Charleston shooter faces federal hate crime charges: Is it enough?

Officials say Dylann Roof will be indicted on federal hate crime charges Wednesday.

|
Randall Hill/Reuters
Dylann Roof (r.), the 21-year-old man charged with murdering nine worshippers at a historic black church in Charleston last month, listens to the proceedings with assistant defense attorney William Maguire during a hearing at the Judicial Center in Charleston, S.C., July 16.

Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old man charged with killing nine black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., last month, will be indicted on federal hate crime charges on Wednesday, according to media reports.

An anonymous official close to the case told the Associated Press that a grand jury will indict Mr. Roof, who already faces state charges including nine counts of murder. He could face the death penalty if found guilty. US Attorney General Loretta Lynch is expected to formally announce the charges at a 3 p.m. press conference.

The indictment has been expected since Roof’s arrest on June 17, when authorities began investigating the shootings at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church as a hate crime. 

A hate crime is defined by Congress as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” 

Roof, a white man, is thought to have authored a racist online manifesto and appeared in several photos with Confederate flags. 

“I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country,” reads one passage on his website, "The Last Rhodesian." “We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.”

There has been little question from the start of the investigation that the attack was racially motivated – hence the hate crime charges. But some argue that the mass killing should be considered an act of terrorism instead. 

“Many maintain that a ‘hate crime’ is an individual act, easily dismissed, while ‘terrorism’ evokes the sense of an ‘other’ who has attacked the national family as a whole,” The Christian Science Monitor’s Harry Bruinius wrote two days after the attack. 

If Roof had been black and the victims white, some experts say, he would be considered a terrorist. 

“While white suspects are lone wolfs ... violence by black and Muslim people is systemic, demanding response and action from all who share their race or religion,” wrote Anthea Butler, professor of religion and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, in an essay in The Washington Post.

Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, stressed to the Monitor the importance of using the term “terrorist” rather than “hate crime” to demonstrate to Americans “how severe and dangerous” crimes such as Roof’s are. 

“If we just say it’s mental illness or just a senseless act of violence, then it sends a message to other people that it’s not that close to them, that it’s not as grave of a crime,” Ms. Sarsour said. “Then we end up detracting from a very important conversation about the nature of domestic white male supremacist terrorism.”

This report includes material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Charleston shooter faces federal hate crime charges: Is it enough?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0722/Charleston-shooter-faces-federal-hate-crime-charges-Is-it-enough
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe