Here's a for-instance: if someone with a lot of rage and a gun shoots people as they wait in line for a movie, we might say that the victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This isn't our way of saying that it's their own damn fault for wanting to see a movie. It's our way of saying that they happened to be the humans nearby when someone started shooting.
So this guy with a lot of rage just happened to start shooting his gun, and he just happened to be at their home, and they just happened to be the humans nearby (at their home) when he started shooting. Wrong place, wrong time.
US media is often a lapdog when it comes to regurgitating what government and police say
I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here. Most likely, it would be the defense lawyers, not the government or the police, trying to avoid a hate-crime charge. Since the defense usually prefers as few charges against their client as possible.
That gets to the character of victims vs the character of Hicks
The fact that the victims are of a higher character than Hicks(to say the least) does not make them a priori authorities on the crime. If that were the case, we could just dispense with police investigations into motive and ask the victims what motivated the criminal.
I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here. Most likely, it would be the defense lawyers, not the government or the police, trying to avoid a hate-crime charge. Since the defense usually prefers as few charges against their client as possible
Dr Suzanne Barakat, one of the victims sisters told CNN yesterday that the police did not reach out to question any of the family members or her now dead brother's roomate
The cops have the Hicks in custody, the hardest part is already done
VOD Quote:
The fact that the victims are of a higher character than Hicks(to say the least) does not make them a priori authorities on the crime. If that were the case, we could just dispense with police investigations into motive and ask the victims what motivated the criminal.
What the eff are you talking about? They died at his hands.
According to family , the police have yet to question the friends, neighbours and roommate
Mr Magoo, your exchanges are getting rather tiresome , you are right up there with 60Smith
Sister of Chapel Hill Murder Victim Dr. Suzanne Barakat talking to CNN yesterday.
There, she continued to label the shooting as one motivated by hate and described as a symptom of a larger anti-Muslim movement in this country. “It has been tremendously heartwarming to see the outpouring of love and support,” for the victims of the shooting, Barakat said, especially in an time when it is “open season against Islam, Muslims in Washington, Muslims in the general media, dehumanizing Muslims in movies like American Sniper.”
Barakat’s reference to the Oscar-nominated Clint Eastwood film where Navy SEAL Chris Kyle’s use of the word “savages” to describe Iraqis.
After President Barack Obama finally addressed the shooting in statement today, Barakat said no one from the White House has yet reached out to her directly, but said, “I hear they intend to and we very much appreciate it.” The Justice Department and FBI also announced Friday that they would be investigating the triple murder.
“Had roles been reversed and the man was Muslim, was of Arab descent, was of South Asian descent, this would have immediately been labeled an act of terror,” Barakat said later. “I haven’t heard anyone use the term terrorist here, but why the double standard? He has terrorized our families, he has terrorized our lives, he has terrorized our community.”
Asked by Tapper what she will consider justice in this case, Barakat answered, “Justice means making sure that this never happens again. Making sure that Muslims are respected, are protected, are cared for and are not left to live in fear.”
She added, “We want to make sure that what comes out of this is awareness, is a spread of love.”
Mr Magoo, your exchanges are getting rather tiresome
Have a nap.
Quote:
you are right up there with 60Smith
Perhaps Smith also believes that whether or not a crime is labelled a hate crime has nothing to do with the opinions of people who knew the victim(s) nor which hashtags are currently trending.
But thanks for -- in your tired state -- finding the energy to link-mine a few more individuals' opinion that this was a hate crime. Maybe you should forward these to the FBI as "evidence". Maybe I'm wrong, and if a thousand citizens think it's a hate crime then it becomes a hate crime.
"He would come over to the door. Knock on the door and then have a gun on his hip saying 'you guys need to not park here,"' said Ahmad, a graduate student in chemistry at UNC-Chapel Hill. "He did it again after they got married."
What part of that demonstrates that this wasn't about parking? Just curious. Help us all out here when you're done lolling.
There were plenty of run-ins [with Hicks]," he said, "but the run-ins escalated when my sister moved in; she obviously wore the head scarf. I recall her telling me when she first went to visit the condo before she even moved in together, [Hicks] came and knocked on the door and told them they were making too much noise, and he brandished a gun at his waist."
The bar is fairly high to prove a federal hate crime. According to US Federal law involving hate crimes Hicks would have to have specifically mentioned his dislike for her religion as motivation for his "threat" towards the sister to actually be a hate crime in that encounter or perhaps posted something on social media that pin points the family for future violence because of his dislike of their religion. I haven't seen where that stanard has really been met yet. Not that it couldn't be in the future.
I just hope the state goes for the death penalty... I think there's more than enough there to justify that regardless of a hate crime being proven or not.
There are many fates worse than death. Life in an American jail is one of them.
Killing people is not the solution to the problem of people getting killed. It also lowers the polity to the same moral depravity as the killer. Let's not call for the death penalty here, ok?
#MuslimLivesMatter: Loved Ones Honor NC Shooting Victims & Reject Police Dismissal of a Hate Crime
quote:
Mohammad Abu-Salha, the father of Razan and Yusor, described the shootings as a hate crime. The killings in Chapel Hill have sparked an international outcry, with the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter spreading across social media. A community Facebook page was set up Wednesday in memory of the three victims, called "Our Three Winners." We are joined by two guests: Amira Ata, a longtime friend of Yusor, and Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center.
Loved Ones Honor NC Shooting Victims & Reject Police Dismissal of a Hate Crime
The police haven't dismissed the possibility that this was a hate crime. The investigation isn't even a week old yet, and Hicks hasn't even had a probable cause hearing yet.
Yes, I know this is a thread about American Islamophobia but, since the Yanqui bootlickers in Ottawa are much the same, a related story is worth mentioning here.
Canadian Justice Minister Peter MacKay: ‘they weren’t Muslim so [it’s] not terrorism'
“The attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated, therefore [is] not linked to terrorism,” MacKay said.
