Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.