really depends on what definition of terrorism you go by. Many definitions define terrorism as deliberate violence against civilians in pursuit of political goals. A policeman is not a civilian, he is part of the government. Therefore it is not terrorism.

I also fail to see any political goal or aim in this. Targeting the police because you don't agree with what they do is not really a political goal. Not every frustrated American who attacks someone is a terrorist. Calling things like this "terrorism" really damages the value and seriousness of the word.

So the Lee Rigby murder was not terrorism? Or as Los Pollos mentions, the 9/11 hijackers that targeted the Pentagon?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

And BTW, Police ARE civilians. That's the whole point of them, civil law enforcement vs martial law.

Sadly, many police forces are losing sight of that fact and are becoming ever more militarised.

If the attacker said it was done in the name of ISIL that makes it a political, terrorist act, whether he actually meant it or not. The fact that it is reported as inspired by ISIL causes a reaction by the public.

I'd have no problem with someone like this being called a terrorist. As a reasonable person I think there's a big difference between sane, politically driven attackers like Hasan Nidal and this guy, who seems like a crazy person who just yelled out the magic phrase that causes the most attention, but pragmatically, if you want to charge this guy with terrorism charges and send him to supermax for 40 years, it's no skin off my teeth.

If you want to play the "I support ISIL while committing violent acts" game, you deserve to win the same prizes regardless of how into the game you actually were.

Of course, I say this with the assumption he doesn't have a diminished capacity which is not yet proven. I don't normally feel like that needs to be qualified but in this case....

^^ WORD.

 Ouze wrote:
I'd have no problem with someone like this being called a terrorist. As a reasonable person I think there's a big difference between sane, politically driven attackers like Hasan Nidal and this guy, who seems like a crazy person who just yelled out the magic phrase that causes the most attention, but pragmatically, if you want to charge this guy with terrorism charges and send him to supermax for 40 years, it's no skin off my teeth.

If you want to play the "I support ISIL while committing violent acts" game, you deserve to win the same prizes regardless of how into the game you actually were.

Of course, I say this with the assumption he doesn't have a diminished capacity which is not yet proven. I don't normally feel like that needs to be qualified but in this case....

I'll wait to hear more about his travels the middle east before assuming he just yelled out some 'magic phrase' for attention. His web history will also be useful.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It really depends on what definition of terrorism you go by. Many definitions define terrorism as deliberate violence against civilians in pursuit of political goals. A policeman is not a civilian, he is part of the government. Therefore it is not terrorism.

I also fail to see any political goal or aim in this. Targeting the police because you don't agree with what they do is not really a political goal. Not every frustrated American who attacks someone is a terrorist. Calling things like this "terrorism" really damages the value and seriousness of the word.

So the Lee Rigby murder was not terrorism? Or as Los Pollos mentions, the 9/11 hijackers that targeted the Pentagon?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

Lee Rigby was off duty, which made him a civilian at that time. His attackers also had a clearly stated political goal. They were trying to terrorise people into pressuring the government to withdraw troops from muslim countries. That makes that attack a very clear act of terrorism.
The 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon also targeted civilians (they hijacked an aircraft full of them to fly into the Pentagon), and also had clearly stated political goals. Again, that is terrorism.

Now what were the political goals of this attacker? AFAIK, he has not stated any. It would be a very different if he had called upon people to attack the police in order to terrorise them into no longer enforcing non-sharia law or something similar. But he has not done so. He has said that his reason for the attack was that he believes that the police enforces wrong laws. There was no goal or aim to it as far as I can see. Someone who takes his frustration out on the police is not a terrorist, but a common criminal, regardless of his religion.

If it had been some black guy that had attacked the police because he believes that the police is racist towards black people, I am pretty sure that it would not have been called terrorism, despite the situation being similar. If some christian guy would have attacked the police because he believes US laws violate christian principles, I am pretty sure it would not have been called terrorism, but religious extremism or something like that. The only reason this guy is being called a terrorist is because he is a muslim.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:And BTW, Police ARE civilians. That's the whole point of them, civil law enforcement vs martial law.

Police aren't civilians.

Merriam Webster wrote:
civilian
noun
ci·vil·ian \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force

Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It really depends on what definition of terrorism you go by. Many definitions define terrorism as deliberate violence against civilians in pursuit of political goals. A policeman is not a civilian, he is part of the government. Therefore it is not terrorism.

I also fail to see any political goal or aim in this. Targeting the police because you don't agree with what they do is not really a political goal. Not every frustrated American who attacks someone is a terrorist. Calling things like this "terrorism" really damages the value and seriousness of the word.

Terrorism isn't just attacking civilians thats silly thinking. Terrorists attack government officials and buildings all the time including police forces just look at any country rife with terror attacks and suicide bombings/car bombs. Do you really intend to try paint any terror attacks against government of countries police force as not terrorism and just dismiss everything like it as disgruntled people? because thats some serious denial at work.