Mind you, it's not just the jackass Minister who shares such disgusting bigotted views .
Quote:
Just last week Prime Minister Stephen Harper drew similar criticism after he implied that radicalization is linked to mosques.
Muslim groups quickly condemned the statement, saying that Harper was creating the dangerous impression that Canadian mosques are places where terrorism is promoted.
despite a Criminal Code definition to the contrary.
Did you add that? The word "contrary" (and in fact that whole phrase) don't seem to appear in the article you link to.
Who, specifically, were you quoting as having said "despite a Criminal Code definition to the contrary"? Can you give us that link too?
Aside: did you even take a peek at the Criminal Code definition of terrorism, and are you still pretty sure that it actually applies to the Halifax case?? Seeing as you're referencing it and all.
Loved Ones Honor NC Shooting Victims & Reject Police Dismissal of a Hate Crime
The police haven't dismissed the possibility that this was a hate crime. The investigation isn't even a week old yet, and Hicks hasn't even had a probable cause hearing yet.
..intitally the police did dismiss it as a hate crime as did the shooters wife. both claimed it was a parking dispute and this was one of the things the family was responding to.
My mistake. I thought the quote was from the link that was in it.
But I'm still curious whether you're pretty sure the Criminal Code definition of terrorism accurately applies to some Columbine-lovers with no particular political or ideological axe to grind.
Everyone has an "ideology" so I would not attach too much importance to legaleeze that says terrorism is defined as having political, religious or ideological component/motivation. You could drive a truck through the space allowed by such a definition. Which is probably what was intended with such wording.
The law, in its profound majesty, equally forbids millionaires and the homeless from sleeping under bridges. But we all know which group is aimed at when sleeping under bridges is made illegal. It looks like Canadian anti-terrorism legislation is really aimed at only certain groups - as the Canadian Justice Minister has clumsily let that cat out of the bag - and not others.
eta: it's kinda amusing to read all sorts of people providing "explanations" for what "the Minister meant" by his remarks. More amusing circumambulation. Look that word up. It's going to be very handy if the Harper regime gets its new legislation.
Isn't there a difference between a pyromaniac setting fire to a shed, and a religious zealot setting fire to a family planning clinic?
Chomsky quotes the US government and notes that their view is that terrorism is, roughly speaking, the use of violence to achieve a political aim. Except this definition is applied selectively, as I noted with sleeping under bridges above.
Basically, when the official enemies of the state carry out acts of violence for politcal reasons, that is terrorism. When those who are not official enemies carry out political violence, or when the state itself carries out political violence, that is, of course, not terrorism.
The law can say anthing, just as long as the official enemies can be prosecuted and the others need not be prosecuted.
If the pyromaniac chose a barn-like shed in which the Black Panthers were going to meet some separatists from Quebec, then it meets the definition of terrorism above. [ie use of violence for a political aim] Problem is, that is what the RCMP itself did. You'd have to ... arrest the police. lol.
^ So, it is your contention that, in all cases, the final conclusion about what motivated a criminal, and any subsequent charges resulting from that conclusions, is to be made by the victims or their families? Because that could have some pretty interesting implications.
The fact that the victims are of a higher character than Hicks(to say the least) does not make them a priori authorities on the crime. If that were the case, we could just dispense with police investigations into motive and ask the victims what motivated the criminal.
What the eff are you talking about? They died at his hands.
^ So, it is your contention that, in all cases, the final conclusion about what motivated a criminal, and any subsequent charges resulting from that conclusions, is to be made by the victims or their families? Because that could have some pretty interesting implications.
NOT just the families
There are the neighbours, community, bldg manager/company, towing company AND Barakat's former roommate that will speak about Hicks harassment, and hate for victims' religion and/ or ethnicity
On Sept. 30, Randolph Linn of St. Joseph, Ind., tried to burn down the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo, The Plain Dealer previously reported. It was reported that he attempted to burn down the mosque in retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East and for Muslims getting a "free pass" in the U.S. While being booked in jail, Linn reportedly said, "F**k those Muslims."
In court on Wednesday, Linn plead guilty to the arson charge. He said that he had gotten "riled up" watching Fox News, according to the Sentinel-Tribune, and drank 45 beers in seven hours before heading to the mosque. Linn started a fire in the prayer room, northwestohio.com reported.
“Every day you turn on the TV, you see Muslims trying to kill Americans,” he said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. When asked whether he thinks all Muslims are terrorists, Linn reportedly responded, “I’d say most of them are.”
Linn's viewpoints upset some in attendance at the court hearing on Wednesday.
“And I was more sad when Judge [Jack] Zouhary asked him that, ‘Do you know any Muslims or do you know what Islam is?’” a member of the mosque told WNWO after the hearing. “And he said, ‘No, I only know what I hear on Fox News and what I hear on radio.’”
Linn plead guilty to intentionally defacing, damaging and destroying religious real property because of the religious character of that property; using fire to commit a felony; and using and carrying a firearm to commit a crime of violence, the Albany Tribune reported. He likely faces 20 years in prison.
“The freedom to worship in the manner of one’s choosing is one of our most fundamental rights as Americans,” Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division told the Albany Tribune. “The Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division will continue to aggressively prosecute hate-based attacks on houses of worship. I commend the cooperative efforts of local and federal law enforcement officials to ensure justice in this case.
NOT just the families
There are the neighbours, community, bldg manager/company, towing company AND Barakat's former roommate that will speak about Hicks harassment, and hate for victims' religion and/ or ethnicity
Bakarat's former roommate actually described Hicks' repeated visits to complain about parking. I've already quoted him; just read upward.
And please, if you will, drop us a link that says ANYTHING about all of this alleged hatred of religion and/or ethnicity (remaining mindful that criticism of religion is not hatred of religion). Can you do that?
