2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: macsak on June 22, 2016, 06:06:08 AM
-
It’s impossible that the man I know could do that,”
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/united-states/orlando-massacre-was-revenge-not-terrorism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover
-
It’s impossible that the man I know could do that,”
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/united-states/orlando-massacre-was-revenge-not-terrorism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover
Not sure why but my BS meter went off when I read this. I don't know if I believe this guy? Maybe he just wants his 15 minutes of fame so he makes up this story? I could be wrong..... :wtf:
-
What better "cover" for a "closeted" homosexual than to appear to be a militant member of a religion that prescribes death (commonly by being thrown from a tall building with hands tied behind the back) for homosexuals. I'm sure the trip(s) to Saudi Arabia and frequenting jihadist websites and the history of violent behavior and threats based upon claimed offenses to islam and the calls during the massacre vowing allegiance to ISIS were all merely part of the ruse. He was no more than a poor misunderstood exploited gay guy. See? I told ya. Now, let's ban guns.
-
Certainly a possibility. It wouldn't be the first case where a romantic involvement went sour and someone went on a killing spree.
There are a lot of possibilities here as far as motives.
A conflicted gay muslim
A jihadist pretending to be gay for terrorist purposes
A gay muslim who was angry over a romantic relationship and used Jihad as a cover to save face
All of the above
Not sure if we will ever know the truth.
-
For someone who complains about derailing threads, you sure are doing a lot of it.
I am participating in an honest discussion, no derailment. But here you come trolling in mud. Got news for ya, you aren't a very good fisherman.
Why is my speculating on his activities worse than your speculations? All you posted was a bunch of "What if he was a" fantasies without supporting facts, and a conclusion of "we may never know." AG Loretta Lynch used those exact words. I wonder why you'd be parroting her. Curious how you keep posting comments the Liberal administration is feeding the media to broadcast.
The shooter himself left us HIS OWN VOICE ON TAPE to tell us why he did it! The law says a man who believes he is about to die is making a "dying declaration," which has more weight than any circumstantial evidence.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is defined as a statement made by a declarant, who is now unavailable, who made the statement under a belief of certain or impending death, and the statement concerns the causes or circumstances of impending death.
A dying declaration is considered credible and trustworthy evidence based upon the general belief that most people who know that they are about to die do not lie. As a result, it is an exception to the Hearsay rule, which prohibits the use of a statement made by someone other than the person who repeats it while testifying during a trial, because of its inherent untrustworthiness.
The only fact that can be used to discredit his statements would be either his own contradictory statement he recorded previously, or a reasonable question regarding his mental competence. So far, no one has said he was incompetent, and statements like in this posted article are considered Hearsay. This interviewee says what the shooter told him. That doesn't carry the same weight as a dying declaration.
You think you can spew your own thoughts on here, but I can't? Is that your position?
Never mind. I already know your position. It's 180 degrees from the majority here.
-
Of course I am. But I am not quoted as complaining about someone else derailing threads like you are. Being a hypocrite is not very becoming, Mr. Pot.
Yes, please do. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I am not complaining, just pointing out Jackson's hypocrisy.
As for this guy, I would lean towards his statement being true. I could understand the 15 minutes of fame angle if he just went to the media but in this case he went to the FBI. If he is lying to the FBI and they find out, he would be facing serious charges (never lie to a federal agent, serious punishment) I don't see any real reason to doubt what he says at this point.
-
Why is my speculating on his activities worse than your speculations? All you posted was a bunch of "What if he was a" fantasies without supporting facts, and a conclusion of "we may never know." AG Loretta Lynch used those exact words. I wonder why you'd be parroting her. Curious how you keep posting comments the Liberal administration is feeding the media to broadcast.
The shooter himself left us HIS OWN VOICE ON TAPE to tell us why he did it! The law says a man who believes he is about to die is making a "dying declaration," which has more weight than any circumstantial evidence.
The only fact that can be used to discredit his statements would be either his own contradictory statement he recorded previously, or a reasonable question regarding his mental competence. So far, no one has said he was incompetent, and statements like in this posted article are considered Hearsay. This interviewee says what the shooter told him. That doesn't carry the same weight as a dying declaration.
