Fort Wayne Killings: Fostering Distrust in Policing

It has been a week since three young Black men were killed in Fort Wayne, Indiana. All three victims of these “execution-style” killings descend from immigrant families from the Sudan, two of whom were Muslim. Although the facts of this case are still developing, there is much mystery surrounding the attack. Regardless, the dearth of intelligence has not stopped police from making bold proclamations about the nature of these killings, some of which are deeply troubling and likely to foster further mistrust of police among Muslims and African Americans.


Police have admittedly little information about the shootings, including how many people were involved in the attack or the motives, but this is hard to tell from their statements. For example, the Chicago Tribune reported that the city’s public safety director stated that there is “no reason to believe this was any type of hate crime, or … because of their religion or their nationality whatsoever.” Exactly why a police official would utter the phrase “hate crime” in Indiana, is even more mysterious since the state is one of five holdouts still without a law against hate crimes.

Technicalities of the criminal law aside, the real problem with this account is its carelessness. Why say this is not about nationality or religion with so little intelligence? Based on the facts, it seems equally plausible that police might have said, “We are still unsure if this is motivated by hatred based on race or religion.” So why didn’t they?

More pointedly, what is the harm in doing so? To say that the killings were not based on “nationality” says nothing about color. In this respect, the police might be 100% correct that the killings were not about nationality, but this hardly means no hatred was involved. What seems to have escaped the police is that all three individuals were Black, and that the killers may not have even known their nationality. This is unimportant if you hate Black people.

Even more egregious is the claim that the attack was not religion-motivated. Again, why commit to such a rigid posture so early in the investigation? That one of the three victims was not Muslim should not make one rule out religion. For example, what if the attackers simply thought that all three were Muslim? The fact that one was Christian is of little consequence. Who knows if the killer was an atheist who hated believers? Although the scenario may be far-fetched, all these issues make it premature to rule out hatred as a possible motive.

Aside from these analytical shortcomings, the police statements reveal a terrible misunderstanding of the nature of Islamophobia. They seem ignorant of the fact that people are harassed and harangued for being mistaken for Muslim all the time. Have they not heard of American Hindus and Sikhs being attacked and even killed after being mistaken for Muslim? The fear of Muslims is so great that even misidentification can be deadly, what to speak of associating with Muslims?

The police statements also introduce boilerplate language about the killings, which undermine the severity of the crime. For example, they labeled the house a “party house,” as if to cast contributory blame on the victims as party people. More ominous, is the identification of one of the persons “associated with the house” as having “gang involvement.” Exactly what these terms mean is uncertain at best and downright destructive at worse. The identification of the victims with gangs is negligent, borderline reckless and works to mitigate public empathy for the killings. After all, if it was just a bunch of gangsters killed, so what? At least they could have clarified that the suspects may be gang-related, but to leave it hanging at that is deceitful.

One consequence of these statements is Muslims and African Americans will likely become alienated from cooperating with police in the future. This is particularly unfortunate since, as history has shown, community policing efforts and anti-extremism campaigns by the police and FBI are predicated on Muslims stepping forward to cooperate. Building trust for this is made more difficult when it appears that police have no interest in understanding the fears of Muslims, and worse, show little empathy by dismissing what to many could obviously be hate-based killings. Despite that the killings have prompted little media attention and even less concern from Indiana officials, make no mistake, the attitudes of police speak loud and clear.


  • Most Viewed This Week on TIM

  • Latest comments on TIM

  • About the autor

    SpearIt is a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding and author of the ISPU report: Facts and Fictions about Islam in Prison: Assessing Prisoner Radicalization in Post-9/11 America. He is also an Associate Professor at Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University.

    Latest at tim

    See our Current issue

    Join our Newsletter

    Enter your e-mail address below to receive periodic updates from The Islamic Monthly.

  • Follow us on

    • Cliodyn Cycwatch

      An article that strongly supports the conclusion that the killings were not motivated by nationality, race, color or religion: Friends Of Three Young Men Killed In Indiana Say It Wasn’t A Hate Crime

      It is based on interviews with people with close connections to the deceased. (There is a suggestion that the killers are African-American, but skepticism is warranted at this stage.)

      The article is dated Mon Feb 29. It was not difficult to find.

      So why does SpearIt, on Fri Mar 4, crank out a tiresome, low information, police-ophobic grievance-mongering screed? SpearIt demonstrates not much interest in the fruits of real on-the-ground information gathering. He thereby also demonstrates little concern for the actual lived lives of those involved.

      He demonstrates an overriding need to conjure, through speculation and conjecture, evidence of racism and Muslim-hatred.

      He demonstrates an overriding concern to protect a certain narrative, employing distraction as a tool.

      He demonstrates his expectation of a gullible, incurious audience among this magazine’s readership.

      Does someone like SpearIt become a “fellow at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding” in spite of those attributes, or because of them?