Also, I think you may have completely missed VOD's point, but I'll leave that for him.
Bakarat's former roommate actually described Hicks' repeated visits to complain about parking. I've already quoted him; just read upward. And please, if you will, drop us a link that says ANYTHING about all of this alleged hatred of religion and/or ethnicity (remaining mindful that criticism of religion is not hatred of religion). Can you do that? Also, I think you may have completely missed VOD's point, but I'll leave that for him.
Majority of my posts have been backed up with articles and vids to put forth the position that Hicks perpetrated a hate crime.
I would prefer that you if you continue to disagree , that you also put up opposing views backed up with sourced material. Can you do that?
My person opinion is that Hicks is a militant anti thiest terrorist. Are you telling me I cannot have an opinion?
Hicks' 20-year-old daughter from a previous marriage, Sarah Hurley, told The Associated Press that she shut him out of her life permanently years ago "for not only disrespecting the religious beliefs of others but bashing them on social media." She verified that the Facebook page the AP reviewed was Hicks', whom she refuses to even call "father."
Hicks and Cynthia Hurley, who lives outside of Raleigh, were divorced about 17 years ago. She told the AP that back then, Hicks' favorite movie was "Falling Down," the 1993 Michael Douglas film about a laid-off engineer who goes on a shooting rampage.
Several people have said Hicks would show up at their door, gun on hip, to complain that their music was too loud or that they or a visitor had parked in someone else's spot. He complained so often that the towing company servicing the development banned him from calling.
That didn't stop the confrontations.
According to neighbor Shadi Wehbe, one of the women from the Barakat household came to his door about two weeks ago and asked if he could move his car.
"She said the reason was because someone had left a very nasty note on hers, telling her that she needed to move hers," he said. "It seemed like it kind of rattled her."
One of the victim's fathers, Namee Barakat, told the AP that Hicks also had visited his son's condo previously, flashing his gun as he demanded they stop using visitors' parking spots.
So if he murdered his Jewish neighbours in a "hit style" would it be called a hate crime as well as a parking dispute?
Hicks had a lots of guns and was not afraid to terrorize the family. He may be mentally ill, anti theist, anti Muslim , racist who fought with his neighbours about parking.
Legal experts from CAIR and others argue an investigatation of the murders , focusing on the parking dispute does not invalidate bias motive or hate crime.
The senseless extra-judicial execution of three young Arab-American Muslims - a male of Syrian origin and two sisters of Palestinian extraction - in Chapel Hill plays out the emergence of a new white terrorist meme; the New Atheist politics. A toxic combination of Islamophobic obsession and anti-Palestinian animus....
These ideologues and propagandists share two main ideological strands common in popular discourses in the US; neo-conservative beliefs and Zionist Christian evangelism. That is; they are united by an irrational hatred for and fear of Islam and Muslims as well as an unwavering support for the Israeli apartheid state and its colonial-settler campaign and genocidal policies in Palestine.
In response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, for example, Maher unequivocally stated that hundreds of millions of Muslims support and applaud such an attack.
Similarly, Richard Dawkins tweeted that violence is not democratically distributed among world religions: "Some have never been [violent]. Some gave it up centuries ago. One religion conspicuously did not."
Despite their faux humanistic posturing, moreover, Maher and company are avowedly Zionist in their approach to the Palestinians.
Great. Just what this situation needs. More fucking martyrs for the fucking cause. I'm sure that will stop the irrational, frothing hatred on all sides.
And it's not like they are in any position to decline the honour.
And please, if you will, drop us a link that says ANYTHING about all of this alleged hatred of religion and/or ethnicity (remaining mindful that criticism of religion is not hatred of religion). Can you do that?
There's so much in here that I can't really pick out what to quote.
But he does include a quote from Chomsky (from 2008) that I'd reference:
Quote:
"[I]f it is to be even minimally serious, the 'new atheism' should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim -- arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere.
I guess I'm asking for links to some sort of objective (or at least somehow debatable) fact or evidence rather than this endless stream of OPINIONS that this was a hate crime.
How about a few links to Hicks' own writings?
Do you think those will demonstrate his supposed murderous hatred of Muslims?
I was just commenting on American Islamaphobia, the thread topic.
Presumably comment #130 which quotes his own writing "I wish they would exterminate each other!" is the most substantial thing posted to this thread as yet.
I don't suppose you have access to any of his own writings that demonstrate his passionate interest in proper parking etiquette?
Haven't found anything yet. Perhaps he knew his views on the subject were just too over-the-top for even the First Amendment, and kept them to himself.
Seems to be plenty out there that indicates his basic respect for Muslim individuals (separate and distinct from his criticism of the religion). I guess I would have thought that among honest folk, his own words on the subject might at least factor into the discussion of whether or not he was motivated by hatred of Muslims.
And if his own words were "I wish I could cleanse the Earth of all of them" or some similar then I'm certain they would.
Instead he says things like:
Quote:
Beyond that though after being in D.C. for a decade and knowing several dozen Muslims for most of that time I can say that they aren’t what most think of them. In fact, I’d prefer them to most Christians as I was never coerced in any way by the Muslims to follow their religion, which I cannot say about many Christians.
While the terrorists who did the 9/11 attacks were Muslims, they were extremists in that faith which isn’t common. I know of many Christian extremists personally, much less the ones we have heard about on the news. People of this country don’t seem to hold that against Christianity though(probably because they’re a majority in this country).
That was from a post arguing IN FAVOUR of a Mosque at Ground Zero.
Where's all this hatred that people seem so very certain of? All I'm seeing to defend the "hate crime" trope is:
1. the three people he killed were Muslims
2. he was critical of (all) religion
3. the parents of the victims are positive that it was a hate crime
4. some Americans surely do hate Muslims
If people really want to see the District Attorney file hate crime charges, there will need to be a bit more than this. The DA can't really go to trial with the popularity of "American Sniper" as Exhibit A.
