D.C. Sniper, John Muhammad, To Be Executed Tuesday

by Rory Cripps | November 5, 2009 at 06:58 pm

2741 views | 80 Recommendations | 59 comments

Nation of Islam member John Allen Muhammad, is set to die by lethal injection on Tuesday for the murder of Dean Harold Meyers. Meyers was shot in the head while filling up at a Northern Virginia gas station during a murder spree by Muhammad and his young accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, in which 10 people were fatally shot in October 2002. The murders occurred in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C..

Born John Allen Williams, Muhammad joined the Nation of Islam in 1987 and later changed his surname to Muhammad. He joined the National Guard in 1978 and in 1985 volunteered for active duty in the U.S. Army. Muhammad served in the Gulf War and rose to the rank of sergeant. He was awarded the Expert Rifleman's Badge while serving. In 1995, he was part of the Nation of Islam's security team during the "Million Man March" which took place in Washington D.C..

According to Lee Boyd Malvo, Muhammad's murder plan was three-tiered: The first tier was to kill 6 white people per day for a month. The next tier was to shoot a pregnant woman in the abdomen and to kill a police officer. At the police officer's funeral, Muhammad planned to set off a series of IEDs. The third tier of Muhammad's plan was for him to head up to Canada and along the way, recruit as many young and impressionable boys as he could for purposes of carrying out mass-shootings in the U.S.

John Allen Muhammad, 48, is set to die by injection Tuesday in a Virginia prison, seven years after he and young accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington area for three weeks.

Muhammad was convicted of killing Dean Harold Meyers at a Manassas, Va., gas station during the spree in which 10 people were fatally shot in October 2002. The killings happened in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Meyers' brother, Robert Meyers, and wife Lori plan to be in the witness booth.

"The reason why this life is going to be taken has everything to do with choices [Muhammad] made and the process that those choices took him through," said Meyers, 56, of Perkiomenville, Pa

Meyers also said he owed it to his brother to be there and that he also wanted to be there for other victims' families.

Meyers, 53, was a Vietnam veteran, civil engineer, and the youngest of four brothers. He was shot in the head while filling up at the Northern Virginia gas station. Malvo, then 17, later bragged to police that Meyers "was hit good. Dead immediately."

Executions in Virginia — outnumbering every U.S. state except Texas — usually are intimate affairs observed by a handful of lawyers, prison officials, the mandated six citizen witnesses, a few reporters and family members.

But the sheer number of D.C. sniper victims — 10 killed and three injured in the Washington area alone — has the state scrambling to accommodate all the people entitled to watch. Corrections officials are tightlipped about the arrangements, though relatives say each victim's family was offered two spots in the roughly 10-by-10 witness booth.

Watching Muhammad's execution, say Nelson M. Rivera and Marion Lewis, will be the closest they will ever come to revenge.

"I feel like it's going to be the last chapter of this book and I want to see what his expression on his face is. And I want to see if he says anything," the 38-year-old Rivera said. "I want to see his face and see how he likes that — confronting his death."

Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera, who was Rivera's wife and Lewis' daughter, was killed as she vacuumed her van at a Kensington, Md., gas station.

Lewis, 57, a laid-off construction worker, said he would like to tell Muhammad how losing his 25-year-old daughter devastated their family.

"For the hurt, the pain that he's caused my family, I'd like to be his executioner, period," Lewis said.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

albertacowpoke

at 19:06 on November 5th, 2009

Thanks for this Rory. Good post.

Rory Cripps

at 19:32 on November 5th, 2009

Thanks ACP: A lot of people have had it up to their eyeballs with ideological-based murders. But we're not supposed to talk about it it seems. I wonder why that is? Free speech is a wonderful thing. It clears the air.

marianmo

at 19:07 on November 5th, 2009

ty rory

Paschen

at 19:17 on November 5th, 2009

No matter the crime the death penalty is not the anther. Just another crime in it self.

Rory Cripps

at 15:56 on November 6th, 2009

Paschen: I often wrestle with the concept of the death penalty. I agree--it is definitely not an answer. In the case of John Allen Muhammad, I wonder what the appropriate punishment should be . . . death or life in prison without parole? Apparently many of his victim's family members prefer the death penalty. Quite frankly, if Muhammad murdered one of my loved ones, I'd vote against the death penalty--but not on moral and philosophical grounds. It would have more to do with practical matters and self-satisfaction . . . .

