Reporter/cameraman killed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There needs to be an agency that does a deep investigation into anyone talking craziness about killing to others - and people need to report people who seem a bit nuts and off the deep end. In many cases, it's an early sign that someone is mentally ill and actually thinking of committing murder.

This is truly a tragedy, and as these instances keep occurring it will be just a matter of time until drastic measures are taken by authorities and government to try and curb gun violence.


Given that weirdos outnumber violent psychopaths by an incredible margin, that's nearly impossible to do. Nobody wants to hear that there was little to be done to avoid these types of massacres, but it's the truth.

If there were aggressive investigations into people "displaying signs", they would be completely overwhelmed with baseless cases of people who are just screwed up and non-violent and become jaded, leaving a true psychopath to slip through the cracks.

If they actually did have the resources to truly put down on most of the cases that came through their doors, then you just have a lot of people who are harmlessly abnormal getting trashed on by the system.

Government agencies are simply too incompetent to ever work this out. We'd just end up with a Child Protective Services-like agency that wastes a load of money and lets real demons slip through the cracks, constantly under the barrage that it needs reform. This of course would just waste more money, abuse more people, and still be completely ineffective.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
They're calling it "workplace violence". Why aren't they calling it a hate crime?


Because it was a black man killing whites. So it's ok.


^^Exactly!!

Just think,if they'd called it a hate crime,they'd have a double whammy. Negro kills caucasians AND man kills a woman.


They're not calling it a hate crime yet, because so far he fits the perfect description of a workplace killer, making lots of lame excuses behind his actions. He claims he is avenging the shooting victims and wants to hurt whites, yet he also praises two white serial killers in his manifesto. He also praises mass murders in general. He also claims to be aggrieved because of workplace discrimination, but instead of going after the people who genuinely hurt him, he decides to do a televised target instead.

It's not being called a hate crime yet because this guy was literally all over the place, and can't seem to decide what he was angry about.

He's not the first serial killer not to be billed as committing hate crimes, despite making racially biased statements.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
All I can say is SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. Although I doubt the outcome would have been different in this case.


Yes of course. Talking about tourism and development with members of the local chamber of commerce is where situational awareness is warranted.

... Are you for real? These people are shot dead out of the blue. Their families lives are shattered. The world is yet again horrified.

What a shock to the system your candid comments are. And that some, even the smallest criticism is being voiced against the victims is chilling.
 
Not sure what your deal is. No one has criticized the victims. Situational awareness is a good thing to have everywhere everyday. Clearly it would have been nice in this case if someone somewhere would have noticed the perpetrator.
 
Originally Posted By: dirtydannyd

... Are you for real? These people are shot dead out of the blue. Their families lives are shattered. The world is yet again horrified.
He didn't say "situational awareness" is the "only" thing and he was not criticizing the victims (that I saw).

In Most of Free America we have an additional avenue to add to the mix....carry concealed. I do that in Church where "situational awareness" is of little use.
 
Originally Posted By: Benito
As I was reading the various news reports, what was really strange was why the police were being heavy handed with journalists who were at the scene of the murderer's suicide on the I-66.

One journalist had their camera taken and another was told to DELETE their video or have their camera confiscated.

One of them also said he thought he saw a coffin and this was at the time there were no ambulances on the scene!

More here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/08/26/journos-cops-threatened-to-take-camera.html

https://twitter.com/franzstrasser

https://twitter.com/Tara_Mckelvey


The conspiracy theories begin.

Though even early reports said there was not much information about when he fired his last shot.

His car did not appear to be crashed, more like parked on side of road. I looked hard for shot-out glass (if it was self-inflicted I guess it was whatever direction he blasted himself.) Unless it was passenger window I did not exactly see..
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B

If that's the case then (they will say that) he should never have had firearms.

Quote:

???? So if you were ever turned down for a date, you cant own a gun?


This is not my personal feelings on the matter, no. If certain people in Congress had their way, that would be the truth. You missed my sarcasm.

Make no mistake about it, though.. This is the attitude of the anti-gunners. [/quote]

Quote:

I don't know what kind of anti-gunner you are, but I have not seen such nonsense by any others.


My reply:

Let the dust settle.. if CNN or MSNBC starts regurgitation how we should have seen the "warning signs" of "he was turned down" yet still "had access to a firearm" with "no criminal record," You'll see that I was not so far off the mark in my sarcasm. (I'm also not an anti-gunner.)

Nonsense? Sure, yes, I made the scenario up.

But watch in a couple of months, when your Congressman or Congresswoman (Warren pops into mind, the icon of Massachusetts and the Left, eh?) ... about how someone "turned down for a date" (or whatever such thing.. Terminated from a job, not doing their daily thing, etc) should be flagged in some kind of gun database, likely one that includes weapons we already have. Just watch.

And "never let a good tragedy go to waste."

I hope I'm wrong, but.. I don't think I am going to be.
 
@InfmousCornholio The gun business is big, they donate a lot of money to the politicians' election campaigns.

So, nothing is going to change. Innocent people are still going to get killed in large numbers.
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@InfmousCornholio The gun business is big, they donate a lot of money to the politicians' election campaigns.

So, nothing is going to change. Innocent people are still going to get killed in large numbers.


So using a gun to kill someone is different than using a car via DWI?

How about knives? Or Pressure cookers?
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@InfmousCornholio The gun business is big, they donate a lot of money to the politicians' election campaigns.

So, nothing is going to change. Innocent people are still going to get killed in large numbers.


I simply want to point out that I am not an anti-gunner and I certainly hope that what you said remains true, and that the NRA can hold its clout.

Election years always get me nervous, it is as if they can leave nothing alone in their quests to get elected, or, in some cases, re-elected.

And I personally don't think Hillary for President is a good idea. At all.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@InfmousCornholio The gun business is big, they donate a lot of money to the politicians' election campaigns.

So, nothing is going to change. Innocent people are still going to get killed in large numbers.


So using a gun to kill someone is different than using a car via DWI?

How about knives? Or Pressure cookers?


LOL, really?
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@InfmousCornholio The gun business is big, they donate a lot of money to the politicians' election campaigns.

So, nothing is going to change. Innocent people are still going to get killed in large numbers.


So using a gun to kill someone is different than using a car via DWI?

How about knives? Or Pressure cookers?


LOL, really?


DWI death would get you INvoluntary Manslaughter and possibly "Death By Auto," maybe 5 years if convicted.

Intoxication takes away intent.
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B


So, nothing is going to change. Innocent people are still going to get killed in large numbers.

And your solution???
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B


So, nothing is going to change. Innocent people are still going to get killed in large numbers.

And your solution???


It doesn't matter what my, your or anyone else's solution is.
 
Are there any conspiracy theories developing about this?

Any "angle of the sun" or "look at the background closely" people yet?

We see one shot of the car. I'm sure someone, somewhere is working on supposed things that can't happen..
 
This country may have to pull an Australia and just take all the guns away. It's just out of control. Sorry gun lovers.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy.


Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback


Quote:
And it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but it is worth at least looking at their experience.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
This country may have to pull an Australia and just take all the guns away. It's just out of control. Sorry gun lovers.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy.


Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback


Quote:
And it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but it is worth at least looking at their experience.


I understand our Vice President thinks peeing on yourself is a valid defense, but what would you recommend next time someone tries to break into my apartment?

I mean - to the point they are trying to beat down the door?

I tried the whole 911 deal. They wouldn't dispatch an officer until *after* there was an intruder in my apartment.

Should I pee on myself then? Or should I get in knife range to try to club them with something?

Or can I take a reasonable means to defend myself.

Or just jump out my second story window onto the paved parking lot below?

FWIW I yelled that I called the police and I had a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top