I guess I'm asking for links to some sort of objective (or at least somehow debatable) fact or evidence rather than this endless stream of OPINIONS that this was a hate crime. How about a few links to Hicks' own writings? Do you think those will demonstrate his supposed murderous hatred of Muslims?
A FB friend of mine posted on this, before he knew about Hicks's atheist background "What about Christian hate crimes?"
I do think you pose fair questions. And to be honest, the legal standard for hate crime probably hasn't been met. But it is certainly common for people to make those connections, and I think they are valid, if not absolute. Just as important while doing that though, is to look at our own motives, and who we are willing to condemn or excuse, or make assumptions about based on our own sympathies.
I think this speaks less to Hicks's motivations (and really that isn't going to come out until trial) than it does to people who claim that no one would kill for atheism, or anti-religion, or whatever it is one wants to call it.
Not that it hasn't been disproven many times over.
Where's all this hatred that people seem so very certain of? All I'm seeing to defend the "hate crime" trope is:
1. the three people he killed were Muslims
2. he was critical of (all) religion
3. the parents of the victims are positive that it was a hate crime
4. some Americans surely do hate Muslims
I think there is also a perception that the police statement that this was a "parking dispute" is not substantial. Partly that it was one-sided (ie. that there is no indication that the victims came over to his house to complain), and partly that he was a bully who liked to threaten people with his gun. So the characterization of a "parking dispute" seems like baloney, and anyone that presents it as such with a straight face seems suspect.
And then there is all the intangible stuff that doesn't directly connect with the case-- ie. that if a Muslim man killed 3 people in a valid parking dispute, it would not be presented as a parking dispute, and anything he ever wrote that was critical of US imperialism would be mined for motive. People don't see Hicks getting this treatment so they are suspicious.
That said, there is no indication of what the reason for this murder was. There is a case here in Saskatoon of a woman killed because hit men got the wrong address, and it happened to friends of my family, who happened to be in an apartment by mistake. Even so, one would think this case would get more attention.
I think there is also a perception that the police statement that this was a "parking dispute" is not substantial.
I think I've already noted that the police statement was that their interim investigation suggests that the killings were over a parking dispute and that they were also investigating the possibility that it was a hate crime.
Isn't that pretty much what the police SHOULD say? Basically, "here's what we've got to go on so far, but we're still looking"?
Somehow that seems to have morphed into the police stating, with certainty, that it was about parking (and thereby insulting the family and friends of the victim and anyone else who believes it was a hate crime).
Frankly, I'd be far more concerned if the police had said "we're treating it as a hate crime because thats' what's trending on Twitter right now".
Quote:
ie. that if a Muslim man killed 3 people in a valid parking dispute, it would not be presented as a parking dispute, and anything he ever wrote that was critical of US imperialism would be mined for motive.
I've spent half of this thread asking those who keep calling this a hate crime to please go ahead and mine Hick's writings for motive. Show us his hatred of Muslims, in his own words.
Quote:
People don't see Hicks getting this treatment so they are suspicious.
As a federal inquiry begins in the killing of three Muslim students in North Carolina and an Islamic center in Houston, Texas, was intentionally set on fire Friday, we look at a new report that exposes the people who fund and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The investigation by the Center for American Progress is called "Fear, Inc. 2.0, The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America," an update of a 2011 report
My person opinion is that Hicks is a militant anti thiest terrorist. Are you telling me I cannot have an opinion?
Certainly not. Evidently others even share yours.
I've simply been suggesting that one person's ( or ten thousand persons') opinion that this was a hate crime doesn't mean it was a hate crime.
#wevoteforhatecrime
Mr Magoo
Not all opinions are equal. We put more weight on certain opinions than others - just how it is. The position of the family's and others that is was a hate crime is based among other things on what the victims told them.
Father of daughters recalls his daughter complaining to him about Hicks saying, "she felt that he hated them for the way they looked, the Muslim garb they [friends and sister] wore" and "she was worried about that"
The very reason that the feds are investigating is because of the family and allies went to the to the media - this inquiry would not have happened otherwise
Here is a good articulation on power, Hick's ideology, and victims' identity are important.
His victims were observant Muslims (the two women wore head scarves) and Hicks, who called himself an “anti-theist” on Facebook, had expressed a passionate loathing for all faiths and their followers. His wife wanted everyone to believe that these facts were irrelevant. “Parking dispute,” Mrs. Hicks said: that’s all there was to what she called “this incident.”
“Isolated incident” was the preferred verbiage of Ripley Rand, the local U.S. attorney. Rand said that he saw no reason to treat the targeting and assassination of these three Muslims as “part of a targeted campaign against Muslims”—as if a broader conspiracy were needed for Hicks’s crime to have broader significance.
So there you have it. Some people are sensitive about parking. One such person stood his ground. Now three young innocents are dead, and he’s being held without bond in the county jail. A lamentable affair, but, told like that, shorn of all context, it’s not unlike a song on the radio, folkloric. Our imaginations are primed to grasp it.
What’s hard to get one’s mind around is that everyone who’s singing this tune—the police, the wife, the prosecutor—seems to think that it’s reassuring. Getting blown away by a neighbor just because he’s pissed off at you for some ridiculous reason has become the equivalent of a natural disaster in our country, with our gun culture. It’s got nothing to do with the killer’s ideology, or with the victim’s identity. That’s the thinking. And, with this “parking” alibi, we’re being asked to imagine that these killings are a private tragedy, not some big public deal—not terrorism, not even like terrorism. We’re being told to believe that the vigilante killing of three young Americans is socially and politically meaningless.