Roy C

at 20:31 on November 5th, 2009

I think it is a crime not to give him the death penalty. If we give someone life in prison and they kill again in cold blood, as happens often, another life term means absolutely nothing.

So, the death penalty must be used at some point or you subject other inmates and guards to real evil.

QueensHart

at 21:07 on November 5th, 2009

Absolutely. It is a shame we spent so much money on his trial and incarceration for so long.

Yes, Roy I agree. He could be contaminating some more minds while in prison.

Rick G. (not verified)

at 10:17 on November 9th, 2009

Roy you hit the nail right on the head with that one...! I am with you on that one.

Karen Hatter

at 22:20 on November 5th, 2009

The murders have not been proven to be based upon any ideology.

George Curry, in 2002, made an interesting observation regarding religion/religious affiliations in relation to actions attributed to those convicted of murder:

Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, “the Boston Strangler (Albert De Salvo),” Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, “the Son of Sam (David Berkowitz),” Jeffrey Dahmer, “the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski),” Richard Speck, the “University of Texas Sniper (Charles Whitman)” and the “Atlanta Child Murderer (Wayne Williams).”

Yes, we know the names and the crimes. But there is something that we don’t know: What is the religious affiliation of each killer? Baptist? Methodist? Catholic? Jew? Lutheran? Mormon? Episcopalian? Presbyterian?

Hugh Askew

at 00:29 on November 6th, 2009

"The murders have not been proven to be based upon any ideology."

No, and Rory doesn't say that they were. He does point out that Muhammad was actively involved in Nation of Islam. He also points out that he was in the military.

Not sure what the list of other mass murderers has to do with it.

Am i to presume that Manson was an active Methodist? I mean, did he go down the wrong path when he started playing cards?

Stalin went to an Orthodox seminary. Were the 10 million kulaks killed because he was Orthodox?

It would be prudent to note that John Allen Muhammad did convert to Islam, did convert Lee Boyd Malvo. While he is obviously a nut job, Islam was a factor - perhaps a major one - in his actions.

Karen Hatter

at 08:09 on November 6th, 2009

Hugh Askew,

In Rory Cripps' comment and response to Albertacowpoke, Rory comments about ideology.

Rory Cripps' post here makes note of John Muhammad's reported links to the Nation of Islam, a religious organization professing belief in Islam.

My comment notes that of those named in my comment, which quotes George Curry, no one knows nor has it been highlighted, during the news coverage of those named in my comment, what alleged religious beliefs were held or what religious affiliations/organization with whom the majority named are connected.

Some on the list professed to be Christian. According to your statement here, Hugh Askew, their Christian beliefs or affiliations, should be assessed and weighed as contributing factors in their actions.

All of the inidividuals discussed here in my comments and in this posted contribution should be acknowledged not to be practicing any form of established religious beliefs.

Hugh Askew

at 13:31 on November 6th, 2009

Well, if you can show me how/why their tenents influenced their murderous actions, i might buy that.

Muhammad however did, as stated, feel strongly enough about his religion - which just happened to be Islam - to make it part of his reasoning to murder his victims.

If any of the others did, so be it, they have no bearing on what this murderer did.

In light of the killings yesterday, one begins to wonder if Islam can ever be reconciled to the idea of peace with those that don't accept their reasoning.

rng

at 13:36 on November 6th, 2009

What about the killings today in Orlando? Was he a Christian? Does that say something about his faith or his insanity? Or do we posit they are connected? The point is we don't know the motivation yet, but we point to his religion as if that is cause. It ma be. It may equally well not. We cannot leap to conclusions - we see how that went with the whole WMD-Iraq thing

Rory Cripps

at 15:46 on November 6th, 2009

rng:

"According to Lee Boyd Malvo, Muhammad's murder plan was three-tiered: The first tier was to kill 6 white people per day for a month."

