Suspect in Mosque Burning “Hate Crime” Is Reportedly Muslim

920x920The fire on Christmas Day at a Houston mosque attracted national attention as the latest hate crime directed against Muslims. However, police yesterday arrested the man allegedly responsible and it turns out to be a regular at the mosque, Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, of Houston.

Police say that Moore told investigators he has attended the mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week. While he claimed to be the last to leave the mosque at 2 p.m., he said that there was no smoke or fire.

MJ Khan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, said he was unfamiliar with Moore.

We have often discussed the concerns over hate crimes in term of free speech and due process as well as its effectiveness. However, what if the mosque was torched by a Muslim. Is it still a hate crime or just a hoax?

Texas defines a hate crime as as crimes that are motivated by prejudice, hatred, or advocacy of violence. If it is true that the fire was set by a Muslim to appear like a hate crime, is it just arson?

Source: Chronicle

79 thoughts on “Suspect in Mosque Burning “Hate Crime” Is Reportedly Muslim”

  1. ND PE

    He’s eating chitlins, he’s eating bagels, he’s eating pizza….

  2. Nick Spinelli
    1, December 31, 2015 at 8:47 am
    KCF, Come on! It’s always open season on white Americans. I think you can legally throw rocks @ fat, white, conservative, male Americans, as long as you don’t kill them.
    Nick, who threw stones at you?

    By the way, in most US mosques, the imam only leads Friday communal prayers. In others, he comes in once a day, usually evening, or morning prayer…but I don’t know of any mosque here where the imam leads every prayer.
    Usually the worshipers can access the mosque at prayer times and pray, led by one of the attendees.
    So either the guy did not attend 5 prayers a day, or the imam only led him in prayer on Friday, which means he may not have noticed him.

    But…hate crimes rely on a outsider/insider dynamic. So based on the spirit of the law, it is not a hate crime, just a crime, akin to him robbing the donation box.

    Bambam, KFC, glad to see you both here…We missed your valuable insight yesterday when we debated the Israel post regarding the hate wedding where they celebrated the fire-bombing of the baby.

  3. Salon published an article on its website Wednesday about an arson attack on a Houston mosque.
    Writer Ben Norton suggested in the piece the attack was Islamophobic.

    After Moore’s arrest Wednesday morning, and it was learned that the alleged attacker was Muslim, Salon deleted the article.

    That’s the hate crime.
    Now, where was the imam in all this? Hmmmmm…

  4. KCF, Come on! It’s always open season on white Americans. I think you can legally throw rocks @ fat, white, conservative, male Americans, as long as you don’t kill them.

  5. Regarding JT’s final question. Yes, I believe the charge should just be arson.

  6. I would bet 4 figures the alleged hate crimes @ Mizzou were fabricated. The alleged hate crimes @ Yale were admitted to be fabricated in order to “start the discussion.” Well, the discussion should be the wrongness of hate crimes creating special classes of people who are always going to abuse the privilege. When does the discussion get to black privilege?? Not all black people. I like black people. I socialize w/ black people. The vast majority are hard working, fun, sincere, honest people who abhor the segment of her culture addicted to victimization.

  7. So the head Imam does not know this guy. This guy was a regular. So there is some inkling that the Imam had this guy burn the place so they could collect insurance. Was there an insurance claim yet?

    This is all so obvious.

  8. There’s an army unit called psychological operations. “Psyc Ops’.
    They train soldiers to fight psychologically. No knife or gun is used.
    Worm way into adversary and seed it. Then sit back and watch them destroy each other. Moore is deployed.

  9. You are all missing the point. The truth doesn’t matter what matters is now we are “having the discussion” about Christians burning down Mosque’s.

    Also, how is it possible to visit your place of worship five times a day, seven times a week and hold employment?

