2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: macsak on June 12, 2016, 06:15:48 PM
-
Was able to kill and wound so many?
50 kills and 50+ wounded is a lot when the crowd would've likely been scattering and taking cover
Yes I know
The solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
But the paris attackers had multiple locations and assailants and explosives
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Get to the back of a room aim towards the door way and start shooting, every one runs away towards your point of aim,
With an AR and a pistols his kill and injury numbers should of been a lot higher
Not to mention it looks like he tried to get away and was forced back inside by police
-
With an AR and a pistols his kill and injury numbers should of been a lot higher
?
actually no
this is the worst mass shooting in US history
and it was done by a single shooter
those are hollywood movie statistics
they are saying "hostage situation" and that he "shot some hostages"
so it sounds like somehow he had them trapped
but that is a high casulty count
-
Easy with a nightclub for several reasons.
Nightclub is probably crowded, news said 200 people in there, so easy targets and people would have a hard time moving around.
Loud music and lights, may have delayed peoples reactions.
News said everyone got down on the floor when they heard shots, easy targets.
Same as fires, everyone heads to the front entrance in emergencies versus side exits It funnels everyone in one area and slows down their exit. Easy targets.
-
Well maybe he had "special" training while employed by G4S contractor tied in with DHS. Something stinks and hope some real independent news org will dig deep thru the kaka and spill the beans.
-
?
actually no
this is the worst mass shooting in US history
and it was done by a single shooter
those are hollywood movie statistics
they are saying "hostage situation" and that he "shot some hostages"
so it sounds like somehow he had them trapped
but that is a high casulty count
The night club has a max capacity of 800 (according to an ex worker who gave an interview, Link below) 50 dead and 40 injured is low numbers, as i said if your aiming at the main entrance way when people start shooting thats the way they will run into your line of fire, In a crowded nightclub with music going it would probably take a while for people to even realize WTF is going on.
Not to mention the people who laid down for cover and got trapped inside who just became sitting ducks/cannon fodder.
Also remember that he was inside for 3 hours, people would of died from treatable wounds. had they been able to get medical assistance right away the number may have been lower.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article83301677.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article83301677.html)
Edit : they are saying 320 people were their when the shooting happened,
-
This was a terrible tragedy. The president is once again wrong about gun control. The misinformed people of this country and the rest of the world is wrong about gun control. I am once again saddened by this as it affects me.
I am still amazed that Fox News continues to use the term "Assault Rifle" in their newscasts. They know this hurts the 2A support and yet they continue to do broadcast after broadcast.....
-
They are claiming it was a fully automatic rifle.
But didn't he buy it days prior?
Don't you have to get a tax stamp, fees, wait for processing that takes a few months?
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/orlando-shooter-was-cool-and-calm-at-the-end/ar-AAgZ1QL?li=BBnbkly (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/orlando-shooter-was-cool-and-calm-at-the-end/ar-AAgZ1QL?li=BBnbkly)
"A law enforcement source said that the shooting suspect legally purchased recently the two weapons used in the attack at the shooting center in Port St. Lucie near his Fort Pierce home. He had a Glock 17 handgun purchased on June 5, a Sigsauer MCX assault rifle purchased on June 4 on his person during the shootout, and investigators later found a .38-caliber weapon in his vehicle"
No AR15
-
this is the worst mass shooting in US history
==============
This was not the worst mass shooting in U.S. History.. Not even close.
http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/wounded-knee
jus' sayin'...
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,"
-
MCX is a variation of an AR15. Worked great and shot nice when I was at Sig Academy. Nice rifle. Will probably turn into one of those Anti-bushmaster campaigns like the last time by the anti's.
-
Saw a map of the club on CNN. Either the map wasn't complete or there were no side exits at the club. Just one way in, one way out.
-
Appears there were about 4 exits from the club.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/orlando-shooting/
-
Lucky guy.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/orlando-shooting/img/scene2.jpg)
-
Another item that was brought up in a post I saw on FB. The dirt bag shot and killed at least 50 people and another 50 wounded, casualties were shot multiple times, shootout with the police, multiple shots into the air....
How the hell did one dude carry so much ammunition and magazines to accomplish all this? He must have carried at least 1k rounds, 30+ loaded mags....
Something just doesn't add up.
