On social media, debate flared about whether Conditt would have been called a terrorist had he not been white. Some said the way he was described reflected white privilege.
In his comments last week, Manley said Conditt had not mentioned terrorism or hate in a video confession. Investigators initially believed Conditt was targeting people of color, given that the first three victims — two of whom died — were black or Hispanic. Two white men were then injured when another bomb exploded alongside a road.
What exactly may have motivated Conditt remains unknown.
A similar debate about the labeling of suspects unfolded last year after authorities described the killing of eight people who were run over by a truck in New York City as "terrorism," but not the slaying of 58 people who were shot at a concert in Las Vegas.
In New York, the suspect was an Uzbek immigrant and allegedly inspired by the Islamic State. In Las Vegas, the suspect was white and without a clear ideology or motive.
The Huffington Post detailed the difference in the labeling of suspects:
The debate about race extends to victims, too. News organizations were quick to forget that the Las Vegas massacre was not, in fact, the deadliest mass shooting, or mass killing, in American history. As my colleague Valerie Russ pointed out: