Sikh temple shooting and racism

[naronic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sikh-t emple-shooter-was-military-veteran-who-lived-nearby/2012/08/
06/648d8134-dfbd-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.html

OAK CREEK, Wis. âEU" The man who allegedly shot and killed six people inside a Sikh temple south of Milwaukee on Sunday was a military veteran from a neighboring community, Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards said Monday morning.

A senior law enforcement official identified him as Wade Michael Page, 40, a six-year Army enlistee who rose to the rank of sergeant before being demoted to specialist and leaving the military in 1998.

Police in Wisconsin say one suspect has been "put down" outside a Sikh temple and they do not know if other shooters are inside the building Authorities were called to the temple Sunday morning with a report of shots fired.

Page was fatally shot by a police officer in the parking lot after he allegedly shot a different police officer at close range. Edwards said police were investigating reports that the shooter, who was white, may have harbored extreme racial views. And the Southern Poverty Law Center reported on its Web site that Page was âEUoea frustrated neo-Nazi who had been the leader of a racist white-power bandâEU called âEUoeEnd Apathy.âEU

What is with these 2 latest decades so far?

[Jmayer20]

I'm more interested in what the police have to say rather then the news. The news has a tendency to speculate or jump to conclusions. Have the police searched the guys place and found anything that explains why he did it? Like a letter or a diary.

[naronic]

At 8/6/12 11:52 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: I'm more interested in what the police have to say rather then the news. The news has a tendency to speculate or jump to conclusions. Have the police searched the guys place and found anything that explains why he did it? Like a letter or a diary.

Not that I know of but this might shed a little more info

[Camarohusky]

This brings up a subtle issue that is very important, yet very neglected: post discharge mental health for veterans.

I haven't heard anything bout possible mental health issues, but the following equation is often true: mass shooting + prior military service = PTSD or other battle sustained mental illness.

2 questions:
First - If the military knew he had PTSD, was he recieving mental help? (the fact he shot up a temple indicates that either his diagnosis or help was likely insufficient)
Second - If the military did not know he had a mental illness, why not? PTSD is extremely common, as well as other forms of shell shock and battle sustained mental issues. Shouldn't the military, who trains its soldiers to kill without remorse, also have some hand in ensuring those skills are not utilized in civilian life?

[Feoric]

The guy was heavily involved in online white supremacist groups. I think him being a legit neo-nazi has more to do with this than his past military experience.

[Warforger]

I like how people were automatically assuming it was some anti-Muslim attack when it was just a plain ol' Neo-Nazi attack. I guess that pretty much settles it then, nothing more to discuss.

At 8/6/12 01:03 PM, Korriken wrote: He probably couldnt tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.

Um it doesn't seem like he cared, he only cared about race and since they were brown and not white they needed to die in his eyes.

[Iron-Hampster]

He was a terrorist, he wanted to draw attention to his cause just like breivik did.

But we don't use the word "terrorist" for white people very often.

[naronic]

At 8/6/12 02:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This brings up a subtle issue that is very important, yet very neglected: post discharge mental health for veterans.

I haven't heard anything bout possible mental health issues, but the following equation is often true: mass shooting + prior military service = PTSD or other battle sustained mental illness.

He was kicked out of the military in 1999 and has done nothing but promote white supremacy since.
I'm pretty sure he's just an all around jerk.

[Feoric]

At 8/6/12 03:20 PM, Warforger wrote: I like how people were automatically assuming it was some anti-Muslim attack when it was just a plain ol' Neo-Nazi attack.

How many neo-nazi's go after Sikhs? Honestly, how many of you never heard of them until now? I think it's pretty clear he wanted to target Muslims but he was a moron and didn't know it's possible to wear a turban and be of another religious denomination.

[TheMason]

At 8/6/12 02:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This brings up a subtle issue that is very important, yet very neglected: post discharge mental health for veterans.

I haven't heard anything bout possible mental health issues, but the following equation is often true: mass shooting + prior military service = PTSD or other battle sustained mental illness.

I'm trying to figure out: what mass shootings have been done by a guy with prior military service? The big one that comes to mind is U of Texas-Austin in 1966.

Furthermore, he was discharged in 1998 with only 6 years service so he served from 1992. So I doubt that he really saw that much action during that time frame.

2 questions:
First - If the military knew he had PTSD, was he recieving mental help? (the fact he shot up a temple indicates that either his diagnosis or help was likely insufficient)

He was a veteran...not a retiree. There is a difference. If he started developing a mental illness after his service (or it went undiagnosied while he was in)...no the military did not have a way of giving help.

Second - If the military did not know he had a mental illness, why not? PTSD is extremely common, as well as other forms of shell shock and battle sustained mental issues. Shouldn't the military, who trains its soldiers to kill without remorse, also have some hand in ensuring those skills are not utilized in civilian life?

It's actually not the military's responsibility. Nor should it be. If anything; it's the VA that needs to take the lead on this.

[Jmayer20]

Look your all jumping to conclusions. Until the police find evidence saying why he did it and the police announce it you are all just guessing as to why he did it.

[Camarohusky]

This also brings up another issue: the relationship between hate crimes and terrorism.