-
I'm guessing he had 500 rounds of ammo or 17 magazines. Even with 1,000 rounds that's about 30 pounds or so. Could carry half on a vest and other half in a bag.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/12/news/companies/orlando-shooter-employer
Apparently he worked as a security officer.
-
As a gun owner this guy screwd us big time, now people going to spin their agenda for banning semi auto, nothing like a mass shooting to mess with our rights as gun owners. We had the Clinton ban on guns now we're going to get the miss Clinton ban on guns, I hear the violins playing and NRA better find a way to spin this situation the right way, because if they say oh if they had guys with guns in the night club they would have stop them, nightmare scenario make the NRA in a worst position by saying this, because people going to blame the gun not the idiot who pulled the trigger, so they better come up with some sort of statement about the idiot and the Fbi not doing their job, I would spin it that way and still protect gun rights agenda
-
Police Chief John Mina has also admitted that some of the victims may have been hit by officers' gun fire.
-
As a gun owner this guy screwd us big time, now people going to spin their agenda for banning semi auto, nothing like a mass shooting to mess with our rights as gun owners. We had the Clinton ban on guns now we're going to get the miss Clinton ban on guns, I hear the violins playing and NRA better find a way to spin this situation the right way, because if they say oh if they had guys with guns in the night club they would have stop them, nightmare scenario make the NRA in a worst position by saying this, because people going to blame the gun not the idiot who pulled the trigger, so they better come up with some sort of statement about the idiot and the Fbi not doing their job, I would spin it that way and still protect gun rights agenda
THIS GUY WAS A TERRORIST, NOT A LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER.
-
Unfortunately, up until this guy committed the crime, he was a law abiding gun owner. His guns were purchased through normal channels, and shortly before the massacre. He passed multiple background checks, a psychological exam, and was also maybe working as a security guard. He has no connection to ISIS or any terrorist organization. He was a US born citizen who sympathized with ISIS.
-
I started following this about 0500 local time yesterday.
In one of the initial press conferences the FBI and Orlando PD was stating that they were still looking for a possible accomplice.
They were also calling this what it is, an act of terrorism. The guy had pledged his allegiance to ISIS via a 911 call.
It wasn't until a Senator { or congressman I have to admit not knowing } showed up, apparently with "orders from on high" that the narrative was changed.
At that point it became about "a mass shooting" and "a heavily armed man with an AR 15" and "homophobia".
I literally watched the spin happen, long before Obutthead spoke. You could actually see the relief in the faces of the talking heads that they didn't have to continue reporting the truth.
Within an hour everything was focused on "assault weapons" and gun control. Note that we have yet to hear this 911 call nor are they speaking of an accomplice.
I'm ashamed we've allowed our government to become this fascist parody, enabling those that seek to destroy us.
-
He has no connection to ISIS or any terrorist organization.
He made remarks at work that supported Jihad to the point a college called the FBI, They could not prove what he said so they let it slide.
He had went to the same Mosque as Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the American who went to Syria and blew himself up in the name of Allah. Again the FBI interviewed him and again let it slide.
If thats not links to ISIS and Terror organisations i dont know what is. The FBI dropped a ball on this.
-
THIS GUY WAS A TERRORIST, NOT A LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER.
He was a law abiding gun owner up until he went and killed a bunch of people
-
He made remarks at work that supported Jihad to the point a college called the FBI, They could not prove what he said so they let it slide.
He had went to the same Mosque as Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the American who went to Syria and blew himself up in the name of Allah. Again the FBI interviewed him and again let it slide.
If thats not links to ISIS and Terror organisations i dont know what is. The FBI dropped a ball on this.
I don't know if "let it slide" is an accurate description of events. They interviewed him and released him, we know that, but do we know why? Unless they had some actionable intelligence and ignored it, then I don't think we can really blame them.
What could they have done? Placed him on a terror watch list and ban applications for firearms? (something we have repeatedly protested in this forum) It could very well be that someone wasn't sharing information that would have prevented this but I hesitate to blame the FBI merely because they interviewed him and let him go. They might legitimately not had enough information to go on to take any meaningful action. I am willing to bet that the agents who did interview this guy are kicking themselves right now trying to think what bit of information they might have missed or what question they could have asked slightly differently that would have allowed them to prevent this.
-
He was a law abiding gun owner up until he went and killed a bunch of people
He was married in 2009 and divorced in 2011. He started abusing her after a few months. The ex describes having to be "rescued" from the marriage.
She said he also had a history with steroids. I don't think she'd have brought that up if it was in his medical records!
You're right! Such a good, law abiding young man!
-
He was married in 2009 and divorced in 2011. He started abusing her after a few months. The ex describes having to be "rescued" from the marriage.
She said he also had a history with steroids. I don't think she'd have brought that up if it was in his medical records!
You're right! Such a good, law abiding young man!
O, let me rephrase, he wasn't a terrorist until he actually committed an act. The logic of the argument is problematic because its like saying that law abiding citizens don't break laws, only criminals do but that is just true by definition. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they break a law. The statement is true by definition but is relatively useless.
Indeed it appears he was violent but unless he was convicted of abusing his wife then the information is not that useful since it doesn't constitute a legal status that would have gotten him barred from owning firearms.
-
O, let me rephrase, he wasn't a terrorist until he actually committed an act. The logic of the argument is problematic because its like saying that law abiding citizens don't break laws, only criminals do but that is just true by definition. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they break a law. The statement is true by definition but is relatively useless.
Indeed it appears he was violent but unless he was convicted of abusing his wife then the information is not that useful since it doesn't constitute a legal status that would have gotten him barred from owning firearms.
Wait! First you said he was law abiding, and now you say well, he wasn't a terrorist yet. And you magically know his domestic violence would not have kept him from owning guns because it was never reported? How does that work? It didn't happen if there's no report? Ever hear of different cultures? Sharia law? Not everybody does everything according to our legal system, you know.
Man, I wish I had some of whatever you're drinking!!
-
He was a law abiding gun owner up until he went and killed a bunch of people
Well, only for a little over a week, but an excellent point nonetheless.
There is no "Pre-Crime", people cannot be convicted, or denied rights, based on what they "might do". The FBI interview came up with nothing, the guy passed the background checks. This is as it should be, he was an American citizen, he had committed no crimes that disqualified him from owning a firearm { since apparently his spousal abuse wasn't documented } he was therefore able to legally purchase a firearm.
The fact that he had become an radical Islamic sympathizer, while disgusting, isn't illegal. We're going to be hearing tons of speculation about how to "prevent" this kind of thing from happening, but the fact is, in a free society you can't. Not without restricting or removing rights for everyone, which we are going to hear those on the left, and even many on the right screaming for at the top of their lungs.
The problem is, we're missing the point. The argument shouldn't be framed in terms of gun control, it should be framed in terms of terrorist control. The Islamic ideology { I refuse to call it a religion } is utterly incompatible with western society. It always has been, it always will be. Regardless of how many people call it "the religion of peace" it's quite obvious that it's not. It's an ideology of conquest, unless and until all other religions or ideologies are destroyed, and everyone that practiced them is either converted or killed, they will never stop. This is what they believe, it's written in their book, even the supposed "peaceful" Muslims believe this. That is why they will never assimilate and become part of any society they enter, their ideology doesn't allow it. They are, for lack of a better analogy, like the Borg.
We're going to be seeing more and more of this kind of violence. Until we face the truth about Islam and deal with the reality of the enemy among us.
-
Wait! First you said he was law abiding, and now you say well, he wasn't a terrorist yet. And you magically know his domestic violence would not have kept him from owning guns because it was never reported? How does that work? It didn't happen if there's no report? Ever hear of different cultures? Sharia law? Not everybody does everything according to our legal system, you know.
Man, I wish I had some of whatever you're drinking!!
I was making my statement more accurate since you were nitpicking. I nitpicked in return.
Yes, legally speaking if it wasn't reported and he wasn't convicted then he wasn't a criminal. Did you ever steal a piece of candy as a kid but were not convicted of it? Then you aren't legally a criminal even though you technically committed a crime.
The way this relates to the topic is in why he was able to get a gun. He wasn't legally a criminal so he wasn't prevented from owning a gun.
-
I was making my statement more accurate since you were nitpicking. I nitpicked in return.
Yes, legally speaking if it wasn't reported and he wasn't convicted then he wasn't a criminal. Did you ever steal a piece of candy as a kid but were not convicted of it? Then you aren't legally a criminal even though you technically committed a crime.
The way this relates to the topic is in why he was able to get a gun. He wasn't legally a criminal so he wasn't prevented from owning a gun.
Nitpicking? I used your own words! Boy, what some people won't do to cause an argument!! the stupid "crimes" you are coughing up are not even close to the domestic abuse the ex reported. She also said he was bipolar and that might have increased the violence.