It seems we are also supposed to be relieved by the fact that Hicks, who carried a gun to earlier confrontations with his neighbors, was not a religious fanatic. Are we then supposed to ignore the fact that he was an anti-religious fanatic, who was said to have taunted the women he later killed for dressing according to their traditions and beliefs? We are told that he was in favor of gay marriage, as if that negated his militant intolerance of others. He spent most of his time on Facebook heaping contempt on Christians, who are more numerous by far in Hicks’s neck of the woods than Muslims. And yet with law-enforcement sounding like Hicks-family spin doctors, we are being urged to consider this murderer as a figure of all-embracing American assimilation—a man who did not care who they were but hated them as he would hate anyone and everyone, equally and without fear or favor, for the way they parked.
Magoo, seems you lack the material to support your arguments so you resort to being contrarian for the sake of it.
Also, notice how on this thread and others you always defend white extremists/terrorists intent on killing others?
Not all opinions are equal. We put more weight on certain opinions than others - just how it is. The position of the family's and others that is was a hate crime is based among other things on what the victims told them.
Not to get too mired in this, but that's not how it is.
I do have sympathy for the family, and I do see some of the connections being alleged, and I agree in part.
But as for certain opinions having more weight, and that there should be a finding of hate crime based on that, does that not strike you as just a little bit dangerous?
No one has argued louder than our prime minister for victims of alleged crime to have more of a role in the judicial process. While there are potential good things there, there are also lots of ways in which it can go sideways, like the horrible spectacle we saw a few years ago of the family of a murdered man in Winnipeg arguing that perpetrator, who was found not criminally responsible, should be locked away for life, and what freedoms he should and should not be allowed.
In short, while the family may know some things that they were told, they don't have the whole picture, nor are they in any position to make an unbiased assessment.
Any situation like this should be questioned, and whether you agree with Magoo or not, I can only see him asking those hard questions as helping this situation. The rest of us still have our opinions. Besides, anything we say here will have no bearing at all on what actually gets decided.
Not all opinions are equal. We put more weight on certain opinions than others - just how it is.
Of course. But the extra weight that you or I might put on another opinion is... wait for it... basically just another of our opinions.
"We should listen to the wisdom of this person who agrees with me!"
Quote:
The position of the family's and others that is was a hate crime is based among other things on what the victims told them.
And they're welcome to that opinion. My opinion throughout this thread is that this isn't how we decide what is or is not a hate crime. And in this case I think that the government might share my opinion (and yes, I'm flattered).
Quote:
The very reason that the feds are investigating is because of the family and allies went to the to the media - this inquiry would not have happened otherwise
Excellent. I hope those who were ready to cheer the government if the FBI investigation recommends a hate crime charge will be honest and adult enough to accept it if they don't.
Quote:
Magoo, seems you lack the material to support your arguments so you resort to being contrarian for the sake of it.
I've supported my arguments with objective and plausible facts wherever possible (e.g. quoting Hicks' own words on the subject of Muslims, pointing out that at no time did police declare that this was NOT a hate crime, etc.)
Meanwhile, you keep gifting us with post after post from some other individual whose OPINION was that this was a hate crime, as though it's somehow up for a VOTE.
You've heard the old saying that an anecdote isn't proof? Well, the opinion of KeyboardWarrior74@angryblog.com DOESN'T EVEN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ANECDOTE.
Quote:
Also, notice how on this thread and others you always defend white extremists/terrorists intent on killing others?
#White-splaining
#Islamophobia-splaining
Sounds like you have something you'd like to say out loud, but lack the courage to. At least ikosmos had the stones to almost speak plainly.
That said, do you feel you speak for all progressives when you suggest that someone who commits a heinous crime (and in the case of Hicks, I think a triple conviction for murder is a foregone conclusion) that they deserve no analysis and no consideration of the actual facts, once the Twitterati have rendered their verdict? Because if I'm somehow "defending him" then what on earth will you make of his lawyer?? To the tumbrel with him/her too?
The leader of Coalition for Quebec’s Future said Tuesday all mosques should be investigated prior to being allowed to open in the province.
Francois Legault, head of the third-most popular party in Quebec’s legislature, said a public body should be created to investigate people who potentially disagree with so-called Quebec values.
The leader of Coalition for Quebec’s Future said Tuesday all mosques should be investigated prior to being allowed to open in the province.
Francois Legault, head of the third-most popular party in Quebec’s legislature, said a public body should be created to investigate people who potentially disagree with so-called Quebec values.
My opinion throughout this thread is that this isn't how we decide what is or is not a hate crime.
Who is this 'we' you're referring to, and what is their function? Does this mean that you share enough of a bond with the deciding class to count yourself among them as a 'we?' Curious admission on your part, which helps to explain where you're coming from. You're part of that 'we,' from which your perspective is derived. Kant and Heidegger as we live and breath lol.
So this guy with a lot of rage just happened to start shooting his gun, and he just happened to be at their home, and they just happened to be the humans nearby (at their home) when he started shooting. Wrong place, wrong time.
Uh, no. Clearly he went to their home and while there, he shot them.
I don't think that's in much dispute at this point.
Did he go to their home with the intent to shoot them? Maybe... we don't know.
Did he go to their home to complain about something, and then decide to shoot them? Maybe... we don't know.
But did he start shooting his gun? Evidently he did. Did he happen to be at their home when he started shooting his gun? Evidently he was.
If you know more than this, please share.
MS wrote:
US media is often a lapdog when it comes to regurgitating what government and police say
I think you might be barking up the wrong tree here. Most likely, it would be the defense lawyers, not the government or the police, trying to avoid a hate-crime charge. Since the defense usually prefers as few charges against their client as possible.
That gets to the character of victims vs the character of Hicks
The fact that the victims are of a higher character than Hicks(to say the least) does not make them a priori authorities on the crime. If that were the case, we could just dispense with police investigations into motive and ask the victims what motivated the criminal.