Assuming the attack indeed was fueled by a supremacist fervor (we do not know yet, as has been correctly pointed out) would this be a hate crime, or terrorism? Is it both? Should we even distinguish the two?

Terrorism is defined as using violence to influence or coerce a civilian population.
Hate crimes are crimes committed based on the perception of the victim's status, and have the purpose of influencing and coercing the civilian population among that group.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/6/12 01:03 PM, Korriken wrote: may he rot in hell like the piece of shit he was. may god have no mercy on his soul.

Would that be a Sikh hell...which seeing as they believe god is the Creator, Sustainer & Destroyer may not exist. Seeing as they believe that you can only be with god if you can achieve enlightenment...other wise you just keep being reborn, live , die an endless cycle .... which from my point of view is pretty good, seeing I like life. I don't want to merge with god ( & I sure as hell don't want to be sitting around heaven singing god's praises for eternity... Fuck that sounds like HELL to me !)

Or is it possible that if the 'piece of shit' AKA murderer was proably a Christian, does God or in Christianity's case the devil claim him as his property ?

..... it seems to get even more complicated when yer dealing with multiple belief systems & you got multiple dieties involved ~;p

Not only that i have always had a problem iththe Devil...not with him particularly...but if he is an EVIL being, one who loves death & distruction & chaos...wouldn't a murdering piece of shit be welcomed with open arms in hell & given the keys to the furnaces ...so to speak

[Warforger]

At 8/6/12 04:00 PM, Feoric wrote: How many neo-nazi's go after Sikhs? Honestly, how many of you never heard of them until now? I think it's pretty clear he wanted to target Muslims but he was a moron and didn't know it's possible to wear a turban and be of another religious denomination.

It didn't matter if they were Sikh or Muslim now did it? They're still a racial minority either way so I doubt he would've done anything differently.

At 8/6/12 05:25 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: Look your all jumping to conclusions. Until the police find evidence saying why he did it and the police announce it you are all just guessing as to why he did it.

He was a Neo-Nazi who was part of a band called "End Apathy" I think it isn't much of a leap to say he just wanted to kill minorities.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/6/12 09:31 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Neither. It's six counts of first-degree murder, and several more counts of attempted murder, or at least it should be. I see no moral or logical basis for calling murder by a different name based solely on the victims' skin colors.

This is not how hate crimes should work, but sadly this is often how it plays out. The factor that makes a hate crime is the intent to intimidate a group of people through violence. The mere difference in race should not ever be grounds for a hate crime. However, no one can deny that an attack directed at a race becuse of their race is far more potent and has a much larger effect on the community than a regular crime.

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 8/6/12 02:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This brings up a subtle issue that is very important, yet very neglected: post discharge mental health for veterans.

I haven't heard anything bout possible mental health issues, but the following equation is often true: mass shooting + prior military service = PTSD or other battle sustained mental illness.

He enlisted in the Army during the "give peace a chance" '90s. You know, when one black dude got his ass kicked by the LAPD and another black dude got away with murder (also ironically in LA). His job was performing maintenance and repair on missiles, and most likely was not deployed in any combat role. Also, his specific job probably meant he had to obtain a security clearance, so the fact that his rampant rantings about "race wars" and his involvement with white supremacy was either looked over during his clearance process (and his recruiting process), or he flat-out lied about it.

So far, interviews that I've read from people who knew him before mentioned that he constantly ranted about impending race wars, yet all of them seemed to say the same thing; "Yeah, he really hated non-white people and spoke about one day when we're all going to basically kill each other... But other than that I didn't see any red flags that would lead me to believe that he was crazy or violent." It's pretty shitty that neo-nazi rhetoric isn't really a "red flag" to a lot of people...

2 questions:
First - If the military knew he had PTSD, was he recieving mental help? (the fact he shot up a temple indicates that either his diagnosis or help was likely insufficient)

Again; probably not a mental health issue. Even if so, he would be treated by the VA. As a veteran who was discharged early for attempting suicide, I will only refer to my refusal to ever step into a VA clinic as testimony to the effectiveness they have with mental health.

Second - If the military did not know he had a mental illness, why not? PTSD is extremely common, as well as other forms of shell shock and battle sustained mental issues. Shouldn't the military, who trains its soldiers to kill without remorse, also have some hand in ensuring those skills are not utilized in civilian life?

The military doesn't train it's members to kill people with no remorse. It teaches you to do your assigned job, and if that happens to mean that you may kill a person, you are taught rules of engagement and that your job is defense, not slaughter. It just so happens that a lot of people with an itch to kill people happen to join the military and take their jobs as a right to kill. That's more a result of a government who needs to fill positions with any willing and able body without weeding out that sort of mentality. Of course it isn't like we'll reenact any sort of draft anytime soon anyway, so I guess we're just stuck with that.

[Dawnslayer]

At 8/6/12 06:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This also brings up another issue: the relationship between hate crimes and terrorism.

Assuming the attack indeed was fueled by a supremacist fervor (we do not know yet, as has been correctly pointed out) would this be a hate crime, or terrorism? Is it both? Should we even distinguish the two?

Not to derail the topic at hand, but with the given definitions of each I would say it is possible to commit an act of terrorism without committing a hate crime in the process. Granted, the root cause of terrorism is typically hatred of a particular group, but it is not the only cause which is possible.