Las Vegas Shooting - Witness Saw More Than One Shooter

[Astargath]

''You don't think it is at all strange that one man from so far away was able to kill and injure so many people in such a short period of time? Why is it nearly every other mass shooting there are endless details about the situation and the shooter along with their motives plastered all over, yet this incident just suddenly vanished from public consciousness without any of that examination? Stop being so willfully ignorant.'' I don't actually, why is it strange? Was this case not investigated, where did you see that?

''Eyewitness testimony — it’s often thought of as solid evidence in criminal cases, but researchers including Iowa State University’s Gary Wells have found that our memories aren’t as reliable as we think. Sometimes, we can even build false recollections about people we only think we saw.''
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html

Considering how insanely stressful this event was, it's not weird at all.

Who said the case wasn't investigated? Now you are literally making up things and attributing them to me instead of arguing what I actually said. That is called a strawman and is a common logical fallacy. Furthermore it is a clear demonstration of your bias, because you aren't even critically examining any of the information that is presented before you project your own concepts of what you think it is upon it. I said in other cases the information is made public and plastered all over, and in this case they barely released any information and the media was quick to bury it, which is very unusual considering how hard they beat the dead horse of any mass shooting in almost every other case.

Your link doesn't prove anything. I never said witness testimony is infallible. I did however say errors in witness testimony are usually related to mistaken identity or mistakes in relatively minor details. Stress doesn't make you hallucinate entire teams of armed men. Furthermore there are now multiple witness statements coming out that state there were other shooters, I guess they are all hallucinating huh? You are so obviously terrified of having to adjust your world view to incorporate the possibility of this new information. You are looking for any excuse at all to dismiss the mounting evidence that something other than what was reported happened because you can not handle the cognitive dissonance. You aren't examining or arguing the issues, you are summarily dismissing them.

"Stress doesn't make you hallucinate entire teams of armed men. " according to science it does. Stress and anxiety can cause hallucinations.

Ive also seen plenty of news about the incident and even a recollection of the events prior to the attack, perhaps you are hallucinating too.

[TECSHARE]

''You don't think it is at all strange that one man from so far away was able to kill and injure so many people in such a short period of time? Why is it nearly every other mass shooting there are endless details about the situation and the shooter along with their motives plastered all over, yet this incident just suddenly vanished from public consciousness without any of that examination? Stop being so willfully ignorant.'' I don't actually, why is it strange? Was this case not investigated, where did you see that?

''Eyewitness testimony — it’s often thought of as solid evidence in criminal cases, but researchers including Iowa State University’s Gary Wells have found that our memories aren’t as reliable as we think. Sometimes, we can even build false recollections about people we only think we saw.''
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html

Considering how insanely stressful this event was, it's not weird at all.

Who said the case wasn't investigated? Now you are literally making up things and attributing them to me instead of arguing what I actually said. That is called a strawman and is a common logical fallacy. Furthermore it is a clear demonstration of your bias, because you aren't even critically examining any of the information that is presented before you project your own concepts of what you think it is upon it. I said in other cases the information is made public and plastered all over, and in this case they barely released any information and the media was quick to bury it, which is very unusual considering how hard they beat the dead horse of any mass shooting in almost every other case.

Your link doesn't prove anything. I never said witness testimony is infallible. I did however say errors in witness testimony are usually related to mistaken identity or mistakes in relatively minor details. Stress doesn't make you hallucinate entire teams of armed men. Furthermore there are now multiple witness statements coming out that state there were other shooters, I guess they are all hallucinating huh? You are so obviously terrified of having to adjust your world view to incorporate the possibility of this new information. You are looking for any excuse at all to dismiss the mounting evidence that something other than what was reported happened because you can not handle the cognitive dissonance. You aren't examining or arguing the issues, you are summarily dismissing them.

"Stress doesn't make you hallucinate entire teams of armed men. " according to science it does. Stress and anxiety can cause hallucinations.

Ive also seen plenty of news about the incident and even a recollection of the events prior to the attack, perhaps you are hallucinating too.

First of all, you are just repeating your poor argument from before that I already addressed. Second of all, you are mischaracterizing the statement. It is common for people to MISIDENTIFY the identity of individuals they witnessed. It is not common for people to imagine they saw people that never existed to begin with. The statement is referring to false identification, not imagining non-existent people. If your argument was about mistaken identity you might have a point, but you are projecting your own meaning on to words the authors never intended to imply. According to science huh? Now you speak for the field of science? How exactly does the fact that you have seen "plenty of news" invalidate witness testimony? Do you ever wonder why you are so hostile over anyone asking questions about a mass murder? It couldn't be cognitive dissonance could it?

[Astargath]

''You don't think it is at all strange that one man from so far away was able to kill and injure so many people in such a short period of time? Why is it nearly every other mass shooting there are endless details about the situation and the shooter along with their motives plastered all over, yet this incident just suddenly vanished from public consciousness without any of that examination? Stop being so willfully ignorant.'' I don't actually, why is it strange? Was this case not investigated, where did you see that?

''Eyewitness testimony — it’s often thought of as solid evidence in criminal cases, but researchers including Iowa State University’s Gary Wells have found that our memories aren’t as reliable as we think. Sometimes, we can even build false recollections about people we only think we saw.''
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html

Considering how insanely stressful this event was, it's not weird at all.

Who said the case wasn't investigated? Now you are literally making up things and attributing them to me instead of arguing what I actually said. That is called a strawman and is a common logical fallacy. Furthermore it is a clear demonstration of your bias, because you aren't even critically examining any of the information that is presented before you project your own concepts of what you think it is upon it. I said in other cases the information is made public and plastered all over, and in this case they barely released any information and the media was quick to bury it, which is very unusual considering how hard they beat the dead horse of any mass shooting in almost every other case.

Your link doesn't prove anything. I never said witness testimony is infallible. I did however say errors in witness testimony are usually related to mistaken identity or mistakes in relatively minor details. Stress doesn't make you hallucinate entire teams of armed men. Furthermore there are now multiple witness statements coming out that state there were other shooters, I guess they are all hallucinating huh? You are so obviously terrified of having to adjust your world view to incorporate the possibility of this new information. You are looking for any excuse at all to dismiss the mounting evidence that something other than what was reported happened because you can not handle the cognitive dissonance. You aren't examining or arguing the issues, you are summarily dismissing them.

"Stress doesn't make you hallucinate entire teams of armed men. " according to science it does. Stress and anxiety can cause hallucinations.

Ive also seen plenty of news about the incident and even a recollection of the events prior to the attack, perhaps you are hallucinating too.

First of all, you are just repeating your poor argument from before that I already addressed. Seconds of all, you are mischaracterizing the statement. It is common for people to MISIDENTIFY the identity of individuals they witnessed. It is not common for people to imagine they saw people that never existed to begin with. The statement is referring to false identification, not imagining non-existent people. If your argument was about mistaken identity you might have a point, but you are projecting your own meaning on to words the authors never intended to imply. According to science huh? Now you speak for the field of science? How exactly does the fact that you have seen "plenty of news" invalidate witness testimony? Do you ever wonder why you are so hostile over anyone asking questions about a mass murder? It couldn't be cognitive dissonance could it?

''and the media was quick to bury it'' That's why I said I saw plenty of news about it, how did you determine the media was quick to bury it? What analysis did you perform?

First of all, the eyewitnesses you linked said they saw 4-5 Middle-eastern looking men. Fair enough, so what? ''The 5th and final guy had what appeared to be a black assault rifle and shoulder strap across his chest,” he explained.'' You are saying he couldn't have imagined seeing a rifle on that guy's shoulder?? Seems more than possible to me lol.

''The results found that eyewitnesses were susceptible to accepting false information from other witnesses and would then include the “evidence” in their own statements.''
''Witnesses talking after an event is a pretty common phenomenon, a survey found that 86% of real eyewitnesses claim to have discussed the event with other witnesses prior to giving evidence.''
https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663

You got rekt again

[TECSHARE]

''and the media was quick to bury it'' That's why I said I saw plenty of news about it, how did you determine the media was quick to bury it? What analysis did you perform?