You think you can spew your own thoughts on here, but I can't? Is that your position?
Never mind. I already know your position. It's 180 degrees from the majority here.
I am not speculating. Someone reported they had a gay relationship with the shooter, I said it was conceivable.
I am glad you understand dying declarations but has it occurred to you that maybe he lied?
-
I am not complaining, just pointing out Jackson's hypocrisy.
As for this guy, I would lean towards his statement being true. I could understand the 15 minutes of fame angle if he just went to the media but in this case he went to the FBI. If he is lying to the FBI and they find out, he would be facing serious charges (never lie to a federal agent, serious punishment) I don't see any real reason to doubt what he says at this point.
Hey, Mr. Barracks Lawyer! The statements of this guy would be inadmissible as Hearsay, since the person he is speaking of can't testify in his own defense.
But don't let that stop you from supporting somebody you never met & know nothing about
who happens to be helping the DOJ cover up the shooter's real motives linked to Islam and ISIS!!
-
I am not complaining, just pointing out Jackson's hypocrisy.
As for this guy, I would lean towards his statement being true. I could understand the 15 minutes of fame angle if he just went to the media but in this case he went to the FBI. If he is lying to the FBI and they find out, he would be facing serious charges (never lie to a federal agent, serious punishment) I don't see any real reason to doubt what he says at this point.
Sure sounded like complaining to me.
I understand what you are saying. But my gut is telling me something stinks about his story. I can't put my finger on it. I could be wrong. It just doesn't pass the sniff test for me yet.
-
Sure sounded like complaining to me.
I understand what you are saying. But my gut is telling me something stinks about his story. I can't put my finger on it. I could be wrong. It just doesn't pass the sniff test for me yet.
Maybe this will help:
1. Shooter has never been shown to be a liar.
2. Man giving the interview has never been shown to be a liar.
3. Our government, which is pushing the same narrative as the man in the interview, has lied to us numerous times, and often when it relates to Muslim Terrorism.
I'm going to put my money on the guy who did the shooting to explain why.
-
Hey, Mr. Barracks Lawyer! The statements of this guy would be inadmissible as Hearsay, since the person he is speaking of can't testify in his own defense.
But don't let that stop you from supporting somebody you never met & know nothing about
who happens to be helping the DOJ cover up the shooter's real motives linked to Islam and ISIS!!
Who am I allegedly supporting in my comments?
This is a discussion about a possible motive and nature of the attack. Have an open mind and consider all the possibilities instead of sticking your head in the sand.
And no, what this guy claims is not hearsay. Let me post the definition for you.
hear·say
/ˈhirˌsāy
noun
noun: hearsay
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
The guy making this claim isn't saying he heard it from someone else so it is not hearsay.
-
Cleaned up the thread a bit (moderately). This is a bit like whack-a-mole.
I may clean it up some more. Pls keep it civil.
-
Sure sounded like complaining to me.
I understand what you are saying. But my gut is telling me something stinks about his story. I can't put my finger on it. I could be wrong. It just doesn't pass the sniff test for me yet.
Someone lied about seeing the DC sniper and when caught for the lie they were prosecuted as I understand so it certainly is possible.
Other individuals reported they thought he was gay and even his wife made comments about him being gay so it is somewhat corroborative.
-
Maybe this will help:
1. Shooter has never been shown to be a liar.
2. Man giving the interview has never been shown to be a liar.
3. Our government, which is pushing the same narrative as the man in the interview, has lied to us numerous times, and often when it relates to Muslim Terrorism.
I'm going to put my money on the guy who did the shooting to explain why.
So the government went out and bribed this guy, the shooters wife, and other individuals who knew the shooter to make false claims about him being gay?
Or how about this, maybe he was gay and a muslim terrorist. Multiple motivations are possible.
Never being shown to be a liar doesn't mean his statements are infallible. He would have a motive to lie.
-
Who am I allegedly supporting in my comments?
This is a discussion about a possible motive and nature of the attack. Have an open mind and consider all the possibilities instead of sticking your head in the sand.
And no, what this guy claims is not hearsay. Let me post the definition for you.
hear·say
/ˈhirˌsāy
noun
noun: hearsay
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
The guy making this claim isn't saying he heard it from someone else so it is not hearsay.