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the Nation of Islam is a racist and extremely ideological organization on par with Christian Identity, the Klan, etc.. There is no doubt that members of the Nation Of Islam hate whites (and especially Jews). And I don't think that it's a stretch to imply that much of Muhammad's murder spree was due to ideological, and perhaps religious, purposes.

Rory Cripps

at 16:13 on November 6th, 2009

rng: The probability that the murderer is Catholic is very high! HA! Perhaps his religion did have something to do with it. For example: Due to his Christian upbringing (or indoctrination depending upon one's point of view) his righteous indignation and moral outrage got the best of him and pushed him over the edge . . . .

Karen Hatter

at 21:10 on November 6th, 2009

John Muhammad's strong feelings for his perception of what he has claimed to be his religion do not make Islam responsible for his horrendous, anti social behavior.

By that reasoning, Hugh, all those of the ultra conservative Religious Right today, that espouse their faith and strong feelings in God and Jesus Christ as Christians, as they applaud and support acts of intolerance and the actions of murderers and any and all who have committed acts of violence and hate over the centuries in the name of Christianity, enslavers, segregationists, the KKK, U.S. local, state and federal government actions meant to promote and deny protection and rights to all of its citizens and inhabitants while claiming to be embracing Christianity, would make one wonder, in this case, if Christianity " .... can ever be reconciled to the idea of peace with those that don't accept their reasoning."

Roy C

at 17:05 on November 7th, 2009

In fact, for me, Christianity's failure to spiritualize Europe resulted in World War I and II and Fascism and Communism.

Islam has a mission. Christianity has a mission. When someone well indoctrinated in the faith fails spiritually, it says a lot about the institutionalized versions of those religions and it is their failure we see, and not just one person who got off track.

You can point to the very doctrines usually that permit such atrocities and, failing that, to a lack of emphasis on possible misinterpretations that would also stop atrocities in the name of the religion.

Same for the doctrines of communism and other secular beliefs.

QueensHart

at 18:58 on November 7th, 2009

Oh my lord Karen. Have you read the New Testament? Not the old testament which if the history of jewish evolvement but after Christs' death and resurrection began a new dispensation. No where is there tolerance or acceptance of the sorts of acts the Koran teaches. We have divisions everywhere but the core of Christianity is a puppy dog if one uses the New Testament as Christians should compared to the Koran. You want to list all kinds of horrific groups to the Lord Jesus ? They are not following his ways and you are very lost to denigrate Christianity as you have continuously done. Your soft peddling muslims and demonizing Christianity??????????!! Do some more research. You must not know any Christians.. Do you think they are on TV? Not my dear...not.

rng

at 22:26 on November 7th, 2009

The New Testament attributes the following statements to Jesus:

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35).

There are dozens of other verses that various violent Jewish and Christian groups have used to justify their causes. The Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. The Nazis used them against Jews.

Rory Cripps

at 10:41 on November 8th, 2009

rng: Yes! But you failed to mention the fanatical Muslims that think nothing of cutting people's heads off and blowing themselves up in suicide missions all in the name of Allah! There are a lot more Muslims, nowadays, committing violent acts in the name of their religion than there are Christians. Not to defend Hitler, but if you can provide any Hitler quotes in which he states, explicitly, that his mission to kill Jews was being done in the name of Jesus Christ, I'd love to see them.

QueensHart

at 12:06 on November 8th, 2009

Okay rng. You must believe in a "litera" interpretation as the jihadists do their books..

Jesus translations that have been included in the Bible which are not all there ...most were not understood back then...are allegory,parable, symbolism, metaphors etc. Setting a man against his father is concerning letting go of "changin" them..leaving them to their belief systems ...not killing them... It is not peace on earth ;just as it is for everyone here even sneers and wants to be "right" and claims someone else is wrong....until people "get it" about objective consciousness which will take a long time as I told you on anoth r thread we will not have peace. Peace too is an inner decision. Something not to be bought or fought for or found by chopping women's heads off and making them hide completely behind clothes because the men are so afraid of the feminine. All religions are evolving but the Muslims have a long way to go for equality.

Christianity still teaches the most peaceful values and preaches Love morrrrrrrrre than any other.forgiveness...for you to hi lite fanatics and demonize all Christians is confusing to me.

