@JBentley indeed, members of the public may feel frightened or intimidated when one neighbor shoots another dead because of a dispute about parking or whatever, but that doesn't make it terrorism.

Using this logic, every racially motivated crime could be considered terrorism. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it's certainly not how they've been treated in the past.

@barbecue It depends on whether the crime is merely intended to hurt one person of that racial group, or whether there is a wider intent to incite fear within that racial group as a whole. In the latter case, they absolutely are considered terrorists these days - google "right wing terrorism" for plenty of examples.

@barbecue There are of course harsher punishments for 'hate' crimes, but I don't think CEOs are typically considered a protected class under those laws. There's also a difference between committing a crime against an individual because you don't like who they are and committing a crime to intimidate a group of people. Many actions of the KKK have been considered terrorism, for example. It's worth noting that, apparently, Mangione was never insured by United.

@barbecue yes, it could. In fact the definition of a hate crime is not very different. But, hate crime definition is more specific to racially motivated crimes.

@JBentley It's relevant in an answer because the OP explicitly said in the question "I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO"

Healthcare CEOs do not count as members of the public. A CEO is not a people.

The semantics are pointless anyway. "Being a healcare CEO" is not a protected class. He didn't institute policies to deny as many claims as possible because his religion told him to, unless you want to claim money was his religion. He also wasn't born a CEO. He wasn't targeted because of anything he was, he was targeted because of what he did.

It's important to have a clearly defined definition of what terrorism is in order to have any chance of a reasonable discussion. Personally, I don't think the targeted killing of a specific single adult is exactly the same thing as blowing up a day care center full of children, but apparently others disagree.

@barbecue terrorism hinges on intent. Quality, not the quantity. If you can instill fear and intimidation without killing anyone - then it's still terrorism. Look at what happens in Israel - while the Palestinians don't actually kill much, the non-stop rocket fire causes significant emotional and physical distress to the entire country's population for decades.

@Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI "A CEO is not a people" - I'm sorry, what now?

@Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI Your comments are unhelpful. We're concerned only with the legal definition of terrorism and whether the elements are met in this case. I don't know why you're talking about religion and protected classes. This isn't a question about unlawful discrimination.

@jbentley Sorry, but that's unacceptable. By your definition, any act which instills fear and intimidation in any person is terrorism. Teacher makes you stand up and give a book report in front of the class? Terrorism. Squirrel drops an acorn on a police car? Terrorism. Nonsense.

@barbecue any act that's intended to instill fear and intimidation [to advance political/societal goals]. That's the literal definition of the word.

I think the last paragraph makes this answer much weaker than it could be. Terrorism is not defined by whether people became frightened by the act of the criminal; rather by whether it was committed with the specific intent to scare (certain) people. If a gang shoots an art collector and steals his recent purchase, and I get scared from buying art, this won't suddenly turn it into a terrorist attack from a simple murder-theft.

The last paragraph addresses a specific part of the question that has nothing to do with the definition of terrorism.

@barbecue I think you need to probably take this over to politics@SE. If you don't like the law - vote to change the law. This forum is about what the law is, not what you want it to be.

@barbecue What's the point of all this debate? The definition of terrorism that we're using is written in the quote in the OP's question. It's not "one" definition, it's "the" definition. The court isn't going to care that you have your own private definition; it's the one written in the law that matters. Your examples of squirrels dropping acorns and teachers making you stand up in class aren't terrorism because neither the squirrel nor the teacher intended to intimidate a civilian population etc when they did it. There's no danger here of ordinary actions suddenly becoming terrorism.

@Neinstein unless the prosecutor dislikes the gang because at the "bringing charges" stage almost anything is """fair""" game, almost no matter how outlandish