We've always had those kind of disaffected outliers in society. Nowadays, however, it seems that they feel they have to make a statement and go out in a blaze of glory by killing themselves and others. Why? What makes them think that this is a good idea? As for whether he's a terrorist, it depends on your definition. We usually think of terrorists as those who commit their acts of violence in the name of or in furtherance of a political agenda. So far, the authorities have not found anything to suggest this guy was politically motivated. He left behind a 25-minute confession that details his personal problems but doesn't mention politics.
We don't get to choose our own definition of words. Words have a specific meaning, sometimes more than one, but the dictionary clearly states the definition of terrorism. People who insist on calling things terrorism when it doesn't fit the definition remind me of 4 year old kids throwing an emotional temper tantrum.
But through common usage, words often take on secondary meanings that may differ from the dictionary definition. It's the S.I. Hayakawa stuff of denotation vs. connotation.
Basically what it boils down to is people wanting to be butthurt and dishonestly claiming that it's because of color of skin that something is called terrorism or not. LEA's are going to use the dictionary definition of the word. Butthurt clowns will claim racism and attempt to redefine it.
It's true that we don't know if this was terrorism. But it's also true that we don't yet know if it was NOT terrorism. Still need to investigate that. The difference is that if he was named Muhammad something instead of Mark something, there would be no such waiting period granted. And that has nothing to do with the word's definition
And the next question becomes is that: (1) racial/religious/ethnic stereotyping; or (2) a reasonable inference based on experience.
Sure - we don't know. If it is they will call it terrorism. If Muhammad does it and there's no evidence of terrorism it should be treated the same. Do we have examples of no evidence of terrorism and Muhammad being called a terrorist? I don't think so. I remember when that faggot shot up the night club he called friggen 911 and pledged his allegiance to ISIS before hand and people were still butthurt it was called terrorism.
No. They're going to use the legal definition of the word - which can be very different. Dictionary definition: Definition of terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion Legal definition: Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia but it examines the definition question here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