Roy C

at 12:09 on November 8th, 2009

Good points, RNG. But that means that when the Koran does it or when Marx does it, the followers do have a basis for the interpretation.

I am not a traditional Christian. I test out as a Neo-pagan at BeliefNet and I think of myself as a combination Neo-pagan and Esoteric Christian.

I have no problem condemning the act of the Christian establishment or of the Muslim establishment or of Marxists, Fem-Nazis, or anybody else that is out of line.

What about you? Do you criticize Islam the same way you criticize Christianity or do you go the politically correct route and avoid it?

rng

at 12:50 on November 8th, 2009

I just posted elsewhere. I see all religions as production houses for violence. Islam too. You can't exempt anyone of them - wherever you see someone praying sooner or later you will see someone being killed. Religion is inherently tribal and produces the basest acts of man using its glory as justification. Whether the cause is really man perverting the messaging, or a secular power struggle dressed as a church, the result is always the same- dogma, death, and destabilization. And the isms - just man created religious alternatives like sweetner instead of sugar. Same

Roy C

at 13:08 on November 8th, 2009

So is Marxism. But you always forget that. Are you a Marxist?

rng

at 13:26 on November 8th, 2009

I said the isms. No, I am not a Marxist. I am a capitalist, though I believe in a more centrally planned economy. I beleive in freedom of speech, thought and worship. I believe in pluralism. I believe in globalization. I believe that a developed nation provides social basic services to its people as a basis of loyalty and mutual benefit. I believe in education, not rote memory tricks. I believe in sexual freedom. I have a lot of beliefs, most of which means don't try to limit the options in my bedroom, beliefs, intellect and conscience and we will get along fine. I believe in helping my fellow man, as I am a man that has enjoyed relative success so can. I can help fund basic services for others and think that my responsibility as a human. Oh, and I think the emails beliefnet sends me are spam and there is no punishment bad enough for ID thieves and spammers. Oh and I think both psychology and psychiatry are mumbo-jumbo attempting to masquerade as sciences. They are so generalized and loose that they fit in well with astrology and alchemy. That about summarizes it, for any other specific views please just ask

Roy C

at 17:57 on November 8th, 2009

Globalization is the ultimate disrespect for local cultures and the autonomy of people. It is elitist and driven by the egomania of money- and power-mad people.

tikun

at 23:38 on November 8th, 2009

rng,

If all that man/woman has created socially and culturally are inherently flawed what do you suggest can keep a civilization from moving toward total annihilation? Do you see everything evolving out of "religion and moral" values useless.

Thanks,

Steve

Karen Hatter

at 06:36 on November 8th, 2009

Queenshart, my comment to Hugh Askew noted it is incorrect to proclaim Islam responsible for John Muhammad's actions, pointing out that if the intolerant and violent actions of elements within the conservative Religious Right Wing, and others that profess to be following Jesus Christ as Christians, were used as the criterion for why they do and believe as they do, according to Hugh's rationale expressed here, not my rationale, Christianity would be the blame for their actions.

Rory Cripps

at 07:09 on November 8th, 2009

Karen: I have no doubt that in the case of certain fringe right-wing extremists, they use their "Christian" beliefs as part of the rationale for their heinous acts. These acts are roundly condemned by mainstream Christian religious groups and rightly so. And in the case of John Muhammad it appears that his Muslim beliefs may have been part of the rationale for his murder spree. Most people don't consider the Nation of Islam to be a mainstream religious organization. To me, it's on par with Christian Identity and the like and is essentially a separatist organization that sees everything in terms of race. There are religious fanatics all over the world. However today, virtually all of the fanaticism is being expressed and acted out by those of the Muslim faith in the name of Allah and not in the name of Jesus Christ. The overwhelming amount of good and decent Muslims that only want to live in peace, need to do a better job in condemning the violent extremists among them--especially here in the U.S.

Roy C

at 10:41 on November 8th, 2009

Christianity, institutional, historic Christianity is to blame for the actions of Christians and can get credit when the Christians do the Christian thing well, as in encouraging education and morality. I pointed it out above. The same for Islam, or Marxism or even followers of Freud.

Understand that responsibility is not necessarily at the 100 % level but way above the zero of total innocence.