3 Muslims murdered in North Carolina. Hate crime?

[Drogon'sWrath]

See, that's the thing: he's given the benefit of the doubt.

"he's just nuts"

if the situation were reversed, you know exactly what would happen because it happened just a few weeks ago: you'd have millions of people and corrupt world leaders marching all over the world denouncing "terrorism" with vapid fucking hashtags.

I think that's partly because the people doing those evil acts straight up said they were doing it in the name of ISIS. Terrorism needs to be denounced (though I agree a lot of the outrage was of the fake, Twitter variety); the problem comes when simple-minded people decide that all Muslims are terrorists, which seems to be what happened in North Carolina. When I say that his motives were a combination of the parking spot and the fact that his victims were Muslims, I mean that the immediate motive was parking. That said, I find it unlikely that he would resort to that were they not Muslim. Basically, parking seems to be the proximal cause and hate the ultimate cause.

However, nothing precludes us from concluding that the guy is nuts. I would think you have to be more than a little unhinged to kill someone over religion or a parking space. But I also hold the opinion that most of the terrorists running around are considerably less than sane. I do see the double standard that we've seen in his portrayal though. There is immediate outrage whenever a terrorist act takes place (Charlie Hebdo, the burned pilot) and rightly so. However, I haven't seen that kind of outrage with this case. People obviously don't like that it happened, but very few want to admit that there's a strong possibility that hate is involved when it would be the first thing most of us would think of had it been a Muslim killing three non-Muslims.

[The Once and Future King]

Radical Christian had their crusades and inquisitions

Radical Islam have their Jihad

Now we have radical atheists.

And here I was thinking the best thing about atheists ia that they will never kill someone in the name of god. Oh well

[Stubby]

Topic re-opened after splitting off a derail.

[Jo498]

For traditional theism "existence of God" is not a sensible proposition, because God (in a sense) IS existence, not just another thing in the world like the Yeti or an extremely powerful alien. This may seem odd metaphysics and can and has been criticized but it makes Russell's teapot and similar analogies completely disanaloguous and non-starters as arguments against this "official" catholic and orthodox stance and also other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Islam.

[The guy from the Vale]

That's pantheism though. And directly contradicts the idea that god is a moral entity.

[Salafi Stannis]

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?

No, one thing connecting all the victims is that they are Muslim, in a time and place where it is likely for there to be hatred towards Muslims, and whether or not it's a hate crime is the question on the minds of most of the media.

[Salafi Stannis]

This is ridiculous. If the perpetrator where a Muslim, it would spark a huge debate on whether or not Islam condones terrorism and violence, whether all Muslims are guilty my extension/association, whereas now since the victims are Muslim and the perpetrator is an atheist, everybody says "Oh I don't care why he did it, it's not important..."

[Ramsay Gimp]

Declaring the crime worse, or at least worthy of additional punishment, because it was racially, religiously, or other-identity motivated is the point of hate crime laws.

Which is why such laws are stupid.

Killing someone over a parking space is just as deranged and evil as killing them because of their race/religion/sexuality/whatever

[HexMachina]

Which is why such laws are stupid.

Killing someone over a parking space is just as deranged and evil as killing them because of their race/religion/sexuality/whatever

Sure the result is the same - in both instances, someone is killed. But surely you can understand the rationale for tighter laws where people are targetting specific groups in society? The law is not just there to punosh, but to prevent. Such laws are, regretably, needed to protect these groups

[Ramsay Gimp]

Sure the result is the same - in both instances, someone is killed. But surely you can understand the rationale for tighter laws where people are targetting specific groups in society?

Understand the rationale? Sure. But it's bullshit

The law is not just there to punosh, but to prevent. Such laws are, regretably, needed to protect these groups

So you think hate crime laws deter those who would otherwise target minorities? Violent bigots would be willing to risk the punishment for murder, but not hate-crime murder? :dunce:

[The Fallen]

Understand the rationale? Sure. But it's bullshit

So you think hate crime laws deter those who would otherwise target minorities? Violent bigots would be willing to risk the punishment for murder, but not hate-crime murder? :dunce:

Hate crime isn't only murder though. Someone may think twice about vandalizing a synagogue or mosque if they know they'll get more time as a hate crime rather than a run-of-the-mill vandalism charge.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Which is why such laws are stupid.

Killing someone over a parking space is just as deranged and evil as killing them because of their race/religion/sexuality/whatever

Ramsay, I might have missed it, but what about Terra's point from the first page? We already have different crimes for the same outcome in manslaughter and murder. If you don't have an issue with taking state of mind into account, what's the issue with a hate crime?

I could understand holding your position if you felt that intent shouldn't enter into a criminal charge. But if you recognize a distinction between manslaughter and murder, why not recognize an extra twisted component of a crime?

edit: clarity