sirlynchmob wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
yes. you know who it will offend? people who think that tiny splothes of ink on a bunch of sheets of paper bound in animal skin is something that their god is concerned with.

Or just people who get your "I don't respect your religion, now let me prove it" message. Seriously, if you want to be offensive at least have the decency to be honest about it instead of pretending that you can't understand how anyone could object. And try to do something a little less cliche than burning a bible.

or rather blunt honesty about the ignorance of assuing ones' god gives two gaks about a bunch of words. tho this is the same god that not only approves of but demands the murder of homosexuals, and anyone of differing religion yet refuses to prove his own existance. hnestly if the god depiced in the bible (Bib-lehey) exists, he's either ...... or the single stupidest being to ever exist.

To be fair though, God comes from a broken home. He never had any parents, not even foster care nor a orphanage to teach him right and wrong. Some people just do not do well in extreme isolation and when they finally emerge from isolation they're a bit off in the head.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wife-alleged-n-c-shooter-believed-everyone-was-equal/

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - The man accused of murdering three of his neighbors was a "champion of Second Amendment rights" who "believed everyone is equal," according to his wife and her attorneys.

Karen Hicks, flanked by attorneys Rob Maitland and Michelle English, told reporters Wednesday that she and suspect Craig Hicks had been married seven years and that the shooting he is accused of "had nothing to do with religion...but was in fact related to the long-standing parking disputes" with his Muslim neighbors.

Craig Hicks, 46, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder for allegedly shooting Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, at their Chapel Hill apartment.
Attorney English told reporters that Craig Hicks carried a weapon and had a concealed carry permit, and that he was "a champion for Second Amendment rights." Attorney Maitland said that Hicks "had a problem with many of his neighbors," and that the shooting "highlights the importance of access to mental health care services." He would not comment on a reporter's questions about whether Hicks had a history of mental health issues, but said, "obviously, it is not within the range of normal behavior for someone to shoot three people over parking issues."

The father of the two female victims has told reporters that he believes his children were targeted because of their Muslim faith. He told the Raleigh News and Observer that his daughter had previously told him that Hicks "hates us for what we are and how we look."
But police have said they believe the shooting may have been sparked by the parking dispute Karen Hicks mentioned.

Attorney Rob Maitland told reporters that Hicks had "unsuccessfully" attempted to address the parking problem with the home-owners association at the complex where he lived.

Maitland said that the shootings stemmed from "the mundane issue of this man being frustrated day in and day out with not being able to park where he wanted to park. And these victims were at the wrong time and the wrong place."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Do we have more information on the mental health of the perpetrator? Was he ever committed for example

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wife-alleged-n-c-shooter-believed-everyone-was-equal/

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - The man accused of murdering three of his neighbors was a "champion of Second Amendment rights" who "believed everyone is equal," according to his wife and her attorneys.

Karen Hicks, flanked by attorneys Rob Maitland and Michelle English, told reporters Wednesday that she and suspect Craig Hicks had been married seven years and that the shooting he is accused of "had nothing to do with religion...but was in fact related to the long-standing parking disputes" with his Muslim neighbors.

Craig Hicks, 46, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder for allegedly shooting Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, at their Chapel Hill apartment.
Attorney English told reporters that Craig Hicks carried a weapon and had a concealed carry permit, and that he was "a champion for Second Amendment rights." Attorney Maitland said that Hicks "had a problem with many of his neighbors," and that the shooting "highlights the importance of access to mental health care services." He would not comment on a reporter's questions about whether Hicks had a history of mental health issues, but said, "obviously, it is not within the range of normal behavior for someone to shoot three people over parking issues."

The father of the two female victims has told reporters that he believes his children were targeted because of their Muslim faith. He told the Raleigh News and Observer that his daughter had previously told him that Hicks "hates us for what we are and how we look."
But police have said they believe the shooting may have been sparked by the parking dispute Karen Hicks mentioned.

Attorney Rob Maitland told reporters that Hicks had "unsuccessfully" attempted to address the parking problem with the home-owners association at the complex where he lived.

Maitland said that the shootings stemmed from "the mundane issue of this man being frustrated day in and day out with not being able to park where he wanted to park. And these victims were at the wrong time and the wrong place."

Do we have more information on the mental health of the perpetrator? Was he ever committed for example

 Psienesis wrote:
Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.

 Psienesis wrote:
It's also worth noting that not having a license in no way precludes you from carrying a firearm. It just makes it illegal to do so... but, I've noted that a lot of people don't seem to care about that technicality.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.

In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.

Spoiler:

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx

If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.

In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.

Spoiler:

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx

If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.

NC is a shall issue state, so while violent crimes would prohibit him from obtaining a concealed carry permit, a single drunk driving conviction would probably not, depending on aggravating factors. The law states that crimes carrying sentences > 1 year make people ineligible for obtaining a concealed carry permit. As long as your DUI is below a level 2 you are A-OK to get your carry permit in North Carolina as the maximum sentences are below one year.