No, it is the most common definition of terrorism. If you include actions aimed at authorities into terrorism, terrorism becomes indistinguishable from rebellion, revolution, insurrection and civil war, which diminishes the value and seriousness of the word terrorism. If you define violence against the government as terrorism, then you will have to accept for example that the founders of the US or WW2 partizans were terrorists, which is ridiculous.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:And BTW, Police ARE civilians. That's the whole point of them, civil law enforcement vs martial law.

Police aren't civilians.

Yes, they are. Or at least they're supposed to be. Thats how they were originally founded and conceptualized as, civilian law enforcement authorities sworn in to avoid resorting to military law enforcement. Historically, using the military for law enforcement has rarely ended well. See the Peelian Principles, regarding the founding of early British Police forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

There has been a modern tendency to conflate the Police with the Military. Police forces (at least in Britain) started out as sworn civilians in uniform. Today, they're at risk of becoming pseudo para-militaries. The definition you cite is a bastardization of the original meaning.

Well, according to the dictionary a civilian is anyone not in the armed forces OR a member of police or firefighters. So technically police are NOT civilians. Legal definitions may differ of course.

Police in the US are definitely considered civilians in the most common usage of the word. I don't see any reason to smudge the line between law enforcement the military any more than we already have.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:And BTW, Police ARE civilians. That's the whole point of them, civil law enforcement vs martial law.

Police aren't civilians.

Yes, they are. Or at least they're supposed to be. Thats how they were originally founded and conceptualized as, civilian law enforcement authorities sworn in to avoid resorting to military law enforcement. Historically, using the military for law enforcement has rarely ended well. See the Peelian Principles, regarding the founding of early British Police forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

There has been a modern tendency to conflate the Police with the Military. Police forces (at least in Britain) started out as sworn civilians in uniform. Today, they're at risk of becoming pseudo para-militaries. The definition you cite is a bastardization of the original meaning.

Whether police are military or not depends on what country and what police force you are talking about. But even non-military police like the US police aren't civilians, they are civil authorities. Technically, they are a paramilitary force because they wear uniforms and have a rank and command structure.

By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

The closest the police come to being paramilitary in the US are SWAT teams, and those are limited in number and specialized in purpose.

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

Soldiers are legitimate targets in wartime, whether they are armed or not. Police aren't, unless they shoot at you. (It's the same for civilians.)

Terrorists don't follow the laws of war. That is part of what makes them terrorists.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

The legal definition in the US does not match this description. We should use the US legal definition when discussing the term civilian as it pertains to US LEOs.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

Um ya. I was a former Scout.
Eagle Scout will get you E3 on joining the Army. Not sure on other branches
They do have their rank structure and are broken down into squads
Also there is a form of D&C they have but not really corrected

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

The legal definition in the US does not match this description. We should use the US legal definition when discussing the term civilian as it pertains to US LEOs.

Legal jargon and common definitions do not need to match. According to the common definition in dictionary, a police officer is not a civilian. And from browsing several US police department and other related sites, they clearly do make a distinction between sworn-in officers and civilians.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

Not militarised? Apart from wearing military-style uniforms, having a clear rank and command structure and having obvious military origins? In wartime, scouts have also often take up weapons to fight or perform support duties. The heroism of the Polish boy scouts in the Warsaw Uprising is famous.
Scouting is of course not a military movement in any way, but the influences of the military on it can not be denied.

This is drifting off-topic, but paramilitary is a very broad term.
The US DoD defines it as:

Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country, but resembling them in organization, equipment, training, or mission.

Notice the 'or' in there. A paramilitary force does not need to actually do anything military-related, just resembling a military force is enough:

Merriam Webster wrote:of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force.

Free Dictionary wrote:of or designating an organization operating in place of, as a supplement to, or in a manner resembling a regular military force.

Collins English Dictionary wrote:A paramilitary organization is organized like an army and performs either civil or military functions in a country.

Let's get back on topic.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philadelphia-Police-Investigating-Possible-Threat-Against-Officers-After-Ambush-364790541.html

FBI is now investigating a tip indicating that the shooter is part of a 4-man terror cell.

I heard on the radio this morning the perp was allegedly radicalized in prison.

That's messed up. Hopefully if there is a conspiracy they're apprehended before they can act.

 Jihadin wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
By that metric, so are the Boy Scouts.

That is correct.

You're saying Boy Scouts are not civilians??

No. Did I say that? I said that the boy scouts are a paramilitary organisation. Paramilitary has no connection to being civillian or not. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of military forces, law enforcement or firefighting forces, and who is not a combatant in a conflict, according to the common definition in dictionaries and international law.

Scouts can't be paramilitary as they are not militarised in any sense.

From wikipedia:

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

Um ya. I was a former Scout.
Eagle Scout will get you E3 on joining the Army. Not sure on other branches
They do have their rank structure and are broken down into squads
Also there is a form of D&C they have but not really corrected

A small test, college credits, higher than average pt, participation in recruiting events, asking politely, age and other things I can't remember can also net you E-3 with the Army lol. Eagle Scouts can but don't always get you all the way to E-3. I know a fair few fuzzies that got squat for it.