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
“your defense of the cover-ups and moving on to the next parish.”
That’s sick, Wade.
Why would anyone defend that?
Pogo – schools did the same thing. They moved their predators from one school district to the next.
Pogo
Regarding Catholic priests predations…..
Now please share with us your defense of the cover-ups and moving on to the next parish.
Jim22
How could I possibly know? How could anyone possibly know?
Correction: “There was a pedophile mafia in the Catholic Church”.
Inga – that pedophile mafia in the Catholic Church was gay.
Max, I recognize folly when I see it.
“Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction, as it makes people, at the least, uncomfortable. Against folly we have no defence. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use; facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can be just pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel; we shall never again try to convince a fool by reason, for it is both useless and dangerous
Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison (1943-1945)
“I gave you an example… and you took it as a truth.
Go on now… I thought you were moving on.”
Are you talking about a conversation in your head?
OK
Gottogo… time to work.
Pogo,
Yo don’t like me mimicking your childish rants?
Pogo,
I gave you an example… and you took it as a truth.
Go on now… I thought you were moving on.
Oh, it’s never moving on when you don’t.
It’s just OK for you to tell others to…
If a Muslim shot at three non-Muslims how would you be spinning that?
Well, it would depend on the reason for the shooting.
If the Muslim declared that he/she were killing the infidel to avenge the honor of the Prophet Mohammed or was killing in order to intimidate the Kafir into converting to Islam…..I would spin that as a Radical Muslim Terrorist act or as a killing spurred by their religious beliefs.
However, if the reason for the killing was a dispute over a parking space, I would spin that as being a crazy person who just happens to be of the Muslim faith and having nothing to do with their religion.
I would spin it the same way if it were a Catholic or Tea Party person or an Atheist. The reason for the crime is the important aspect.
“You need to move on.”
I quit using the “I know you are but what am I?” retort in about 4th grade.
It doesn’t work any better for you now, Max.
Just sayin’.
Annie,
I don’t come in to threads where some Christian eff’d up and committed crimes and go around blaming Christianity on their acts. That’s the difference here and Pogo keeps willfully blind. Paul c you’re just a bad antagonist.
“Should I take my animus about the RCC and blame every Christian out there for what crimes Christians commit…?”
You already do.
Paul C.
Gay mafia?
Got animus?
Max-1 – I have no animus towards gays. You are well aware of my background. There was/is a Gay Mafia in the Vatican. It has been a real problem for the last 50-75 years. They have controlled the important bureaucratic posts. As a sidenote, they controlled the major seminaries in the United States for the same amount of time.
Max, my guess would be no, he can’t.
Pogo
I understand you hate Islam.
You need to move on.
I guess Pogo my question of the day should be:
Should I take my animus about the RCC and blame every Christian out there for what crimes Christians commit as you do against Islam? The difference there is that I don’t blame you for what Tiller’s killer did. And I know that you aren’t responsible for Brevic. See, I can differentiate the two. Can you say the same about your animus against Islam?
Max,
I understand you hate the Catholic Church.
You need to move on.
“If a Muslim shot at three non-Muslims how would you be spinning that?”
DBQ already answered that, but you refuse to (or are unable to) acknowledge it:
“Muslim terrorists who claim their religion as the motivating force for their terrorist acts have self identified themselves. If the claim this designation, then why should we not also use it.”
I think you’re just yanking chains here; arguing in bad faith versus willful ignorance.
Max.
I am responding to your statement. Substitute Islam with Judaism, Muslim with Jew and Mosque with Synagogue and this reads heavily anti-Semitic. Just sayin
I assume you are referencing your copy of her tweet? It’s so freaking sad to hear people saying we should “kill Jews” or “Kill Palestinians”. As if that’s going to solve anything SMH
What in my response indicated to you that I am advocating killing Muslims or anyone else?