You might want to get a refund for those "criminal law studies."
We have direct statements by the shooter in a dying declaration, and you want to say he lied.
We have secondhand statements and actions of the shooter from someone who wants their identity kept secret.
Once again, unless you have some basis for believing the statements on the 911 tape are false, direct evidence trumps purported firsthand witness accounts.
And, let's assume the shooter did lie .... to the witness. How can you trust anything he was told if you think the shooter is lying? Both accounts of the motive can't be true. Which do you think is more likely to be true according to the shooter?
-
So the government went out and bribed this guy, the shooters wife, and other individuals who knew the shooter to make false claims about him being gay?
Or how about this, maybe he was gay and a muslim terrorist. Multiple motivations are possible.
Never being shown to be a liar doesn't mean his statements are infallible. He would have a motive to lie.
Nobody here is claiming he was or wasn't gay. Does being gay make that his motive? He's lived in the US his whole life, where being gay is celebrated and protected. Here's another "what if". What if he felt performing Jihad was the only way to get into heaven and have his gay life forgiven. If not, a mass shooting of this magnitude makes no sense in the context of him being gay. Only in the context of his religion and how it views being gay makes any sense.
If what I said is true, then it's not his gay lifestyle that was the motive, but Islam's promise that if he performs mass murder to become a martyr for Islam, his gay lifestyle won't condemn him.
I'm trying to see why you can't see the obvious instead of trying to argue for the merely plausible.
-
You might want to get a refund for those "criminal law studies."
We have direct statements by the shooter in a dying declaration, and you want to say he lied.
We have secondhand statements and actions of the shooter from someone who wants their identity kept secret.
Once again, unless you have some basis for believing the statements on the 911 tape are false, direct evidence trumps purported firsthand witness accounts.
And, let's assume the shooter did lie .... to the witness. How can you trust anything he was told if you think the shooter is lying? Both accounts of the motive can't be true. Which do you think is more likely to be true according to the shooter?
So you substitute secondhand for hearsay when they are basically the same thing. The reports are first hand because the people making the claim are saying they experienced it directly, not by someone elses word.
I don't "want" to say he lied. I am considering that option.
If the shooter were in fact gay it would explain why he would lie about his motives.
As much as you want to believe that a murdering maniac is trustworthy in his statements this isn't the only possible explanation and there certainly isn't enough evidence yet released for anyone to have a solid conclusion about what the shooter wanted to do.
Your scenario that maybe he was trying to redeem himself for his gay lifestyle is very plausible, but the known facts available to us fit multiple possible motives. No one is throwing some off the wall theory here.
-
I am more of a bottom line sort of person. Sometimes certain things just don't matter. Like WHY the shooter did what he did. Bottom line is there are approximately 50 dead and 50 wounded in this incident. Trying to figure out why he did doesn't change the outcome for me. It does to some like the Democrats. But for me trying to get our court system and our police force to enforce the existing laws and punishments to the fullest extent is the best system we have to help prevent this sort of thing from occurring again. The problem that I see is that so many people who commit murder and homicide get off after a few or many years. Put them to death is what I believe is the best deterrent. Put it on TV and show the world that if you come here (or are born here) and kill Americans we will kill you. And if they commit suicide before we can electrocute or hang them, then we should show them up to be what they truly are and that is a coward to the max. And we don't treat your dead body with respect either. There are other things I think we should do but I would probably get kicked off the forum for stating them. That deterrent is the best system in the world for preventing this from happening. Don't think I am saying it will deter all crime. All I am saying is that it is the best deterrent we have.
Why do we feel the need to play up the fact that the murderer went and shot gay people specifically? It makes no difference if they are gay or not. Since we play up that they are gay we make it into what we call a hate crime. Which is supposed to make it worse. Worse than what? Killing 50 fat, white, privileged Republicans? I think this is reverse discrimination and is detrimental to our society as a whole. We should not be concerned as to why he killed nor specifically the sexual preference of who he killed. It makes no difference in the end.
