I’d have to agree with her. First of all no one knows if it was parking dispute that motivated the shooting they only know such disputes had taken place in the past. The “parking dispute” is an assumption. And it doesn’t fit the rest of the information we do know. As this woman points out…no one was in that parking place. And the people were killed execution style in their home.
It’s been said he was an anti-theist so the victims faith couldn’t have been a motive since he hated all religions. But these girls were observant Muslims and wore the Scarf and Gown. They were icons of their religion anywhere they went. And that dress is not just associated with Islam it’s associated with a ton of bogus threats and ill’s aimed at America. Any anti-theist that watches FOX would hate these girls for a ton of reasons other than religion.
I think he had the problem with their Faith long before he had a parking problem. And I think the over reaction to a parking space issue was due to who was parking it it: Girls in Muslim attire. So far the only person making any sense is Dr. Suzanne Barakat.
Why didn’t she use this platform to elaborate? All she did was confirm that there was an ongoing parking dispute. If you have evidence that the police won’t look at, give it to the press!
There’s nothing to justify. My concern is this rush to label it a hate crime because he expressed anti-theist leanings. It’s too soon to say that and she didn’t present any new evidence that discredits the parking spot motive. In fact she gave further testimony to that fact.
Except it’s already accepted “fact” among many people that this was only about a parking spot. The longer that “fact” remains undisputed, the longer people will “know” it’s the truth. Just like how everyone “knows” that Columbine was about two outcasts who listened to Marilyn Manson and took revenge on the popular people; even though we now know that none of that was true since they weren’t unpopular and hated Marilyn Manson. But that’s the story the news media invented and people refuse to re-evaluate what they were told. First impressions are often the only impressions people get.
The first story I even read on this shooting, people were insisting that it wasn’t about religion at all, and denounced anyone who suggested it might have been because it was just over a parking spot. As far as the general public is concerned, the investigation is already over.
Exactly. It is totally understandable for her to be completely outraged, livid, pissed, etc. But she is “part” of the investigation, she is not doing one. Nor should she, nor should friends or relatives of Hicks who have differing opinions. They will be part of the investigation, and will all be interviewed, etc.
Are you even being serious? “It’s a dispute over a parking spot” would be somewhat plausible if they had gotten in a fistfight next to the car. It’s laughable in this case. Would you consider the explanation that Emmitt Till’s murder was “a dispute over someone checking out another’s girlfriend”? Or would the barbarity of the crime make it clear to you that some other deep-seated motive was involved.
So even though she says he had come to them with a GUN previously about the parking spot on several occasions…it’s not possible the shooting was about a parking spot? It’s obviously possible. It’s also possible he hated them due to being too religious. NO ONE knows that at this point.
I think I’ll let DOJ do an investigation, look at all the evidence (interviews, internet activity, etc.), and then draw a conclusion on the “motive”.
Disputes over parking spaces and traffic incidents happen all the time. Sometimes they end in violence when people fly into a rage. When is the last time you heard of someone going into an apartment and shooting three people in the back of the head over it?
We know now that Mr. Hicks called the towing company on parking violators so often that they stopped responding. We know that Mr. Hicks pointed a gun at the neighbors he later killed, when they awoke his wife during an overly-loud game of Risk. We also know that Hicks’ was an anti-theist (like the late Christopher Hitchens), and that anti-theists tend to find Islam even more contemptible than other major religions.
It stands to reason that Hicks’ murderous rage wasn’t triggered solely by the victims’ religion, but that religion was one of multiple factors. Hicks appears to have a seething contempt for concrete thinkers, especially those who act with disregard for others. The parking violations, the noise, and the choice of an especially-irrational religion all grated on Hicks’ unstable nerves.
I didn’t know they were killed in their home and that no one was even parked in the spot that was at issue. That alone makes me question the “parking dispute” story. I could even accept the parking dispute story if they’d been parked in the spot at the time of the shooting, but it makes no sense that he sought them out despite the fact that he didn’t have a grievance at the time. And the fact that he went looking for them and executed them in their home makes me think there is much more to this story than we’ve been told.
Well just because he confronted them about the parking spot didn’t make the killings about the parking spot. I have believed from day one, he shot them because they are Muslims - no other reason.
I agree. This was not about a parking spot. This is about a racist, muslim hater and he probably hates everyone who isn’t white. I don’t believe for a minute this guy had an liberal leanings.
Exactly, his increasing anger over the parking spot may have been about the fact that he felt he was being mistreated/disrespected by people he already felt were inferior because of their religion. His anger may have ratcheted up more quickly and fiercely because of their religion and not because he was truly all that mad about a parking space.
In this case, they both lived right there, so he knew where to go to shoot them. In road rage incidents, both parties are obviously in their vehicles when they happen, so that’s where the shooting usually happens. If somebody gets cut off, they usually don’t know where the other person lives. So the shooting usually takes place at the incident, or the person follows the other person.
This guy has previously gone to their apartment with a gun and confronted them about the spot. So the apartment was where all previous confrontations had taken place. Maybe something the day before was the “last straw” to him, and he decided to off them the next day. Not an unreasonable assumption.
Again, what is the problem with letting DOJ do a thorough investigation and then drawing a conclusion? Seems logical.
So…it’s bad to rush and label this a hate crime, but it’s totally ok to keep assuming it was about a parking spot? Right.
How about if we don’t make ANY assumptions, and make sure to push back against the parking spot theory as well? Yes, that’s what the police already attributed it to. But since they hadn’t even interviewed anyone yet besides the killer…I’m wondering if they were just taking his word for it. I mean, is he really going to admit that he killed them because of their religion or race? It’s quite possible he imagines it was about the parking spot, because he’s in denial about his own bias.
And I kinda suspect that many of the people grasping for the Parking Spot theory also are in denial that hatred of religion might have been a factor. But I’m all for waiting for the investigation to be completed, and that includes dismissing the parking spot theory as well. But of course, that’s assuming the police are really investigating it, rather than having already decided they had the answer.
Very logical assumptions, though I am sure you agree we’d all like to see the results of DOJ’s investigation on internet activity, interviews, etc. But the guy did not target any other Muslims that we know of. He had many confrontations on parking before, including with these students. And those people also felt he was a threat to them, even though they were not Muslim. But it seems in this case there was a much higher frequency of the parking thing, and eventually he snapped. We’ll see what DOJ comes up with too. I’d like to see the info from the investigation when it is completed.
Sure there was a parking dispute, BUT does anyone really believe
that the gun-brandishing pea-brain would have been so quick to
murder three white “Real’Muricans” over a guest parking spot?
It was certainly a hate crime. Maybe because of their Muslim garb,
or maybe because of their brown skin, or maybe just because they
were uppity smart-ass college students with some real prospects
of achieving the 'Murican Dream – before the Real’Murican loser.
