The campaign by Muslims to rewrite Hicks’s history, to de-emphasize his obsessing over parking and noise and to claim, without the slightest evidence, that he was “anti-Muslim,” has succeeded. “It was a bias crime” has become the accepted narrative. On the day of his sentencing, District Attorney Santana Deberry said: “There was no plea offered to Craig Hicks today. There was no negotiation with him. His hate of Islam drove him to kill three innocent people. He gets no deals. He is now where he should be – relegated to a footnote in history.”
What “hate of Islam drove him to kill three innocent people”? This is what CAIR and Linda Sarsour and the victims’ relatives want the world to believe, but where is the evidence? Why was the prosecutor, Santana Deberry, unable to present a single negative statement by Craig Hicks, written or oral, about Islam? You can be sure that had there been any such remark, she would have quoted it at trial. But she didn’t. Resentment at his station in life caused Hicks to angrily obsess over noise and parking spaces. These were things that, by complaining to others, he could control. At his apartment complex he could be master of his situation, reading others the riot act if they took up more parking spaces than they were entitled to, or made too much noise.
The prosecutor described Hicks as a “professed atheist.” More accurately, he was virulently anti-Christian. He went to anti-Christian websites. Why does she not mention his anti-Christian views? Because it would have complicated her attempts to construct a narrative of an “anti-Muslim hate crime.”
There has not been any evidence presented, written or oral, of Hicks holding anti-Muslim views. All the prosecution could offer was the single statement of a psychologist whose views we are presumably to uncritically accept:
A licensed psychologist testified that the parking dispute had nothing to do with the murders. The psychologist said Hicks viewed the victims with bias and it was that bias that fueled his motive to seek out and intentionally kill the three Muslim students.
No doubt in his meetings with Hicks, the psychologist tried to probe, tried to get him to say something anti-Muslim on tape, but failed — otherwise such a remark would have been quoted by the prosecutor. Instead, this “licensed psychologist” testified that “the parking dispute had nothing to do with the murders” and that “Hicks viewed the victims with bias.” The psychologist offered no evidence for either remark. It was a conclusion arrived at not on the basis of evidence, but on the psychologist’s desire to please the prosecutor and the relatives of the victims, who all along have been dead set on making everyone see these murders solely as an anti-Muslim hate crime and have managed, unfortunately, to impose their false narrative on the American public.
There have been a handful of dissenters. At the website friendlyatheist.pantheos.com, Hemant Mehta concludes his report on Hicks’s sentencing thus: “The families are upset that hate crime charges weren’t brought against Hicks, but that still appears to be the right call, at least legally. Criticizing religion isn’t hate on its own, and all the available evidence in this case suggested that the victims’ faith wasn’t the cause of Hicks’ rage.” And Mehta might have added that Hicks never criticized Islam; Christianity, however, was the frequent target of his ire.
After the sentencing, relatives of the victims in the court continued to repeat the “anti-Muslim bias” narrative:
Yusif Mohammad Abu-Salha, brother to Yusor and Razan, addressed the court after his father, calling Hicks “a coward, a small man, a monster, a failure.”
“You executed my sisters and best friend in cold blood, out of pure hatred,” Abu-Salha said while staring at Hicks.
“You hated them for being Muslim. Deah was much larger than you, he did not fear you.
There is no evidence that Craig Hicks hated Deah, Yusor, and Razan ”for being Muslim.” In fact, he not have hated them at all. His sudden upsurge of murderous fury is not the same thing as steadfast hate. When he came to their apartment to complain about their using too many parking spaces, Barakat responded that they were using no more spaces than condo rules allow. Hicks then said — as recorded on Barakat’s cell phone — “You’re going to be disrespectful towards me, I’m going to be disrespectful …” At that point he pulled a gun from his waist and fired several times. If it were a hate crime, wouldn’t one expect Hicks to say something derogatory about Muslims, such as “I’m tired of arguing with you Muslims” or “why don’t you go back where you came from” or any slight acknowledgement that their being Muslims had fed his rage. At that very moment, however, all Hicks said was “You’re going be disrespectful towards me. I’m going to be disrespectful [right back].”