Dr Suzanne Barakat, one of the victims sisters told CNN yesterday that the police did not reach out to question any of the family members or her now dead brother's roomate
The cops have the Hicks in custody, the hardest part is already done
What the eff are you talking about? They died at his hands.
According to family , the police have yet to question the friends, neighbours and roommate
Mr Magoo, your exchanges are getting rather tiresome , you are right up there with 60Smith
Sister of Chapel Hill Murder Victim Dr. Suzanne Barakat talking to CNN yesterday.
There, she continued to label the shooting as one motivated by hate and described as a symptom of a larger anti-Muslim movement in this country. “It has been tremendously heartwarming to see the outpouring of love and support,” for the victims of the shooting, Barakat said, especially in an time when it is “open season against Islam, Muslims in Washington, Muslims in the general media, dehumanizing Muslims in movies like American Sniper.”
Barakat’s reference to the Oscar-nominated Clint Eastwood film where Navy SEAL Chris Kyle’s use of the word “savages” to describe Iraqis.
After President Barack Obama finally addressed the shooting in statement today, Barakat said no one from the White House has yet reached out to her directly, but said, “I hear they intend to and we very much appreciate it.” The Justice Department and FBI also announced Friday that they would be investigating the triple murder.
“Had roles been reversed and the man was Muslim, was of Arab descent, was of South Asian descent, this would have immediately been labeled an act of terror,” Barakat said later. “I haven’t heard anyone use the term terrorist here, but why the double standard? He has terrorized our families, he has terrorized our lives, he has terrorized our community.”
Asked by Tapper what she will consider justice in this case, Barakat answered, “Justice means making sure that this never happens again. Making sure that Muslims are respected, are protected, are cared for and are not left to live in fear.”
She added, “We want to make sure that what comes out of this is awareness, is a spread of love.”
Watch Here: http://youtu.be/V6ApVt8alls
Have a nap.
Perhaps Smith also believes that whether or not a crime is labelled a hate crime has nothing to do with the opinions of people who knew the victim(s) nor which hashtags are currently trending.
But thanks for -- in your tired state -- finding the energy to link-mine a few more individuals' opinion that this was a hate crime. Maybe you should forward these to the FBI as "evidence". Maybe I'm wrong, and if a thousand citizens think it's a hate crime then it becomes a hate crime.
Has Magoo, and/or the usual suspects, addressed the whole question of previous run-ins with the murderer by his victims?
This would show, to a normal person, a history of aggression towards the victims unrelated to a parking dispute.
It would then be simple enough to ask,
"I wonder what these OTHER disputes were about?"
Other parking tickets, perhaps?
lolololololololololololololololololololol
Unless those previous run-ins were about parking, in case it would show a history of aggression towards the victims related to a parking dispute. Yes?
What part of that demonstrates that this wasn't about parking? Just curious. Help us all out here when you're done lolling.
The bar is fairly high to prove a federal hate crime. According to US Federal law involving hate crimes Hicks would have to have specifically mentioned his dislike for her religion as motivation for his "threat" towards the sister to actually be a hate crime in that encounter or perhaps posted something on social media that pin points the family for future violence because of his dislike of their religion. I haven't seen where that stanard has really been met yet. Not that it couldn't be in the future.
I just hope the state goes for the death penalty... I think there's more than enough there to justify that regardless of a hate crime being proven or not.
In court. On Twitter, not so much.
There are many fates worse than death. Life in an American jail is one of them.
Killing people is not the solution to the problem of people getting killed.
It also lowers the polity to the same moral depravity as the killer.
Let's not call for the death penalty here, ok?
#MuslimLivesMatter: Loved Ones Honor NC Shooting Victims & Reject Police Dismissal of a Hate Crime
quote:
Mohammad Abu-Salha, the father of Razan and Yusor, described the shootings as a hate crime. The killings in Chapel Hill have sparked an international outcry, with the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter spreading across social media. A community Facebook page was set up Wednesday in memory of the three victims, called "Our Three Winners." We are joined by two guests: Amira Ata, a longtime friend of Yusor, and Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/12/muslimlivesmatter_loved_ones_honor...
The police haven't dismissed the possibility that this was a hate crime. The investigation isn't even a week old yet, and Hicks hasn't even had a probable cause hearing yet.
Yes, I know this is a thread about American Islamophobia but, since the Yanqui bootlickers in Ottawa are much the same, a related story is worth mentioning here.
Canadian Justice Minister Peter MacKay: ‘they weren’t Muslim so [it’s] not terrorism'
Mind you, it's not just the jackass Minister who shares such disgusting bigotted views .
Conservatives: If Islamophobia is good enough for the USA, then it's good enough for Canada.
Did you add that? The word "contrary" (and in fact that whole phrase) don't seem to appear in the article you link to.
Who, specifically, were you quoting as having said "despite a Criminal Code definition to the contrary"? Can you give us that link too?
Aside: did you even take a peek at the Criminal Code definition of terrorism, and are you still pretty sure that it actually applies to the Halifax case?? Seeing as you're referencing it and all.
..intitally the police did dismiss it as a hate crime as did the shooters wife. both claimed it was a parking dispute and this was one of the things the family was responding to.
Your claim is a falsehood. Check the iPolitics Report and quit wasting other people's time.
My mistake. I thought the quote was from the link that was in it.
But I'm still curious whether you're pretty sure the Criminal Code definition of terrorism accurately applies to some Columbine-lovers with no particular political or ideological axe to grind.
Everyone has an "ideology" so I would not attach too much importance to legaleeze that says terrorism is defined as having political, religious or ideological component/motivation. You could drive a truck through the space allowed by such a definition. Which is probably what was intended with such wording.