  10. This might be a case of “sufficiency of evidence in a circumstantial evidence case”. Some questions are in the air. How many people where in or around the crime scene which would be the spot where the fire was ignited, not the neighborhood, not outside the building, not in row six of the commons area where they pray, and not in the front door where they come in and out? Any fingerprints on the arson materials like a bottle of lighter fluid found at the scene?
    I have a bottle of lighter fluid here at the dog marina but I was not at the crime scene.

    Sufficiency of evidence in a circumstantial evidence case is a topic for the blog. It is relevant here. It is a matter of federal constitutional jurisprudence not recognized in Un Reconstructed states like
    Texas. The lead case is Jackson v. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court case. But a case not followed by states in the Old South which abhor the 14th Amendment and such notions as due process.

    Time will tell if they have evidence on this guy other than he was an attendee. Let him pray that there are no eye witnesses who saw him light the fire.

  11. So: JT: Did they charge him with “a hate crime”?
    I have heard of hate crimes in the media but I have not seen a statute on such a thing in Texas.
    Perhaps it was “a love crime”. He loved the Muslim faith but he hated the Imam. Perhaps he left his cigarette burning in the pew and it caught the joint on fire. Is a “pew” for puke? I don’t know nuthin bout birthin babies or burning mosques.

    He looks like a dork. But not as bad as that photo of Bill Cosby. It is early in the a.m. and the Cosby photo scared the dogs off the marina.

  12. When the news article published, I suspected it was an inside job. It seems allegedly to be the case. In a sense it is symptomatic of the hair-trigger reaction prevalent in news and politics: react first, arrive at a conclusion, and if the truth differs sidestep the matter hoping it goes away–or in the case of so many politicians seeking to personally benefit from the situation, find another way to smash the people involved in order to deflect criticism or admit the politicians were wrong in their assertions.

    On the topic of such an issue prosecuted as a Hate Crime the essential elements required involve a belief that the victim or property of the victim belongs to a group, either known or perceived, attacked in significant reason based upon intent to cause harm directly to that identity protected by law; and also that the precursor to the intent to harm is an evil frame of mind directed toward a group the victim identifies.

    I suspect in cases such as this a prosecution for a Hate Crime poses a high probability of dismissal due especially to the latter element, since the accused is one of this group. It also supports my belief that hate crimes are often wrongfully indicted against defendants when the criminal justice system perceives differing groups, such as whites and blacks as victim / suspect, as being prima facie evidence of satisfying hate crime elements. It is not a per se issue such as an assault on a child of seven years old when a child victim of that age might garner a sentencing enhancement or such upon his assailant. In fact, my opinion is that having a per se Hate Crime statute that makes any unlawful action against particular groups of individuals such as along racial, religious or the like leads to unequal justice under law, especially when the bar for which prosecutions are possible lowers with each legislative session or practice in the criminal justice system. Then, victims become ultimately awarded a sense of privilege that other groups do not have and others receive greater punishment regardless of crime or infraction.

  13. Interesting.
    A non-muslim burning down the mosque is guilty of a hate crime, but a Muslim is immunized from that charge.
    A hate crime is a crime. Motivations should not be a part of the equation of criminal liability.
    Entertaining such idiocy leads to legal paradoxes like this.

  14. The soot, left on his forehead, should’ve been the biggest tip off for authorities.

    Uhhhhhh, fire–what fire? I don’t know nothin’ about no stinkin’ fire.

    Only to be outdone by the quote by MJ Kahn, President of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, where he claims to be unfamiliar with a guy who practically lived at the mosque. He probably saw him more than he saw his own wife, except more was prettier and less hairy.

  15. The Complaint filed by the D.A. charges two counts of NCIC Code 2005. I looked it up: Arson – Business. No “hate crime” is being charged, at least not at this time.

  16. We see this over and over again, where someone creates a fake “hate crime” in order to gain celebrity as a victim. I suppose this says something about American culture, where people perceive victimhood as enhancing their status. In any event, the perp in this case should, of course be should be charged with arson, but his motive would presumably not fall within the hate crime statute in that he is Muslim and was not acting out of ill will towards his co-religionists.

Comments are closed.