Charleston church massacre

[Ineth]

So by now the news of the deadly attack on a bible study meeting at an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina, should have reached everyone, since it's also made the front pages of non-US news outlets now.

 

From what is know at this time, it was a white supremacist terrorist attack. (And since one of the victims was a state senator, at the same time also a political assassination.)

 

It's also very reminiscent of the darkest periods of southern US history, when violent attacks against black churches by groups such as the KKK were commonplace.

 

It's sad all around. As Jon Steward expressed on his show:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJl9iqnvkOE

 

Politicization / Reactions

 

Of course, before the bodies were even in the grounds, the wrangling about political interpretations and calls to action began like clockwork.

 

This guy sums up the usual suspects perfectly:

 

 

For example, Rick Santorum tried to completely ignore all racial aspects of the massacre and shamelessly spin it as an attack on Christianity instead. And I hear that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are using most of their coverage to try and spin it as "a lone kid with mental issues" and trying to brush away any connection with a larger white supremacist movement and an even larger society-wide racism problem (although since I'm not following those outlets myself that's just second-hand info).

 

On the other extreme, besides using it as a platform to predictably lobby for gun control laws, over-zealous left-wing activists are trying to extend the terrorist's extreme racism to all white people and especially to the authorities handling the case, and they're constantly starting social media outrage campaigns based on misinformation like:

• "Look, the police is not doing a full-scale man hunt because the perp is white!!!!!!" (...when in fact the police was doing such a man hunt, and did indeed end up arresting the perp quite quickly),
• "Look he wasn't hand-cuffed when he was arrested, because he is white!!!!!!" (...when in fact he was both cuffed and shackled, it just wasn't very clear on photos from some angles),
• "Well why wasn't he shot dead instead of being arrested like <random example of a black person who was shot dead by police>, that's white privilege!!!!!!" (...when in fact the Occams Razor explanation to that is, that the guy gave himself up immediately when caught and did not run or resist arrest),
• and so on.

However, beyond those predictable right/left-wing deflections and overreactions and politicizations, there are also two more unique aspects to the media and social-media reactions to this particular case:

• Calls for removing the Confederate Flag from South Carolina government buildings.
  
  The terrorist who carried out the attack loved to wear emblems and flags from historic regimes where white rulers oppressed black people (like Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa), and many commenters consider the Confederate Flag in the same category, or even believe that its public presence "encouraged" people like him to become white supremacists.
  
  The South Carolina government has been entrenched in a conflict for or against showing the flag, for decades - one group seeing it as a symbol for racism and slavery, and the other group seeing it as an important part of the state's historic heritage and a symbol for political self-determination.
  
  Apparently they reached a bipartisan compromise a while ago (not showing the flag in the most prominent/meaningful spot, but still showing it elsewhere), but the 'anti' side seems to be taking current events as an opportunity to restart the debate.
   
• Sarcastic snipes by members of the online atheist/skeptic movement
  
  Along the lines of "So much for 'prayer helps against mass shootings' amirite? lol", referring to the fact that the location of the attack was a bible study meeting in a church. I was honestly somewhat shocked to see these crop up. I guess they were responding to some stupid remarks (about player being the solution for society's problems) made by some conservative in the past, but it came across to me as completely inappropriate and ugly.

Not sure how it will all develop from here.
 

I hope that the families and communities of the people who were murdered in this attack, can heal.

Maybe at some point in the distant future, so can our broken society.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Ineth

[Rosbjerg]

Its a sad day when politicians are a joke and the comedians have to be serious.

 

 

Is there are racial wound? I don't know American society that well after all - but it does seem like it's only really a minority of blacks and whites that really hate each other?

[Monte Carlo]

There is a history of 'lone-wolf' attacks by extreme right-wingers. We had one in the UK (Google 'David Copleland,' who tried to plead insanity but failed).

 

It might be a lone actor, his mind poisoned by hate politics. Or what about Anders Breivik? Another lunatic lone actor.

 

So it might be exactly that.

 

America, a country at a lonely and troubled crossroads, is done fighting wars except for its own tiresome and relentless internal kulturkampf. Like any war, the first casualty will be the truth. Let investigators investigate, let justice take its course. Then electrocute the bastard.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Monte Carlo

[Malcador]

People really get hung up on the term used for it, can't really think of any long term approach being different if it was a hate crime or terrorism.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Malcador

[Varana]

There is a War on Terror.

There isn't one on Hate.

Someone seems to think there's a difference.

[rjshae]

Just about every week I hear another news story about bigotry and think, "it must be in the south". I find I'm rarely incorrect. Cultural inertia, I suppose.

[Malcador]

It's like reading about d-bag snobs and, yep, PNW.

[Ineth]

People really get hung up on the term used for it, can't really think of any long term approach being different if it was a hate crime or terrorism.

 

I guess one can make the case that we should retire the word "terrorism" altogether.

 

But as long as it is used for other attacks with similar MO, we should use it here as well.

