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..... 

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. 

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.