There is a horrible triple murder being investigated this morning in North Carolina where three people from a Muslim family were allegedly murdered by Craig Stephen Hicks, 46. Some are speculating that Hicks’ strong atheist views may have been a factor after reading this “anti-theist” positions on the Internet. He has been described in some media account as a “radical atheist” though atheists have rarely engaged in violent acts against religious persons. UPDATE: Police have said that the dispute was not religiously motivated but a dispute over a parking space.
All three victims are from the same family and identified as Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. From all accounts, the family was the epitome of a hard-working and successful American family. Barakat was a dental student at the University of North Carolina was a volunteer giving free dental care to Palestinian children. He also helped provide free dental supplies to 75 homeless people in downtown Durham. The recently married couple also organized a fundraiser to raise money for dental care for refugees from Syria. Barakat was going to travel to Turkey to help treat child refugees. His sister-in-law Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha had been studying for a degree at North Carolina State University in Architecture and Environmental Design.
All three were shot in the head.
Hicks posted anti-religious positions on the Internet and asked “why radical Christians and radical Muslims are so opposed to each others’ influence when they agree about so many ideological issues”? His page suggests that he is paralegal at Durham Technical Community College. He reported turned himself in.
News organizations have been focusing on Hicks’ anti-religious statements on the Internet as well as his photograph of a gun. However, anti-religious sentiments do not naturally lead to gunning down family’s of religious people (any more than stated religious beliefs or anti-atheist views naturally leads to killing atheists or agnostics). That does not mean that this was not a motivation in this case but we have little information at this point. Update: The police said that they have evidence of a long-standing parking space dispute.
Nothing is known of any prior interaction or mental disorders on the part of Hicks. Hicks also posted less threatening images, including photos with his wife.
Atheist leaders immediately condemned the murders. The numerous articles focusing on Hicks’ reported atheist views show no specific connection to this family or advocacy of anti-religious violence. However, it creates the possibility of a crime motivated by religious hostilities and is presumably being investigated as a possible hate crime. In the end, the classification of the murders as a hate crime are unlikely to materially affect the prosecution in the case if Hicks confessed to the murders. The question remains an insanity defense. As previously discussed, the insanity defense has been substantially curtailed in this country. I believe that North Carolina uses the M’Naghten Rule with the burden of proof on the defendant. The test is generally defined as meaning “the defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease or deficiency of mind at the time of the alleged act as to be (1) incapable of knowing the nature and quality of his act, or (2) incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with respect to such act.” State v. Mancuso, 364 S.E.2d 359 (1988) (relying on State v. Evangelista, 319 N.C. 152, 353 S.E.2d 375 (1987)).
Once invoked, the state can press for an examination, though it is often ordered by the Court sua sponte.
(a) If a defendant intends to raise the defense of insanity, the defendant must file a notice of the defendant’s intention to rely on the defense of insanity as provided in G.S. 15A-905(c) and, if the case is not subject to that section, within a reasonable time prior to trial. The court may for cause shown allow late filing of the notice or grant additional time to the parties to prepare for trial or make other appropriate orders.
(b) In cases not subject to the requirements of G.S. 15A-905(c), if a defendant intends to introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease, defect, or other condition bearing upon the issue of whether the defendant had the mental state required for the offense charged, the defendant must within a reasonable time prior to trial file a notice of that intention. The court may for cause shown allow late filing of the notice or grant additional time to the parties to prepare for trial or make other appropriate orders.
(c) Upon motion of the defendant and with the consent of the State the court may conduct a hearing prior to the trial with regard to the defense of insanity at the time of the offense. If the court determines that the defendant has a valid defense of insanity with regard to any criminal charge, it may dismiss that charge, with prejudice, upon making a finding to that effect. The court’s denial of relief under this subsection is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to rely on the defense at trial. If the motion is denied, no reference to the hearing may be made at the trial, and recorded testimony or evidence taken at the hearing is not admissible as evidence at the trial. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1977, c. 711, s. 25; 2004-154, s. 10.)
