GUILTY NC - Deah Barakat, 23, his wife & her sister murdered, Chapel Hill, 10 Feb 2015

[liljim]

almost everything that is being cited as hateful on his social media is him copying and pasting pictures with quotes of what other people have said, they are even making this mistake on the news.

here are his own words from his facebook page;

"Seems an overwhelming majority of Christians in this country feel that the Muslims are using the Ground Zero Mosque plans to"mark their conquest" Bunch of hypocrites, everywhere I've been in this country there are churches marking the Christian conquest of this country from the Native Americans. Funny thing is the Christians did that while defying our Constitution, and got away with it!!"

"I don't want to dispute ones beliefs, unless they try and push such beliefs onto me or another."

"I believe in our Constitution and in peoples rights. If religion was outlawed I would actually fight for their rights. I do however want religion out of ANYTHING my tax dollars pay for, which some christians have told me is a form of outlawing religion."

"I really don't care what religion or beliefs a person has, but we all have the right as Americans to have our own beliefs on religion."

"Our Constitution guarantees equality and the freedom of religion, and many have fought and died for just that."

"I don't agree with the first part of Elton's statement, with banning religion. Not that I care for religion, as I most definitely do not, but banning it would be taking away a persons rights and I oppose that."

 

[Ven]

almost everything that is being cited as hateful on his social media is him copying and pasting pictures with quotes of what other people have said

This argument baffles me. The fact that he copied and pasted memes only shows that he agreed with the sentiments he was posting.

here are his own words from his facebook page

As I posted earlier, here are some of his own words as well:

“I give your religion as much respect as your religion gives me,” he wrote in a long rant under the Religion section of his page, where he identifies as atheist. “There’s nothing complicated about it, and I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being — which your religion does with self-righteous gusto. When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I.

I don't think a killer has to be a mouth-breathing half-man/half-lizard going around telling all of his buddies "hey let's go kill some [.....]" in order for it to be a hate crime. The question is, would he have killed these people no matter their race or beliefs? Or if they were indistinguishable from everyone else, would the outcome have been different? If because their religion was so visible, that he began to harbor hostilities towards them above and beyond the disagreements he had with other neighbors, to the point he took his anger out on these three and not anyone else ... then yes I do think that constitutes a hate crime and we have a responsibility to acknowledge that.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I would love to know the particulars around this parking spot.... I once had a parking place dilemma at an apt. complex of mine, it too got ugly, (not near as horrible as this) but still bad. If it had turned to physical violence then it would have been reported about it being over a parking spot, however there is much more to my story. I am wondering if there is MUCH more to this story....we will probably never know. And in no way am I trying to excuse the atrocity he committed, but just trying to understand ....

I can relate Portabella, I also had a dispute with my neighbour over a parking space and there was more to it too.

Hicks obviously was teetering on a hair trigger to commit violence of some kind. He could have chosen them because they were Muslim or because they're young or he was fed up with life and chose to take vengeance to relieve his pent up anger? It's really all about Hicks. JMO

 

[liljim]

yes i saw that when you posted it earlier and i acknowledged it in a reply to you specifically.

quite simply, ther is zero evidence that he did anything specifically because of these peoples religion, there is much evidence that he flipped out over a long standing dispute with these people and that they were parked in his spot that day and that is why he went over there to confront them again.

he makes specific comments in his own words sympathetic to muslims and showing respect and acknowledgement for people to practice any religion they choose.

copying and pasting memes does not make them your own words, it does not = him making hateful rants (still havent seen a single one after asking repeatedly)

cant make it any simpler, there is plenty of evidence that this guy was an angry hothead with a grudge and a gun. there is no evidence that he did this because of their religion.

why didnt he shoot anyone else and just these people? well what that implies is just speculation, but it doesnt matter anyway because at this point it looks like he shot them because they were in fact the people he had a long standing dispute with and that on that day they had once again parked in his spot, and for whatever reason that was the day that he lost it. i cant say specifically why that was the day that he lost it but saying it must have been because of their religion is totally unsupported by any evidence.

just to add this disclaimer again - the man is a <mod snip>, he will spend the rest of his life in jail however long that may be, its a great tragedy that these 3 people lost their lives over this.

 

[liljim]

I can relate Portabella, I also had a dispute with my neighbour over a parking space and there was more to it too.

