Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Shooter targeting Family Research Council wanted to “smear Chick-fil-A in their faces” after murders

    Shooter targeting Family Research Council wanted to “smear Chick-fil-A in their faces” after murders

    This past August, the Family Research Council, an pro-Christian values nonprofit that promotes “faith, family, and freedom in public policy,” was the target of gunman Floyd Corkins who opened fire declared in the lobby of their DC headquarters. The professor wrote about how Corkins used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of “hate groups” in order to target the FRC, which was also singled out by the Human Rights Campaign for its  defense of traditional marriage.

    Corkins had 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack at the time of the shooting. Now the motive for the 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches has been revealed.

    Court documents reveal that Corkins told the FBI he wanted to smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in the faces of his murder victims. He also told them that he wanted to “kill as many people as possible.” CNS reports:

    In an interview with the FBI following the shooting, as provided in the “Statement of Offense,” Corkins said that “(1) intended to enter the FRC that day to kill as many people as possible and smother Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces; (2) he intended to kill the guard who confronted him in the lobby (i.e., Johnson); and (3) he had taken substantial steps in the preceding week in furtherance of carrying out the crimes.”

    As you may recall, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno declared war on Chick-fil-A after President Dan Cathy remarked that he supported traditional marriage. Moreno demonized the group, declared he wouldn’t allow them to open in his war, and then later recanted after being roundly shamed by advocates of free speech on both sides of the aisle. Moreno’s witch hunt also inspired the Chicago Occupy activist’s rant against a homeless man reading the bible outside Chick-fil-A, which I captured on video.

    It may be tricky for the media to heap all the blame on Corkins’s gun, in this case.

    Update — WAJ adds:

    [Note – Title changed from “smother” to “smear” in order to accurately represent the court documents.]

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Captain Obvious | February 8, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Actual legal question:
    Could SLPC be held liable for wrongful death? I most cases that would be absurd, but consider this first: After the Jared Loughner fiasco, SLPC was very vocal about their belief that exposing persons or organizations to contempt or ridicule was a direct incitement for violence against the same. Given that SLPC has explicitly confirmed this belief, is it not then fair to assume that any action in which they exposed others to contempt or ridicule, they did so with the foreknowledge and belief (erroneous or not) that they were inciting violence? To me that would indicate malice, but correct me if I’ve missed something?


       
       0 
       
       0
      Captain Obvious in reply to Captain Obvious. | February 8, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      Here’s an example;
      Hypothetical person Samantha Penelope Lewis-Cooper writes to her local newspaper that she knows how the mob works, and if one plants lilies on the corners of one’s lawn, this is an indicator to the mob that you want your neighbors killed. Samantha then plants lilies on the corners of her lawn. A few weeks later, her neighbors end up murdered by a mobster. The mobster admits to police: “I read Samantha’s published letter that lilies are ‘coded speech’ for soliciting a hit. Then, on a separate occasion, I saw her lilies. No, Samantha never explicitly used the words ‘Please kill my neighbors,’ but I reasonably interpreted her that way.”

      Is Samantha guilty or liable in any way for her neighbors’ deaths? Does it matter whether the mob really works that way in general or not, if Samantha believed that it did?


     
     0 
     
     0
    TugboatPhil | February 8, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    If I read Dorner’s screed correctly (and I’m not going back through it again) didn’t he praise Chik-Fil-A for having great chicken?

    So even among psychotic killers there is disagreement on CFA.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Henry Hawkins | February 8, 2013 at 7:23 pm

    Whoa, stay the anti-Piers Morgan rants! Think about it: Piers Morgan is the liberal version of a Todd Akin but with a nightly TV show from which he doles out evidence of liberal intellectual vacuousness, hypocrisy, and capacity for deceit. To a conservative, this clown’s a gold mine.

    SAVE THE PIERS MORGAN !


       
       0 
       
       0
      SmokeVanThorn in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 9, 2013 at 3:35 pm

      If we stipulate that you’re a nuanced Frum/Brooks type pragmatist, will you stop doing the useful idiot Akin bashing routine?

      I mean, that’s really what you’re after, isn’t it?


     
     0 
     
     0
    SmokeVanThorn | February 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    What – no lectures from Dan Riehl and Eric Erickson about how we shouldn’t be “angry” and need to stop “whining” about issues like this?


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend