Translate

Monday, November 28, 2016

Was the Ohio State Attack an Act of Jihad?

Hat tip Jihad Watch


The man who went on a stabbing spree today at Ohio State University before being shot dead by police has not been officially identified as yet, however reports are coming in that he is a Somali refugee. Jihad Watch has the tentative report.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/11/ohio-state-university-jihad-attacker-reportedly-somali-refugee-osu-student

If so, I can't wait for the news media to ask, "The search for a motive is underway."

Oops.

"The suspect's name was not released, but law enforcement officials told NBC News he was an 18-year-old Ohio State student, a Somali refugee who was a legal permanent resident of the United States.
The motive was unknown, but officials said the attack was clearly deliberate and may have been planned in advance."
-NBC

Talk about answering your own question.


4 comments:

Siarlys Jenkins said...

As any district attorney will tell you, motive is not a necessary element to establish that a criminal offense was committed, or who committed it. Motive can be additional supportive evidence. American law is at its best when it dispassionately prosecutes a criminal act for what it was, a criminal act, and does not accept motive as either exculpatory or aggravating.

This is why I oppose so-called "hate crime" laws. A white supremacist thinks that the nature of their target elevates the crime above the common herd. It does not. The law should not give them any such satisfaction.

Incidentally, on any given day, most Somali residents of the United States are NOT going on any rampage. In fact, the family on the next block down the street from me are good neighbors, wave and say hi when I ride my bike past their house, and the adult male husband and father is a polite, hard-working cab driver.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

As any district attorney will tell you, motive is not a necessary element to establish that a criminal offense was committed, or who committed it. Motive can be additional supportive evidence. American law is at its best when it dispassionately prosecutes a criminal act for what it was, a criminal act, and does not accept motive as either exculpatory or aggravating.

This is why I oppose so-called "hate crime" laws. A white supremacist thinks that the nature of their target elevates the crime above the common herd. It does not. The law should not give them any such satisfaction.

Incidentally, on any given day, most Somali residents of the United States are NOT going on any rampage. In fact, the family on the next block down the street from me are good neighbors, wave and say hi when I ride my bike past their house, and the adult male husband and father is a polite, hard-working cab driver.

Gary Fouse said...

I have always said that motive is an element of proof not the crime itself. In addition, hate crimes must be prosecuted equally. That driver in Chicago who was beaten up was not considered a victim of a hate crime by the police. Hardly equal treatment.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

No, hate crime laws only confuse the picture. A crime is a crime is a crime. Hate crime laws let the perp feel like they're being persecuted for their righteous beliefs. No hate crime. Murder is murder is murder. Battery is battery is battery. Period. End of story.