It seems from numerous news reports that the victims were parking in his spot despite numerous complaints over lengthy periods of time to them personally and to their property manager from the murderer.

Look, no one is saying one should get shot in the head for being an ass. I just think it's disingenuous when we all pretend that we don't understand that this dude was dealing with some jackasses who happened to be Muslims and he lost it one day when they finally parked in his spot one time too many.

I wouldn't shoot a person in the head over a parking spot, but I live in NYC...I understand his frustration.

They would have been able to if they didn't keep bothering and inciting the wrong man over his parking spot.

whaderaas . . . wha kind of sick manoeuvre is this?

are you so bereft and idle that u need to manufacture talking points out of absolutely nothing to ride . . .

The word is "maneuver." We're in America. Only pretentious stupid people feel the need to resort to the British spelling without some highly specific context. This wasn't one of them.

I trust this finds favour, inter alia, with my Most Brittanic interlocutor.

Was this apartment either affiliated, associated or referred by the school? Was it located on property under the school jurisdiction?

I don't know. They haven't gotten into the specifics of the parking dispute beyond what I already said. I'll post anything else I might come across.

And FYI, getting shot in parking disputes is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more common than getting shot for being Muslim.

P.S....this dude is a liberal atheist. Liberal atheists are not known for religious murders. He used his social media to bash all religions equally. Including Christians. Atheists tend to do that. Atheists are generally hostile to all silly beliefs about the man in the sky.

whatever senor red herring . . . i do confess to never quite coming to terms with the feel and look of "maneuver"

now that we got THAT 'important' shyte out of the way, care to deal . . .

So in reports and emails to your American colleagues, superiors, and subordinates you've just been throwing British words at them?

You may note that I have not jumped on the Muslim angle as motivation. That is because the investigation does not conclusively state such. Likewise none of the articles that I saw make any reference to the victims parking in what is the shooter's officially assigned parking. So your comment that the victims were wrong and strong s without merit.

I note that you're not joining the Islamophone Posse Comitatus.

Here is a BBC article about these people parking in this dude's two RESERVED parking spots:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31395467

Check out the anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, pro Islamic terrorism, and anti-white "supremacist" social media rants of the victims.

http://gotnews.com/analysis-ch...an-terrorist-tweets/

They didn't deserve to get killed at all. But getting killed over a parking spot should not be grounds for deification. These are the so-called "peaceful" Muslims.

I can totally see how these anti-white anti-West anti-American anti-Israel anti-Jew Muslims could not bring themselves to respect the very reasonable requests of their infidel Christian neighbor to his property rights.

"deification" huh . . . when u got nothing, just make shyte up, eh?

i suggest u take time out to also look up the word "courage" when contemplating the punk in the mirror flexing over the corpses of murdered innocents

btw, Charles C. Johnson is not looking for interns . . . he likes keeping all the 'donated' money for himself

Holy Brahmanical Cow Chap,

I once had a stalker sweethoman many moons ago but she was down right normal compared to you

I yearn for the days of **** who would at least disappear once in a blue moon

rev used to complain bitterly too . . . sunlight is a bitch for cockroaches

i understand

I would be more than happy to respond to intelligent (even semi-intelligent) dialogue. When you're ready, I'll be here.

good, then STFU and "not" respond . . . arite?

What a perfect example of a little troll on an online site. Your responses are so beyond infantile, I am truly at a loss for words except to patronize you and wish you the best.

I can't even lose my temper with you. You're just too childish.

8 o' clock in the forenoon and a grown man is trying to pick an online cuss down. You must have personal issues bai.

yah yeah yeah . . . so u doan like people looking under your skirt

good! that's why i am here

grown "man." internet. 8:30am.

uh uh . . . i am on cockroach patrol

not too good a thing for u

I suspect that some Muslims will milk this situation just as you milk the ones you do  but I am not interested in that approach. There is just too much anger and the only way to fix that is to once take the high road rather than seek revenge and hopefully it will catch on. I don't have a twitter account but if I did I would have quoted the Qur'an #"an eye for an eye but forgiveness is best". Also, I am not ready to conclude on the motive especially since the local law enforcement agencies have not for their conclusions.

Make duas for the deceased and their family.So you and brilliant young people cut down in thier prime.

Again lets pay attention to every type of violence and murder for they are all wrong, be it the shooting up of Hedbo office in Paris or the killing of these three innocent muslims.

Well, the Party of Allah-USA Branch can be as angry as they like. And they will take the "high road" as in obey the secular infidel law because the alternative is a cold domestic prison cell or sunny Guantanamo Bay. The infidel majority still maintains the coercive powers of the State even though our liberals seem to have lost their minds when it comes to all things Allah.

Ironically, the excessive demands for privilege of Muslims, their constant public whining, their false claims of discrimination and/or American Muslim Holocaust will keep them as a front burner issue. They are their own worse enemy.