 

[Hurlshort]

I am really of the opinion that terrorism is a tactic of an organized group, while a hate crime is individuals lashing out.  But these are just semantics, and shouldn't undercut the tragedy of any unprovoked attack on innocent people.

[Blarghagh]

News of this somehow hadn't reached me despite the fact I read a newspaper today.

 

It really just makes me very sad that something like this can happen. I don't even want to take this oppertunity to criticize the American left vs right response or gun laws or whatever. Instead all my 'murica rage is just kinda replaced with this.

 

[Nonek]

How sad, one hopes that the massive media response and inevitable blanket coverage will not spur copycat or revenge attacks. Ones thoughts are of course with the victims and their families, but one has to ask: What drove this young man to commit such atrocities and throw away his life, along with taking the lives of the good people at the bible reading session?

[Elerond]

I am really of the opinion that terrorism is a tactic of an organized group, while a hate crime is individuals lashing out.  But these are just semantics, and shouldn't undercut the tragedy of any unprovoked attack on innocent people.

 

Most commonly used definition for that I have seen used is that hate crime is crime that is targeted against some specific group of people because they belong that specific group of people.

For terrorism definition that is most often see to be used is any violent act against people or property that is meant to instill fear on population or government to advance political, religious, or ideological objectives.

 

So crime can be both hate crime and act of terrorism at same time. And one don't necessary need organized group behind them to do act of terrorism, only ideology, religion or political goal that they want to further. Also hate crimes can be committed by organized groups or even governments, because it is just why victims of said crimes are chosen.

 

Of course any term that are used is just semantics at the end, but end of day it is probably good to try use same terms to describe similar acts to make sure that there aren't group/s of people that feel that crimes against them is somehow seen lesser than crime against some other group/s of people.

[Malcador]

Hm, there's a victim gap ?

[Ineth]

I am really of the opinion that terrorism is a tactic of an organized group, while a hate crime is individuals lashing out.  But these are just semantics, and shouldn't undercut the tragedy of any unprovoked attack on innocent people.

 

Hate crimes cover everything from "3rd grade student shoved a classmate of the opposite race on the playground" to massacres like this; I do think we need our language to be able to differentiate between the two.

 

I wouldn't necessarily restrict the terrorism label to "organized groups", because there's no reason why it can't be committed by a single person. However I think it does involve:

• indiscriminate deadly violence
• that is premeditated / was planned ahead in cold blood
• and is designed to indirectly target a whole demographic (to make them feel unsafe/unwelcome, or make them bow to some political demands)
• and optimizes the choice of target in such a way as to maximize casualties and/or symbolic value

From the information we know, all of that seems to apply to this massacre, just like it applied to the Boston Marathon bombing.

[Gfted1]

If I identify as a minority and a crime is committed against me, is it a hate crime?

[Ineth]

If I identify as a minority and a crime is committed against me, is it a hate crime?

 

If your minority status affected the perpetrator's motives for carrying out the crime, and/or the way they carried out the crime , then yes.

[Amentep]

If I identify as a minority and a crime is committed against me, is it a hate crime?

 

FBI interpretation of US Congressional definition is

  

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 “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

 

So the government would have to prove that the accused was motivated in part by their perception of your race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, as opposed to your pecreption of same (ie if some nut attacks a Sikh thinking he's attacking a Muslim, it doesn't make it not a hate crime because the Sikh wasn't a Muslim).

Edited June 19, 2015 by Amentep

[Volourn]

EVIL.

[Elerond]

If I identify as a minority and a crime is committed against me, is it a hate crime?

 

If you were chosen to be victim of said crime because how you identify yourself then yes, it was hate crime.

 

As for example hate crime definition from Illinois Compiled Statutes: (720 ILCS 5/12-7.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-7.1)  Sec. 12-7.1. Hate crime.

(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-2, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.

 

[Nonek]

So if one murders someone purely because of personal (for example a conflict of personality or jealousy) hatred, that is not judged to be a hate crime, although motivated by hatred? How strange.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Nonek

[Amentep]

So if one murders someone purely because of personal hatred, that is not judged to be a hate crime, although motivated by hatred? How strange.

For US definition, yes if Mr. Cobblepot hates you, but not all people like you, then the crime isn't seen as an attack on all people like you, just on you. Therefore it is a crime between Cobblepot and you and not Cobblepot and the larger society.

[Monte Carlo]

The problem with hate crimes is you create these issues with definition. Hate crimes are a recent phenomena in law.

 

If person 'a' kills person 'b' that's pretty hateful in of itself. You also run the risk of alienating people - assaulting one person is more grave than assaulting another because of some protected characteristic?

 

The Why of the act should be dealt with in court, not in the definition of the offence.

[Gfted1]

Wow, those hate crime statutes cast a pretty wide net.

[Gorgon]

What if I hate myself and commit suicide. 

[Tsuga C]

How strange.

Political Correctness at work, giving life to The Narrative that must be maintained to sustain the attack on Western Civilization.