Chapel Hill Shooting: New Details Cast Doubt on Religious Motivation

[gsa]

Something else;

If this was a hate-crime, would he have turned himself in? Someone who commits a hate-crime tends to believe what they're doing is right.

Well yeah that's another extremely odd thing. Not only did he turn himself in, but did so immediately, and confessed. And his confession obviously didn't mention their religion.

 

[Politesse]

No of course not. But there was nothing anti-Muslim about his posts on social media, nor was there anything he said or did that would be indicative of being anti-Muslim. Let me explain:

Let's say that someone murders me because they're enraged. A neighbor, who isn't happy with my bad snow shoveling of the sidewalk, say. This person is a straight black male (likely given where I live). I, being neither straight nor black, am dead. From this does one infer that the crime was racially motivated or motivated by anti-gay animus? No. The identity and the barbarism of the crime, standing alone, says nothing.

Let's suppose he was an evangelical Christian or Pentecostal. Would that be sufficient to infer anti-gay animus? No. Let's say he was a member of the NAACP and opposed gentrification. Sufficient to support racial animus? Of course not. If he posted Leviticus 20:13 on his social media page the day before the murder? Maybe. Although quite frankly, even that, standing alone, is probably not sufficient to support a hate crimes verdict.

If the shooter were Muslim, it would simply be assumed to have been an act of terrorism. If the shooter or victim were Black, media coverage would surely imply that race was a factor, at least by nasty implication. "Gang-related violence" is a popular gloss in that case. If the shooter were a white Pentecostal, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusation were raised, especially if the victim was gay or muslim. Given that his wife testifies to his being a fan of people who routinely incite anti-Muslim hatred, that's more than enough reason to be suspicious. The parking dispute presumably involved the entire parking lot, but the only people who were executed in a premeditated fashion were the only Muslims in the building, killed by someone we know had at least some motivation to dislike Muslims. I'm not saying that there was no argument over parking. I'm saying that to think these people died ONLY because they had parked in the wrong spot weeks before their death is to display spectacular naivete.

 

[columbus]

The friends and family of the victims have testified that they were already feeling threatened by the man well before the shooting:

So a person must announce "I am killing you for your race/religion/orientation!" in order for it to count as a possible hate crime? That seems a bit... naive.

It would be a more credible source than an agenda driven blogger quoting grief stricken people about the murderer of their loved ones.
I don't claim to know what went on in the murderer's mind. I cannot imagine killing anyone. But this is a very poor source of insight.

Tom

 

[gsa]

If the shooter were Muslim, it would simply be assumed to have been an act of terrorism. If the shooter or victim were Black, media coverage would surely imply that the race of the shooter was a factor, at least by nasty implication. "Gang-related violence" is a popular gloss in that case. If the shooter were a white Pentecostal, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusation were raised, especially if the victim was gay or muslim. Given that his wife testifies to his being a fan of people who routinely incite anti-Muslim hatred, that's more than enough reason to be suspicious. The parking dispute presumably involved the entire parking lot, but the only people who were executed in a premeditated fashion were the only Muslims in the building, killed by someone we know had at least some motivation to dislike Muslims. I'm not saying that there was no argument over parking. I'm saying that to think these people died ONLY because they had parked in the wrong spot weeks before their death is to display spectacular naivete.

1. The fact that unwarranted assumptions are made in media outlets is not an argument that they are reasonable.

2. The shooter was not "a fan of people who routinely incite anti-Muslim hatred." That is an absurd and unsubstantiated characterization of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. This is beginning to sound like anti-atheist bigotry, quite frankly.

3. We do not know that he had any motivation to dislike Muslims.

4. We really have no idea why they died, which is the whole point. He could simply have become enraged at something and gone off the deep end.

 

[Politesse]

1. The fact that unwarranted assumptions are made in media outlets is not an argument that they are reasonable.

I was answering your question of whether they would be made. Yeah, in some cases they definitely would be.

The shooter was not "a fan of people who routinely incite anti-Muslim hatred." That is an absurd and unsubstantiated characterization of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. This is beginning to sound like anti-atheist bigotry, quite frankly.

It's not bigotry to observe the obvious. Both have made a career out of anti-religious rhetoric. And advocated for legislation that would be persescutorial toward Muslims if enacted. Did not say anything about his being an atheist. Plenty of atheists are nice people. But nice people don't promulgate nasty racial and religious stereotypes. If you think that anything which is true of Sam Harris is true of all atheists, I vehemently recommend finding a new role model. How about Carl Sagan? No one hates Carl Sagan. This is because Carl Sagan didn't hate anybody either.

We do not know that he had any motivation to dislike Muslims.

We do, though, know that he did. His own Facebook page testifies to that much. And, as said, his reading interests.

4. We really have no idea why they died, which is the whole point. He could simply have become enraged at something and gone off the deep end.

Of course we don't know. Which is why declaring it a "parking lot dispute" and attempting to shuffle it aside after a 24 hour long "investigation", despite there being ample reason to suspect that bigotry was involved seems a bit suspect to most people.

 

[gsa]

It's not bigotry to observe the obvious. Both have made a career out of anti-religious rhetoric. And advocated for legislation that would be persescutorial toward them if enacted.

Such as? And this assumes that the shooter was aware of that particular legislation, endorsed it, and that we can infer it affected his state of mind at the time of the shooting. All of which is a massive leap.

