US Journalists shot dead live on air [MOD WARNING in opening post]

darkpagandeath

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Exactly my point. Darkpagendeath was on here a few pages back saying that racial/bullying comments had nothing to do with what happened. How could anyone have known that race had nothing to do with it. It could be many, many factors, including race and clear mental health problems.

No actually read what I said.

Gbear

Is there some sort of sign in the sky that brings the re-regs out when "black person" and "gun" are in the same thread?

Sunflower 27

AnonBoard wrote: »

Doesn't fit the narrative they wish to promote

Yes, exactly. The last thing they want is a riot on their hands when people are highly emotional and angry/hurt.

Not mentioning race on a live feed doesn't mean race had nothing to do with it. They will be choosing words very carefully.

Sunflower 27

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No actually read what I said.

You said:

No Racist bullying from what I have read it seems to have been fabricated by the shoote r.

Samaris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Your last sentence is a straw man. He accused the actual reporter he actually killed of racism. That was in the very first report I saw.

Not a straw-man precisely, I am pointing out that there's an awful lot of whinging and sarky comments about how -obviously- it won't be treated as a race crime because -obviously- black people can't be racist.

Which is whiny rubbish. When I see a report that he shot those people dead because they're white and he had a particular grudge against whites in general, I will agree that it was a racist hate crime. For now, it seems to be a mentally deranged lunatic that wanted revenge against his ex-workplace and used "they were mean to me" as an unsubstantiated excuse for murder.

briany

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Of course he was nuts. But most spree killers are probably nuts or psychotics. His internal motivation was racial grievance.

Racial grievance may have been his internal motivation, but if he was nuts, the validity of that becomes seriously questionable. You lose a lot of credibility when you act as he did. It shouldn't be taken any more seriously than John Hinckley's obsession with Jodie Foster being a motivator for his attempted assassination of Reagan.

Eugene Norman

The man who killed women at the train wreck premier was a sexist. Mad but a sexist.

Time to admit this was racially motivated. And white killings of blacks is racially motivated. And so on.

Also #nonamericanlivesmatter

I'll check my feed but I'm sure America has killed a few dozens today with drone attacks. It's 12000 or so since Obama came to office.

Samaris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The man who killed women at the train wreck premier was a sexist. Mad but a sexist.

Time to admit this was racially motivated. And white killings of blacks is racially motivated. And so on.

Also #nonamericanlivesmatter

I'll check my feed but I'm sure America has killed a few dozens today with drone attacks. It's 12000 or so since Obama came to office.

Now -that- is a straw man :P

Eugene Norman

Samaris wrote: »

Not a straw-man precisely, I am pointing out that there's an awful lot of whinging and sarky comments about how -obviously- it won't be treated as a race crime because -obviously- black people can't be racist.

Which is whiny rubbish. When I see a report that he shot those people dead because they're white and he had a particular grudge against whites in general, I will agree that it was a racist hate crime. For now, it seems to be a mentally deranged lunatic that wanted revenge against his ex-workplace and used "they were mean to me" as an unsubstantiated excuse for murder.

No he specifically said they were mean to him racially. If you don't want whiny accusations of double standards don't engage in double standards.

Samaris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No he specifically said they were mean to him racially. If you don't want whiny accusations of double standards don't engage in double standards.

And at the moment, there seems to be significant reason to believe he was bull****ting for an excuse. As in, attempting to justify a horrendous crime. That's my issue with all this. No, I think it is still a bit early to treat this -specifically- as a race crime rather than a deranged lone gunman.

I appreciate that opinions vary on this.

Sunflower 27

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What does one think ? And on me saying it was not race related that's not what I said. I said there was no Racial bullying in this case as the shooter had tried that already and lost. That has nothing to do with the shooter being racially motivated.

The killer accused his victim of being racist towards him and then he kills her. And you think this outcome, i.e. her death, was not racially motivated?

darkpagandeath

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No he specifically said they were mean to him racially. If you don't want whiny accusations of double standards don't engage in double standards.

If this was a white shooter that had used the N word in some random tweet it would be case closed. How many times will this shooter have to have commented on White for example for it to be Racially motivated. Hypothetical.

darkpagandeath

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The killer accused his victim of being racist towards him and then he kills her. And you think this outcome, i.e. her death, was not racially motivated?

https://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg

Eugene Norman

Samaris wrote: »

Now -that- is a straw man :P

No. A strawman would be me accusing you of saying something you didn't say and then attacking that argument.

What I engaged in is whatsboutary. A much more legitimate argument if, and only if, I am claiming bias.

I hate all Americans equally, black and white, and I encourage you all to do the same. Ireland isn't America. Stop getting annoyed at racial slights. Stop thinking you are a white American or have to defend American blacks.