The law, in its profound majesty, equally forbids millionaires and the homeless from sleeping under bridges. But we all know which group is aimed at when sleeping under bridges is made illegal. It looks like Canadian anti-terrorism legislation is really aimed at only certain groups - as the Canadian Justice Minister has clumsily let that cat out of the bag - and not others.
eta: it's kinda amusing to read all sorts of people providing "explanations" for what "the Minister meant" by his remarks. More amusing circumambulation. Look that word up. It's going to be very handy if the Harper regime gets its new legislation.
But that's not the same as killing because of it.
Isn't there a difference between a pyromaniac setting fire to a shed, and a religious zealot setting fire to a family planning clinic?
Chomsky quotes the US government and notes that their view is that terrorism is, roughly speaking, the use of violence to achieve a political aim. Except this definition is applied selectively, as I noted with sleeping under bridges above.
Basically, when the official enemies of the state carry out acts of violence for politcal reasons, that is terrorism. When those who are not official enemies carry out political violence, or when the state itself carries out political violence, that is, of course, not terrorism.
The law can say anthing, just as long as the official enemies can be prosecuted and the others need not be prosecuted.
If the pyromaniac chose a barn-like shed in which the Black Panthers were going to meet some separatists from Quebec, then it meets the definition of terrorism above. [ie use of violence for a political aim] Problem is, that is what the RCMP itself did. You'd have to ... arrest the police. lol.
International Terrorism: Image and Reality: Noam Chomsky
^ So, it is your contention that, in all cases, the final conclusion about what motivated a criminal, and any subsequent charges resulting from that conclusions, is to be made by the victims or their families? Because that could have some pretty interesting implications.
NS/VOTD exchamge QUOTE:
VOD Quote:
The fact that the victims are of a higher character than Hicks(to say the least) does not make them a priori authorities on the crime. If that were the case, we could just dispense with police investigations into motive and ask the victims what motivated the criminal.
What the eff are you talking about? They died at his hands.
END QUOTE
Ok, fair enough. I agree to your truce on calling for killing the killer... with the cleveite that your comment assumes allot.
NOT just the families
There are the neighbours, community, bldg manager/company, towing company AND Barakat's former roommate that will speak about Hicks harassment, and hate for victims' religion and/ or ethnicity
Randolph Linn, Indiana Man, Drank 45 Beers, Got 'Riled Up' By Fox News Before Mosque Arson (VIDEO)
Bakarat's former roommate actually described Hicks' repeated visits to complain about parking. I've already quoted him; just read upward.
And please, if you will, drop us a link that says ANYTHING about all of this alleged hatred of religion and/or ethnicity (remaining mindful that criticism of religion is not hatred of religion). Can you do that?
Also, I think you may have completely missed VOD's point, but I'll leave that for him.
Americans think Muslims are 15% of US population
Reality: 1%
Majority of my posts have been backed up with articles and vids to put forth the position that Hicks perpetrated a hate crime.
I would prefer that you if you continue to disagree , that you also put up opposing views backed up with sourced material. Can you do that?
My person opinion is that Hicks is a militant anti thiest terrorist. Are you telling me I cannot have an opinion?
You are free to read this:
So if he murdered his Jewish neighbours in a "hit style" would it be called a hate crime as well as a parking dispute?
Hicks had a lots of guns and was not afraid to terrorize the family. He may be mentally ill, anti theist, anti Muslim , racist who fought with his neighbours about parking.
Legal experts from CAIR and others argue an investigatation of the murders , focusing on the parking dispute does not invalidate bias motive or hate crime.
Certainly not. Evidently others even share yours.
I've simply been suggesting that one person's ( or ten thousand persons') opinion that this was a hate crime doesn't mean it was a hate crime.
#wevoteforhatecrime
The irrational and frothing hatred of new atheists.
Sometimes it seems to me that babble, with its next upgrade, should just dispense with the "Comment:" field and replace it with "Insert URL Here".
Less discussion; more "link wars".
Great. Just what this situation needs. More fucking martyrs for the fucking cause. I'm sure that will stop the irrational, frothing hatred on all sides.
And it's not like they are in any position to decline the honour.
Glenn Greenwald: Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus
There's so much in here that I can't really pick out what to quote.
But he does include a quote from Chomsky (from 2008) that I'd reference:
I guess I'm asking for links to some sort of objective (or at least somehow debatable) fact or evidence rather than this endless stream of OPINIONS that this was a hate crime.
How about a few links to Hicks' own writings?
Do you think those will demonstrate his supposed murderous hatred of Muslims?
I was just commenting on American Islamaphobia, the thread topic.
Presumably comment #130 which quotes his own writing "I wish they would exterminate each other!" is the most substantial thing posted to this thread as yet.
I don't suppose you have access to any of his own writings that demonstrate his passionate interest in proper parking etiquette?
Haven't found anything yet. Perhaps he knew his views on the subject were just too over-the-top for even the First Amendment, and kept them to himself.
Seems to be plenty out there that indicates his basic respect for Muslim individuals (separate and distinct from his criticism of the religion). I guess I would have thought that among honest folk, his own words on the subject might at least factor into the discussion of whether or not he was motivated by hatred of Muslims.
And if his own words were "I wish I could cleanse the Earth of all of them" or some similar then I'm certain they would.
Instead he says things like:
That was from a post arguing IN FAVOUR of a Mosque at Ground Zero.
Where's all this hatred that people seem so very certain of? All I'm seeing to defend the "hate crime" trope is:
1. the three people he killed were Muslims
2. he was critical of (all) religion
3. the parents of the victims are positive that it was a hate crime
4. some Americans surely do hate Muslims
If people really want to see the District Attorney file hate crime charges, there will need to be a bit more than this. The DA can't really go to trial with the popularity of "American Sniper" as Exhibit A.
A FB friend of mine posted on this, before he knew about Hicks's atheist background "What about Christian hate crimes?"
I do think you pose fair questions. And to be honest, the legal standard for hate crime probably hasn't been met. But it is certainly common for people to make those connections, and I think they are valid, if not absolute. Just as important while doing that though, is to look at our own motives, and who we are willing to condemn or excuse, or make assumptions about based on our own sympathies.