SOURCE: NBC
If that works for you Jeff, go with it.
Pogo:
Obama objects to saying “Muslim terrorists” for the same reason that you would object to the phrase, “Christian Nazis.” I do not believe many Germans were Muslim, and I’m pretty sure that none were Jewish.” No one wants their faith to be associated with murderers. And please do not claim but all 3 million members of the Nazi party and all those tens of thousands who assisted in the killing of Jews were all atheists. Please do not claim that Christianity had no hand in the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism did not begin with Adolf Hitler. But for Christianity’s role in blaming the Jews for killing Christ and claiming his blood was on their hands for eternity, Hitler would not have been able to capitalize on this rampant and virulent European anti-Semitism to effectuate the Holocaust. Thus, it is proper and fitting to refer to Nazis as Christian Nazis.
Issac – “Ultimately, if there is a supreme being or an entity that intended its creation to be something, it would not be that supreme entity’s intention that we should all splinter off into holier than thou groups for whatever reasons. I doubt it would be an entity that would condone theft, murder, racism, bigotry, or any of the other supposedly justifiable actions done in the name of this or that iteration of god.”
How do you know this? I will just bring up the idea of “free will”.
Me, too.
I am simply applying the evangelical atheists’ rules on religious folks to one of their own.
And it is stupid.
Pogo – that remains a possibility – that his reaction was extreme because he was anti-religious. Maybe his reaction would be more extreme to “provocation” if it involved an openly religious person. Certainly, he was in a dark place online.
I just want to be cautious before declaring it an Islamophobic hate crime before we know everything.
They need to investigate thoroughly, and not hold back anything.
“..police said Wednesday it was about a parking space at the condominium complex where the murders took place.”
I remain skeptical of “why” he did it.
“…police said Wednesday it was about a parking space at the condominium complex where the murders took place.”
Yeah, and Obama cannot pronounce the words “Islam” or “Muslim,” so I remain undecided. I suspect that parking was one of many things that added up to his violent response, but I do not believe that was the sole explanation.
Gary T – you are right. Atheism was not the motivation, and many atheists do really want to be left alone. But I don’t think the Humanists have ever left anyone alone.
We need to be cautious about assuming that every crime against a Muslim or African American is a hate crime, and investigate what happened.
I wonder how many people will never know the followup to the story, that this was all over a stupid parking space? They will forever remember this as an Islamophobe hate crime.
davidm
I take it these are your opinions, once removed or not. One of the main points of distinction between atheism and religion as put forth by those who follow any one of the central themes developed and developing by deity driven arguments, is ‘how is morality possible without God?’.
I maybe an atheist or perhaps something else, I don’t much care how I am labeled. One thing I am certain of is that we are all the same or at the very least cut from the same cloth. That there is not one religion at this point in religion’s evolution and in fact, there seems to be a continuing splintering of the basic religions, points more in the direction of people making this stuff up to bolster their sense of validity. We are all pretty much the same and being one of several billion can have its drawbacks. However, we come into the world typically in a tight knit group stemming from the family and continuing on through this or that group, religious based, neighborhood based, sports team based, etc. It is not difficult to understand where religion comes from. It comes from several desires that may manifest themselves as needs. Religion explains the unexplainable, if you accept the myths. This gives it authority and society needs authority to exist. It is also a continuation of the experience in that state of birth where all is encompassed by warmth, security, and communitas. When a baby it is the love of the ultimate being of the mother, with the ultimate love of another supreme being, the state of innocence, the state of protection, etc. continues.
Ultimately, if there is a supreme being or an entity that intended its creation to be something, it would not be that supreme entity’s intention that we should all splinter off into holier than thou groups for whatever reasons. I doubt it would be an entity that would condone theft, murder, racism, bigotry, or any of the other supposedly justifiable actions done in the name of this or that iteration of god. Life interpreted through religion can only evolve to the point of accepting other religions but only as those subordinate to one’s own, even if it is a position as benign as, “well you got it mostly right but not quite right”. Religion is a double edged sword, a moment in the evolution of humanity on the way to a morality of the one with the all. The ultimate religion is the religion that includes all, not there yet.