First of all, the eyewitnesses you linked said they saw 4-5 Middle-eastern looking men. Fair enough, so what? ''The 5th and final guy had what appeared to be a black assault rifle and shoulder strap across his chest,” he explained.'' You are saying he couldn't have imagined seeing a rifle on that guy's shoulder?? Seems more than possible to me lol.

''The results found that eyewitnesses were susceptible to accepting false information from other witnesses and would then include the “evidence” in their own statements.''
''Witnesses talking after an event is a pretty common phenomenon, a survey found that 86% of real eyewitnesses claim to have discussed the event with other witnesses prior to giving evidence.''
https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663

You got rekt again

I didn't say there were few media reports, I said the media was QUICK to bury it. Quick is a measure of time, not quantity, therefore the fact that you saw "plenty of news about it" is irrelevant to my statement. Multiple witnesses reported this team of people operating as a group. Your quotes are just reiterations of your initial premise which I already addressed, twice.

BTW "REKT"? You mean like the last time you said I was "REKT" then ran away without a reply? What are you a hairless boy on CS GO? Are you going to scream you fucked my mom in a cracking voice now? Did you ever ask yourself why you are so upset over this discussion taking place? Great arguments again Captain Cognitive Dissonance.

[Astargath]

''and the media was quick to bury it'' That's why I said I saw plenty of news about it, how did you determine the media was quick to bury it? What analysis did you perform?

First of all, the eyewitnesses you linked said they saw 4-5 Middle-eastern looking men. Fair enough, so what? ''The 5th and final guy had what appeared to be a black assault rifle and shoulder strap across his chest,” he explained.'' You are saying he couldn't have imagined seeing a rifle on that guy's shoulder?? Seems more than possible to me lol.

''The results found that eyewitnesses were susceptible to accepting false information from other witnesses and would then include the “evidence” in their own statements.''
''Witnesses talking after an event is a pretty common phenomenon, a survey found that 86% of real eyewitnesses claim to have discussed the event with other witnesses prior to giving evidence.''
https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663

You got rekt again

I didn't say there were few media reports, I said the media was QUICK to bury it. Quick is a measure of time, not quantity, therefore the fact that you saw "plenty of news about it" is irrelevant to my statement. Multiple witnesses reported this team of people operating as a group. Your quotes are just reiterations of your initial premise which I already addressed, twice.

BTW "REKT"? You mean like the last time you said I was "REKT" then ran away without a reply? What are you a hairless boy on CS GO? Are you going to scream you fucked my mom in a cracking voice now? Did you ever ask yourself why you are so upset over this discussion taking place? Great arguments again Captain Cognitive Dissonance.

Uhh watch out, 'operating as a group' Did anyone see them shoot? No. They saw 5 guys walking around and one of them ''seemed'' to have a rifle, fantastic evidence right there.

[TECSHARE]

Uhh watch out, 'operating as a group' Did anyone see them shoot? No. They saw 5 guys walking around and one of them ''seemed'' to have a rifle, fantastic evidence right there.

So they need to be shooting to operate as a group? What? If this evidence is so meaningless, tell me, why is the fact that it is simply being discussed clearly upset you so much?
REKT!

[Astargath]

Uhh watch out, 'operating as a group' Did anyone see them shoot? No. They saw 5 guys walking around and one of them ''seemed'' to have a rifle, fantastic evidence right there.

So they need to be shooting to operate as a group? What? If this evidence is so meaningless, tell me, why is the fact that it is simply being discussed clearly upset you so much?
REKT!

Title: witness saw more than one shooter

Evidence: witness saw a bunch of people walking together, "operating as a group" and one seemd to have a rifle. So why does the title say a witness saw more than a shooter if he didnt? Are you a liar?

They need to operate to operate like a group, am i operating everytime im walking with my friends or what?

[TECSHARE]

Title: witness saw more than one shooter

Evidence: witness saw a bunch of people walking together, "operating as a group" and one seemd to have a rifle. So why does the title say a witness saw more than a shooter if he didnt? Are you a liar?

They need to operate to operate like a group, am i operating everytime im walking with my friends or what?

