Much is being made whether the massacre of nine black worshippers in the venerable Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston is properly considered a "hate crime" or "domestic terrorism."
Or, to be fair to opinions of the rest of us, both. "Hate Crime" belongs first and foremost. Here's why...
Hate Crime. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Dylann Roof entered the church, sat for an hour or so with parishioners, pulled out a 45-calibre handgun and killed nine people.
Even if he was not the author of the "killer manifesto" website, comments he made to his friends in the months before and the statement he made to people at the scene in the church establish the shooter's motives and intentions:
Mr. Roof talked wildly about hurting African-Americans, about doing something “crazy.”
“That’s when the gunman said: ‘Y’all are raping our women and taking over the country. This must be done,’ ” Ms. Johnson [Pastor Pinckney's cousin] recalled Ms. Sanders [Tywanza Sanders, whose life the shooter spared after killing her son next to her] telling her.
Authorities attributed the website, full of racist and white supremacist iconography, to Roof earlier today (Saturday, June 20).
According to the Washington Post:
“I have no choice,” reads part of that final section, titled An Explanation. “I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is [the] most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country.”
“I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared and brainwashed to fight,” the manifesto says. It also spurns patriotism as “people pretending like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets.”
Terrorism. Advocates wanting to term this massacre "domestic terrorism" make a strong case. Jelani Cobb, writing in
the New Yorker online:
The Patriot Act defines “domestic terrorism” as activities that:
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B)
appear to be intended—(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a
government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
At a minimum, the murders were intended to intimidate and coerce the black
civilian population of Charleston, and beyond. A friend of Roof ’s said that he
had talked about wanting to start a “race war”—something that Roof also
reportedly confessed to investigators. And he apparently based his acts on
vintage rationalizations for terrorist violence in American history. ...
The recalcitrant pledges to “take our country back” that began after [President Obama's] Inauguration were simply more genteel expressions of the sentiments that Roof articulated.
The fact that Roof appears to have acted without accomplices will inevitably be taken as solace. He will be dismissed as a deranged loner, connected to nothing broader. This is untrue. Even if he acted by himself, he was not alone.
Why Does It Matter? Yes, Dylann Storm Roof's acts of serial murder are undeniably both a hate crime and fit within the statutory definition of "domestic terrorism." The penalties for the two categories are roughly the same. The jurisdictions may be clearer if it's one or the other. (Terrorism typically is prosecuted as a Federal court matter, where the act can invoke death the death penalty. Hate crimes could be either state or Federal.) Perhaps additional law enforcement resources can be brought to bear if "terrorism" is explicitly invoked. If so, the argument for using that term becomes stronger. But ...
... does it matter?
It matters to those who favor labeling it terrorism because that acknowledges such a reprehensible act can be leveled at black people, singling them out.
It matters - to me - that it's labelled a hate crime and acknowledged as such because we can address racism. Addressing terrorism is amorphous. Everyone can abhor terrorism, even Fox News. Calling out racism, abhorring it, teaching our children how awful it is - those put the burden of dealing with racism where it belongs. Squarely on us. Each of us.