Not like it matters a whole lot for this particular case but I wanted to clarify.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.

In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.

Spoiler:

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx

If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.

NC is a shall issue state, so while violent crimes would prohibit him from obtaining a concealed carry permit, a single drunk driving conviction would probably not, depending on aggravating factors. The law states that crimes carrying sentences > 1 year make people ineligible for obtaining a concealed carry permit. As long as your DUI is below a level 2 you are A-OK to get your carry permit in North Carolina as the maximum sentences are below one year.

Not like it matters a whole lot for this particular case but I wanted to clarify.

If you have an impaired driving conviction within 3 years prior to applying for your concealed carry permit you will be denied. It's on page 17 of the NC firearms law explanation from the NC doj that I posted, reason #7 for denying a permit. It doesn't state that it has to be a level 2 sentence for impaired driving only that you are convicted of impaired driving as established by NC GS 20-138.1, 20-138.2, 20-138.3. You can also be denied for violent misdemeanors. Which law are you referring to that stipulates it has to be a minimum of a 1 year sentence to qualify as a reason to deny a permit application? I'm not familiar with it.

Persons convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one (1) year. A person would not be ineligible under this criteria
if the person has been pardoned for the crime or conviction, the crime or
conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had his/her civil
rights restored, and under the law where the conviction occurred, the person is
not prohibited from receiving or possessing any firearm;

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Depends on the state on that particular point, actually. I'm not sure what the law in North Carolina is.

In NC if Hicks had been adjudicated as mentally unfit or to be a threat to himself or others, or if he had committed a crime or been charged with a crime that would have prevented him from being issued a concealed handgun permit then his local sherrif dept, in this instance, Orange County, would have revoked his permit. The list of crimes that would qualify is long, it ranges from drunk driving to violent misdemeanors to any felony.

Spoiler:

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx

If enough people from the complex where Hicks lived had complained to the county sherrif's office that Hicks was threatening and dangerous it might have gotten to sherrif to revoke his permit since sherrifs do have some leeway with doing that but Hicks would have been able to appeal it.

NC is a shall issue state, so while violent crimes would prohibit him from obtaining a concealed carry permit, a single drunk driving conviction would probably not, depending on aggravating factors. The law states that crimes carrying sentences > 1 year make people ineligible for obtaining a concealed carry permit. As long as your DUI is below a level 2 you are A-OK to get your carry permit in North Carolina as the maximum sentences are below one year.

Not like it matters a whole lot for this particular case but I wanted to clarify.

If you have an impaired driving conviction within 3 years prior to applying for your concealed carry permit you will be denied. It's on page 17 of the NC firearms law explanation from the NC doj that I posted, reason #7 for denying a permit. It doesn't state that it has to be a level 2 sentence for impaired driving only that you are convicted of impaired driving as established by NC GS 20-138.1, 20-138.2, 20-138.3. You can also be denied for violent misdemeanors. Which law are you referring to that stipulates it has to be a minimum of a 1 year sentence to qualify as a reason to deny a permit application? I'm not familiar with it.

Good catch - PA doesn't have that law but NC and PA do share the > 1 year max sentence clause. See p. 7 for that clause, item B.

Persons convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one (1) year. A person would not be ineligible under this criteria
if the person has been pardoned for the crime or conviction, the crime or
conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had his/her civil
rights restored, and under the law where the conviction occurred, the person is
not prohibited from receiving or possessing any firearm;

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (Reuters) - North Carolina prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a man who police say kept detailed notes on parking at his condominium complex before gunning down three young Muslims in a neighboring unit, according to documents released on Monday.

Craig Hicks, 46, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the Feb. 10 shooting deaths of a newlywed couple and the wife's sister about two miles from the University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill.

The Durham County District Attorney's Office said on Monday it filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty for Hicks last week.

A hearing will be held in early April for prosecutors to present their evidence to a judge, a member of the district attorney's office said.

The decision by prosecutors comes as federal and local investigators work to determine whether Hicks, a paralegal student who portrayed himself on Facebook as an atheist, was motivated by hatred toward the victims because of their religion.

Police have said their initial investigation indicated a dispute over parking may have prompted the killings, which drew international attention and sparked widespread use of the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter on social media.

Newly released search warrants indicate Hicks' wife suggested the theory of a parking incident as a possible motive.

A search of Hicks' computers showed he kept pictures and notes on parking activity in the lots around his condo, police said in the warrants.

Police seized a cache of firearms and ammunition from his home, according to the documents.

Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, a University of North Carolina dental student; his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, a student at North Carolina State University, were killed in the shooting.

Their families have urged authorities to investigate the case as a possible hate crime, saying Hicks had made the victims feel uncomfortable.

The search warrants show officers were reviewing the victims' cell phones to see if they contained any evidence of confrontations or interactions the victims may have had with the suspect.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, and new details are apparently emerging about Hicks keeping meticulous records associated with the whole "parking dispute" angle.