From the statement in the OP "When she reached the parking lot, she saw a person whom she did not believe was an officer with an automatic powered rifle firing his gun".

From the statement in the link: "We ran through a back door and as we turned to the right, we saw about 4-5 that looked middle-eastern men walking in a single file line dressed in all black + last person in the back had a shoulder strap on AR-15."

Seems like an oddly specific thing to hallucinate a specific type of rifle, and 4 to 5 men dressed in black. Also if some one is shooting it is a pretty clear thing too. Police wouldn't have been firing return fire up into the hotel because it would be unsafe. Besides, my "REKT" was bigger and redder than yours so I win by default anyway.

[Astargath]

Title: witness saw more than one shooter

Evidence: witness saw a bunch of people walking together, "operating as a group" and one seemd to have a rifle. So why does the title say a witness saw more than a shooter if he didnt? Are you a liar?

They need to operate to operate like a group, am i operating everytime im walking with my friends or what?

From the statement in the OP "When she reached the parking lot, she saw a person whom she did not believe was an officer with an automatic powered rifle firing his gun".

From the statement in the link: "We ran through a back door and as we turned to the right, we saw about 4-5 that looked middle-eastern men walking in a single file line dressed in all black + last person in the back had a shoulder strap on AR-15."

Seems like an oddly specific thing to hallucinate a specific type of rifle, and 4 to 5 men dressed in black. Also if some one is shooting it is a pretty clear thing too. Police wouldn't have been firing return fire up into the hotel because it would be unsafe. Besides, my "REKT" was bigger and redder than yours so I win by default anyway.

I said they did see 5 guys and could have easily mistaken something for a rifle. Guys cant dress in black now? 4 guys dressed in black means they are shooters? Did someone see them shoot or not? That woman think she saw someone "whom she did not believe to be an officer". Most likely an officer lol. Your evidence is not convincing at all, you have a woman who thinks might have seen someone shooting in a parking lot but could have been an officer and a bunch of friends/people who saw a group of guys dressed in black with maybe a rifle.

Conspiracy theories are fun but often wrong.

[TECSHARE]

I said they did see 5 guys and could have easily mistaken something for a rifle. Guys cant dress in black now? 4 guys dressed in black means they are shooters? Did someone see them shoot or not? That woman think she saw someone "whom she did not believe to be an officer". Most likely an officer lol. Your evidence is not convincing at all, you have a woman who thinks might have seen someone shooting in a parking lot but could have been an officer and a bunch of friends/people who saw a group of guys dressed in black with maybe a rifle.

Conspiracy theories are fun but often wrong.

So your theory is they were a bunch of goths running in a group? One witness saw some one shooting, yes. As I already explained, the fire was coming from high up in the hotel. Your claim is it was a cop the witness saw. What was the cop firing at if the fire was hundreds of yards away from an unidentified elevated position? Police aren't allowed to fire on a target they can't identify for safety and liability reasons. Once again, two guys plotting to rob a 7-11 is a conspiracy. It is a legal terminology, and conspiracies happen every day. Weak minded people like you who rage out over anyone even having a discussion of alternative narratives LOVE to use that word as a cudgel in an attempt to dismiss anything that upsets their sensitive state and give them a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Just perhaps, the problem is internal.

[Astargath]

I said they did see 5 guys and could have easily mistaken something for a rifle. Guys cant dress in black now? 4 guys dressed in black means they are shooters? Did someone see them shoot or not? That woman think she saw someone "whom she did not believe to be an officer". Most likely an officer lol. Your evidence is not convincing at all, you have a woman who thinks might have seen someone shooting in a parking lot but could have been an officer and a bunch of friends/people who saw a group of guys dressed in black with maybe a rifle.

Conspiracy theories are fun but often wrong.

So your theory is they were a bunch of goths running in a group? One witness saw some one shooting, yes. As I already explained, the fire was coming from high up in the hotel. Your claim is it was a cop the witness saw. What was the cop firing at if the fire was hundreds of yards away from an unidentified elevated position? Police aren't allowed to fire on a target they can't identify for safety and liability reasons. Once again, two guys plotting to rob a 7-11 is a conspiracy. It is a legal terminology, and conspiracies happen every day. Weak minded people like you who rage out over anyone even having a discussion of alternative narratives LOVE to use that word as a cudgel in an attempt to dismiss anything that upsets their sensitive state and give them a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Just perhaps, the problem is internal.

So you are a goth if you dress in black now? Can't someone just dress in black or what, thanks god you are not a judge or something, you would probably send anyone to jail if he was wearing black because you must be a criminal if you are wearing black. The woman saw some IN THE PARKING LOT that she thinks was not an officer, that's what the statement says, it's really not good evidence man, let it go.

[TECSHARE]

So you are a goth if you dress in black now? Can't someone just dress in black or what, thanks god you are not a judge or something, you would probably send anyone to jail if he was wearing black because you must be a criminal if you are wearing black. The woman saw some IN THE PARKING LOT that she thinks was not an officer, that's what the statement says, it's really not good evidence man, let it go.

Is everyone seeing the pattern of how he is taking basically every statement I make, turning it into the most extreme or absolutist form of it he interprets, then applying it to me as if I should defend his interpretation of it? This is also known as a straw man logical fallacy. You don't have to be goth to be dressed in black, no, but are you going to tell me you regularly see groups of 4-5 men all dressed in black walking in single file lines casually in your daily life? The point is it is odd and you are trying to pretend it is totally normal with zero explanation other than the witnesses imagined everything.

Yes, the woman in the parking lot, two different witnesses, two different statements. The only person conflating the two is you. Again, you have no explanation for what an officer could possibly be shooting at from the parking lot when the source of fire was reportedly from the hotel hundreds of yards away from an elevated position. I never said it was "good evidence" of anything, simply contradictory evidence to the official narrative, among many contradictory bits of evidence in this case. Again, what is it about discussing these events and the conflicting information that upsets you so much you compulsively feel the need to end discussion about it? Cognitive dissonance much? Of course not, and everyone else is wrong for having discussions outside of the ideas you approve of. This is certainly not a symptom of you struggling with your own inability to integrate conflicting information and everything that implies.

[Astargath]

So you are a goth if you dress in black now? Can't someone just dress in black or what, thanks god you are not a judge or something, you would probably send anyone to jail if he was wearing black because you must be a criminal if you are wearing black. The woman saw some IN THE PARKING LOT that she thinks was not an officer, that's what the statement says, it's really not good evidence man, let it go.

Is everyone seeing the pattern of how he is taking basically every statement I make, turning it into the most extreme or absolutist form of it he interprets, then applying it to me as if I should defend his interpretation of it? This is also known as a straw man logical fallacy. You don't have to be goth to be dressed in black, no, but are you going to tell me you regularly see groups of 4-5 men all dressed in black walking in single file lines casually in your daily life? The point is it is odd and you are trying to pretend it is totally normal with zero explanation other than the witnesses imagined everything.

Yes, the woman in the parking lot, two different witnesses, two different statements. The only person conflating the two is you. Again, you have no explanation for what an officer could possibly be shooting at from the parking lot when the source of fire was reportedly from the hotel hundreds of yards away from an elevated position. I never said it was "good evidence" of anything, simply contradictory evidence to the official narrative, among many contradictory bits of evidence in this case. Again, what is it about discussing these events and the conflicting information that upsets you so much you compulsively feel the need to end discussion about it? Cognitive dissonance much? Of course not, and everyone else is wrong for having discussions outside of the ideas you approve of. This is certainly not a symptom of you struggling with your own inability to integrate conflicting information and everything that implies.

''Again, you have no explanation for what an officer could possibly be shooting at from the parking lot when the source of fire was reportedly from the hotel hundreds of yards away from an elevated position.'' Nice try here, of course the source of the fire was from the hotel, that's where the shooter was, what does that have to do with a policeman being in the parking lot shooting? Maybe he was shooting a suspect? The witness also says, she ran past him, wtf?

