How come so many of these "terrorists" are investigated by the FBI and let go? Are the feds doing a terrible job, or is this another manufactured incident that went wrong? Is the redacted part of the phone call where he says the name of the federal agents that talked him into it? Why did it take 3 hours for police to respond? How many patrons were shot by police? This deliberate attempt to muddy the waters reeks of a cover-up.

http://www.occupy.com/article/manufacturing-terror-how-fbi-invents-some-plots-and-ignores-others-war-freedom

How come so many of these "terrorists" are investigated by the FBI and let go? Are the feds doing a terrible job, or is this another manufactured incident that went wrong? Is the redacted part of the phone call where he says the name of the federal agents that talked him into it? Why did it take 3 hours for police to respond? How many patrons were shot by police? This deliberate attempt to muddy the waters reeks of a cover-up.

http://www.occupy.com/article/manufacturing-terror-how-fbi-invents-some-plots-and-ignores-others-war-freedom

maybe they are Obama;s Facebook friends?

Supposedly the wife is missing now.

How come so many of these "terrorists" are investigated by the FBI and let go? Are the feds doing a terrible job, or is this another manufactured incident that went wrong? Is the redacted part of the phone call where he says the name of the federal agents that talked him into it? Why did it take 3 hours for police to respond? How many patrons were shot by police? This deliberate attempt to muddy the waters reeks of a cover-up.

You are starting to sound like one of us paranoid conservative types.

How come so many of these "terrorists" are investigated by the FBI and let go? Are the feds doing a terrible job, or is this another manufactured incident that went wrong? Is the redacted part of the phone call where he says the name of the federal agents that talked him into it? Why did it take 3 hours for police to respond? How many patrons were shot by police? This deliberate attempt to muddy the waters reeks of a cover-up.

http://www.occupy.com/article/manufacturing-terror-how-fbi-invents-some-plots-and-ignores-others-war-freedom

I assume police responded easier than 3 hours but an actual swat team could take a few hours to respond. When an incident turns from an active shooter to a hostage incident then the need to rush in disappears and more time is given. In that case patrol officers would set up a permitter and wait for swat.

As for the FBI investigation, I don't know any specifics really but I do understand that just because there is reason to investigate doesn't mean there was reason to do much else. Just speculating, but it could have been that for whatever reason the FBI investigated the shooter, there was not enough evidence to warrant taking away his civil rights. Law enforcement might know in their hearts that someone is fishy but absent enough actual evidence they cannot take any action other than monitoring.

I assume police responded easier than 3 hours but an actual swat team could take a few hours to respond. When an incident turns from an active shooter to a hostage incident then the need to rush in disappears and more time is given. In that case patrol officers would set up a permitter and wait for swat.

As for the FBI investigation, I don't know any specifics really but I do understand that just because there is reason to investigate doesn't mean there was reason to do much else. Just speculating, but it could have been that for whatever reason the FBI investigated the shooter, there was not enough evidence to warrant taking away his civil rights. Law enforcement might know in their hearts that someone is fishy but absent enough actual evidence they cannot take any action other than monitoring.

They didn't monitor him at all.  If they had flagged him in NICS as a person of interest, maybe they would have been able to establish enough cause for monitoring him when he went to not one, but at least two, gun stores?

I think the FBI failed, just like they did with the SC Church murderer and the Boston Marathon bombers ..... but, I'm just speculating!

They didn't monitor him at all.  If they had flagged him in NICS as a person of interest, maybe they would have been able to establish enough cause for monitoring him when he went to not one, but at least two, gun stores?

I think the FBI failed, just like they did with the SC Church murderer and the Boston Marathon bombers ..... but, I'm just speculating!

It may be that the FBI dropped the ball but sometimes the FBI is between a rock and a hard place. An agent may know this person is dangerous but not have enough probable cause to arrest the individual or deny them of rights. Hard to tell from the limited information available to us. Balancing civil liberties against a concern for the well being of the general population is not easy.

Increased monitoring of this individual, and others, may have made a difference but may not have, it is hard to know anything for certain.