Hicks obviously was teetering on a hair trigger to commit violence of some kind. He could have chosen them because they were Muslim or because they're young or he was fed up with life and chose to take vengeance to relieve his pent up anger? It's really all about Hicks. JMO

i agree, and i wont state is as fact because i dont have the evidence to back it up... but it seems to me that this guy was going to shoot someone sooner or later, it could have been over garbage cans, loud music, or parking. and it could have been anyone that did not cower to him and do what he said when he said it. this wasnt technically over a parking space, it was over the fact that someone was repeatedly disrespecting him and not following the rules that he got obsessed with.

this is my opinion and impression of things so far, if new evidence comes out it certainly could change my opinion.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

This argument baffles me. The fact that he copied and pasted memes only shows that he agreed with the sentiments he was posting.
As I posted earlier, here are some of his own words as well:
I don't think a killer has to be a mouth-breathing half-man/half-lizard going around telling all of his buddies "hey let's go kill some [.....]" in order for it to be a hate crime. The question is, would he have killed these people no matter their race or beliefs? Or if they were indistinguishable from everyone else, would the outcome have been different? If because their religion was so visible, that he began to harbor hostilities towards them above and beyond the disagreements he had with other neighbors, to the point he took his anger out on these three and not anyone else ... then yes I do think that constitutes a hate crime and we have a responsibility to acknowledge that.

Even by Hicks own words, it's about him and his feelings of low self-worth. How does religion make him feel like an 'inadequate human being'? I haven't read of atheists expressing themselves in this way. Hicks clearly is a sick, hateful man. His poor victims never stood a chance.

 

[fran]

Attention Please!

Can we keep religion and politics out of this discussion please.

There has been nothing to indicate either politics or religion had anything to do with this crime. The suspect did appear to be an angry human being though.

tia
fran
:wave:

 

[Ven]

Attention Please!

Can we keep religion and politics out of this discussion please.

There has been nothing to indicate either politics or religion had anything to do with this crime. The suspect did appear to be an angry human being though.

tia
fran
:wave:

The major news headlines on every network are whether or not this was a hate crime. Hate crimes involve bias against religion, among other things. The reason why this story is #1 in the country the last couple of days is because of speculation it was a hate crime and the perceived lack of appetite by some institutions and people to pursue that possibility, whether it's true or not. Additionally, LE has said explicitly they are investigating whether or not a hate crime took place. How then, do you suggest the topic be discussed in an honest way?

 

[LambChop]

Bullies tend to attack people they know will not fight back. jmo

 

[liljim]

this is sort of random so not sure if it will be allowed but... on his facebook page where it has personal details and it says "interested in" he put "Men and Women"

i dont think i have known anyone that would not understand what that implies, unless it was meant as some philosophical point?

anyway not really pertinent to the case, just something interesting i noticed.

 

[liljim]

Bullies tend to attack people they know will not fight back. jmo

that is an excellent point.

 

[Concerned Mama]

Bullies tend to attack people they know will not fight back. jmo

From an abc article yesterday:
Chapel Hill Shooting: Murdered Newlyweds Clashed With Neighbor Before, Victim's Brother Says
Feb 11, 2015, 3:46 PM ET

Farris Barakat, Deah Barakat's brother, said Hicks had confronted his brother previously about a dispute over a parking space, adding that he never heard Hicks make any anti-Muslim remarks.

When Farris Barakat had visited his brother, Hicks had yelled at him, telling him he was parking in the wrong space, Farris Barakat told ABC News. Farris Barakat added that he tried to respond in a calm manner, not wanting to upset Hicks further, and said his brother also treated Hicks in a respectful manner.

From the brother's account, Deah Barakat, his wife, and sister-in-law avoided being confrontational with Hicks and tried to respond to him in a calm, respectful manner.

 

[bluesneakers]

this is sort of random so not sure if it will be allowed but... on his facebook page where it has personal details and it says "interested in" he put "Men and Women"

i dont think i have known anyone that would not understand what that implies, unless it was meant as some philosophical point?

anyway not really pertinent to the case, just something interesting i noticed.

BBM
What kind of philosophical point do you think he might have been trying to make?

 

[Ven]

there is much evidence that he flipped out over a long standing dispute

cant make it any simpler, there is plenty of evidence that this guy was an angry hothead with a grudge and a gun. there is no evidence that he did this because of their religion.

why didnt he shoot anyone else and just these people?...it doesnt matter anyway because at this point it looks like he shot them because they were in fact the people he had a long standing dispute with

This all misses the point entirely imo, but perfectly encapsulates why so many people are angry about this case and why it exploded on social media. Hate crime laws are designed to protect minorities in our society, but often our institutions fail to enforce them as they were intended, ironically because of the same reasons the laws were created for in the first place. Attribution, prejudice, bias, etc. can all turn minor disputes into violent confrontations. We disagree with people all of the time, even the people we love the most, but because we love them, or they are similar to us, our well-being is linked to their well-being, and disagreements are more often than not resolved peacefully. But when human beings get angry, or they are suffering from failures in their lives that they would like to attribute to external causes, often people will look towards minorities who are different than them to take out their own pent-up frustration. That is how entire ethnic and religious groups, sexes, etc. can become targets for violence.

