Those who intentionally spread coronavirus could be charged as terrorists

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

People who intentionally spread the coronavirus could face criminal charges under federal terrorism laws, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official said Tuesday.

In a memo to top Justice Department leaders, law enforcement agency chiefs and U.S. Attorneys across the country, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said prosecutors and investigators could come across cases of “purposeful exposure and infection of others with COVID-19.”

 

 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/24/coronavirus-terrorism-justice-department-147821

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

And the key is intentionally, but should not be limited to that.

 

Canada for example had people coming home from flights, cruises, etc. that were tested positive, exposed to those who were, were TOLD to self isolate and did not. These people should be held responsible for the spread they cause when they violate it, whether intentionally spread or not.

 

While in many cases its bad news, its also educating. We ought to know by now, should an extremely deadly pandemic spread, it needs very harsh initial measures taken, all travel sealed off. Moreover, it needs serious local measures (state, county/city) taken. This is where people's social isolation over the last few decades has hurt. People need to be more involved in their communities, so should a spread like this happen, more come together to help one another. We can't rely that much on the federal government, nor should we, to save us. We have a responsibility we cannot abdicate. 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I doubt a terrorist charge would stick.  But as I said several days back, when the guy got on a plane from JFK-PBI KNOWING he had tested positive, he deserved to be arrested for it.  And this being America, he opened himself up to lawsuits if anyone on that plane gets sick.  At least the airline gave him a lifetime ban from every flying on them.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I doubt a terrorist charge would stick.  But as I said several days back, when the guy got on a plane from JFK-PBI KNOWING he had tested positive, he deserved to be arrested for it.  And this being America, he opened himself up to lawsuits if anyone on that plane gets sick.  At least the airline gave him a lifetime ban from every flying on them.

 

  Depend's what the actions are I think. There have been people going around coughing on food, or suggesting targeting certain groups. Probably mental health treatment would be more effective than jail.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

"Targeting certain groups" to do them harm is already a crime, so no worries there.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

"Targeting certain groups" to do them harm is already a crime, so no worries there.

 

  So is intentionally spreading infectious disease. Just like mailing a letter with anthrax spores. The justice department was just clarifying they would support the same rationale for charging people who maliciously spread Covid-19.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

That leads to the initial post I made pointing out it shouldn't be limited to intentional. In the criminal justice world, proving intention on a potential scale like this with many possible violators means impossible. Just like, on the immediate, police can legally detain someone while assessing a crime even if they didn't even commit one but were identified on the spot at/near one, there needs to be more harsh, temporary remedies to ensure isolation, even if it sounds over the top, and clearly harsher penalties irrespective intent.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

That leads to the initial post I made pointing out it shouldn't be limited to intentional. In the criminal justice world, proving intention on a potential scale like this with many possible violators means impossible. Just like, on the immediate, police can legally detain someone while assessing a crime even if they didn't even commit one but were identified on the spot at/near one, there needs to be more harsh, temporary remedies to ensure isolation, even if it sounds over the top, and clearly harsher penalties irrespective intent.

 

   Sorry, missed that post. I agree though. They have a list of activities in the memo, but it mostly relates to criminal activity. I have seen reports of police enforcing quarantine on people who tested positive but won't stay home, but that is already covered by existing law as well.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

I think what we've learned so far is that when we're faced with an epidemic, we can't trust people to be responsible and self quarantine. One superspreader can cause way too much damage. So quarantine should be enforced very strictly from the beginning. 

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

11 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

I think what we've learned so far is that when we're faced with an epidemic, we can't trust people to be responsible and self quarantine. One superspreader can cause way too much damage. So quarantine should be enforced very strictly from the beginning. 

saw today where india's cops are swatting people with bamboo staffs.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

16 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

I think what we've learned so far is that when we're faced with an epidemic, we can't trust people to be responsible and self quarantine. One superspreader can cause way too much damage. So quarantine should be enforced very strictly from the beginning. 

There are a LOT of lessons we can learn, if only we open our eyes and see what is actually happening behind the scenes in this fiasco.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

I think what we've learned so far is that when we're faced with an epidemic, we can't trust people to be responsible and self quarantine. One superspreader can cause way too much damage. So quarantine should be enforced very strictly from the beginning. 

 

   The early part of this illustrated one of the big problems we have always faced with our healthcare system. People can't afford to be sick. I imagine there were people who had fever and minor symptoms who just stayed home for a few days and didn't want to be tested. A Once they feel better they go back to work, shopping etc, but they are still spreading the virus around for several days.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The early part of this illustrated one of the big problems we have always faced with our healthcare system. People can't afford to be sick. I imagine there were people who had fever and minor symptoms who just stayed home for a few days and didn't want to be tested. A Once they feel better they go back to work, shopping etc, but they are still spreading the virus around for several days.

That's another issue as well. But you can't say people didn't want to get tested when it was basically impossible to do so. I still haven't been tested and I still have symptoms. They will only test the cases that need hospitalization here in SoCal.

 

Superspreaders are a problem not just in the US where sick leave is non existent for many workers. Some people are just irresponsible and do it on purpose or just prioritize their own comfort over anything else. Covidiots. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

40 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

That's another issue as well. But you can't say people didn't want to get tested when it was basically impossible to do so. I still haven't been tested and I still have symptoms. They will only test the cases that need hospitalization here in SoCal.

 

Superspreaders are a problem not just in the US where sick leave is non existent for many workers. Some people are just irresponsible and do it on purpose or just prioritize their own comfort over anything else. Covidiots. 

 

   You can here, but they prioritize people who need treatment. We had some test from the end of February that just came back last week.