I think this speaks less to Hicks's motivations (and really that isn't going to come out until trial) than it does to people who claim that no one would kill for atheism, or anti-religion, or whatever it is one wants to call it.
Not that it hasn't been disproven many times over.
I think there is also a perception that the police statement that this was a "parking dispute" is not substantial. Partly that it was one-sided (ie. that there is no indication that the victims came over to his house to complain), and partly that he was a bully who liked to threaten people with his gun. So the characterization of a "parking dispute" seems like baloney, and anyone that presents it as such with a straight face seems suspect.
And then there is all the intangible stuff that doesn't directly connect with the case-- ie. that if a Muslim man killed 3 people in a valid parking dispute, it would not be presented as a parking dispute, and anything he ever wrote that was critical of US imperialism would be mined for motive. People don't see Hicks getting this treatment so they are suspicious.
No kidding, silence. I just heard about this murder in Fort McMurray this morning:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/colour-muslim-mourning-...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/mustafa-mattan-shot-dead-through-...
That said, there is no indication of what the reason for this murder was. There is a case here in Saskatoon of a woman killed because hit men got the wrong address, and it happened to friends of my family, who happened to be in an apartment by mistake. Even so, one would think this case would get more attention.
I think I've already noted that the police statement was that their interim investigation suggests that the killings were over a parking dispute and that they were also investigating the possibility that it was a hate crime.
Isn't that pretty much what the police SHOULD say? Basically, "here's what we've got to go on so far, but we're still looking"?
Somehow that seems to have morphed into the police stating, with certainty, that it was about parking (and thereby insulting the family and friends of the victim and anyone else who believes it was a hate crime).
Frankly, I'd be far more concerned if the police had said "we're treating it as a hate crime because thats' what's trending on Twitter right now".
I've spent half of this thread asking those who keep calling this a hate crime to please go ahead and mine Hick's writings for motive. Show us his hatred of Muslims, in his own words.
Give him that treatment.
Fear, Inc. 2.0 The Islamaphobia Network's Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America
Mr Magoo
Not all opinions are equal. We put more weight on certain opinions than others - just how it is. The position of the family's and others that is was a hate crime is based among other things on what the victims told them.
Father of daughters recalls his daughter complaining to him about Hicks saying, "she felt that he hated them for the way they looked, the Muslim garb they [friends and sister] wore" and "she was worried about that"
Watch here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pzebqzCzY
The very reason that the feds are investigating is because of the family and allies went to the to the media - this inquiry would not have happened otherwise
Here is a good articulation on power, Hick's ideology, and victims' identity are important.
Chapel Hill Massacre Blues
Magoo, seems you lack the material to support your arguments so you resort to being contrarian for the sake of it.
Also, notice how on this thread and others you always defend white extremists/terrorists intent on killing others?
#White-splaining
#Islamophobia-splaining
Not to get too mired in this, but that's not how it is.
I do have sympathy for the family, and I do see some of the connections being alleged, and I agree in part.
But as for certain opinions having more weight, and that there should be a finding of hate crime based on that, does that not strike you as just a little bit dangerous?
No one has argued louder than our prime minister for victims of alleged crime to have more of a role in the judicial process. While there are potential good things there, there are also lots of ways in which it can go sideways, like the horrible spectacle we saw a few years ago of the family of a murdered man in Winnipeg arguing that perpetrator, who was found not criminally responsible, should be locked away for life, and what freedoms he should and should not be allowed.
In short, while the family may know some things that they were told, they don't have the whole picture, nor are they in any position to make an unbiased assessment.
Any situation like this should be questioned, and whether you agree with Magoo or not, I can only see him asking those hard questions as helping this situation. The rest of us still have our opinions. Besides, anything we say here will have no bearing at all on what actually gets decided.
Of course. But the extra weight that you or I might put on another opinion is... wait for it... basically just another of our opinions.
"We should listen to the wisdom of this person who agrees with me!"
And they're welcome to that opinion. My opinion throughout this thread is that this isn't how we decide what is or is not a hate crime. And in this case I think that the government might share my opinion (and yes, I'm flattered).
Excellent. I hope those who were ready to cheer the government if the FBI investigation recommends a hate crime charge will be honest and adult enough to accept it if they don't.
I've supported my arguments with objective and plausible facts wherever possible (e.g. quoting Hicks' own words on the subject of Muslims, pointing out that at no time did police declare that this was NOT a hate crime, etc.)
Meanwhile, you keep gifting us with post after post from some other individual whose OPINION was that this was a hate crime, as though it's somehow up for a VOTE.
You've heard the old saying that an anecdote isn't proof? Well, the opinion of KeyboardWarrior74@angryblog.com DOESN'T EVEN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ANECDOTE.
Sounds like you have something you'd like to say out loud, but lack the courage to. At least ikosmos had the stones to almost speak plainly.
That said, do you feel you speak for all progressives when you suggest that someone who commits a heinous crime (and in the case of Hicks, I think a triple conviction for murder is a foregone conclusion) that they deserve no analysis and no consideration of the actual facts, once the Twitterati have rendered their verdict? Because if I'm somehow "defending him" then what on earth will you make of his lawyer?? To the tumbrel with him/her too?
And the Quebec kind:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-party-leader-says-all-mosques-should-be-investigated-before-opening/article23040792/?cmpid=rss1
Maybe he can run for Harper:
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/02/17/is-harper-playing-the-xenophobia-card...
Who is this 'we' you're referring to, and what is their function? Does this mean that you share enough of a bond with the deciding class to count yourself among them as a 'we?' Curious admission on your part, which helps to explain where you're coming from. You're part of that 'we,' from which your perspective is derived. Kant and Heidegger as we live and breath lol.
Pages