There were no planes involved striking the WTC. Look at that footage. NO PLANES. I repeat, NO PLANES. We need some levity around here. As if planes crashing into buildings is amusing. There are some things that we'll never know. Like, if Joe Montana was really 6'0", 6'1", or 6'2".
I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to grasp the concept of wondering if there is more to the story than what has been discovered thus far. It's not wild to think that there may have been more involved in the most infamously historic mass shooting in United States history. He certainly could've done it all himself. But is it wrong to ask the question if someone helped? This is the most perplexing criminal in the history of our country. Excuse me for thinking deeper than to simply believe it's an open and closed case of a man with absolutely zero motive, and tons of money simply snapped and decided to try to murder tons of people because he was pissed over losing $10,000. Open up your mind a little bit.
I know I posted this already,but its really bugging me.from 3:20 mark,why in the world would people pretty much right under the mandalay be sitting there asking,is that gun shots or fireworks? and people all the way at the other side of the concert be running before the auto fire even happened?
Again, there's a difference between questioning what happened and making up random stuff that is easily explained by common sense to justify why you are questioning it. And there's been no established motive. And I can't find where this $10,000 loss comes from. I found links saying he's wagered up to $10k in a day but nothing about that being the motive. Certainly that hasn't come from the police or FBI.
If that's your interpretation, I'd say you're wrong. You had been trying to hang your hat on a dictionary definition of a legal distinction. Once that was proven wrong, you're just grasping at straws.
Because the people at the other side of the concert had other people falling wounded and dead all around them. The rounds were coming at them, hitting the ground as some of them scattered and it was obvious to that part of the crowd that they were being attacked. The people closest to the Mandalay had rounds going overhead, way over head, as Paddock strafed the concert. To them it wasn't clear what was going on until seconds later as the crowd at the other end of the concert split into a surging mob looking for a way out.
It appears to me that firing a few thousand rounds of ammunition into a crowd is meant to intimidate those people and the public in general just as driving a truck through a crowd or flying a plane into an office building appears to be intended to intimidate as well as murder. It also appears to have been a successful attempt when viewing videos of people screaming running in all directions to escape an assailant they could not locate. I'm surprised that is such a tough concept for you to get your head around. Why is it so important to categorize this as terrorism or not anyway?
We do specific things as a society to keep the risk of terror attacks as low as possible. We're not as concerned about random acts of mass violence. The debate about whether this is terrorism or not will have an effect on the solutions that are proposed to try to prevent the next such act. The NRA understands how to defend against laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of random people. It has no clue how to approach defending against legislation designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic terrorists, particularly ones for whom no clear motive can be ascertained.
Why is it so important to have answers today? Can we wait a bit to track down this guy's phone records? His emails? His bank accounts? Can we give it some time to be thoroughly investigated? Can we find out if others are involved without creating possible scenarios out of thin air? How did the NRA become more of a concern than the act itself? Will finding out if this incident fits the legal definition of terrorism rather than simple mayhem matter as we examine ways to mitigate similar crimes going forward? Will it matter to the victims?
Yes. Considering we are at a stupidly expensive endless war "on terror"... it's pretty important to know what it actually is
Because It's not the "most infamously historic" shooting in history. Unfortunately. There will be others. And others. And it's just one in a long line of mass violence. That's the point-- we need to stop thinking something like this is impossible or coming from some outside entity or incapable of happening from one man. No-- we live in a country where it's easy for random people to snap and shoot hundreds
I used the one definition and then when you wanted to use another, I showed how that could be interpreted to include just about every violent crime based upon your view. Not sure how that is grasping at straws. You were the one who first stated there was no need for there to be an "intent to intimidate and coerce" but it was clearly stated in your previous post that it is part of the legal definition. What was the Vegas shooter looking to coerce the shooting victims to do? There needs to be some type of aim the shooter was attempting to push citizens toward, for it to be considered terrorism. So "intent to intimidate and coerce" or "in pursuit of a political aim", use which ever definition you like, but there still has to be some ideal the shooter was trying to coerce the civilian population toward.
And intimidate or coerce the crowd to what end? Flying the planes and driving trucks into crowds, by ISIS sympathizers , what meant to push the political aim of a global caliphate through a global war. What was Paddock's end goal?
No, it doesn't appear to you because there still has to be evidence to support the appearance of intent. You are simply attempting to use "appear" to justify that misunderstanding under the guise that "appears" negates the need of evidence of intent. No, you still need evidence of the "appearance of intent." There is zero evidence that his intention extended beyond the specific act of murdering a mass of people in this event; there is zero evidence he had any intent to influence citizens beyond that. Obviously all crimes can cause intimidation and coercion among citizens. It's why we have alarms on our homes, our cars, carry guns, pepper spray, etc. that's why the definition requires an intent by the perpetrator to want to cause the intimidation and ceoersion, not that simply citizens feel intimidation and coercion as a result of a crime. Those are two entirely different things. Otherwise all mass murders would be acts of terrorism. Beyond that, are you truly arguing he wasn't trying to kill the people at the concert, his intent was to intimidate them? Or that he had a deliberate intent to kill some and intimidate everyone else? What in his action appears to prove that other than you want it to be the case? obviously people are naturally frightened and intimidated when they are in a life and death and death situation, but that doesn't mean the intent of the perpetrator is to intimidate them. That's why that definition isn't applying to the people who are being attacked but how the attack impacts the other civilians after the fact. A terrorist bombing could kill everyone at the scene instantaneously, resulting in none of the victims being intimidated. So whose intimidation would that requirement apply to for it to be terrorism if none of the victims ever feel any semblance of intimidation?
It's possible, but in not sold on that. Those people were at very furthest point from the shooter , and started running after 5-7 single shots. They were already moving at full speed to leave the farthest gate before the music stopped or auto fire started. I don't think paddock would have started with a handful of single shots before switching to auto. This is why we had eyewitness accounts of other shooters or shooter at ground level. Obviously proves nothing, but Still something's fucky.
You're 100% correct, I wanted to use a different definition. I wanted to use the definition in the law for a definition about the law. There is a definite distinction between having an intent to commit an act and appearing to have that intent - I'm sorry you can't see that; the wording is that way for a reason. Your inclusion of "in pursuit of a political aim" is a red herring that is not part of the law. Can it be used for just about any violent crime? Probably so in the absence of a personal connection or simple theft-related violence. That's the way the law is written, we don't get to change it. I expect the coercion question to be clarified as the investigation progresses; another good reason not to be trying to wrap this all up in a neat little package so soon.
First, you don't get to decide what appears to me, or anyone other than yourself. The law uses a standard of "the reasonable man" to decide many things. The question here would be along the lines of "Would a reasonable man looking at all the evidence believe it appeared that there was an attempt to intimidate and coerce?" My answer, with the available evidence today, would be "most certainly." This event, as many before it, have indeed terrorized people far from the precise location where it occurred. Have you not heard of people who are refusing to attend sporting events and other large gatherings? I don't understand what makes you think the dead actually detract from the description of terrorism or believe that instantaneous death would somehow negate that terror. Victims are everywhere, not just those physically harmed.