In most cases I don't care about internal American killings, nothing to do with us. However this one is clearly racially motivated as were the white cops who killed blacks, and the man who shot up the theatre when Amy Schumers movie played -- and targeted women only -- was sexist. He may also have been mad. Doesn't matter.

Sunflower 27

darkpagandeath wrote: »

https://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg

Easy way out of an argument, I suppose.

You came on here saying that no-one bullied him. You never explained how you knew that. You have no idea what happened. You lost all credibility from that point on.

Now you are saying it was racially motivated.

I think you need to take a few moments to work out where you actually stand.

briany

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The killer accused his victim of being racist towards him and then he kills her. And you think this outcome, i.e. her death, was not racially motivated?

When the V-Tech guy did his shooting, he put out a whole manifesto. Nobody ever talked about his motivations seriously, though. No-one would have dared, except for a few internet cranks. He was just a looney with a victim complex. This guy tweets about a racist remark and a report he'd filed and we're supposed to factor it in? I put these motivations in the same bracket. Real in the mind of the perpetrator, but taken way way way out of hand, whatever the case.

Wompa1

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I hate all Americans equally, black and white, and I encourage you all to do the same.

Wow, you hate over 300 million people that you've never met and have never done anything to you? What other nationalities or races do you hate?

I don't get upset or offended by generalizations but specifically saying you hate ALL...you're a bit of a c*nt, really. A sad c*nt that harbors hatred for strangers...

Wompa1

briany wrote: »

When the V-Tech guy did his shooting, he put out a whole manifesto. Nobody ever talked about his motivations seriously, though. No-one would have dared, except for a few internet cranks. He was just a looney with a victim complex. This guy tweets about a racist remark and a report he'd filed and we're supposed to factor it in? I put these motivations in the same bracket. Real in the mind of the perpetrator, but taken way way way out of hand, whatever the case.

People talked about the Manifesto left by the kid in California that rolled up in a BMW and started shooting. They also talked about the manifesto of the guy that killed the cops and then went to hide out in a lodge and got burned alive by the cops! Didn't change much....things quickly turn back to the gun debate.

A big reason (other than the fact the Vietnamese generally kicked their arses) for the way the war in Vietnam ended was down to public pressure by the Americans back home. There was a great BBC Documentary about it. A groundswell at University campuses around the country after a Company spokesman for a company that was producing napalm showed up to talk and got protested. The protestors were subsequently beat by city cops (despite the fact, the campus has it's own police)...that kicked off an uprising. Obviously the Kent State massacre and subsequent outrage influenced too.

Possibly the biggest sway was the fact the media were broadcasting from Vietnam showing a lot of the carnage of the war. While politicians were talking positively about the US efforts, the media was showing a different story with young men getting gravely injured and killed.

It would be great if this being recorded and out there actually kicks off a change BUT it won't. The most poignant thing I read about the Gun debate in the US was the fact that there's no real debate....it's not up for discussion any more. The time kids were slaughtered and people reacted by buying stockpiles of weapons and shouting about their rights with nothing changing was the end of the discussion. Nothing will change...it's not going to get worse than that.

Sunflower 27

briany wrote: »

When the V-Tech guy did his shooting, he put out a whole manifesto. Nobody ever talked about his motivations seriously, though. No-one would have dared, except for a few internet cranks. He was just a looney with a victim complex. This guy tweets about a racist remark and a report he'd filed and we're supposed to factor it in? I put these motivations in the same bracket. Real in the mind of the perpetrator, but taken way way way out of hand, whatever the case.

I agree with you, which is why a few pages back I said the remarks may have been perceived by him as racist. There is no debating his actions were way out of hand. That goes without saying.

PizzamanIRL

Cowardly prick kills himself after it all. Dick head. If you don't want to live your life anymore then **** off and leave innocent people out of it.

briany

Wompa1 wrote: »

People talked about the Manifesto left by the kid in California that rolled up in a BMW and started shooting. They also talked about the manifesto of the guy that killed the cops and then went to hide out in a lodge and got burned alive by the cops! Didn't change much....things quickly turn back to the gun debate.

A big reason (other than the fact the Vietnamese generally kicked their arses) for the way the war in Vietnam ended was down to public pressure by the Americans back home. There was a great BBC Documentary about it. A groundswell at University campuses around the country after a Company spokesman for a company that was producing napalm showed up to talk and got protested. The protestors were subsequently beat by city cops (despite the fact, the campus has it's own police)...that kicked off an uprising. Obviously the Kent State massacre and subsequent outrage influenced too.