It may be that the FBI dropped the ball but sometimes the FBI is between a rock and a hard place. An agent may know this person is dangerous but not have enough probable cause to arrest the individual or deny them of rights. Hard to tell from the limited information available to us. Balancing civil liberties against a concern for the well being of the general population is not easy.

Increased monitoring of this individual, and others, may have made a difference but may not have, it is hard to know anything for certain.

Unsupported, off topic, unrelated BS as usual.  No reports say the FBI had anything like that.

We know what was reported.  The FBI had chances (multiple) and didn't have any effect on the outcome.  There has been no analysis on what ball was dropped, what people were involved, or what might need to change.  What we do know is they were as close to this shooter as several other recent mass murderers and failed to stop the attack.

Maybe you, like most Liberals, want to pass laws that might make us safer, and when they fail, blame the constraints of the system or the lack of funding due to mean Conservatives? 

The truth is, they could have had an agent IN THE STORE NEXT TO THE SHOOTER AS HE PAID FOR THE RIFLE, another as he took it to the range to test it, and three more scouring his application for any reason to deny the purchase.  None of it would have mattered, because he did not require that gun from that store to have his plan succeed,  If that purchase was denied, he could have found a private seller or had his wife apply as a straw purchaser.  he could have paid a premium for a stolen black market rifle.  Maybe he could have stolen one from an unlocked police cruiser?

The point is, you can have as much government as you want to say it makes us safer.  it doesn't.  To pretend it does ignores the real problem and avoids effective solutions.

Unsupported, off topic, unrelated BS as usual.  No reports say the FBI had anything like that.

Not BS. Like you said, just speculating. We have limited info to go on for now.

But I do agree with your final sentence, Government is not some surefire answer to stop the attack.

FBI negotiators: Waco.

Unsupported, off topic, unrelated BS as usual.  No reports say the FBI had anything like that.

There are literally 20 different ways I can think of expressing your difference of opinion that would be less hostile and insulting. Now, more than any time in Hawaii's 2a history, is the hour that we must put aside petty differences and seek unity or at least decorum. If we fight against ourselves the gun grabbers win.

There are literally 20 different ways I can think of expressing your difference of opinion that would be less hostile and insulting. Now, more than any time in Hawaii's 2a history, is the hour that we must put aside petty differences and seek unity or at least decorum. If we fight against ourselves the gun grabbers win.

I think you've misjudged me.

That was not me expressing my opinion (or difference).  That was me telling someone for the umpteenth time to stop posting unsupported BS as if it somehow has relevance to the discussion.  If that makes me look less than cordial, maybe it's because the troll in question refuses to make nice-nice as well.

I agree 99% with the "let's put our best face out there for the public to see", but this falls in the 1% of not letting someone get away with forum tactics that only  divert, confuse, derail and otherwise screw-up almost every thread I want to participate it.  He's like the crazy uncle who thinks he knows it all, has an opinion on everything, and even when proven wrong wants to argue about the color of his socks making him more right than wrong!

I'm not the only one I've seen get frustrated with his incessant arguing, so please, don't single me out  as the bad apple here.

I'll take your comment as intended, though, and try to be less responsive to stupid posts in the future!   

I think you've misjudged me.

That was not me expressing my opinion (or difference).  That was me telling someone for the umpteenth time to stop posting unsupported BS as if it somehow has relevance to the discussion.  If that makes me look less than cordial, maybe it's because the troll in question refuses to make nice-nice as well.

I agree 99% with the "let's put our best face out there for the public to see", but this falls in the 1% of not letting someone get away with forum tactics that only  divert, confuse, derail and otherwise screw-up almost every thread I want to participate it.  He's like the crazy uncle who thinks he knows it all, has an opinion on everything, and even when proven wrong wants to argue about the color of his socks making him more right than wrong!

I'm not the only one I've seen get frustrated with his incessant arguing, so please, don't single me out  as the bad apple here.

I'll take your comment as intended, though, and try to be less responsive to stupid posts in the future!   

You speculated, I then replied with my own speculations on the same topic as you and then you jump down my throat claiming it was unsupported BS and unrelated to the topic.

Double standard there Fap.

You speculated, I then replied with my own speculations on the same topic as you and then you jump down my throat claiming it was unsupported BS and unrelated to the topic.

Double standard there Fap.