It will do you some good to get out from under the rock where you exist. I am willing to suggest that disobeying the infidels laws is done more by the infidels than the party of Allah - US Branch. Newsflash, everybody demands the right to be recognized in America. The Jews are constantly advocating for more rights. So are African Americans. Muslims are no less worthy of this advocacy. After all they also pay taxes. You hatred is harmful only to your karma. But it is after all a free country so you are free to screw up your karma if you so choose.

My Dear Friend,

If you must know, I do try to get out from under my rock as often as I can.

Permit me to draw a line between the ordinary criminality of individuals committed for individual purposes and individual gains. Our society can handle these individuals. If these individuals even happen to be "Muslim", even that doesn't matter. No one is concerned about Muslim "ordinary crime."

What concerns us infidels are the pathological behaviors of Muslims which seem to arise out of Islam and which threaten the foundations or at least undermine it significantly. For example, while you Muslims do not have the power to order the New York Times to shut down you have successfully censored them by "chilling" their speech. The NYT and most major Western papers will not put a cartoon of Muhammad in their paper no matter how newsworthy. This bothers me more than all the ISIS beheadings put together. The problem for me is that this censorship of the NYT finds broad support amongst the Party of God-USA Branch. This is worrisome. The political/public culture of Muslims is corrosive to a democracy especially as you all have remarkably found some useful white idiots on the left wing who think all brown people must be patronized in whatever stupid thing we do.

Jews are not arguing and acting as a group that is undermining our democracy and democratic culture. Also, they're not blowing up office towers with civilian airliners.

Paying your taxes entitle you to nothing. That's not an argument. You are entitled to no more and no less rights than any other individual. While the law does protect vulnerable groups like racial, ethnic, sexual minorities, it doesn't protect silly beliefs from public ridicule. The law protects people not ideas (particularly bad ideas).

All infidels will protect your right to knock your head on concrete five times a day and extol the virtues of a 7th century tribal warlord. However, you will never have a "right" to be immune from criticism for anything.

In America, freedom of religion means just that...freedom to believe and practice. Not a right to cow the non-believers into abiding by your beliefs (especially your maniacal beliefs about cartoons).

Bro Kaz,

This is deep!!! 

Jumah Muarak.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth, three students were shot (who happened to be Muslim and also may have liked to eat roast beef amidst other irrelevant personal data) in the head because they provoked some dude with a serious anger management problem once too often. A crime for which the law will punish him most severely for. #SomeDudeKills3HumansOverParkingSpot

this is a literal punk lie!

the NY Daily News, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, NY Post, LA Times, all published Charlie Hebdo's defiant cover, featuring Muhammad, in the wake of the Paris terror

the NY Times was singular in not reprinting

as with all sociopath louts, you will post any hysterical fabrication, no matter how unimaginative, to get attention

The Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons: Media outlets shy away or take a stand

In the wake of Wednesday's killings at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, most major media outlets are choosing not to republish the French magazine's satirical but highly controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

But The Washington Post did choose to show one of the images in Thursday's print edition. "I think seeing the cover will help readers understand what this is all about," editorial page editor Fred Hiatt told The Post's Erik Wemple.

Several popular news web sites have also published slide shows of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Elsewhere, the news instinct to show the cartoons and express support for the slain journalists is countered by concerns about safety and sensitivity. Depictions of Mohammed are a strict taboo within Islam.

It's brought forth a fierce debate among journalists.

What some are calling sensitivity, others are calling censorship -- an acquiescence to terrorists. There has been widespread speculation that Wednesday's attack was motivated by the publication's criticism of religion.

CNN, the owner of this web site, is among the news outlets that has verbally described Charlie Hebdo's cartoons but refrained from showing them. The network has made similar decisions about depictions of Mohammed in the past.

In the network's daily editorial meeting on Thursday morning, CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker addressed the decision.

"Journalistically, every bone says we want to use and should use" the cartoons, Zucker said. But "as managers, protecting and taking care of the safety of our employees around the world is more important right now."

On Wednesday, the Associated Press, the world's largest news gathering operation, said it has a "longstanding policy" to "not move deliberately provocative images on the wire," according to a spokesman. This includes depictions of Mohammed.

The New York Times, "after careful consideration," also decided that "describing the cartoons" would suffice, according to a spokeswoman.

NBC News said Wednesday that the network will not be showing "headlines or cartoons that could be viewed as insensitive or offensive," and that guidance also applies to CNBC and MSNBC.

Another major network, ABC News, has taken the same position.

A CBS News executive, meanwhile, said the network had implemented no explicit ban on the Mohammed cartoons, but had instructed its producers to exercise judgment.

Fox News told Mediaite it has "no plans to air" the Mohammed cartoons, but it did publish them in an online slideshow.

Related: Marchers rally in solidarity with magazine

News outlets have to consider that many Muslims take offense to cartoons like the ones published by Charlie Hebdo. This is particularly consequential for news organizations with bureaus in the Middle East.

There have been sporadic incidents of violence against cartoonists and news outlets in the past.

But in the aftermath of the attack, a number of popular news websites decided to show some of the French magazine's provocative covers, including a 2011 image of Mohammed. Among them: BuzzFeed, Business Insider, The Huffington Post, Gawker and The Daily Beast.