Deah Barakat’s sister also spoke in court, explaining there is “no true justice as long as Deah, Yusor and Razan are robbed of their lives.”
“I still can’t process looking down into Deah’s casket, lips blue, front tooth chipped from a bullet and giving him the last kiss on his cold, ice forehead,” Barakat said.
“In our current political climate, it is not only acceptable but indeed advantageous to demonize Muslims”
“Let’s call this what it is — a terrorist attack,” Barakat added.
These charges are both false and grotesque. Who’s been demonizing Muslims? If he means the so-called “Muslim ban” by Trump, he knows perfectly well that two of the seven countries affected by that ban are non-Muslim, that the reason for inclusion under the ban was the inability of certain countries to adequately monitor the terrorist threat from their own citizens; finally, 95% of the world’s Muslims remain unaffected by the ban. Where is it “advantageous” to “demonize” Muslims? Examples, please. What is really going on is that organized Muslims have managed to demonize sober islamocritics as “islamophobes” and “racists.” Hicks did not ever “demonize Muslims.” He never once criticized any Muslim for being a Muslim. He never criticized the ideology of Islam.
Even more outrageous is Barakat’s charge that the killing of three people because of a long-running parking dispute was a “terrorist attack” targeting Muslims. Was Craig Hicks intent on ‘terrorizing” these or any other Muslims? No. Did he seek to “strike terror” in the hearts of Muslims the way Muslims, following Qur’anic verses (e.g., 8;12, 8:60, 47:4) are commanded to do with Infidels? No, he only wanted his neighbors, including the three who happened to be Muslims, to simply follow the parking regulations of the apartment complex and to keep noises from their apartments down. Was he unusually obsessive about these two matters? Yes. Did his final explosion — his uncontrollable rage — constitute a “terrorist attack”? No.
The prosecutor was nonetheless determined to see anti-Muslim bias where there was none — it’s what the relatives wanted, it’s what CAIR and Linda Sarsour wanted, it’s what all right-thinking people wanted us to believe, it’s the narrative the mainstream media from the beginning accepted and disseminated, of an anti-Muslim crime. Even if the prosecutor determined that there was “not enough evidence” — in fact, there was none — of a “hate crime,” she continued to talk about this as a “bias crime.” Her mind was made up long ago, and nothing would change it.
He was emphatic about enforcing the complex’s parking regulations and griped when he thought [a neighbor] made too much noise with friends.
One hopes, now that the sentencing phase is over, some will begin to question the specious narrative first spun by Muslims from CAIR and by the victims’ relatives, and then by the prosecutor (aided and abetted by that “licensed psychologist”), a narrative which insists this was a bias crime even if “there was not enough evidence to charge Hicks” with it. How many of us realize that despite these assertions of a hate crime, it was not a question of there being “not enough evidence” to support that charge, but, rather, that there was not a shred of evidence to support the charge that Craig Hicks harbored anti-Muslim views?
Hicks’ wife Karen said that her husband was an angry man, but not prejudiced.
“This incident had nothing to do with religion or victims’ faith, but instead had to do with the longstanding parking disputes that my husband had with the neighbors,” she said. “He often champions on his Facebook page for the rights of many individuals. Same sex marriages, abortion, race, he just believes that everyone is equal. Doesn’t matter what you look like or who you are or what you believe.”
Imad Ahmad, Barakat’s former roommate, said the victims had faced Hicks’ anger before.
“He would come over to the door, knock on the door and then have a gun on his hip saying, ‘You guys need to not park here,’” Ahmad told the Associated Press. “He did it again after [Yusor and Deah] got married.”
Note that Hicks didn’t address them, or single them out, as Muslims. They were simply “guys”: “you guys need to not park here.”
Early on, Chapel Hill police said that they hadn’t ruled out the idea that the shooting was “hate-motivated,” but they strongly doubted it, and during the investigation they insisted an ongoing parking dispute fueled Hicks’s wrath.
Some Muslims in Chapel Hill as well as the victims’ family and friends refused to accept that as the motive. Dr. Mohammad Abu-Salha, the slain sisters’ father, called for a federal probe into what he says “has hate crime written all over it.”
A day after the sentences were handed down, the Chief of Police of Chapel Hill released a letter, the first paragraph of which seemed to suggest that yes, the police now agreed that Hicks’s attack did involve bias:
A Statement from Chapel Hill Police Chief Chris Blue
Post Date:06/12/2019 5:31 PMFrom Chapel Hill Police Chief and Executive Director for Community Safety Chris Blue:
“What we all know now and what I wish we had said four years ago is that the murders of Deah, Yusor, and Razan were about more than simply a parking dispute. The man who committed these murders undoubtedly did so with a hateful heart, and the murders represented the taking of three promising lives by someone who clearly chose not to see the humanity and the goodness in them. To the Abu-Salha and Barakat families, we extend our sincere regret that any part of our message all those years ago added to the pain you experienced through the loss of Our Three Winners. And, to the Muslim members of our community, know that you are heard, seen, and valued.
I suspect this letter was written under pressure from both the District Attorney and the relatives of the three people killed. At the time of the killing, the police had said there was no evidence that it was anything other than “a parking dispute.” That was true then, and it remains true today. But Chief Chris Blue now says that was wrong; “I wish we had said four years ago…that the murders of Deah, Yusor, and Razan were about more than simply a parking dispute. The man who committed these murders undoubtedly did so with a hateful heart…” But Chief Blue offers no new evidence for his claim that the murders were “about more than…a parking dispute.” And he does not deny that the parking dispute did have something to do with the killings, thus flatly contradicting the psychologist’s assertion that a parking dispute had “nothing” to do with them. Chief Blue offers no evidence that Hicks carried out his crimes with “a hateful heart.” The only thing that is new is that the narrative created by Muslims, that this was a bias crime, is now being accepted by the Police Chief, who must surely have been pushed to accept that narrative. This should please CAIR, that senses it is winning and may now call for a federal investigation into what will apparently be known as the Chapel Hill “anti-Muslim hate crime murders.”
mortimer says
Parking is becoming a very contentious issue in many cities and if someone is already on edge and even unhinged psychologically, this could be a trigger. An angry atheist might be motivated to punish religious people for the fun of it, but this is part of Hicks’s neurosis.
While Hicks’s motive is not completely clear, the motive of JIHADIST KILLERS is perfectly clear … the 164 jihad verses in the Koran and hundreds of pages on jihad in the hadiths and the canonical commentaries promoting jihad that are based on Islam’s primary source texts.
Martin says
If Craig Hicks had made one known post on this site – Jihad Watch – we’d have heard about it. Every single one of us who have ever posted on this site would have it used against us as “proof” of Islamo-hatred in a court of law.
PRCS says
While the murders were not a trivial matter:
CAIR’s Nihad Awad–ever eager to assign hate and Islamophobia to even the slightest criticism of Islam–asserted:
“Today’s court proceeding confirmed what the Muslim community knew four years ago: Deah, Yusor, and Razan were killed because they were Muslims by a man who hated Muslims. This was a hate crime.”
Leon Degney says
Muslims, always the victims.
Muhammad says
There is no denial that this criminal is full of hate and he hate Muslims my proof is that he didn’t take his gun to bully other neighbors who were not Muslims he especially bullied his 3 young successful Muslim neighbors who were students in dental college. his lousy failed life and his ignorance is clear.
Naildriver says
Islam is an enemy to mankind on many levels, and is always openly threatening by its written directives — and such directives are claimed to be from god — with death for those who are perceived to insult Islam, or its prophet. Simply blatant directives asking devotees to kill Islam’s enemies.
