You either need to narrow the definition or carve out explicit exceptions. If you are carving out exceptions, the definition is just “people we don’t like”.
I guess that is pretty close to the definition prosecutors like to use in the US.
That they're similar in this manner doesn't mean that we can't have laws and law enforcement because they're inherently violent and tyrannical or anything, but it does inform how seriously and dispassionately we should approach their means and ends. I don't think that it's particularly radical to call an abuse of judicial power terrorism. What else to call, for example, a judge who robs entire communities of their youth in exchange for backroom deals with private prisons?
You have no evidence that most school shooters communicated such a goal (although there might be an outlier). Or if you do, I'm curious what it is.
Terrorists have a tangible goal, typically coupled with demands, not some hidden intention you make up to shoehorn a person into the definition. Even Elliot Rodger, who had a "manifesto", did not communicate any sort of demands or goals.
Unfortunately, the narrative that resulted colored later discourse with less-than-accurate assumptions about the nature of mass school shootings. They're overwhelmingly not carried out by bullied loners, but instead by entitled, ostracized bullies who aren't stopped because they don't fit the American conceptualization of who commits violence. To that point, even high-profile black and brown mass shooters tend not to be gangbangers or whatever, but men with military or law enforcement backgrounds.
Inst that simply because men with military or law enforcement backgrounds are more violent in general?
I cant recall one who would act like normal person and multiple disturbed ones.
They are not. Terrorism is supposed to be a political tool. Whereas school shooters are often just deranged or troubled people lashing out.