posted on May 5, 2003 03:13:40 PM new
Ity's tough to be a juror without knowing all the facts, but I will play prosecutor for a minute.
Charging her with terrorism is overreaching, and cheapens the charge (which is a very serious one.) By definition, terrorism cannot be committed against an individual or a group of individuals or a business; it is a crime of specific intent against a society or government. If those are the charges they go to trial on, a good defense attorney will get her off.
The story I saw said the prosecutor was considering "a different statute." IMHO he'd be insane to proceed on terrorism charges.
My prediction: It will never go to trial. She'll bargain down to a lesser charge, some minor federal prison time (maybe time served) and probation, which will include restitution. If you don't think that sounds serious, you should understand that federal victims' rights laws do not always allowjudges to consider the perpetrator's ability to pay. (This is where the statute she's charged under becomes important.) She could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars - essentially, whatever the cruise line pays out, plus costs of investigation (estimated at about $336,000)
posted on May 5, 2003 04:44:34 PM new
Ms - you are slightly misinformed. Making "Terroristic Threats" absolutely is a legal charge that can be used on individuals. I remember a few yeas ago a popular sports personlity spent two weeks in jail on that charge after threatening and pushing a road worker out of his chosen path with the assistance of his truck.
There is one interesting legal question though.... did she commit the acts while in international waters and if so, under what laws can she be charged?
posted on May 6, 2003 10:42:19 AM new
You're right. I was using the dictionary definition of terrorism, and it appears the story is talking about the legal category of "terroristic threats."
It still seems like overkill to me, like the student who was charged with terroristic threats for writing a violent rap song about his ex girl friend.
On the question of "international waters," I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply when a cruise ship departs from one U.S. port and is en route to another. But the issue of "state waters" probably does. For example, the gambling boats that leave from Florida ports duck state laws by going out three miles. They're still in U.S. jurisdiction but state law no longer applies. There was an assault on a local gambling boat a few years back and it had to be prosecuted in federal court because neither the state nor the local officials could touch it.
posted on May 6, 2003 11:06:27 AM new
:: On the question of "international waters," I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply when a cruise ship departs from one U.S. port and is en route to another.::
Possibly so, but this ship had departed from Ensenada Mexico.
posted on May 6, 2003 01:05:14 PM new
The reason she shows no remorse is because she is a spoiled brat, who feels the world revolves around her. She was horribly inconvenienced by being forced to take this trip. So, she thinks only of herself, how can she get back to this boyfriend?
Fathers do their daughters no favors by treating them as "the princess". Because then "the princess" hits the real world and finds out that the sun doesn't rise and set on "the princess". I fully suspect her behavior was a result of parents indulging and spoiling her.
posted on May 6, 2003 09:24:10 PM new
What do words mean, anyway? The guy who threw a cell phone onto the baseball diamond was charged with "assault with a deadly weapon." A deadly cell phone, IOW.
Under that definition, my ex's dinners would also be considered "assault with a deadly weapon." Where is the justice?
Visit Auction Antics