Also from your own link, seems like some people apply logic and not believe things just because they are written, like you:

''I have a basic problem with this. For one thing, 11:15 is well into the near-end of the entire event, so these could be Police moving into support position. But as an investigative author, I also take acceptation two a couple of details in the statements. For one thing, both handwriting styles imply someone deliberately trying to alter their handwriting style, or being deceitful. It is more evident in the first report: the slant is variously left, straight up, and right, and there is a mix of both consistency and inconsistency in the shape of letters and numbers, as well as complete lack of, and good control. These things happen when someone lapses in and out of conscious effort to deceive and their natural writing style. Much is the same in the second, except for the slant issue, and better control... but too many letters are found in multiple variations. Finally, rare is it for any two witnesses to tell exactly the same story down to the fine details, unless rehearsed and fabricated. I call it the 'too many clues' syndrome.''

[TECSHARE]

''Again, you have no explanation for what an officer could possibly be shooting at from the parking lot when the source of fire was reportedly from the hotel hundreds of yards away from an elevated position.'' Nice try here, of course the source of the fire was from the hotel, that's where the shooter was, what does that have to do with a policeman being in the parking lot shooting? Maybe he was shooting a suspect? The witness also says, she ran past him, wtf?

Also from your own link, seems like some people apply logic and not believe things just because they are written, like you:

''I have a basic problem with this. For one thing, 11:15 is well into the near-end of the entire event, so these could be Police moving into support position. But as an investigative author, I also take acceptation two a couple of details in the statements. For one thing, both handwriting styles imply someone deliberately trying to alter their handwriting style, or being deceitful. It is more evident in the first report: the slant is variously left, straight up, and right, and there is a mix of both consistency and inconsistency in the shape of letters and numbers, as well as complete lack of, and good control. These things happen when someone lapses in and out of conscious effort to deceive and their natural writing style. Much is the same in the second, except for the slant issue, and better control... but too many letters are found in multiple variations. Finally, rare is it for any two witnesses to tell exactly the same story down to the fine details, unless rehearsed and fabricated. I call it the 'too many clues' syndrome.''

So in your mind police firing wildly at  "suspects" when we know the shooter was hundreds of yards away at an elevated position makes sense to you? First of all a police officer would never return fire up into a hotel like that for risk of hitting bystanders. Second of all, police don't just get to randomly shoot people they suspect. How does any of your explanation make any sense?

I would love to see where in my link you found that quote, I don't see it there. It is impossible for me to know the context of the words as a result. Also you are hinging your argument on handwriting writing analysis? Really?

[Astargath]

''Again, you have no explanation for what an officer could possibly be shooting at from the parking lot when the source of fire was reportedly from the hotel hundreds of yards away from an elevated position.'' Nice try here, of course the source of the fire was from the hotel, that's where the shooter was, what does that have to do with a policeman being in the parking lot shooting? Maybe he was shooting a suspect? The witness also says, she ran past him, wtf?

Also from your own link, seems like some people apply logic and not believe things just because they are written, like you:

''I have a basic problem with this. For one thing, 11:15 is well into the near-end of the entire event, so these could be Police moving into support position. But as an investigative author, I also take acceptation two a couple of details in the statements. For one thing, both handwriting styles imply someone deliberately trying to alter their handwriting style, or being deceitful. It is more evident in the first report: the slant is variously left, straight up, and right, and there is a mix of both consistency and inconsistency in the shape of letters and numbers, as well as complete lack of, and good control. These things happen when someone lapses in and out of conscious effort to deceive and their natural writing style. Much is the same in the second, except for the slant issue, and better control... but too many letters are found in multiple variations. Finally, rare is it for any two witnesses to tell exactly the same story down to the fine details, unless rehearsed and fabricated. I call it the 'too many clues' syndrome.''

So in your mind police firing wildly at  "suspects" when we know the shooter was hundreds of yards away at an elevated position makes sense to you? First of all a police officer would never return fire up into a hotel like that for risk of hitting bystanders. Second of all, police don't just get to randomly shoot people they suspect. How does any of your explanation make any sense?

I would love to see where in my link you found that quote, I don't see it there. It is impossible for me to know the context of the words as a result. Also you are hinging your argument on handwriting writing analysis? Really?