Unfortunately, the statutes are not enforced as they should be (as alluded to by another poster with another case earlier in this thread) -- likewise because of bias. Bigoted LE and DAs and media don't like to put people on trial for the same prejudices they harbor themselves. By the way, most LE and DAs are professional and serve the public well, but sometimes even if they want to press hate crimes charges in a case, they might not because they fear the political backlash that could follow. Irrespective of the circumstances involved in this case, the statutes are often not used as they should be and minorities, victims rights advocates, family members, etc. are tired of it.

That's why it's important to understand that one mustn't wake up one morning and decide to go kill [....] for it to be a hate crime. All it takes is prejudice to cause what would otherwise be a non-criminal disagreement to escalate into something violent. Which may or may not have happened, here, although I certainly suspect that it did.

 

[liljim]

BBM
What kind of philosophical point do you think he might have been trying to make?

i guess i was thinking something like he was saying he is interested in the workings of all human beings or something... not entirely sure lol.

 

[Yoda]

Vigil at NC State this evening.
http://instagram.com/p/zBgASxGIwG/

 

[SStarr33]

This all misses the point entirely imo, but perfectly encapsulates why so many people are angry about this case and why it exploded on social media. Hate crime laws are designed to protect minorities in our society, but often our institutions fail to enforce them as they were intended, ironically because of the same reasons the laws were created for in the first place. Attribution, prejudice, bias, etc. can all turn minor disputes into violent confrontations. We disagree with people all of the time, even the people we love the most, but because we love them, or they are similar to us, our well-being is linked to their well-being, and disagreements are more often than not resolved peacefully. But when human beings get angry, or they are suffering from failures in their lives that they would like to attribute to external causes, often people will look towards minorities who are different than them to take out their own pent-up frustration. That is how entire ethnic and religious groups, sexes, etc. can become targets for violence.

Unfortunately, the statutes are not enforced as they should be (as alluded to by another poster with another case earlier in this thread) -- likewise because of bias. Bigoted LE and DAs and media don't like to put people on trial for the same prejudices they harbor themselves. By the way, most LE and DAs are professional and serve the public well, but sometimes even if they want to press hate crimes charges in a case, they might not because they fear the political backlash that could follow. Irrespective of the circumstances involved in this case, the statutes are often not used as they should be and minorities, victims rights advocates, family members, etc. are tired of it.

That's why it's important to understand that one mustn't wake up one morning and decide to go kill [....] for it to be a hate crime. All it takes is prejudice to cause what would otherwise be a non-criminal disagreement to escalate into something violent. Which may or may not have happened, here, although I certainly suspect that it did.

Hate crimes were not only designed to protect minorities.

 

[Ven]

Hate crimes were not only designed to protect minorities.

They are in fact designed to protect minorities, and in fairness of principle they apply in reverse discrimination cases too. Although the majority does not need enhanced laws to protect itself. The majority is perfectly capable of carrying out the letter of the law against minorities, and even going beyond the law to do so in extreme cases ... but minorities have no such recourse, because they are both outnumbered as well as under-represented in our political and judicial institutions.

 

[SStarr33]

They are in fact designed to protect minorities, and in fairness of principle they apply in reverse discrimination cases too. Although the majority does not need enhanced laws to protect itself. The majority is perfectly capable of carrying out the letter of the law against minorities, and even going beyond the law to do so in extreme cases ... but minorities have no such recourse, because they are both outnumbered as well as under-represented in our political and judicial institutions.

Defining a Hate Crime

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a &#8220;criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender&#8217;s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.&#8221; Hate itself is not a crime&#8212;and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

 

[Ven]

Defining a Hate Crime

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a &#8220;criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender&#8217;s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.&#8221; Hate itself is not a crime&#8212;and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

Yes, you listed the definition. But I gave you the reason why hate crimes laws exist. Might makes right. If a black person kills a white person, the book will be thrown at them no matter what their motivation was. If it was because they were mindlessly high on drugs, or because they hated all white people, it doesn't matter, they will almost always be given close to a maximum sentence. The majority does not need enhanced laws to carry out its will.

On the other hand, if a white person kills a black person (or Muslim in this case), the majority of people will be more susceptible to considering mitigating circumstances. A typical person might think the killer went too far, murder is wrong, etc. but starts to identify with some of the reasons the killer got mad in the first place. That gay person was hitting on me and I couldn't stand it! Illegals are ruining our country! Black people are dangerous! Maybe he was just having a bad day! The numbers of false acquittals, lenient sentences, etc. increase and all of a sudden you have a society out of control with too much violence.

The point is that there are laws against murder and other crimes but they are not enforced equally. Hate crimes laws attempt to fix that problem from the top down, but they are often not utilized from the bottom up as they should be.