Wisconsin Temple Shooter Aledgedly Singer of Band, "End Apathy." Do We Know Him?

[Jerry_L]

 

No. But interesting that he chose an obscure faith that dresses much like many devout Muslims do instead of shooting up, say, the Jewish synagogue or Buddist temple.

 

 

Maybe the Sikh temple was closer to his home, or wherever he stashed his weapons. There's zero evidence that he thought he was attacking Muslims.

 

Besides, he might have tried the synagogue, and then discovered it was pretty empty on a Sunday morning.

[Jerry_L]

 

Of course, most of the victims certainly were Aryans . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

 

 

True, but hard-core haters are not very rational. He might have thought he was attacking Muslims, but the fact that they were non-whites was probably enough.

[Lee Knight]

He was reportedly very intense about 9/11 even having a substantially sized tattoo among his other gnarly tats. He saw guys in turbans. Simple for him. He was simple.

[JeffLearman]

Maybe the Sikh temple was closer to his home, or wherever he stashed his weapons. There's zero evidence that he thought he was attacking Muslims. Besides, he might have tried the synagogue, and then discovered it was pretty empty on a Sunday morning.

Right: it's just conjecture, but as conjecture goes, it's pretty good; a lot more likely than any of the alternatives you've offered.

[Jerry_L]

 

He was reportedly very intense about 9/11 even having a substantially sized tattoo among his other gnarly tats. He saw guys in turbans. Simple for him. He was simple.

 

 

O.K., but unless he had some personal gripe against that particular temple or it's members, it was a hate crime. And it certainly wouldn't be any less criminal if he had gone to a mosque instead.

[JeffLearman]

 

O.K., but unless he had some personal gripe against that particular temple or it's members, it was a hate crime. And it certainly wouldn't be any less criminal if he had gone to a mosque instead.

No doubt about that, except I'd call it a hate crime even if it was specific to that temple.

 

My guess it was a hate crime where he misidentified his target.

[Jerry_L]

 

No doubt about that, except I'd call it a hate crime even if it was specific to that temple. My guess it was a hate crime where he misidentified his target.

 

 

I would not consider it a hate crime if it was specific to that temple for some personal financial reason, like if he was a contractor who had done work for them and felt he was underpaid.

[JeffLearman]

I would not consider it a hate crime if it was specific to that temple for some financial reason.

A financial reason for gunning down people at random? Anyway, what are the odds of that? The guy was a rampant racist. It's pretty reasonable to suspect he had racists motives for his attack. It's also pretty reasonable to suspect that he was deranged and was not acting rationally, regardless of his motivation.

[Jerry_L]

Actually the 9/11 tattoo is evidence, but not confirming evidence. I wasn't sure if the 9/11 tattoo itself was confirmed, but it seems to be.

[Jerry_L]

 

A financial reason for gunning down people at random? Anyway, what are the odds of that? The guy was a rampant racist. It's pretty reasonable to suspect he had racists motives for his attack. It's also pretty reasonable to suspect that he was deranged and was not acting rationally, regardless of his motivation.

 

 

The odds are somewhat irrelevant to justice. A fair unbiased investigation has to be made. Justice should not be based on hearsay and innuendo.

 

Legally it's not a hate crime, though. There's no witness testimony that I know of that he yelled any racial epithets, which is the standard of definition.

[Lee Knight]

O.K., but unless he had some personal gripe against that particular temple or it's members, it was a hate crime. And it certainly wouldn't be any less criminal if he had gone to a mosque instead.

 

 

Of course!

[Lee Knight]

"Hate crime" or no... do we really care about the semantics? I don't think so. The guy hated and he killed. He was a killer. Plain and sadly... simple.

[Lee Flier]

 

"Hate crime" or no... do we really care about the semantics?

 

 

Technically, we do. The "hate crime" designation exists for specific reasons. A hate crime is a federal offense, so that means the feds can get involved. The reason this is important is that there are still many places where racism is acceptable to the locals, and local courts and law enforcement would not charge or convict someone who say, beat a man to death because he was black, or gay, because most of the town happens to believe killing a black or gay person is OK.

 

In this case, it's not really relevant, because it's already being investigated by the FBI as a domestic terror incident, which is much more clear cut.

[Lee Flier]

 

Legally it's not a hate crime, though. There's no witness testimony that I know of that he yelled any racial epithets, which is the standard of definition.

 

 

Like I said, it's not really relevant because this is being treated as domestic terrorism as opposed to a hate crime. But just FYI, that's not the standard of definition for a hate crime. It certainly makes it easy to charge someone with a hate crime if they went around yelling racial slurs at the victim, but it's not the only standard that is used. If someone can be proven to have a history of racial prejudice, for instance, that can be used to prove that a crime was racially motivated. This guy belonging to a white supremacist group and being in a band that preached racial hatred would certainly qualify.

[JeffLearman]

 

The odds are somewhat irrelevant to justice. A fair unbiased investigation has to be made. Justice should not be based on hearsay and innuendo. Legally it's not a hate crime, though. There's no witness testimony that I know of that he yelled any racial epithets, which is the standard of definition.

I'm not talking about justice. I'm talking about discussions. The result of our discussions is not going to affect whether the guy goes to jail. He's dead.

 

Anyway, we're just picking nits. Let's move on. I think it's likely that the guy was perpretating a hate crime. I think it's also likely that he didn't understand that his targets weren't Islamic. You say we don't have proof of that, and you're right.

[Lee Knight]

Technically, we do. The "hate crime" designation exists for specific reasons. A hate crime is a federal offense, so that means the feds can get involved. The reason this is important is that there are still many places where racism is acceptable to the locals, and local courts and law enforcement would not charge or convict someone who say, beat a man to death because he was black, or gay, because most of the town happens to believe killing a black or gay person is OK. In this case, it's not really relevant, because it's already being investigated by the FBI as a domestic terror incident, which is much more clear cut.

 

 

Good point. But a lot of times I see strange clouds of logic hover over these incidents. Hate crimes. Yes or no? Your point is a good one, that designation could help to fry his ass if it wasn't fried already. But the fact is this is pretty simple stuff. Painful and senseless beyond belief, but simple none the less.

 

He valued what he perceived as his way of life, over other's rights. Valued it over their lives. And he was stupid and violent. A bad, but increasingly prevalent combo.

[elsongs]

As an aside, besides my musical exploits, I'm also a writer...I write this recently for Los Angeles TV station KCET's website:

 

Connected to Tragedy, SoCal Sikhs Find Sympathy, Security, Solace

[electrochrisso]

This is as silly as it gets in Australia, would this be allowed to happen in the US.

http://www.news.com.au/national/qc-helps-hoddle-street-killer-julian-knights-feredom-bid/story-fndo4cq1-1226443550706