And here you are making shit up again!
crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl/
noun
noun: criminal; plural noun: criminals
1.
a person who has committed a crime.
"these men are dangerous criminals"
synonyms: lawbreaker,
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+criminal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Nowhere does the definition say you have to be caught, tried and convicted. Breaking the law makes you a criminal.
if this is your idea of a discussion, you can keep it. I don't intend to debate someone who makes up shit as he goes!
-
Edster clearly backed up my point, that unless actually tried and convicted he is not a criminal by legal standards. Comments by the ex-wife amount to allegations at this point, not a conviction. But even given that I decided to concede the point to you, OK he was already a criminal and thus I refined my statement to make it more accurate. You still were not content.
The legal definition is what matters because that is what would affect his legal standing to purchase a firearm.
-
I don't agree with you or Edster on this. I believe he committed a crime when he purchased the rifle (and handgun?) as it is obvious he did so with intent to commit murder. Which we all know is a crime. JMHO
-
I don't agree with you or Edster on this. I believe he committed a crime when he purchased the rifle (and handgun?) as it is obvious he did so with intent to commit murder. Which we all know is a crime. JMHO
Really? So now the "intent" to commit a crime is itself a crime? How do you prove this intent before the act is committed? Who will be charged with defining this intent?
By that standard all of us that own firearms for self defense could be said to have the "intent" to kill someone. Oh, you can pacify your conscience with the politically correct "I shoot to stop the threat" line, but the reality is that if you aren't prepared to kill someone that you aim your gun at, you probably shouldn't have it.
Don't think for a second that the government wouldn't have a field day with this. They would rightly discover that "intent" can only be estimated before the act itself is consummated, and since they would be the entity charged with this estimation, the bar would be set as low as possible, in the interest of "public safety" of course. We would very quickly be stripped of our right to own firearms.
Since foreign nationals are not covered under the Constitution before they enter the country, it seems far more logical to me to prevent those that may have questionable intent from entering the country in the first place. As far as those already in the country, we will have to enact laws based on our treason statutes in order to ferret out groups and individuals, and kick them out of the country or imprison them. That in and of itself is incredibly scary to contemplate given the known propensity of government to abuse power, but at least it's a road we've been down before with the Nazi's and the Communists and it doesn't involve restricting our constitutional rights.
Again, there is no "Pre Crime", you cannot convict someone based on what they "might" do. This is the price we pay to live in a free society.
-
Nitpicking? I used your own words! Boy, what some people won't do to cause an argument!! the stupid "crimes" you are coughing up are not even close to the domestic abuse the ex reported. She also said he was bipolar and that might have increased the violence.
And here you are making shit up again!
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+criminal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Nowhere does the definition say you have to be caught, tried and convicted. Breaking the law makes you a criminal.
if this is your idea of a discussion, you can keep it. I don't intend to debate someone who makes up shit as he goes!
INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
-
I started following this about 0500 local time yesterday.
In one of the initial press conferences the FBI and Orlando PD was stating that they were still looking for a possible accomplice.
They were also calling this what it is, an act of terrorism. The guy had pledged his allegiance to ISIS via a 911 call.
It wasn't until a Senator { or congressman I have to admit not knowing } showed up, apparently with "orders from on high" that the narrative was changed.
At that point it became about "a mass shooting" and "a heavily armed man with an AR 15" and "homophobia".
I literally watched the spin happen, long before Obutthead spoke. You could actually see the relief in the faces of the talking heads that they didn't have to continue reporting the truth.
Within an hour everything was focused on "assault weapons" and gun control. Note that we have yet to hear this 911 call nor are they speaking of an accomplice.
I'm ashamed we've allowed our government to become this fascist parody, enabling those that seek to destroy us.
check this article out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/orlando-gunman-used-assault-rifle-with-military-roots-police-say.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
-
Police Chief John Mina has also admitted that some of the victims may have been hit by officers' gun fire.
I wonder if we'll ever find out how many of the victims were 1. hit by "friendly fire" and 2. injured/killed during the three hours it took the cops to decide to enter and engage?
And I read an account somewhere claiming that the murdering muslim had fired approximately 200 total rounds.
* * * *
Also, I'm not sure how it could be done in a "free society", but it might be useful to at least pay a bit closer attention to people who stood up and cheered when they saw the second plane go into the World Trade Center.
