Yeah but we don't know that even in this case, it's just assumed because it's a white atheist. My point was that we wouldn't make that assumption if the shooter wasn't white. Looking at him, he "looks" like a racist, so he's assumed to be one but really that's just a racial stereotype. Other than him being an outspoken atheist who doesn't like any religion other than his own is there any actual evidence that religion was a factor? Should there be a presumption of hate being a factor any time an atheist gets in a dispute with someone wearing a sign of religion?
I think some people don't understand the difference between anti-theist and atheist (perhaps myself included). The former holds that a belief in divinity is wrong or stupid. The later holds the belief against divinity or a supreme God but doesn't necessarily judge others. That being said, what an interesting title. I wonder if the OP is conservative, anti-science and believes in ACO2GW.
I would say it's a reasonable assumption that one of the motivating factors was the victims' religion if the murderer has explicitly expressed his disdain for Islam. I've posted quite a few critical comments about Islam and the prophet on this message board and I still stand by them, but if I ever performed such a heinous act as murdering three innocent Muslims, it would be reasonable for someone to make an assumption that part of my motivating factor was religion. OF course I don't have a problem with separating ideology from the follower.
To answer your question, yes. It's a hate crime no matter who commits it. I sometimes get a chuckle out how white americans try to "rationalize" events such as this. When the perpetrators of heinous acts are non-white aka 9/11, Bengazi, ISIS, not much effort is made to distinguish the good from the bad - all in the particular group find themselves tarnished. This is exactly what Juan-Valdez was referring to in his post. For example: Jihadist Muslims fly planes into the World Trade Center & the Pentagon killing 2996 people and afterward ALL Muslims were suddenly lumped in with those responsible. Even sikhs who are Hindu were being attacked because of their turbans - didn't see much rationalizations being made. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols - two white supremacists - bomb the OKC Federal Building killing 168 people in an act of domestic terrorism and yet all while males with anti-government beliefs did not fall under suspicion afterward (I wonder why?). Closer to home (for me) are numerous examples of what happened to many a black man: Five White Men Take Negro Into Woods; Kill Him: Had Been Charged with Associating with White Women" went over The Associated Press wires about a lynching in Shreveport, Louisiana. "Negro Is Slain By Texas Posse: Victim's Heart Removed After His Capture By Armed Men" was published in The New York World Telegram on December 8, 1933. "Negro and White Scuffle; Negro Is Jailed, Lynched" was published in the Atlanta Constitution on July 6, 1933. Bottom line: a hate crime is a hate crime no matter who commits it. How the majority society views that is another matter.
It's sad, because 3 people died. Doesn't matter why. Knowing whether it's about his religion or not won't help us stop it happening again. Targeting a group based on their beliefs is, of course, useless and dangerous. As I've learned from US politics, if you target any belief-based group such as atheists now and brand them as potentially angry, weaken their ties with other social groups, isolate them from each other, infiltrate their lives, eradicate their privacy, tip-toe around their rights, coax them into terrorist plots against others, PUMP everyone else with fear about what they do in private, make their beliefs look alien to everyone else ... all that will happen is you will catch 1 murderer but create several more. What's the point of that? Leave his beliefs alone. Let's prosecute this human for killing 3 humans unjustly (or so it seems right now), and then let him serve his time knowing that no matter their beliefs or his, justice was served independently. Instead of harping on about whether he did it for atheism - after all, what would he yell? "Nothingness Akbar!!"? - ask yourself why it never occurred to you for even a second that despite a head dress and statements from family/friends, all 3 of them could very well be atheist. It would not be rare. It would not be unusual. It would not be unheard of if these 3 women - despite what we've seen/heard so far - are actually Atheist or Christians or Agnostic or Buddhist. This could easily be a story about an Atheist who shot 3 atheists who were acting Muslim because of social pressure. Would that be more tragic? Not to me. To me, nothing is more tragic than never knowing all the details, and we don't have to know those details as members of the public. Use this experience to question yourself. How do you identify someone as Muslim or Atheist or anything else? Is it based on what they say? What they wear? Their name? Bobbythegreat just said the killer LOOKS racist. WTF does that mean? Why is it the title is not one of: "Atheist kills 3 Muslims" or "American kills 3 Americans" or "White guy kills 3 slightly less white people"? How about "Man shoots 3 in the head after arguing about parking space"? RIP to the victims. I hope the guy somehow gets pardoned and turns his life around after profoundly learning from his mistakes. I wish that's how it worked.
No, there is a certain level of heinous acts that are unforgivable and the murder of 3 innocent humans based on alleged parking disputes and possibly religion is not forgivable. It's an insult to the victims' families if this man ever walks free again.
To be fair look at his facebook posts. I'm not saying he killed them because they were Muslim, but he clearly harbors some sort of hatred against all religious people. Whether that be Christian, Muslim, etc. That dude is a self-declared atheist and probably would have gunned down three heavily Christian neighbors in the same way had they moved in next door.
Knowing the reason/motivation can prevent future crimes. Here we go..... you haven't learned anything from US politics. You don't understand US politics and do not live in the US. Interesting. This makes no sense. Not how the world works. I hope he rots in hell.
From talkingpointsmemo.com, one can see his political view points pretty clearly. The article from the talkingpointsmemo: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/craig-stephen-hicks-guns-anti-theism He is strongly atheist (he declared himself anti-theist). He is big time gun lover. He is a big gay right advocate. He is big time opponent of the religious right in this country. (There is no mention of equal extreme animosity against muslin right). He really dislike Mitt Romney and is an Obamacare supporter. With the exception of gun support, he is a big liberal.
This is an odd statement for someone that is so against hate crimes. White on black crime, black on white crime, crime is crime. Violence is violence. Racial crimes are a two way street and holding onto those that hit "close to home" is a great way to keep it racial.
Thats what makes it so fishy. iirc the guy turned himself in after shooting 3 individuals in the head (that stood out in terms of religion), I'm sure a "parking dispute" was most likely . The fact that it was Chapel Hill doesn't really help ease suspicions either.. http://www.wral.com/chapel-hill-police-parking-dispute-may-have-led-to-triple-shooting/14438074/ The headline "Parking dispute may have lead to triple shooting" given the context of what happened makes it sound like the victims gave reason for the individual to shoot them, which is what is turning a lot of people off imo.
That's fair. I'm not prepared to make that assumption given that he had explicitly expressed his disdain for all religions, not specifically singling any one religion out. It's always a possibility, I just don't think there was enough evidence to make the assumption. No matter what his motivation, he should fry for murdering 3 innocent people.
Population size matters because there simply may not be that many of the targeted group to target. Also in the case of Muslims you have to consider there have been several attacks on Sikhs and others who aren't Muslim but are mistakenly thought to be. As fchow noted that doesn't necessarily work because of the makeup of the US Muslim population.