How do you know it was ''wildly''? We know where the shooter was hours after the incident, obviously the police aren't gods and can't know exactly where the shooter was, if there was only 1 shooter, if the shooter wasn't running already, etc, apply some logic for god's sake.

''First of all a police officer would never return fire up into a hotel like that for risk of hitting bystanders'' Yes he would, I can show you plenty of videos of police shooting risking hitting bystanders, stop using fallacies.

''Second of all, police don't just get to randomly shoot people they suspect.'' Again using fallacies, police are people, they make mistakes, I don't know why it has to be 'randomly' in your head, he might have seen someone who had a gun or who knows.

Which quote are you talking about.

''For one thing, 11:15 is well into the near-end of the entire event, so these could be Police moving into support position.'' I was talking mainly about this, the time is indeed quite odd, don't you think? Please apply some common sense.

[TECSHARE]

How do you know it was ''wildly''? We know where the shooter was hours after the incident, obviously the police aren't gods and can't know exactly where the shooter was, if there was only 1 shooter, if the shooter wasn't running already, etc, apply some logic for god's sake.

''First of all a police officer would never return fire up into a hotel like that for risk of hitting bystanders'' Yes he would, I can show you plenty of videos of police shooting risking hitting bystanders, stop using fallacies.

''Second of all, police don't just get to randomly shoot people they suspect.'' Again using fallacies, police are people, they make mistakes, I don't know why it has to be 'randomly' in your head, he might have seen someone who had a gun or who knows.

Which quote are you talking about.

''For one thing, 11:15 is well into the near-end of the entire event, so these could be Police moving into support position.'' I was talking mainly about this, the time is indeed quite odd, don't you think? Please apply some common sense.

Common sense? Lets talk about common sense. Lets examine police protocol. Is it common sense that a police officer is firing at a target he can not see? No, police officers are trained to first identify a target before firing. It is not like the movies. They are not supposed to do things like fire into houses, through doors, or walls. If they can't see it they aren't supposed to be firing at it. Second of all one of the other things they drill into any gun owners head in any basic safety training is to always know what is behind your target. You might be aiming for an armed assailant, but if there are a bunch of kids 30ft behind him, shooting is not an option. This to a large degree also rules out a cop firing into what is basically a crowd of people running in every direction. Also as far as I remember in the report there was no mention of police on the ground firing. That is why I used the term "wildly" because if in fact your argument that "police aren't gods" and they make mistakes, and lets say one was just freaking out, that's exactly what he would be doing, firing wildly. Sound implausible? I agree, but the sad part is that is the most plausible explanation that makes any sense for it to be a police officer, your premise.

You made one quote in your statement other than quoting me directly. That quote. I know where my words came from. What did your quote come from? Give me a URL.

[Astargath]

How do you know it was ''wildly''? We know where the shooter was hours after the incident, obviously the police aren't gods and can't know exactly where the shooter was, if there was only 1 shooter, if the shooter wasn't running already, etc, apply some logic for god's sake.

''First of all a police officer would never return fire up into a hotel like that for risk of hitting bystanders'' Yes he would, I can show you plenty of videos of police shooting risking hitting bystanders, stop using fallacies.

''Second of all, police don't just get to randomly shoot people they suspect.'' Again using fallacies, police are people, they make mistakes, I don't know why it has to be 'randomly' in your head, he might have seen someone who had a gun or who knows.

Which quote are you talking about.

''For one thing, 11:15 is well into the near-end of the entire event, so these could be Police moving into support position.'' I was talking mainly about this, the time is indeed quite odd, don't you think? Please apply some common sense.

Common sense? Lets talk about common sense. Lets examine police protocol. Is it common sense that a police officer is firing at a target he can not see? No, police officers are trained to first identify a target before firing. It is not like the movies. They are not supposed to do things like fire into houses, through doors, or walls. If they can't see it they aren't supposed to be firing at it. Second of all one of the other things they drill into any gun owners head in any basic safety training is to always know what is behind your target. You might be aiming for an armed assailant, but if there are a bunch of kids 30ft behind him, shooting is not an option. This to a large degree also rules out a cop firing into what is basically a crowd of people running in every direction. Also as far as I remember in the report there was no mention of police on the ground firing. That is why I used the term "wildly" because if in fact your argument that "police aren't gods" and they make mistakes, and lets say one was just freaking out, that's exactly what he would be doing, firing wildly. Sound implausible? I agree, but the sad part is that is the most plausible explanation that makes any sense for it to be a police officer, your premise.