-
https://youtu.be/uaPekvHYX0c
-
I've heard that the media have been really pressing the investigators for that number, but that the FBI is refusing to address that question. I understand that it takes time to determine, but I doubt that information will be widely released, even when the investigation has been completed.
I'm not questioning the LE response here. Just that things don't seem to be adding up.
-
Really? So now the "intent" to commit a crime is itself a crime? How do you prove this intent before the act is committed? Who will be charged with defining this intent?
By that standard all of us that own firearms for self defense could be said to have the "intent" to kill someone. Oh, you can pacify your conscience with the politically correct "I shoot to stop the threat" line, but the reality is that if you aren't prepared to kill someone that you aim your gun at, you probably shouldn't have it.
Don't think for a second that the government wouldn't have a field day with this. They would rightly discover that "intent" can only be estimated before the act itself is consummated, and since they would be the entity charged with this estimation, the bar would be set as low as possible, in the interest of "public safety" of course. We would very quickly be stripped of our right to own firearms.
Since foreign nationals are not covered under the Constitution before they enter the country, it seems far more logical to me to prevent those that may have questionable intent from entering the country in the first place. As far as those already in the country, we will have to enact laws based on our treason statutes in order to ferret out groups and individuals, and kick them out of the country or imprison them. That in and of itself is incredibly scary to contemplate given the known propensity of government to abuse power, but at least it's a road we've been down before with the Nazi's and the Communists and it doesn't involve restricting our constitutional rights.
Again, there is no "Pre Crime", you cannot convict someone based on what they "might" do. This is the price we pay to live in a free society.
Sorry Ed, I just threw that out as more of a satirical comment. I was in a hurry and forgot to add the little ROFL. I was not serious with my comment.
-
Pretty good article on the scenario by a witness.
https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-nightclub-survivor-recalls-gunman-laughing-victims-screaming-120426888--abc-news-topstories.html
Comments on people herding into bathrooms where they were cornered.
Also on officer friendly fire during clearing of the scene.
This guy states he was shot at by the police but luckily not hit.
-
From a former juror:
https://www.facebook.com/sandra.calleon/posts/380951722027176 (https://www.facebook.com/sandra.calleon/posts/380951722027176)
"Had to go to jury duty last Wednesday to finish sentencing on a case that we started last year! Interesting this "reasonable doubt" concept...got to take away all emotional thoughts and feelings and make a decision based on the law...we were the first jury under a new law to offer a sentence recommendation based purely on facts...that either attorney presented the case allowing us to make a decision "beyond a reasonable doubt"...trippy..."
-
This guy states he was shot at by the police but luckily not hit.
1. I'm not sure "luck" was involved.
2. If one justification for cops having guns in "time, manner, and place" not allowed to "the general public" (See: Peruta) is that they have all kinds of superior training... ah, never mind. :crazy:
-
Edster clearly backed up my point, that unless actually tried and convicted he is not a criminal by legal standards. Comments by the ex-wife amount to allegations at this point, not a conviction. But even given that I decided to concede the point to you, OK he was already a criminal and thus I refined my statement to make it more accurate. You still were not content.
The legal definition is what matters because that is what would affect his legal standing to purchase a firearm.
Buying guns was not your original conclusion. You concluded he was a law abiding citizen until he wasn't, implying the mass shooting was the criminal act. That's an anti-gun statement, by the way. I read it all the time from people arguing to ban guns since we can't catch every criminal.prior to doing a background on them. Sort of like, if we can't have a perfect background check system, then we need to just do away with guns altogether.
I am pointing out that statement is a fallacy, that you can't conclude he was law abiding simply because the system failed. Law abiding good guys as a whole don't one day kill 49 people because he saw two gays kissing. He must have had a history of violence prior to that.
-
INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
That's a legal concept. Innocent implies he hasn't done anything illegal. Just because you don't have proof for a conviction in court doesn't make you "innocent". Heck, even whe the jury doesn't convict, they don't say innocent. They say "not guilty" because they can't prove innocence or guilt.
If you need an example of that concept, look up the OJ Simpson murder trial.
-
Unfortunately, this particular incident could not have easily been prevented and does give fuel to those calling for gun control.
