Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't think so. Well of course they actually won't have to because they will most likely acquire ILLEGAL weapons to commit crimes while the lambs stand there to be slaughtered because after all they don't have it in them to hack somebody up especially if they are being shot at. Don't worry though the cops will be along to clean up the mess.
You don't think so. Well of course they actually won't have to because they will most likely acquire ILLEGAL weapons to commit crimes while the lambs stand there to be slaughtered because after all they don't have it in them to hack somebody up especially if they are being shot at. Don't worry though the cops will be along to clean up the mess.
They'll be lamb slaughter occasionally, we'll never end that. There's just too many guns around. The cops have even resorted to tazing and sprays..there's always that option, if allowed.
If you were falsely accused and on trial, you'd be most fortunate to have someone like me on your jury. If you only knew....LOL LOL
Nope. I have seen more than enough to recognize how elementary logic and concepts confuse you, therefore you would be ill suited to deal with any matters of complexity calling for insight, intuition, and grasp of nuance.
And? That is precisely what I said ... I said there is a major problem when witness testimony directly conflicts with the story being offered by police. And that is exactly what happened in Colorado, and again happening here, since both events have witnesses that indicate more than one perpetrator, while police insist on defining the events as a "lone gunman". This is the most obvious of red flags for suspecting foul play by authorities, as history will show a consistent theme running across decades of misdeeds and conspiracies using this worn out "lone gunman" patsy routine.
I've got a little piece of advice for you, inspector ... it's a pretty well accepted concept that when someone deliberately lies, they are trying to hide something. That's just as true for police as for anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Also, you should either read more slowly or be tested for reading comprehension problems. You have what I said almost exactly backwards. You have constantly and consistently twisted what I have said and put words in my mouth.
No, I read and comprehend just fine .... and this is exactly what you said .... "If you have an eyewitness saying that four people did the shooting and you have absolutely NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at all to corroborate those witnesses account, yet you do have physical evidence which shows only one shooter, as well as OTHER eyewitnesses who say there was only one shooter, what do you do? Throw out every other logical piece of evidence to try to prove the eyewitness or witnesses who said there were four shooters? Geeeezzzzz".
First off, in the immediate aftermath of a crime of this nature, there is unlikely to be anything close to physical evidence that would prove only one perpetrator, unless the entire event from start to finish, including every angle and every entrance is captured on surveillance video and carefully analyzed. On the other hand, when a witness at the scene definitively reports to arriving police of actually seeing 4 perps, including a clear description of them, such as race and details of clothing, who entered the facility and began firing weapons ... that is hard evidence that must be acted upon until such time as stronger evidence might emerge proving that eyewitness account to be in error.
But the real point here is when you have a witness claiming to have seen 4 perps, while police claim no indication of more than one assailant ... that is a direct, bold face lie on the part of the police. The witness testimony of 4 perps constitutes at least an indication, if not hard evidence of more than one perp involved.
Again ... Investigation 101 .... when someone lies, they are attempting to hide or otherwise cover something up. What are the police trying to hide? That is the issue here. And it is a very VALID and very OBVIOUS question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
I NEVER said that ALL EVIDENCE in this case indicates only one killer. I said, when investigating, good investigators consider ALL THE EVIDENCE they gather BEFORE they pick out one little thing and hang onto it, regardless of what other evidence indicates. because that biases them and prevents them from seeing some other pieces of information correctly. They INVESTIGATE ALL OF IT. There is no way that ALL OF THE EVIDENCE in this case indicates there is just one shooter simply because all of the evidence has not been revealed yet.
Now you're playing a semantical game .... you stated PRECISELY that there was (quote) "absolutely no physical evidence at all to corroborate those witnesses accounts" which claimed more than one person involved. You then followed those remarks by claiming the existence of physical evidence that does show only one perpetrator, (without actually identifying the nature and specifics of that alleged evidence). So yes, that is the insinuation ... that all evidence (to date) points to one perp, and no evidence (to date) supports more than one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Many witnesses still have to be interviewed.....and I don't mean just eyewitnesses. I mean witnesses who knew the shooter and what was going on in his life, who he was, who his friends were, did he write journals, etc., etc.
