UNC Shootings....Hate Crimes or Random Targeted Violence?

[pettie4sox]

The guy just looks like a loser. Fry him.

[Texsox]

That said- does it even matter whether or not this was a hate crime? It was a triple homicide.

 

I'm of the opinion that every killing is a hate crime. Who really knows with 100% certainty someone's inner thinking? I don't really care why, just prove they did it and lock them up.

 

[Balta1701]

yea, this guy was unstable, religion or not. The neighbors had meetings about him, he used to walk around showing off his gun and make vague threats.

As with always....exactly the type of person who should have more guns.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

As with always....exactly the type of person who should have more guns.

 

As with always...exactly the type of person who proves why so many people decide to own their own guns.

[caulfield12]

As with always...exactly the type of person who proves why so many people decide to own their own guns.

 

 

Or why so many countries decide to start their own nuclear programs.

 

Assured deterrence or assured mutual destruction?

 

 

If individuals should have the right to defend themselves (with firearms), what gives any country in the world the right to control the destiny of others making that same decision?

 

Isn't the world LESS LIKELY to have a nuclear war if more are armed with them?

 

 

The problem of course is who decides who has the guns/weapons. Here we have an anti-religious zealot. That, in and of itself, doesn't make him dangerous. However, let's say instead of killing 3 Muslims that he killed Kirk Cameron and his family outside the premiere of "Saving Christmas." I have a feeling there would be a lot more people upset (if Christianity instead of Islam was attacked so brazenly).

Edited February 13, 2015 by caulfield12

[EvilMonkey]

Or why so many countries decide to start their own nuclear programs.

 

Assured deterrence or assured mutual destruction?

 

 

If individuals should have the right to defend themselves (with firearms), what gives any country in the world the right to control the destiny of others making that same decision?

 

Isn't the world LESS LIKELY to have a nuclear war if more are armed with them?

 

 

The problem of course is who decides who has the guns/weapons. Here we have an anti-religious zealot. That, in and of itself, doesn't make him dangerous. However, let's say instead of killing 3 Muslims that he killed Kirk Cameron and his family outside the premiere of "Saving Christmas." I have a feeling there would be a lot more people upset (if Christianity instead of Islam was attacked so brazenly).

But you are making the assumption that is was Islam that was attacked, instead of neighbors he had a beef with. So far there has been zero evidence that it was religiously motivated, just the bleatings from the Muslim community, which you would get over any attack.

[Texsox]

Some of his anti-religious comments move the needle past zero. How far? Maybe not much, but it is off zero.

[EvilMonkey]

Some of his anti-religious comments move the needle past zero. How far? Maybe not much, but it is off zero.

They weren't anti-ISLAM. Religion in general, sure. Claiming he killed them because of Islam, so far, is false.

[Texsox]

They weren't anti-ISLAM. Religion in general, sure. Claiming he killed them because of Islam, so far, is false.

 

He is anti all religions. But he isn't against Islam?

 

My point is there is a basis that it *could* be religious motivated. You said zero evidence, there is evidence that religion is something that sets him off, that is something, not nothing. Whether that moves the needle to 3 or 11, I won't comment on, but I don't think you can set it at zero without ignoring his anti-religion rants.

[EvilMonkey]

He is anti all religions. But he isn't against Islam?

 

My point is there is a basis that it *could* be religious motivated. You said zero evidence, there is evidence that religion is something that sets him off, that is something, not nothing. Whether that moves the needle to 3 or 11, I won't comment on, but I don't think you can set it at zero without ignoring his anti-religion rants.

There is so far zero evidence that he singled out Islam as the target of his aggression because he hated Islam and only Islam. If he hated all religion, then his attacks weren't anti Islam but rather anti all religions, and islam happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. COULD it be? Yes, it COULD. ANY attack could be. And I said that so FAR, there has been no evidence that he singled out Islam for his vengeance.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've never agreed with the concept of a hate crime, as a circumstance of aggravation or a seperate criminal act, unless it is a singular act. What I mean to say is, if you kill someone, you should be prosecuted for the murder solely.

 

Now, if there is evidence that the suspect acted in part due to hatred of a specific or protected group, certainly the prosecution should bring that up at trial and during sentencing. It is part of the picture. But there should not be an added charge related purely to motivation, in my view.

 

[Texsox]

There is so far zero evidence that he singled out Islam as the target of his aggression because he hated Islam and only Islam. If he hated all religion, then his attacks weren't anti Islam but rather anti all religions, and islam happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. COULD it be? Yes, it COULD. ANY attack could be. And I said that so FAR, there has been no evidence that he singled out Islam for his vengeance.

 

I guess I haven't been clear. I am saying his anti-religion posts have moved it past zero evidence that it could be motivated by some anti-religious stance. It doesn't matter which religion. It could be Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddha, etc.

 

Are you suggesting as a cop investigating you wouldn't check out that angle and just run with the parking space story?

[Texsox]

I've never agreed with the concept of a hate crime, as a circumstance of aggravation or a seperate criminal act, unless it is a singular act. What I mean to say is, if you kill someone, you should be prosecuted for the murder solely.

 

Now, if there is evidence that the suspect acted in part due to hatred of a specific or protected group, certainly the prosecution should bring that up at trial and during sentencing. It is part of the picture. But there should not be an added charge related purely to motivation, in my view.

 

Exactly.

[EvilMonkey]

I guess I haven't been clear. I am saying his anti-religion posts have moved it past zero evidence that it could be motivated by some anti-religious stance. It doesn't matter which religion. It could be Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddha, etc.

 

Are you suggesting as a cop investigating you wouldn't check out that angle and just run with the parking space story?

No, I am suggesting that the Muslims running around crying about 'Islamaphobia' need to STFU for a moment or three because while there is a chance it was religiously motivated, their specific religion may not have mattered. Christian, Buddist, whatever, wrong place, wrong time.

[NorthSideSox72]

TO clarify what I meant by single act... I can see an argument to have a law that prevents, say, walking into a public space filled with people of a minority, and spouting a bunch of violent rhetoric at that particular group. In the same sense that a person should not be able to threaten someone's life, they should not be able to do so to a group either. But then that should be the only, singular crime.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No, I am suggesting that the Muslims running around crying about 'Islamaphobia' need to STFU for a moment or three because while there is a chance it was religiously motivated, their specific religion may not have mattered. Christian, Buddist, whatever, wrong place, wrong time.

 

Doesn't help that the POTUS' statement basically affirms the race-baiting, saying that people shouldn't be killed because of their color/religion.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Doesn't help that the POTUS' statement basically affirms the race-baiting, saying that people shouldn't be killed because of their color/religion.

But Jews targeted by Muslim terrorists in a jewish grocery store were just 'random victims of violence'.

[Jenksismyhero]

But Jews targeted by Muslim terrorists in a jewish grocery store were just 'random victims of violence'.

 

Exactly.

 

I'd be curious to see what the FBI stats are for investigating hate crimes. It's gotta be like 10-1 minority victims versus white, even though we all know if a white person is killed by a black person there's a really good chance of some hate/animosity there. About the same amount as this crazy person.

[StrangeSox]

White people have it so tough, not like easy street for black people and Muslims

[Jenksismyhero]

White people have it so tough, not like easy street for black people and Muslims

 

Yeah I know, ignore laws and equal enforcement when it suits your aims. * Cough* Affirmative Action *Cough*

Edited February 13, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Kyyle23]

Goddamn, you guys are broken f***ing records.

[Texsox]

No, I am suggesting that the Muslims running around crying about 'Islamaphobia' need to STFU for a moment or three because while there is a chance it was religiously motivated, their specific religion may not have mattered. Christian, Buddist, whatever, wrong place, wrong time.

 

My only disagreement is you said here is zero evidence to suggest it was religious motivated. I believe there is some evidence that a religious motive may have been credit. Again, would you just accept the murders explanation or investigate to see if other crimes were committed?

[caulfield12]

Has the suspect ever attacked Christians, is what I would love to know...

 

Where/when?

 

North Carolina is the heart of the Bible Belt.

 

His (soon to be) ex-wife said he had problems with many neighbors, not just the ones he murdered. That, alone, doesn't clear him. Plus, that's a little bit self-serving, she's trying to protect herself (and her future) because of the guilt by association. So anything she has said so far isn't exonerating from a legal standpoint, any more than a member of the KKK using the "but I have many black friends" excuse.

 

 

Let's look at some of the comments attributable to Richard Dawkins, who was supposedly the murderer's "role model"

 

 

July of 2011: Here’s the comment he left on a thread that discussed sexism. It isn’t cute, reasoned critique of religion anymore, just plain vile:

 

Dear Muslima

 

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

 

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/another-a...t-from-dawkins/

 

 

Richard Dawkins, well known biologist and pop-atheist-guru (add goofball) recently brought up the question of whether or not atheists should support Christian missions in Africa. (hat tip: Rob)

 

He believes the answer is “still no,” (he doesn’t say why) but since Islam according to him is an “unmitigated evil” and atheism is not going to be making any inroads into Africa anytime soon it is a question worth “raising.”

Edited February 14, 2015 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

After reading stuff like that, knowing that the murderer was HEAVILY influenced by Dawkins' work according to all reports, it's IMPOSSIBLE not to rule out the possibility of a religious connection.

 

Whether it meets the standard of being a "hate crime" versus a "hateful" crime, doesn't really matter at this point.

[Balta1701]

While we're up with it, Islamic Center in Houston burned by arsonist today.