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (Reuters) - North Carolina prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a man who police say kept detailed notes on parking at his condominium complex before gunning down three young Muslims in a neighboring unit, according to documents released on Monday.

Craig Hicks, 46, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the Feb. 10 shooting deaths of a newlywed couple and the wife's sister about two miles from the University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill.

The Durham County District Attorney's Office said on Monday it filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty for Hicks last week.

A hearing will be held in early April for prosecutors to present their evidence to a judge, a member of the district attorney's office said.

The decision by prosecutors comes as federal and local investigators work to determine whether Hicks, a paralegal student who portrayed himself on Facebook as an atheist, was motivated by hatred toward the victims because of their religion.

Police have said their initial investigation indicated a dispute over parking may have prompted the killings, which drew international attention and sparked widespread use of the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter on social media.

Newly released search warrants indicate Hicks' wife suggested the theory of a parking incident as a possible motive.

A search of Hicks' computers showed he kept pictures and notes on parking activity in the lots around his condo, police said in the warrants.

Police seized a cache of firearms and ammunition from his home, according to the documents.

Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, a University of North Carolina dental student; his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, a student at North Carolina State University, were killed in the shooting.

Their families have urged authorities to investigate the case as a possible hate crime, saying Hicks had made the victims feel uncomfortable.

The search warrants show officers were reviewing the victims' cell phones to see if they contained any evidence of confrontations or interactions the victims may have had with the suspect.

I'm still not convinced on the "hate crime" angle, but I think it will very much depend on what Hicks was doing to "make the victims feel uncomfortable".

natpri771 wrote:
The evidence suggests that this was not a religiously motivated crime, but over a parking dispute

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.

Oh we definitely have hate crimes as an enhancement for crimes here.

Crimson Heretic wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.

Oh we definitely have hate crimes as an enhancement for crimes here.

hate crimes are not the easiest for prosecutors to push and win, unless he wrote die muslims on the front of there house after he killed them then it is not a slam dunk. The defense will argue it was motivated by anger towards the parking dispute. If it goes to jury its going to be quite hard to tip a jury towards siding with hate crime, seeing as the news has indirectly been brain washing us into thinking all muslims are future ISIS fighters. the united states judicial system is a very odd and clunky machine, sometimes it works as expected and sometimes it wanders off course and suprises everybody....best example i can think of off the top of my head..the OJ simpson trial...I was tought as a law student that everybody knew he did it, but they wanted to avoid a race war so they let him go.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Crimson Heretic wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If that jurisdiction has hate crimes enhancement, he should be charged with such.

Oh we definitely have hate crimes as an enhancement for crimes here.

hate crimes are not the easiest for prosecutors to push and win, unless he wrote die muslims on the front of there house after he killed them then it is not a slam dunk. The defense will argue it was motivated by anger towards the parking dispute. If it goes to jury its going to be quite hard to tip a jury towards siding with hate crime, seeing as the news has indirectly been brain washing us into thinking all muslims are future ISIS fighters. the united states judicial system is a very odd and clunky machine, sometimes it works as expected and sometimes it wanders off course and suprises everybody....best example i can think of off the top of my head..the OJ simpson trial...I was tought as a law student that everybody knew he did it, but they wanted to avoid a race war so they let him go.

Wut?

Were you seriously instructed in law school that the primary reason that OJ Simpson wasn't convicted was due to a govt conspiracy that wanted to avoid a race war? That's incredible.

I always thought that the lack of a weapon, a witness, a clear motive and the whole glove debacle were the key contributing factors to OJ avoiding a conviction.

Sorry for the off topic comment.

Crimson Heretic wrote:


yes my class was instructed of that, his legal team is still to this day considered one of the best of all time..but it was one of those trials that that showed how the judicial system can be engineered and swayed including jurys. Do i think he did it? i have no idea i was not present for the proceedings or discovery of evidence. Anyway back to the hate crime idea...it is possible but in this day and age its not an easy push in the religon department, with the news churning out articles/news casts about muslim violence in the middle east and how so many muslims are flocking to join ISIS, its putting good hearted none violent muslims in a bad light and programming us in our minds to think that too. Theres this strange cycle in human history where we show incredible hate and prejudice towards certain race/creed at certain points in history..the irish, the jews, the blacks, gypsys...is this crime sad? yes very..just trying to shine some light on the hate crime prosecution idea.

it is possible but in this day and age its not an easy push in the religon department, with the news churning out articles/news casts about muslim violence in the middle east and how so many muslims are flocking to join ISIS, its putting good hearted none violent muslims in a bad light and programming us in our minds to think that too. Theres this strange cycle in human history where we show incredible hate and prejudice towards certain race/creed at certain points in history..the irish, the jews, the blacks, gypsys...is this crime sad? yes very..just trying to shine some light on the hate crime prosecution idea.