What does that have to do with the price of beans in Boston? What possible relevancy could that investigation reveal about what actually took place at the scene of the crime? Would his friends in Virginia have better information about what occurred in Wisconsin than the damned people at the scene? Could journals provide a better indication regarding the number of perps involved at the scene of the crime than bloody eyewitnesses? Get real ... OKAY ..... no one can be this dense without strenuous effort. Methinks the lady doth protest too much ... in this instance, swap "protest" with "obfuscate".
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
I'm even suggesting that the FBI is looking for any evidence that someone else was involved in it, therefore, the whole domestic terrorism thing. However, what that involvement may have been doesn't seem to be known at this point. No other person was caught at the scene after the shooter was dead. .
I've got a news flash for you .... the FREAKING FBI is a domestic terrorist organization, having their fingerprints on virtually every high profile event that occurs in this country. They are domestically, what the CIA is internationally. They are the proverbial "fox guarding the chicken coop". And that's not a conspiracy theory, that is a conspiracy fact. And it's a tidy little arrangement ... what better scenario for the FBI to be the investigative body in charge of investigating their own criminal activity? It's a brilliant, if also insidious.
Oh yes .. the FBI swooped in toot sweet into Colorado, and there they are again taking over the investigation here. Why? Why is not local law enforcement taking the lead role in this local crime? Because of the convenient act of labeling this "domestic terrorism" as opposed to just cold blooded murder?
If we "conspiracy theorists" (as you would like to label us) claim federal involvement in these crimes for the purpose of furthering political agendas .... like the PROVEN CASE of the ATF gun running thousands of weapons ... including explosives to Mexican drug cartels just recently exposed ... can you not contemplate the nature of our distrust for having these investigations taken over by none other than federal law enforcement authorities with a HISTORY of PROVEN acts of terrorism and misconduct?
Is that too much for you to grasp, also? You see, this is that catch 22 ... just like the ATF illegally running guns .... obviously, they report directly to the Attorney General .. the highest law enforcement official in the justice department. So what to do? Let the criminal Holder investigate himself? It's the same scenario here. What better group to use to commit covert acts of terrorism than those responsible for investigating acts of terrorism? It's a cozy little arrangement. They say the best way to rob a bank is to own one ... and the best way to commit criminal acts without fear of prosecution is to be at the top of the law enforcement food chain.
Get something through your head:
ATF =Gun running, tobacco and alcohol tax enforcement thugs for the crime organization
CIA = International terrorist organization
FBI = Domestic terror organization
DEA = Primary Drug Import/Export organization
Department Of Justice = overseer of criminal operations, reporting to the Godfather.
They'll be lamb slaughter occasionally, we'll never end that. There's just too many guns around. The cops have even resorted to tazing and sprays..there's always that option, if allowed.
You fight off a guy with a gun with some pepper spray if you want. Good luck.
I turned on CNN for a while after I saw this. The reporter---whoever he was---was falling all over himself saying not to jump to conclusions on who was responsible or why and what set off the gunman.
Maybe they learned from the last shooting not to blame innocent people. At last CNN is learning something.
Guess I posted too soon----CNN still has idiots working there-----"Only the good die young"? WOW
Nope. I have seen more than enough to recognize how elementary logic and concepts confuse you, therefore you would be ill suited to deal with any matters of complexity calling for insight, intuition, and grasp of nuance.
And? That is precisely what I said ... I said there is a major problem when witness testimony directly conflicts with the story being offered by police. And that is exactly what happened in Colorado, and again happening here, since both events have witnesses that indicate more than one perpetrator, while police insist on defining the events as a "lone gunman". This is the most obvious of red flags for suspecting foul play by authorities, as history will show a consistent theme running across decades of misdeeds and conspiracies using this worn out "lone gunman" patsy routine.
I've got a little piece of advice for you, inspector ... it's a pretty well accepted concept that when someone deliberately lies, they are trying to hide something. That's just as true for police as for anyone else.
No, I read and comprehend just fine .... and this is exactly what you said .... "If you have an eyewitness saying that four people did the shooting and you have absolutely NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at all to corroborate those witnesses account, yet you do have physical evidence which shows only one shooter, as well as OTHER eyewitnesses who say there was only one shooter, what do you do? Throw out every other logical piece of evidence to try to prove the eyewitness or witnesses who said there were four shooters? Geeeezzzzz".