Davidm:
Manslaughter is NOT an accident. Manslaughter is an intentional act. Let me see if I can clear up this confusion: say a man catches his wife having sex with another man. She claims in her defense that it was an accident. The man asks her, “An accident? Like you were walking past this man and you stepped on a banana peel and you slipped and fell onto his penis?” The law punishes people for manslaughter because the perpetrator intentionally hits his victim though he did not intend to kill him. An insane killer has no more criminal responsibility for a death than someone cleaning their firearm which accidentally discharges. The latter is liable only for negligence in a civil case. It may be exceedingly difficult to prove that someone is genuinely insane, but if it can be proven, then there is no culpability. You may not draw the line at 13 years for holding a child not liable for his actions, but surely there is an age at which you would agree that a child cannot be held responsible.
Jeff Silberman wrote: “You may not draw the line at 13 years for holding a child not liable for his actions, but surely there is an age at which you would agree that a child cannot be held responsible.”
Yes, that is true. Thanks for the exposition about intention and negligence.
So basically, philosophically speaking, if crimes require either intention or negligence, would you say that without the ability of rational thought, there could never be any crime?
“Included in his many Facebook ‘likes’ are the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy,’ Neil deGrasse Tyson, Gay Marriage groups, and a host of anti-conservative/Tea Party pages.“
This is so sad.
Earsofthe world – yes, it is in fact on Fox News. This was over a parking dispute, not a hate crime:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/11/north-carolina-man-charged-in-shooting-death-three-people/
“Thinking otherwise displays a lack of education.”
Or skepticism of its claims.
DavidM, The charge is usually called Involuntary Manslaughter. Good examples are a person driving drunk and killing someone, or a landlord not having smoke or carbon monoxide detectors in a rental property resulting in death of a tenant. Actions that a person knows, or should know, recklessly endangers others lives.
The problem is zealotry, be it religious, atheists, animal lovers, etc. They all kill in the name of their “deity.” Atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, do seem to have the playbook in how to kill millions w/o consequences.
“That’s about as motivating to murder as doubting the BS peddled by the religious, is”
Except that the murderer himself said his atheism was a solution.
“People say nothing can solve the Middle East problem, not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism.”
Indeed, a final solution.
I bet he didn’t believe in the toothfairy. He was an a-toothfairyist. That’s about as motivating to murder as doubting the BS peddled by the religious, is.
The hate crime prosecution seems to only swing one way
Davidm:
The law does not hold an insane person criminally liable for the same reason it does not hold someone criminally liable for killing someone accidentally, i.e., there is no “mens rea’ or ‘intending mind.’ By the same token, we do not hold young children criminally liable because they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. Motivation (hate, money, etc) is irrelevant to criminal culpability. Motivation serves to show whodunit. Intentionality, on the other hand, is the issue. But an insane person does not act with intent if he is genuinely incapable of knowing what he is really doing. If a person lacks ‘mens rea,’ he cannot be deterred by the threat of punishment, and thus it makes no sense to prosecute him.
Jeff Silberman wrote: “The law does not hold an insane person criminally liable for the same reason it does not hold someone criminally liable for killing someone accidentally, i.e., there is no “mens rea’ or ‘intending mind.’”
Thanks, Jeff. You have given me something to think about.
We do hold the person somewhat accountable in accidental killings. Manslaughter, right?
Why is insanity, which seems a subjective and difficult thing to prove, completely absolve a person? Put him in treatment, cure him, then let him back out in society again? Does that sound reasonable to you?
By the way, I also have problems with not prosecuting children for crimes, like when a 13 year old kid murders someone knowing he will get out at age 18.