Somewhat fortunately, the person who committed the massacre was a Muslim and terrorist sympathizer, even if he has no official ties to terrorism. This gives the 2A crowd something else to point fingers at. Yet while I can't say doing so is irrational, it is something we should be careful of. Calling for the expulsion and persecution of Muslims who are US citizens is tantamount to revoking the First Amendment. If we are willing to revoke or modify the First Amendment then there is nothing to stop others from revoking or modifying the Second Amendment.
-
Buying guns was not your original conclusion. You concluded he was a law abiding citizen until he wasn't, implying the mass shooting was the criminal act. That's an anti-gun statement, by the way. I read it all the time from people arguing to ban guns since we can't catch every criminal.prior to doing a background on them. Sort of like, if we can't have a perfect background check system, then we need to just do away with guns altogether.
I am pointing out that statement is a fallacy, that you can't conclude he was law abiding simply because the system failed. Law abiding good guys as a whole don't one day kill 49 people because he saw two gays kissing. He must have had a history of violence prior to that.
Two thumbs up for highlighting the subtle but core idea that is being carried in this discussion.
Let's compare with automobile purchases. How to prevent crazies/terrorists from buying cars and driving them into pedestrians?
-
Pretty good article on the scenario by a witness.
https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-nightclub-survivor-recalls-gunman-laughing-victims-screaming-120426888--abc-news-topstories.html
Comments on people herding into bathrooms where they were cornered.
Also on officer friendly fire during clearing of the scene.
This guy states he was shot at by the police but luckily not hit.
interesting comments about his wife
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-made-multiple-visits-to-nightclub-attacked-reports-say.html?intcmp=trending
-
The wife of the Orlando nightclub shooter knew of her husband's deadly plans and did nothing to stop him, a federal law enforcement source confirmed to Fox News.
"Salman told investigators that Mateen shared his plans with her to carry out an attack and Mateen may have even called her from the gay club Pulse during the slaughter, a source told Fox News. Salman also confirmed details of Mateen's gun purchases prior to the assault."
She went with him on scouting locations, She went with him to buy ammo and holsters, She knew he was going to do it, She aided him she is just as guilty as him
They are even saying she might have drove him to the night club
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-made-multiple-visits-to-nightclub-attacked-reports-say.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-made-multiple-visits-to-nightclub-attacked-reports-say.html)
-
The wife of the Orlando nightclub shooter knew of her husband's deadly plans and did nothing to stop him, a federal law enforcement source confirmed to Fox News.
"Salman told investigators that Mateen shared his plans with her to carry out an attack and Mateen may have even called her from the gay club Pulse during the slaughter, a source told Fox News. Salman also confirmed details of Mateen's gun purchases prior to the assault."
She went with him on scouting locations, She went with him to buy ammo and holsters, She knew he was going to do it, She aided him she is just as guilty as him
They are even saying she might have drove him to the night club
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-made-multiple-visits-to-nightclub-attacked-reports-say.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-made-multiple-visits-to-nightclub-attacked-reports-say.html)
see post right above yours
;)
-
see post right above yours
;)
Your quote and your link dont match lol, dident click it because i thought it was about people hiding in bathrooms and stuff lol
-
Your quote and your link dont match lol, dident click it because i thought it was about people hiding in bathrooms and stuff lol
:thumbsup:
yeah, ok
should've been more descriptive
it's interesting that they are talking about arresting her
-
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/dean-weingarten/the-pulse-massacre-sitting-ducks-trapped-in-bathrooms/
A link I found that sort of explains the high casualty count. It seems about 30 of the dead were killed trapped in the bathroom.
I think it is somewhat surprising there were not more casualties/dead.
-
Another eyewitness article about being trapped in the bathroom.
This includes a description about how victims bled out waiting for police to get in.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hostage-bathroom-pulse-nightclub-looked-204604513.html
-
Sorry Ed, I just threw that out as more of a satirical comment. I was in a hurry and forgot to add the little ROFL. I was not serious with my comment.
Apologies for misunderstanding your sarcasm. I felt that you, of all people, should know better and it kind of set me off. Guess I should've known better, this whole situation has me more than a little on edge. :shake:
-
Apologies for misunderstanding your sarcasm. I felt that you, of all people, should know better and it kind of set me off. Guess I should've known better, this whole situation has me more than a little on edge. :shake:
No apology necessary. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
-
That's a legal concept. Innocent implies he hasn't done anything illegal. Just because you don't have proof for a conviction in court doesn't make you "innocent". Heck, even whe the jury doesn't convict, they don't say innocent. They say "not guilty" because they can't prove innocence or guilt.