First off, in the immediate aftermath of a crime of this nature, there is unlikely to be anything close to physical evidence that would prove only one perpetrator, unless the entire event from start to finish, including every angle and every entrance is captured on surveillance video and carefully analyzed. On the other hand, when a witness at the scene definitively reports to arriving police of actually seeing 4 perps, including a clear description of them, such as race and details of clothing, who entered the facility and began firing weapons ... that is hard evidence that must be acted upon until such time as stronger evidence might emerge proving that eyewitness account to be in error.
But the real point here is when you have a witness claiming to have seen 4 perps, while police claim no indication of more than one assailant ... that is a direct, bold face lie on the part of the police. The witness testimony of 4 perps constitutes at least an indication, if not hard evidence of more than one perp involved.
Again ... Investigation 101 .... when someone lies, they are attempting to hide or otherwise cover something up. What are the police trying to hide? That is the issue here. And it is a very VALID and very OBVIOUS question.
Now you're playing a semantical game .... you stated PRECISELY that there was (quote) "absolutely no physical evidence at all to corroborate those witnesses accounts" which claimed more than one person involved. You then followed those remarks by claiming the existence of physical evidence that does show only one perpetrator, (without actually identifying the nature and specifics of that alleged evidence). So yes, that is the insinuation ... that all evidence (to date) points to one perp, and no evidence (to date) supports more than one.
What does that have to do with the price of beans in Boston? What possible relevancy could that investigation reveal about what actually took place at the scene of the crime? Would his friends in Virginia have better information about what occurred in Wisconsin than the damned people at the scene? Could journals provide a better indication regarding the number of perps involved at the scene of the crime than bloody eyewitnesses? Get real ... OKAY ..... no one can be this dense without strenuous effort. Methinks the lady doth protest too much ... in this instance, swap "protest" with "obfuscate".
I've got a news flash for you .... the FREAKING FBI is a domestic terrorist organization, having their fingerprints on virtually every high profile event that occurs in this country. They are domestically, what the CIA is internationally. They are the proverbial "fox guarding the chicken coop". And that's not a conspiracy theory, that is a conspiracy fact. And it's a tidy little arrangement ... what better scenario for the FBI to be the investigative body in charge of investigating their own criminal activity? It's a brilliant, if also insidious.
Oh yes .. the FBI swooped in toot sweet into Colorado, and there they are again taking over the investigation here. Why? Why is not local law enforcement taking the lead role in this local crime? Because of the convenient act of labeling this "domestic terrorism" as opposed to just cold blooded murder?
If we "conspiracy theorists" (as you would like to label us) claim federal involvement in these crimes for the purpose of furthering political agendas .... like the PROVEN CASE of the ATF gun running thousands of weapons ... including explosives to Mexican drug cartels just recently exposed ... can you not contemplate the nature of our distrust for having these investigations taken over by none other than federal law enforcement authorities with a HISTORY of PROVEN acts of terrorism and misconduct?
Is that too much for you to grasp, also? You see, this is that catch 22 ... just like the ATF illegally running guns .... obviously, they report directly to the Attorney General .. the highest law enforcement official in the justice department. So what to do? Let the criminal Holder investigate himself? It's the same scenario here. What better group to use to commit covert acts of terrorism than those responsible for investigating acts of terrorism? It's a cozy little arrangement. They say the best way to rob a bank is to own one ... and the best way to commit criminal acts without fear of prosecution is to be at the top of the law enforcement food chain.
Get something through your head:
ATF =Gun running, tobacco and alcohol tax enforcement thugs for the crime organization
CIA = International terrorist organization
FBI = Domestic terror organization
DEA = Primary Drug Import/Export organization
Department Of Justice = overseer of criminal operations, reporting to the Godfather.
Dear god! You're overwrought yet again. And that last little list there, "ATF" etc, seems just a tad paranoid.
Oh, I understand what you're saying; I just think it's enormously extreme.
p.s.
still hoping for that list of Brady violation cases.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 08-06-2012 at 09:19 PM..
Dear god! You're overwrought yet again. And that last little list there, "ATF" etc, seems just a tad paranoid.
Oh, I understand what you're saying; I just think it's enormously extreme.
That's because you THINK you know more than you actually do ... and you talk a lot more than you actually listen. This formula is obviously nothing new, and pretty much guarantees that tomorrow will find you no better informed than you are today. And it explains why you cannot grasp this new information. You have no practical experience in dealing with such things.
Not the second guy in the first video. He was interviewed yesterday saying four shooters ran into the church. Fox only shows a part of his interview where he talks about the victims in the above video.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