Why do we feel the need to play up the fact that the shooter is gay specifically? It makes no difference if he is gay or not. Since we are playing up that he is gay and he shot 50 gay people because he was what? Prejudiced? Didn't like the way he was treated by other gays? What we are doing is to make it into an explanation that people can look at and accept. If we accept it then we can also accept the premise that the gun is the problem since we have already accepted the murderer and his motive.
Unfortunately, we have to live with Democrats who feel sorry for murderers and such. More so than the family and friends of the victims. So it shows the world we are soft on people like this. It shows you can commit murder and get away with it to some or all extent here in the U.S. Immigrant or citizen, it doesn't matter. The statement we make to the world is the same. This is a very sad time for me.
-
Sure sounded like complaining to me.
I understand what you are saying. But my gut is telling me something stinks about his story. I can't put my finger on it. I could be wrong. It just doesn't pass the sniff test for me yet.
The "Mission Impossible" has me thinking BS. Could be true, but when something just doesn't seem right, it often isn't right.
-
So you substitute secondhand for hearsay when they are basically the same thing. The reports are first hand because the people making the claim are saying they experienced it directly, not by someone elses word.
I don't "want" to say he lied. I am considering that option.
If the shooter were in fact gay it would explain why he would lie about his motives.
As much as you want to believe that a murdering maniac is trustworthy in his statements this isn't the only possible explanation and there certainly isn't enough evidence yet released for anyone to have a solid conclusion about what the shooter wanted to do.
Your scenario that maybe he was trying to redeem himself for his gay lifestyle is very plausible, but the known facts available to us fit multiple possible motives. No one is throwing some off the wall theory here.
You have concluded there is not enough evidence to determine his motives.
I conclude his statements are sufficient evidence to identify his motives.
Who are you going to believe? The government, or the killer? Your choice.
-
Cleaned up the thread a bit (moderately). This is a bit like whack-a-mole.
I may clean it up some more. Pls keep it civil.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160622/570fe83b537283d909b5877c311c0061.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The DOJ and FBI are unable to determine the motive for the Orlando Night Club mass murder even though the shooter called 911 and told them why.
The same agencies will be helping put people on the Terror Watch List and No-Fly List.
Congress is trying to pass a new law banning anyone on those lists from buying guns.
Sounds good to me! :thumbsup:
-
You have concluded there is not enough evidence to determine his motives.
I conclude his statements are sufficient evidence to identify his motives.
Who are you going to believe? The government, or the killer? Your choice.
I have not reached a conclusion. This thread is exploring possibilities.
Also, I am not referring to government statements, I am referring to statements by people who knew the shooter, so no, it is not government statements vs killer's statements.
-
I have not reached a conclusion. This thread is exploring possibilities.
Also, I am not referring to government statements, I am referring to statements by people who knew the shooter, so no, it is not government statements vs killer's statements.
After initially expressing confidence that they could determine a motive, Lynch added, “I cannot tell you definitively that we will ever narrow it down to one motivation. People often act out of more than one motivation.”
“This was clearly an act of terror and an act of hate,” she said. “We will look at all motivations and hope to come to a conclusion there.”
-- AG Loretta Lynch, aka "The Government"
-
-- AG Loretta Lynch, aka "The Government"
Iam not referring to Loretta Lynch's statements, I am referring to reports by the shooters wife, gay lover, and acquaintances.
-
Iam not referring to Loretta Lynch's statements, I am referring to reports by the shooters wife, gay lover, and acquaintances.
Yes, I can tell you are ignoring the comments of the government .... even though you are posting the exact same words as your own! :rofl:
-
I thought it was reported early on that his statements to 911 didn't make sense. Something about claiming affiliation or praise of organizations that are competing, fighting, etc.
I haven't fully kept up with the details of this story and who knows of the accuracy of what was reported early on. I believe it was CNN, so of course there's always how MSM wants to spin thing. Then who knows if the information was discredited by Snopes (sorry, had to throw that one in there ;D ) Just like how the news this morning was reporting a mass shooting in Germany. The details seem sketchy at best right now, but it seems like the only person who was shoot and killed was the hostage taker and there is doubt as to whether or not the gun was real and some reports mention blanks.
-
Yes, I can tell you are ignoring the comments of the government .... even though you are posting the exact same words as your own! :rofl:
Strawman.
