You don't have to go far at all. When I used to go out to Vegas I would rent a 4x4 Jeep and drive up into the mountains, Red Rock Canyon was a nice trip. 45 minutes out of Vegas and you have plenty of open area. I am not sure which of those areas is good to shoot but he lived in Mesquite which is even more in the sticks so plenty of shooting room.
Ah yes. I figured as much. So he definitely was familiar with these weapons. How many different ones did he use? 2 or 3 over the 10 minute period? Seems like overkill to have 23 with him but perhaps he didn't expect to be overcome with the guilt of killing so many people. Fucking piece of shit.
Depends on your definition of terrorism. Yes, he killed many people, yes he terrorized an entire city, but we don't know if he had any particular political aims, so at this time I would say no. Of course if you want to start an argument over semantics then you found a way to do it. I've seen many articles over the last 2 days of people complaining it isn't called terrorism because of white privilege. The way you worded your post it's clear that's where you wanted to go with this.
Only if you are starting your own language from scratch and making up your own definition for terrorism. But at this point there has been no indication he had any tangible political motive.
We live in a world that has guilted an Asian man into thinking he has to as permission from the black community to wear a hairstyle that has been worn by every culture in the world and no one can claim ownership to. There is a significant lack of honesty and rational thinking.
Explosive possessed by Stephen Paddock may have been used in NYC bombing Why did he have explosives in his car to begin with? If he was going to escape, why didn't he try? They keep talking about that unarmed security guard whom he supposedly wounded through the door. He could have easily killed him if he wanted to escape. There are too many strange things in this story.
The definition of terrorism reads like this.. Noun; the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Were the Newtown shootings terrorism? What about Colombine? By definition, these are closer defined as acts of serial murder. Not terrorism. The Patriot Act also very clearly redefined what constitutes terrorism. Not only do we HAVE to politicize anything and everything. But we also MUST make everything a race or religious battle. Give it a rest.
Your citing of Section 802 makes it clear that it is terrorism "if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" I would say that is certainly what occurred, not that I think the distinction matters at all.
I think it's important NOT to call it terrorism. Just because people are terrorized does not mean it was an "act of terrorism". There was a good article in the New Yorker that describes it better than I can. "Terrorism" puts it into a new category. An act of war, perpetrators treated as enemies instead of criminals. In an instance like this, it damages both efforts: fighting terrorism and stopping senseless violence. Idk if I am saying it right. Here is a paragraph from their article: "Calling an attack “terrorism” helps to distance it, by placing it in an intelligible category and helping to imagine the perpetrator as a superhuman monster. Viewing him as a regular person who needs no particular beliefs, affiliation, or label—or even a gun license—to kill dozens of people makes us feel utterly defenseless. We are." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...-calling-the-las-vegas-shooting-terrorism/amp
I just read that Paddock booked a hotel in Chicago directly across the street from Lollapalooza in Grant Park in August. The Lollapalooza thing, it turns out that Malia Obama was present, so there were embedded snipers (which I hear are there, anyway, due to a large crowd); but Secret Service agents were also peppered all over the place. Jesus H, that chills my blood. I'm not saying she was a target, but word must've leaked somehow that she was there and possibly decided him not to do it because he'd get taken out before he could inflict the same type of damage that he ultimately did in Las Vegas? Maybe he didn't try, and was just feeling it out? Maybe it was a dry run, like that other music fest in Las Vegas before the Aldean concert? Maybe this, maybe that, but it's just more evidence that this massacre was meticulously planned and had been brewing for quite some time. Here's one link: http://www.fox29.com/news/tmz-steph...g-lollapalooza-2-months-before-vegas-massacre Anyway, I said it earlier. I'm sure the Feds and local PD know more than they are saying and just aren't saying it. Look what happened with the Boston Bomber atrocity. A bunch of web warriors tried outing someone who they believed did it, harassed his family, death threats, the whole nine yards, and the guy had absolutely zero to do with it (it later turned out that he was missing and vanished from social media because he had suicided by drowning himself). It forced law enforcement's hand to reveal the Tsarnaev brothers were suspects when they were already closing in, probably caused a cop's death, and millions of unnecessary taxpayer dollars on the lockdown. I don't think that people should stay uninvolved (see San Bernadino and we know why), but the quest for internet fame for trying to bring down a perp should be far more low key. You want to contact police or the Feds because you have a tip, fine, you absolutely should. In fact, if you don't, shame on you. Just watch how the F you do it. Witch hunting is a bad thing. A very bad thing. EDIT & P.S.: He booked the hotel in Chicago but didn't show up. This is what I mean. Pretty soon it'll come out that he was an original member of the Symbionese Liberation Army. I'm not gonna trust anything until there's a solid picture that we're all supposed to know about that won't compromise anything. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...vegas-gunman-lollapalooza-20171005-story.html I did also hear that he was casing out Boston. Who knows.
Not quite. Just because people are terrified in the moment of violence and we become wary of public events doesn't equate to the shooter having a deliberate intent to intimidate and coerce the civilian population beyond the specific act itself. That requires the shooter to have a long term agenda in his actions which there is no indication of yet.
I can't help but laugh at all the retards who are beside themselves that this isn't being called terrorism. As if we need to modify the English language to appease their irrational feelings of being slighted on the imaginary basis of racism. Get over yourselves already. If the investigation reveals the proper motive to classify it as terrorism it will be identified as such. Until then go cry into your black lies matter bucket of tears. Everything isn't racist.
I think the whole Chicago/Boston thing is BS. How was he going to bring all that weaponry and ammo to Chicago/Boston? I never heard any of those TV "experts" ask this question.
It seems really unlikely that he was able to get all that firepower and ammo up to his room unobserved. Even packed in containers or bags and moved they would have stood out over the course of several days. The most likely answer is that he had inside help in the hotel with somebody helping him use freight elevators and the like to move stuff around. Obviously they're reviewing the security footage of the time period in question to see how he managed to transport all that stuff up to the location Hopefully that answers some questions.
It's a widespread argument that because white people are racist they refuse to label acts of violence terrorism when commited by a white person but label acts of violence commited by brown people as terrorism.
From day one I've read eyewitness accounts of people dressed as security guards. Even some concert goers have sworn there were shooters on the ground . There is a video on YouTube that shows inside the concert . It appears the show someone fire a weapon. He's dressed as a cop or security. I'll see if I can find it. Only thing skeptical about it is how those around him do t really seem alarmed by a gun going off .
I've been looking at all these pictures and diagrams and here's something that seems very very strange to me. Here's his suite's floor plan as posted by the NY Times: There are two doors from his suite to the hallway - a wide one where the arrow is and a regular one where the cart is. They said that he shot that security guard through the door. Here's the door next to the cart. It looks fine so this wasn't the door he was shooting through. Then, there's the other door that was supposedly knocked down by the SWAT team. There are indeed some bullet holes in that door. Then, they said he unloaded 200 rounds or so at the cops who were called up by the wounded security guard. We don't know whether he was shooting at them through the door or not but in any case the 200 rounds would have been flying down the hallway. Here's a pic of the hallway taken I'd guess a few hours, maybe a day, later: The caption for this picture is Two investigators walk down the hallway, away from the scene You can see it all here :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4944234/Two-23-rifles-inside-Stephen-Paddock-s-room.html So, he supposedly sent 200 rounds down this hallway. I don't see any bullet holes, all the light fixtures are perfectly intact, no damaged sheetrock. It looks like nothing ever happened there.