You made one quote in your statement other than quoting me directly. That quote. I know where my words came from. What did your quote come from? Give me a URL.

As I said, from your own link: https://www.intellihub.com/oct-1-eyewitnesses-confirm-five-middle-eastern-men-dressed-in-black-single-file-line-ar-15-assault-rifle-with-shoulder-strap/  It's in the comments.

You people always come up with some weird conspiracy shit, every time a famous actor/singer etc dies, nah he is not dead, he faked it, every time there is a big incident, nah, there has to be something more, 9/11? conspiracy, shooters?, conspiracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/nra-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theorist-parkland-shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories

Every single fucking time, it's just boring.

[TECSHARE]

As I said, from your own link: https://www.intellihub.com/oct-1-eyewitnesses-confirm-five-middle-eastern-men-dressed-in-black-single-file-line-ar-15-assault-rifle-with-shoulder-strap/  It's in the comments.

You people always come up with some weird conspiracy shit, every time a famous actor/singer etc dies, nah he is not dead, he faked it, every time there is a big incident, nah, there has to be something more, 9/11? conspiracy, shooters?, conspiracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/nra-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theorist-parkland-shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories

Every single fucking time, it's just boring.

OOOh, of couuuurse... the comments. The comments are well known to be a reliable part of any article right? You seem to have an infatuation with trying to use comments as part of the argument of the substance of the article itself as if they are the same unit, and not created by random 3rd parties. I have scripts blocked so I don't read them anyway, and the comments are not part of my source.

"you always come up with some weird conspiracy shit, every time a famous actor/singer etc dies..."

What the fuck are you talking about? Oh right, you are projecting other people's actions on to me and collectivizing it as if I said these things I never actually said. Sorry but I am not responsible for the theorizing of other people. I am only responsible for my own statements.

BTW what the fuck does Sandy Hook have to do with ANY of this other than that they were both shootings? I never brought up Sandy Hook. This is more projection on your part, and totally off topic.

Everyone notice how he totally avoided responding to my very valid points in favor of this collective blame?

[Astargath]

As I said, from your own link: https://www.intellihub.com/oct-1-eyewitnesses-confirm-five-middle-eastern-men-dressed-in-black-single-file-line-ar-15-assault-rifle-with-shoulder-strap/  It's in the comments.

You people always come up with some weird conspiracy shit, every time a famous actor/singer etc dies, nah he is not dead, he faked it, every time there is a big incident, nah, there has to be something more, 9/11? conspiracy, shooters?, conspiracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/nra-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theorist-parkland-shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories

Every single fucking time, it's just boring.

OOOh, of couuuurse... the comments. The comments are well known to be a reliable part of any article right? You seem to have an infatuation with trying to use comments as part of the argument of the substance of the article itself as if they are the same unit, and not created by random 3rd parties. I have scripts blocked so I don't read them anyway, and the comments are not part of my source.

"you always come up with some weird conspiracy shit, every time a famous actor/singer etc dies..."

What the fuck are you talking about? Oh right, you are projecting other people's actions on to me and collectivizing it as if I said these things I never actually said. Sorry but I am not responsible for the theorizing of other people. I am only responsible for my own statements.

BTW what the fuck does Sandy Hook have to do with ANY of this other than that they were both shootings? I never brought up Sandy Hook. This is more projection on your part, and totally off topic.

Everyone notice how he totally avoided responding to my very valid points in favor of this collective blame?

People are crazy, why is it so hard to simply accept 1 dude went crazy and killed a bunch of people? It happens all the time in the US lol, that country is fucked.

[TECSHARE]

People are crazy, why is it so hard to simply accept 1 dude went crazy and killed a bunch of people? It happens all the time in the US lol, that country is fucked.

So in summary, you have no retort to my points, and your argument consists of the narrative is true because that's what the official story is?