-
FBI investigators say they have found no evidence that Orlando shooter had gay lovers
-- LA TIMES
Since the shooting at an Orlando nightclub last week that left 49 people dead, reports have emerged that gunman Omar Mateen frequented the gay club, used gay dating apps and had gay lovers.
But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.
Mateen, 29, told police negotiators he had carried out the shooting that began at 2 a.m. June 12 and ended, after a three-hour standoff, when he was killed by police.
He claimed the shooting was carried out in allegiance to the militant group Islamic State, as a message to halt U.S. bombing in Iraq and Syria.
Several Pulse regulars have come forward in the days since the shooting, claiming to have seen Mateen at the club or to have been contacted by him on the gay dating apps Grindr, Jack’d and Adam4Adam.
On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive.
But investigators do not consider the man’s account credible, according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html
-
FBI investigators say they have found no evidence that Orlando shooter had gay lovers
-- LA TIMES
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html
And what about his wife and acquaintances?
You seem awfully intent on not letting the shooter be a homosexual.... interesting.
-
And what about his wife and acquaintances?
You seem awfully intent on not letting the shooter be a homosexual.... interesting.
What about the FBI investigation which included interviewing his wife and acquaintances? You seem awfully intent on making the shooter be a homosexual.... interesting.
-
And what about his wife and acquaintances?
You seem awfully intent on not letting the shooter be a homosexual.... interesting.
As usual, you are asking questions and have NO ANSWERS.
Stories in the news, while interesting and dramatic for sheeple like yourself, are not evidence of anything. Someone said they saw the shooter prior to that day in a darkened bar with dance lights flashing? Maybe he was there casing the place? Maybe he was never there, and they saw someone resembling him?
BTW, the wife was probably going to be charged since she admitted to being an accomplice. Now reports say she is "missing". You think her story of being married to a flaming homosexual is true?
As far as the shooter being a homosexual, until there is proof from a credible source, I'm goiong to file those stories under "things the media reports to get the public's attention".
So, if you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation, quit trolling! (I know....that's like telling a fish to quit swimming!)
-
What about the FBI investigation which included interviewing his wife and acquaintances? You seem awfully intent on making the shooter be a homosexual.... interesting.
The one Fap posted? It doesn't mention the wife.
I am considering all possibilities here, I am not pushing a particular one. What I am doing is objecting to discarding the possibility he was gay.
-
As usual, you are asking questions and have NO ANSWERS.
If I knew the answer, I wouldn't ask the question. :crazy:
I am not a mind reader, I don't know your motivations.
-
The one Fap posted? It doesn't mention the wife.
Are you really suggesting that because a particular article doesn't specifically mention that his wife has been questioned by the FBI that the FBI in conducting over 500 interviews thus far neglected to interview the wife? That article doesn't mention about 496 other interviews. Or that the FBI is covering up what the wife said? Or that the FBI erroneously found her information to be "not credible"? Or what exactly?
PS That's four questions.
-
If I knew the answer, I wouldn't ask the question. :crazy:
I am not a mind reader, I don't know your motivations.
My motivations are not the subject of this thread.
Yours, however, seem to be the same on all threads ... arguing and trolling.
-
Are you really suggesting that because a particular article doesn't specifically mention that his wife has been questioned by the FBI that the FBI in conducting over 500 interviews thus far neglected to interview the wife? That article doesn't mention about 496 other interviews. Or that the FBI is covering up what the wife said? Or that the FBI erroneously found her information to be "not credible"? Or what exactly?
I just wasn't sure where you were referring to that all the other claims of his homosexuality don't amount to anything.
I am not saying he was or wasn't gay but I am considering it as a possibility. Many reports that come in are not going to be verifiable in their very nature. How does one verify they saw or talked to the shooter in the night club previously? (for example)
I think conclusions are a bit premature at this point. We are but outsiders to the investigation, digesting what bits we can gather from news articles containing reports from "sources inside the investigation"
-
My motivations are not the subject of this thread.
Yours, however, seem to be the same on all threads ... arguing and trolling.
Says the man who does it repeatedly. :crazy:
-
Says the man who does it repeatedly. :crazy:
:stopjack: