Mr. Ambien Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 A break down where you can see the reporter look right at the gunman while he has it pointed at them for a few seconds before he puts it back down. I think this one is too obvious to be just lack of situational awareness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRlPbG0Ke5o Sorry, still can't imbed form this computer.This guy from the link obviously didn't see the news channels footage from the camera man who was using the view as a backdrop before panning to them. He likewise doesn't understand that they do talk before an interview starts. The guy waits until the camera pans to her to shoot at her. And his first several shots were terrible (if they even hit her immediately it certainly wasn't to any vital organs) that's why she didn't drop like a brick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 This guy from the link obviously didn't see the news channels footage from the camera man who was using the view as a backdrop before panning to them. He likewise doesn't understand that they do talk before an interview starts. The guy waits until the camera pans to her to shoot at her. And his first several shots were terrible (if they even hit her immediately it certainly wasn't to any vital organs) that's why she didn't drop like a brick. Yup. Terrible shot. Two people (three if you want to include the shooter) lose their lives and the point you're trying to make is this wacko needed more range time?! WTF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yup. Terrible shot. Two people (three if you want to include the shooter) lose their lives and the point you're trying to make is this wacko needed more range time?! WTF.Hey you're just being sensitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Hey you're just being sensitive. If by "sensitive" you mean "not ignorant", then yes, I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So what is your guys view on the motives of the shooter for attacking a random news reporter and her crew, based on the article put out less than 24 hours after the attack? Just interested thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 If Mr. A was there he would have blasted that fool with 1 perfectly aimed shot to the heart before Flanagan even had the time to fully draw his weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So what is your guys view on the motives of the shooter for attacking a random news reporter and her crew, based on the article put out less than 24 hours after the attack? Just interested thanks. It wasn't a 'random news reporter and her crew'. Read the shooter's manifesto, also released less than 24 hours after the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 The guy was gonna murder regardless of whether or not he had access to guns. If he strapped on a GoPro cam to his head and went after the trio with a longsword, I doubt it would be a "anti-sword" rallying cry. This is just another another unfortunately case where someone felt it was justified to go hurt and murder other people. Obviously when one comes up with that solution, steps should be taken to prevent that. Was his unjustly fired before? Did his firing ruined his career? Was there any financial difficulties? Those questions and many more needs to be addressed before people just jump onto the bandwagon of "herp derp.... gunz R bad!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yup. Terrible shot. Two people (three if you want to include the shooter) lose their lives and the point you're trying to make is this wacko needed more range time?! WTF. lol? The guy was gonna murder regardless of whether or not he had access to guns. If he strapped on a GoPro cam to his head and went after the trio with a longsword, I doubt it would be a "anti-sword" rallying cry. This is just another another unfortunately case where someone felt it was justified to go hurt and murder other people. Obviously when one comes up with that solution, steps should be taken to prevent that. Was his unjustly fired before? Did his firing ruined his career? Was there any financial difficulties? Those questions and many more needs to be addressed before people just jump onto the bandwagon of "herp derp.... gunz R bad!" Rational thinking how insensitive of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 It wasn't a 'random news reporter and her crew'. Read the shooter's manifesto, also released less than 24 hours after the shooting. Usually in any law enforcement investigation, details such as a "manifesto" are rarely released so quickly. This makes no sense according to law enforcement protocols, any murder investigation they will take time before releasing such vivid details of the murder so quickly. When assumptions and details are released this fast, you must ponder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwen Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Usually in any law enforcement investigation, details such as a "manifesto" are rarely released so quickly. This makes no sense according to law enforcement protocols, any murder investigation they will take time before releasing such vivid details of the murder so quickly. When assumptions and details are released this fast, you must ponder why. The murders took place on live television...there were 'vivid details' already out there. The shooter's first person video had been viewed by thousands (tens of) of people...the manifesto had been faxxed to the television station....if there hadn't been comment by the police regarding the investigation, there would have been a massive hue and outcry of 'coverup'. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The shooter made sure that news and video of his deed would be circulating amongst the viewing public long before law enforcement could possibly contain any sort of investigation. It appears that people are just looking for the latest conspiracy theory in this 'it was fake', 'it was a setup and not real' nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Usually in any law enforcement investigation, details such as a "manifesto" are rarely released so quickly. This makes no sense according to law enforcement protocols, any murder investigation they will take time before releasing such vivid details of the murder so quickly. When assumptions and details are released this fast, you must ponder why. Released? He sent it to the media directly. It wasn't up to law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Video definitely looks staged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 This guy from the link obviously didn't see the news channels footage from the camera man who was using the view as a backdrop before panning to them. He likewise doesn't understand that they do talk before an interview starts. The guy waits until the camera pans to her to shoot at her. And his first several shots were terrible (if they even hit her immediately it certainly wasn't to any vital organs) that's why she didn't drop like a brick. NeedZ more flamethrower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Yup. It happens on virtually every multiple shooting. Bocivus, particularly, thinks all of these events are staged. (An effort to take people's guns away, I suppose) He called Sandy Hook and Charlie Hebdo fake and (as you can see above) chimed in with skepticism on this one as well.Sandy Hook was really really shady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Sandy Hook was really really shady. Sandy Hook was absolutely fake. Anyone who looks into it with an open mind will see massive holes and lies. Starting with Robby Parker when he's laughing on camera right before his interview and then starts hyperventilating himself to get into character. Of course the only argument by the ignorant is that "everyone handles a loss of a loved one different". All of them never have tears and are perfectly happy going on CNN or FOX for a live interview the SAME day as their loved one got blown away. Yeah, that's normal... It's no different with this case. If you pay attention you will see the pattern. If you see a story run non-stop on the main stream media you WILL see the pattern of fake interviews, the agenda will be talked about, (whether it's guns, cameras on cops, black vs. white etc) by the "victims". It's the exact same story every time. But hey, it's on the main stream media so it must be true and anyone who questions it or points out inconsistencies is scrutinized as a quack. I'm used to it. I'm just trying to wake some folks up to the reality of what is happening, is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Yup. It happens on virtually every multiple shooting. Bocivus, particularly, thinks all of these events are staged. (An effort to take people's guns away, I suppose) He called Sandy Hook and Charlie Hebdo fake and (as you can see above) chimed in with skepticism on this one as well. The footage alone of the Charlie Hebdo shooting proves it's fake to anyone not suffering from cognitive dissonance. It may have been the most blatant one of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 The murders took place on live television...there were 'vivid details' already out there. The shooter's first person video had been viewed by thousands (tens of) of people...the manifesto had been faxxed to the television station....if there hadn't been comment by the police regarding the investigation, there would have been a massive hue and outcry of 'coverup'. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The shooter made sure that news and video of his deed would be circulating amongst the viewing public long before law enforcement could possibly contain any sort of investigation. It appears that people are just looking for the latest conspiracy theory in this 'it was fake', 'it was a setup and not real' nonsense. There is a 7 second delay in all "live" events, giving ample time for the control room to prevent such a video being shown in its entirety. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/fox_news_live_suicide_how_do_you_censor_live_television_.html Who knows what really is true, but the fact is we should be questioning these kind of outlandish events, especially when they occur with such frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 There is a 7 second delay in all "live" events, giving ample time for the control room to prevent such a video being shown in its entirety. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/fox_news_live_suicide_how_do_you_censor_live_television_.html Who knows what really is true, but the fact is we should be questioning these kind of outlandish events, especially when they occur with such frequency. Simple facts that can destroy the usual knee-jerk argument we've come to expect over the years from Bertuzzi Babe. She gets one or two posters that support her (where da lackeys at?) and she just takes off with it. Anyhow, your article does also show efforts at censoring with the delay often are fruitless anyways. This was a local news broadcast, so it wouldn't surprise me if they likewise just happened to have a producer that took a sick/vacation day and wasn't there, or was not paying attention, or whatever. Maybe he decided to roll with it too, honestly though, I'm in doubt the odds of this are worthy of much attention. If someone wants to know how often people get shot at and survive/are able to run away, there are plenty of sites like Liveleak, Ogrish(forum), theync (use your adblocker/script blocker), etc. to see that people running away from being shot at a number of times isn't that uncommon because most suck at aiming and don't know where to shoot -- it isn't a case where a person gets shot anywhere they just drop and bam, dead. In this video in particular you see the guy miss numerous times, he's wildly shooting at her (probably more focused on aiming his camera than the gun then realizes he sucks at aiming and puts the phone somewhere to focus on actually aiming his shots). I'm sure after some dozen or two shots he hit her a few and she bled out, but there really shouldn't be any conspiracy about how she didn't just drop like a sack of potatoes. Only if hit in a vital organ/area of the body where blood loss is extremely quick will that be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 There is a 7 second delay in all "live" events, giving ample time for the control room to prevent such a video being shown in its entirety. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/fox_news_live_suicide_how_do_you_censor_live_television_.html Who knows what really is true, but the fact is we should be questioning these kind of outlandish events, especially when they occur with such frequency. They occur "with such frequency" because most of them, such as the latest one, have happened in a country that is so obsessed with guns and warfare that they now seem to just accept mass shootings as a consequence of living in the country. Until the USA does something about their gun problem - the problem being that way too many people own guns and view them as engrained in their lifestyles - these mass shootings won't go away. Yes, of course, criminals will still get guns etc etc etc. But bringing in gun control is the first step to changing the USA's entire gun culture. And what most gun advocates don't realize is that it's the "gun culture", not the guns themselves, that are the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.