Did not say anything about his being an atheist. Plenty of atheists are nice people. But nice people don't promulgate nasty racial and religious stereotypes. If you think that anything which is true of Sam Harris is true of all atheists, I vehemently recommend finding a new role model.

I disagree with Sam Harrison a number of points (the Israeli occupation being one of them), but I don't find him to be particularly hyperbolic I'm afraid.

We do, though, know that he did. His own Facebook page testifies to that much. And, as said, his reading interests.

If he was reading, say, Pam Gellar, you might have a point. No indication he was into that or was subscribing to updates from "Jihad Watch" or any other ridiculous anti-Islamic outlet.

Of course we don't know. Which is why declaring it a "parking lot dispute" and attempting to shuffle it aside after a 24 hour long "investigation", despite there being ample reason to suspect that bigotry was involved seems a bit suspect to most people.

The only motive we have is the parking dispute. That's it. It is the only substantiated motive. It doesn't seem rational, but then again, as you rightly intuit, neither is anti-Muslim bias, and we have no evidence for that in any case.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <other> because it's simply too soon for me to form an opinion with any certainty.

 

[McBell]

So a person must announce "I am killing you for your race/religion/orientation!" in order for it to count as a possible hate crime? That seems a bit... naive.

Interesting that you have NOTHING but an article that is nothing but someone ratifying their belief of "hate-crime" based upon the opinion of a friend of one of the victims?


Seems your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[McBell]

If the shooter were Muslim, it would simply be assumed to have been an act of terrorism. If the shooter or victim were Black, media coverage would surely imply that race was a factor, at least by nasty implication. "Gang-related violence" is a popular gloss in that case. If the shooter were a white Pentecostal, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusation were raised, especially if the victim was gay or muslim. Given that his wife testifies to his being a fan of people who routinely incite anti-Muslim hatred, that's more than enough reason to be suspicious. The parking dispute presumably involved the entire parking lot, but the only people who were executed in a premeditated fashion were the only Muslims in the building, killed by someone we know had at least some motivation to dislike Muslims. I'm not saying that there was no argument over parking. I'm saying that to think these people died ONLY because they had parked in the wrong spot weeks before their death is to display spectacular naivete.

The problem you have is your "simply assuming".

 

[catch22]

I think 3 people die at this guy's hand, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.

This guy was a ticking time bomb that finally went off. The fact he turns himself in and gives full confession only demonstrates his lapse in reasoning.

I really don't think who they were mattered in this case.

 

[McBell]

I voted <other> because it's simply too soon for me to form an opinion with any certainty.

I voted that there is insufficient evidence.
Mostly because, well, there is insufficient evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted that there is insufficient evidence.
Mostly because, well, there is insufficient evidence.

That one looked good to me too.

 

[gsa]

For purposes of hate crime allegations, insufficient evidence is at least functionally equivalent to "No, it was probably not motivated by anti-Muslim animus." I selected that option for now, but I can be persuaded if there is sufficient evidence presented at a later date.

 

[Politesse]

For the record, that was also my vote. But I don't think anti-Muslim bias is off the table, even if it only steered his direction toward a particular set of victims. It is a major problem in this and other countries. That we have also been supporting, in this thread, popular authors who think Muslims should be overtly profiled by the police and disallowed traditional dress in public, is evidence that some has gone very wrong in American and European popular civil relationships. Whenever there are such steep inequalities, the likelihood of "random" violence in both directions across that inequality escalates considerably. This is simply a sociological fact.

 

[gsa]

For the record, that was also my vote. But I don't think anti-Muslim bias is off the table, even if it only steered his direction toward a particular set of victims. It is a major problem in this and other countries. That we have also been supporting, in this thread, popular authors who think Muslims should be overtly profiled by the police and disallowed traditional dress in public, is evidence that some has gone very wrong in American and European popular civil relationships. Whenever there are such steep inequalities, the likelihood of "random" violence in both directions across that inequality escalates considerably. This is simply a sociological fact.

I don't agree with Harris on profiling, but I also don't think it is as nefarious as people claim. Harris is at least honest, and we know from a wealth of sources that profiling of Muslims is standard operating procedure. Given this reality, Harris is probably more likely just calling for openness about how and why we profile. His argument is nevertheless demolished quite easily: Profiling Muslims at the Airport | American Civil Liberties Union

But we profile all the time. I can't give blood, that's a form of profiling. Big data is a form of profiling much more effective than the crude versions proposed by the likes of Harris. Etc. Some profiling is unjust, some is stupid, and some, like that proposed by Harris, is both.

But is it necessarily animus? Not necessarily. Is it the same as demanding Muslims dress a certain way in public? No. Is it insensitive and reflective of Harris' ignorance of his own social advantages? Probably.

But all that being said, it is a small, small part of his body of work. Liking Harris does not mean one is prone to profile Muslims, and certainly reveals propensity to kill them.

 

[George-ananda]

I've been following this story some and the guy just seems like a sociopath. He disliked almost everyone.

But what's interesting to me is the way the media jumped on this story so strong and quickly. It almost struck me as the media looking for an Islamophobia hate crime as that would make great talk news fodder. And we can all wring our hands about how horrible this is. It strikes me as a credit to the American people that we have not really seen the Islamic hatred that people are so quick to speculate about.

 

[dust1n]

I'm so bored with murders becoming international media affairs...

 

[leibowde84]

You may not like it, but there is plenty of history to testify to the fact that otherwise apparently sane people are more than capable of murder, when sufficiently angered.

Examples?