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

"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. 

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

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

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

 
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.   

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.   

No apology necessary. 

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

"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.