On Wednesday morning, The Daily Beast updated a slide show it originally published in 2011, featuring 16 of the most "shocking" Charlie Hebdo covers.

Daily Beast executive editor Noah Shachtman said there was "zero hesitation" to run the slide show. For one, he said, the images had inherent news value. But the decision to publish the covers was more than that: It was "a show of solidarity."

"We're very much on the side of free expression everywhere. And especially in the face of this horrific attack, we want to show that we're with these brave editors, reporters and cartoonists," he said.

Shachtman also assailed the Associated Press, calling the news wire "gutless" for not showing the cartoons that featured Mohammed.

Related: Why Islam forbids images of Mohammed

Gawker editor-in-chief Max Read detailed the magazine's history in a post that included the 2011 Mohammed cover, which is believed to have sparked an attack on the newspaper's offices on the day it was scheduled to come out. He said the decision was a no-brainer.

"We ran the cartoons because they're newsworthy," Read told CNNMoney. "If we're going to discuss the controversial images that Charlie has published, we have a duty to our readers to show the images themselves (and to provide context to accompany them)."

"Whatever solidarity we end up showing for Charlie is a happy accident of doing our jobs," he added.

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, republished "the cartoons that jihadist fanatics don't want you to see" as a salute to Charlie Hebdo.

The author of that piece, Lachlan Markay, said the images were a "good way of honoring the slain satirists by ensuring that people see the work for which they literally gave their lives."

"We didn't hesitate at all," Markay told CNNMoney. "Our decision seems even more appropriate (and necessary) in light of decisions by some major news organizations to censor or omit images of Charlie Hebdo covers in their writeups. I think those outlets are doing a grave disservice to the very idea of free expression."

This issue was brought to the forefront in 2005 after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran several caricatures of the prophet. Those cartoons sparked violent protests, and many outlets opted against republishing them.

The irreverent animated comedy "South Park" waded into that particular controversy in 2006 with an episode that censored an image of Mohammed. The show's creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker tried to show Mohammed once again in 2010, but were once again denied by Comedy Central.

u are intelligent enough to understand that this lame attempt at ass-covering addresses neither your relevant post nor my response exposing your cowardly LIES

serviceable effort though; go pull your panties up . . . things are still showing

I always appreciate and enjoy an early morning exchange of ideas with you

i don't engage in "exchange of ideas" with klown dissemblers . . . that's an IQ-lowering exercise

pay attention

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...hebdo_n_6470338.html

My Dear Man Child,

I don't have the inclination to respond to people who are so disingenuous that they consistently resort to quote mining in a clear attempt to distort the point of a post. I trust the typical reader to get my point.

Trolls are kinda like naughty children....responding to their bad behavior only reinforces their bad behavior.

ahmmm . . . i think the "distortion" is all yours mein herr

your stock response to my exposure of your mendacity is to whine that it is the "point of [your] post" (not the lie supporting it) that matters

fantastico!

and, please . . . instead of complaining like a lil biatch about "quote mining," do a rev and follow your "inclination" to its logical destination

it will probably prove less embarrassing for u going forward, arite?

Shitaan, even you won't shoot someone over a parking spot. Apparently they park in the visitor spots every once in a while. Does that mean one shot go to your private home and shoot you in the head? Complain to the property manager then the police. You don't go shooting people left and right execution style. If that man is not sent to jail for life some crazy person in jail will take him out. 

My Dear Bruddaman,

I hope by now one can safely assume I wouldn't personally shoot someone over a parking spot (or any other reason). I walk away from those kinds of arguments. Not worth my time. Maybe when I was younger and more immature I might engage in silly arguments. But not now.

Don't go into straw man territory man. No one is arguing anyone should get shot over a parking spot or any other such trivial nonsense.

I'm pointing out that this is from all the accounts so far a parking space issue. It is not unfathomable that a human being can snap over a relatively trivial issue such as parking spaces. People get shot all the time over road rage issues and parking lot arguments. It's not a "norm" but it's also not unheard of.

How many of us have not had an unreasonable neighbor issue over parking, noise, or dogs that have not stretched the bounds of human toleration to the point where we may quit our reason?

And FYI, getting shot over parking spaces is far more "normal" than getting shot for being Muslim in America.

Yuh crazy bai. Crime is crime regardless of reason. In a court of law, anyone charged with breaking the law is tried to determine if they did break the law not why. The why may only come in during the penalty phrase after a conviction. Therefore there is no distinction whether the crime is motivated by hatred or any of the normal reasons you mentioned. This nonsense about Islam inspires Muslims to be violent was very eloquently addressed on social media recently when someone wrote 'There are about 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. If Islam really promoted terrorism, you'd all probably be dead by now'. So your fear is all in your head. I have a higher chance of being killed by one of your normal criminals than I do a terrorist. That is why I don't intend to lose any sleep over what perturbs you.

This guy is in college. The victims are in college. Yet they are fighting and killing over a parking space. One would think that that kind of behavior would be more suitable for the more astute RH regulars.