If you need an example of that concept, look up the OJ Simpson murder trial.
"Innocent until proven guilty" Its a correct statement. Being innocent until proven guilty is a vital part of America. If not the government can accuse you of any crime and punish you without a court of law. Just like the no fly list which is just a bunch of names that others can be related to with no connection to terrorists and scum, and be added to the list wrongly or innocently. Sure 99% are correct but denying the rights of 1% of people is still highly immoral. Just cause 1 dude might of been stopped doesn't mean we remove the essence of american democracy.
-
From a former juror:
https://www.facebook.com/sandra.calleon/posts/380951722027176 (https://www.facebook.com/sandra.calleon/posts/380951722027176)
"Had to go to jury duty last Wednesday to finish sentencing on a case that we started last year! Interesting this "reasonable doubt" concept...got to take away all emotional thoughts and feelings and make a decision based on the law...we were the first jury under a new law to offer a sentence recommendation based purely on facts...that either attorney presented the case allowing us to make a decision "beyond a reasonable doubt"...trippy..."
...
Lol. You related to her?
I think I used to work with that lady a few decades ago.
-
I think it is somewhat surprising there were not more casualties/dead.
From first hand accounts and reconstructions of various mass shootings (certainly Columbine, Sandy Hook, and even Virginia Tech, etc.) it's clear that the killers had the time, ability, and ammunition to kill many more people than they did. I have to wonder if at some point their "fantasy" degrades or they just lose interest because it's not exactly as they imagined. Of course, best would be armed people able to defend themselves immediately upon initial entry and end the killers' fantasy with minimal loss of life and injury to innocent people. That's my fantasy.
-
"Innocent until proven guilty" Its a correct statement. Being innocent until proven guilty is a vital part of America. If not the government can accuse you of any crime and punish you without a court of law. Just like the no fly list which is just a bunch of names that others can be related to with no connection to terrorists and scum, and be added to the list wrongly or innocently. Sure 99% are correct but denying the rights of 1% of people is still highly immoral. Just cause 1 dude might of been stopped doesn't mean we remove the essence of american democracy.
You both left out a very important word: PRESUMED. That means the government starts from a presumption of innocent. The statement is not "innocent until proven guilty." You are not innocent. You are presumed to be innocent. "presumed innocent until proven guilty" we Americans at too lazy to keep this 5 word phase intact, so we shorten it by dropping that fancy word at that beginning! :)
As I said, it's a legal concept meant to establish the basis for trial rules of evidence. It has ONE purpose: to shift the burden of proof to the government. The accused does not have to prove they are innocent. The accused has an opportunity to present a defense after the prosecution has presented their evidence. If the evidence is weak or lacking there may be no need for a defense.
You can try to lecture on American Democracy and why this is an important part of it, and I won't argue. But it is a part of the American legal system. Being presumed innocent does not make you so. If it did, then every person appearing in court would be found not guilty because they are all innocent.
-
You both left out a very important word: PRESUMED. That means the government starts from a presumption of innocent. The statement is not "innocent until proven guilty." You are not innocent. You are presumed to be innocent. "presumed innocent until proven guilty" we Americans at too lazy to keep this 5 word phase intact, so we shorten it by dropping that fancy word at that beginning! :)
As I said, it's a legal concept meant to establish the basis for trial rules of evidence. It has ONE purpose: to shift the burden of proof to the government. The accused does not have to prove they are innocent. The accused has an opportunity to present a defense after the prosecution has presented their evidence. If the evidence is weak or lacking there may be no need for a defense.
You can try to lecture on American Democracy and why this is an important part of it, and I won't argue. But it is a part of the American legal system. Being presumed innocent does not make you so. If it did, then every person appearing in court would be found not guilty because they are all innocent.
Okay even with the word PRESUMED, nothing changes. You should not be banned or punished for anything until you are FOUND guilty of said crime. I sort of support the NRA stance on this issue but with a caveat. Sale being delayed is fine but the delay must be reasonable. Much like arresting they cant keep you locked up forever with no charges.
"The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue."
-
The word "presumed" means nothing here. He just tried to avoid the real issue.
The real issue is that the Orlander shooter was truly innocent, prior to committing the crime. This is not a presumption. It is fact. Unless you have time-traveling powers you can't punish someone for a future crime.