Crixus Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 http://jezebel.com/white-man-murders-three-muslim-students-in-chapel-hill-1685166123 The police are not sure on the motive yet. ETA: thanks, DG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 It seems I may have been wrong on the number of fatalities in the header. The article says 3 students were killed. Apologies. If you use the full editor on your initial post, you can change/correct the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 http://jezebel.com/white-man-murders-three-muslim-students-in-chapel-hill-1685166123 The police are not sure on the motive yet. It seems I may have been wrong on the number of fatalities in the header. The article says 3 students were killed. Apologies. If they're not sure of the motive, how can we speculate on whether it's a hate crime or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crixus Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 It was mentioned as a possibility in the link, hence the speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 You decide yourself what your role in the information society is. You can be a source of trusted information, or you can be a force multiplier for unsubstantiated allegations, rumours, sensationalism, speculation, and half-truths. I suggest you edit your headline to something that you *know*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiDisaster Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 If they're not sure of the motive, how can we speculate on whether it's a hate crime or not? [pedantry] We can speculate on anything we want since speculation by definition is forming a theory without evidence, what we can't do is infer that it's a hate crime. [/pedantry] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Killing three people in cold blood is pretty hateful, regardless of the warped reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mish Windage Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Don't care if he hated them. It's the killing part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 [pedantry] We can speculate on anything we want since speculation by definition is forming a theory without evidence, what we can't do is infer that it's a hate crime. [/pedantry] I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Don't care if he hated them. It's the killing part.Amen. Punish actions, not thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Amen. Punish actions, not thoughts Because, as we all know, we have no legal distinctions between murder and manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Why not change the thread title to: 3 killed in parking dispute, serial killer?or: 3 killed at UNC, pressure to succeed in college too much?or: OP is a speculative poster who likes to incite racial division Al Sharpton, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Amen. Punish actions, not thoughts What would you say is a fitting punishment for the act of contributing to the subjugation of minorities through threat of violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Why not change the thread title to: 3 killed in parking dispute, serial killer? *cough* ...posts from a Facebook page believed to belong to Hicks have been widely shared online, sparking speculation that the deaths were motivated by a Muslim bias.The owner of this page frequently posted anti-religious messages. He is a member of groups including "Friends of Freedom From Religion Foundation" and "Atheism on Youtube." There are also multiple posts directly referring to Muslims, and a picture of a revolver on a weight scale with the comment, "Yes, that is 1 pound 5.1 ounces for my loaded 38 revolver, its holster, and five extra rounds."..In one post, the page's author wrote, "When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I." Also racial division? You're posts are frequently ugly and uninformed but does it really need to be pointed out that Muslims are not a race. or: 3 killed at UNC, pressure to succeed in college too much?Errmm did the killer go to UNC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 What would you say is a fitting punishment for the act of contributing to the subjugation of minorities through threat of violence?It's irrelevant. Violence and the threat thereof should be punished. the politics of the perpetrator shouldn't matter as far as punishment is concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 It's irrelevant. Violence and the threat thereof should be punished. the politics of the perpetrator shouldn't matter as far as punishment is concerned I agree, and wish you luck in this thread. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 It's irrelevant. Violence and the threat thereof should be punished. the politics of the perpetrator shouldn't matter as far as punishment is concerned I feel like you've contradicted yourself here. You say that threats of violence should be punished, and yet the threatening aspect of politically motivated crimes should be irrelevant in determining punishment. Could you clarify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Note that the guy is not so much anti-Muslim as anti-religion. An atheist hate crime, therefore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 When can we expect moderate atheists to come forward and publicly denounce this act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Amen. Punish actions, not thoughts So what, you want to throw out the Mens rea requirement? That's a fucking terrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.