Just because most Muslims are not a mortal threat in most confrontations should not mean they do not benefit from Islam’s menace and promote a hostile environment with their garments. If they sometimes get killed for the reason of ‘putting terror in the hearts,’ the courts need to look closely and mitigate crimes owing to the menace the suspect was confronted with by the Muslim.
A ‘stand your ground law’ would be appropriate in confrontations with Muslims.
PRCS says
While the acronym ‘CAIR’ (Concil on American Islamic Relations) cluelessly affirms the difference between America and Islam:
Labeling those three murdered people ‘Our Three Winners’ seems even more ridiculous.
Angemon says
Possibly with the help of the court of public opinion – “everyone knows the truth. Why don’t you acknowledge it? What are you, a bigot?”
Brian hoff says
Hick murder two muslim woman and one muslim man in cold blood his reason for doing so doesnot matter at all.
Angemon says
defender of islam posted:
“his reason for doing so doesnot matter at all.”
Why is it, then, that there’s a push for making believe it was due to anti-muslim bigotry? Also, why so specific? “murder two muslim woman and one muslim man” instead of, for example, “murdered three people”? Are you only outraged if the victims are muslim?
Angemon says
BTW: reason is of utmost importance. Someone who loses control of a car and kills three people won’t get the same sentence as someone who murders three people in cold blood. I imagine that, for you, reason doesn’t matter – al you need to know is that a filthy kaffir murdered three muslims. Am I right?
gravenimage says
Good posts, Angemon.
gravenimage says
“Brian hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–has said many times that he intends to impose Shari’ah law on us. So, in this case he and his coreligionists would go on a rampage, murdering every non-Muslim they could get their hands on–that’s what he really means.
gravenimage says
Craig Hicks Sentenced to Life for Killing Three Neighbors (Part 2)
…………………………
Of course killing over a parking dispute–disgusting as this is–has nothing to do with religion.
Relic says
history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4JMYo3qyR8
Muhammad says
This is a hate crime the only thing he is not executed is because he pled guilty.
Naildriver says
If, for example, in a heated exchange, a Muslim yells ‘By Allah! May Mohammed curse you!’, at another, over some parking spot, and he may even be referring to his aged dad sitting next to him who spilled his milk shake all over his lap resulting from the braking, and the other man yells back ‘Mohammed and your Allah’ can go to hell!’
The other man knows he’s stepped on this Muslim’s religion – could be fighting words, but the Muslim laid them out there to be stepped on.
So it escalates; say, his passenger tells him that in Islam that guy is expected to kill you, for insulting Mohammed and Islam — so, the guy concerned says, “keep your hands visible!’ but, the Muslim reaches for something that appears to be a bottle of liquid — just water but he appears to be ready to throw it — it’s the rest of the milkshake, and walks toward him — the other aware Muslims often throw acid, pulls his gun shoots the Muslim — should he be charged as in this case?
I don’t think so.
Till laws are passed to adjust for Islam’s inherent broadcasting of provocations and intimidation by its mere presence, such violence should be adjusted to favor the threatened individual, and the burden of proof needs to be presented to show a non-Muslim was not threatened.
This would make Muslims second class citizens — but they are, owing to Islam.
Brian hoff says
Alot of you are trying to get Hick off thr hook. First he murder 3 muslim in cold blood. His wife lie about it was than parking dispute.
Angemon says
“Alot of you are trying to get Hick off thr hook.”
What do you mean, “off the hook”? No one here argued that he didn’t kill those 3 people. Ah, you’re talking about the charge of “islamophobia”. Nope – there is no hook to take him out off. The motive for the murder was not “islamophobia” – not according to the evidence.
“First he murder 3 muslim in cold blood. His wife lie about it was than parking dispute.”
Prove that his wife lied. Prove that the reason for the murder was not a parking dispute but this imaginary “islamophobia” you’re trying to peddle.