Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter (Read 29021 times)

PeaShooter

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2016, 08:01:50 PM »
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.

edster48

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2016, 08:37:12 PM »
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.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

London808

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2016, 08:44:20 PM »
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.
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

eyeeatingfish

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2016, 09:20:27 PM »
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

eyeeatingfish

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2016, 09:29:03 PM »

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.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2016, 09:34:17 PM »
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!
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

eyeeatingfish

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2016, 09:46:31 PM »
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.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2016, 10:09:37 PM »
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!!
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

edster48

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2016, 10:41:50 PM »
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.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2016, 10:57:00 PM »
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.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2016, 11:14:02 PM »
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! 

Quote
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!

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

eyeeatingfish

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2016, 04:41:59 AM »
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.

Inspector

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2016, 05:01:03 AM »
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
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!

edster48

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2016, 06:52:50 AM »
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.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

edster48

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2016, 07:04:45 AM »
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.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

macsak

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2016, 07:22:30 AM »
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&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

punaperson

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2016, 07:29:46 AM »
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. 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 07:42:34 AM by punaperson »

aieahound

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2016, 07:33:16 AM »

drck1000

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2016, 07:44:46 AM »
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. 

Inspector

Re: Have they ever explained how the Orlando shooter
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2016, 07:49:35 AM »
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.
SCIENCE THAT CAN’T BE QUESTIONED IS PROPAGANDA!!!