Possibly the biggest sway was the fact the media were broadcasting from Vietnam showing a lot of the carnage of the war. While politicians were talking positively about the US efforts, the media was showing a different story with young men getting gravely injured and killed.

It would be great if this being recorded and out there actually kicks off a change BUT it won't. The most poignant thing I read about the Gun debate in the US was the fact that there's no real debate....it's not up for discussion any more. The time kids were slaughtered and people reacted by buying stockpiles of weapons and shouting about their rights with nothing changing was the end of the discussion. Nothing will change...it's not going to get worse than that.

I think the real thought in the back of the minds of gun enthusiasts and gun makers is basically, "Look, we've got to have these guns. If a bunch of innocent people are murdered every year because of that as a side-effect, then that's the sacrifice our country will have to make, and I think it's a price worth paying."

The culture you're looking at is basically, "Innocent lives are totally expendable, so long as it benefits me and it's not on my doorstep."

Eugene Norman

Wompa1 wrote: »

Wow, you hate over 300 million people that you've never met and have never done anything to you? What other nationalities or races do you hate?

I don't get upset or offended by generalizations but specifically saying you hate ALL...you're a bit of a c*nt, really. A sad c*nt that harbors hatred for strangers...

Lol. It's the sheer self absorption of Americans that aggregates me. America is now invading -- since drones are acts of war -- about 12 different countries. Until the Americans, right and left, lose their self indulgence and march to oppose these acts I reserve the right to oppose them all. Chomsky excepted

It was also slightly toungue in cheek.

jobbridge4life

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Lol. It's the sheer self absorption of Americans that aggregates me. America is now invading -- since drones are acts of war -- about 12 different countries. Until the Americans, right and left, lose their self indulgence and march to oppose these acts I reserve the right to oppose them all. Chomsky excepted

It was also slightly toungue in cheek.

Ba ha ha!

Chomsky should have stuck to linguistics. Meanwhile way to manipulate the senseless murder of two innocent people to have a rant about America...

enfant terrible

Wompa1 wrote: »

It would be great if this being recorded and out there actually kicks off a change BUT it won't. The most poignant thing I read about the Gun debate in the US was the fact that there's no real debate....it's not up for discussion any more. The time kids were slaughtered and people reacted by buying stockpiles of weapons and shouting about their rights with nothing changing was the end of the discussion. Nothing will change...it's not going to get worse than that.

I wonder why people in this country are so interested in gun control in the US anyway.

MistyCheese

enfant terrible wrote: »

I wonder why people in this country are so interested in gun control in the US anyway.

Empathy.

Old Jakey

lawlolawl wrote: »

Doesn't count because the perpetrator wasn't a white guy.

Racism is only possible if you are a white male, apparently. I fully expect to be banned for this post.

That is what is actually taught now in American colleges. Only whites can be racist and only men can be sexiest.

enfant terrible

MistyCheese wrote: »

Empathy.

No I mean compared to shootings in other countries like Brazil and China and elsewhere.

Probably just because the US shooting are widely reported here.

MistyCheese

enfant terrible wrote: »

No I mean compared to shootings in other countries like Brazil and China and elsewhere.

Probably just because the US shooting are widely reported here.

Ah. Well I guess it really is because American shootings are more reported and therefore seen as more common. Whether that's true or not.

Little CuChulainn

Very chilling video. I'm glad most of the focus is on the victims and the killer is being sidelined. This is the way these things should be treated.

On the gun debate, as sad as it is say, it's people like this getting killed so publicly that will create the most change. Americans will see themselves in these people and it might bring home the lunacy of such a ridiculous gun policy.

briany

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Very chilling video. I'm glad most of the focus is on the victims and the killer is being sidelined. This is the way these things should be treated.

On the gun debate, as sad as it is say, it's people like this getting killed so publicly that will create the most change. Americans will see themselves in these people and it might bring home the lunacy of such a ridiculous gun policy.

If a class of kids being killed didn't make for a tipping point on gun control in America, then I fail to see how the shooting of two adults will do it, despite the extra POV video angle. Normally there would be a straw/camel thing in effect, but the gun lobby seem to push back every time, or there's a weird voluntary amnesia that happens.

Streetwalker

Seems he was a Christian. Religion of peace my hole.

RichardCeann

Samaris wrote: »

From the looks of it, race has nothing to do with it. He was a disgruntled ex-employee who happened to be black, the cameraman and reporter were the unfortunate pair that happened to be in his vicinity.

Are you under the impression that this wasn't premeditated murder or something? He deliberately targeted the two deceased individuals.

Black criminal gets gunned down by a white copper - racist! Black guy guns down two people accusing one of them of making racist comments - nothing to do with race!

The double standards on show are absolutely breathtaking.

namloc1980

Reports that the 23 page fax that he sent to ABC news indicated the attacks were at least partially racially motivated.

beks101

cson wrote: »

How the **** did none of them notice him sneaking up with the gun?! :eek:

You'd be surprised at how quickly situational awareness goes out the window when you're live on-air with a camera in your face and five voices screaming in your ear.

People lurk around any and every TV live shot constantly - producers, floor managers, PR people, spectators, pranksters who just want to get on air. This being a small TV affiliate, these guys didn't seem to be in the practice of working with an on-site producer who could be their eyes and ears and were in the autopilot adrenaline rush of live breakfast TV.

The shooter was in the camera man's blind spot and it's entirely plausible that she simply didn't notice; or dismissed him as just another nuisance trying to catch a glimpse of live TV. In these feature-TV local community update scenarios the worst thing you envisage happening is an audio issue, maybe a bit of loud traffic or an interfering member of the public. Not that you're going to get assassinated.

Anyway, RIP to the both of them. Chilling, chilling stuff.

evolving_doors

enfant terrible wrote: »

I wonder why people in this country are so interested in gun control in the US anyway.

If there was 'gun control' the guy wouldn't have gotten a gun.

I suppose people are interested because of the whole crazyness and incompressible 'logic' of the situation. Kids get gunned down in a classroom and folk scratch their heads wondering how it happened? Because a nut had a gun, that's how!!!
The solution... arm the teachers. Problem solved, go ahead next shooter, you're up.

Is this America bashing... or just people thinking that freely available guns are a bad idea.

pmasterson95

briany wrote: »

If a class of kids being killed didn't make for a tipping point on gun control in America, then I fail to see how the shooting of two adults will do it, despite the extra POV video angle. Normally there would be a straw/camel thing in effect, but the gun lobby seem to push back every time, or there's a weird voluntary amnesia that happens.

I'm sure that lot and the gun fanatics will just say that if the reporters had guns they'd be fine. Its not having a gun that got them killed

CabanSail

There was a report here the other day to say that since the gun restrictions imposed in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre there has been a sustained reduction of gun crimes.

It's not rocket science.

gandalf

CabanSail wrote: »

There was a report here the other day to say that since the gun restrictions imposed in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre there has been a sustained reduction of gun crimes.

It's not rocket science.

Ah but they have the right to bear arms!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpeUznIhgLU

stephenl15

Gun laws in USA are insane. Apparently the victims were racist towards Bryce causing him to shoot them in retaliation and also as revenge for the church shootings where the white guy shot those blacks.

Victims are always made out to be saints but that may not always be true. Obviously the shooter was bloody insane to take it that far but if he has spent his whole life being undermined by white people etc as well as seeing the supposed white superiority with the police etc I can see how it could push an already insane person to commit such an attrocity.

RichardCeann

He lists his grievances and rational behind the attack in a 23 page suicide note he faxed to ABC News two hours after the attack:

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them." It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.

Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers. “Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339

This chap was off his bracket but it was definitely racially motivated.

Hande hoche!

From that ABC link "He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man". More details should emerge anyway.

martingriff

Gebgbegb wrote: »

If there was 'gun control' the guy wouldn't have gotten a gun.

I suppose people are interested because of the whole crazyness and incompressible 'logic' of the situation. Kids get gunned down in a classroom and folk scratch their heads wondering how it happened? Because a nut had a gun, that's how!!!
The solution... arm the teachers. Problem solved, go ahead next shooter, you're up.

Is this America bashing... or just people thinking that freely available guns are a bad idea.

I hope that is sarcasm because if all you need is gun control then why do places that have gun control still have shooting or America nearest neighbor Canada who have guns not have many attacks.


Do America need laws for guns YES there should be a minimum law that is federal and then states can build on these i they wish. These laws would easier for law abiding gun people and harder for the black market.

Balmed Out

Id presume that being black or gay or whatever and blaming racism, homophobia etc are just his own mental excuses for not being able to handle his own mental imbalances and life failure's.

briany

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I'm sure that lot and the gun fanatics will just say that if the reporters had guns they'd be fine. Its not having a gun that got them killed

It wouldn't have mattered how many guns they had on them. They were caught totally unaware at point-blank range. Having a gun won't protect you against that. You would have to have a gun on you and be totally paranoid at all times, and is that any way to think and live?

The line of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun will lead to school teachers packing, as has already happened in at least one school that I know of (Vice News on HBO report). That has a whole load of safety concerns of its own. What's to stop some teacher going nuts with that gun, for example?

KingBrian2

This incident is not gun law case it seems to me to be Labour rights issue. This guy was a frustrated employee, had serious difficulties with colleagues behaviour, no place to turn to make a complaint. He was evidently not been listened to by the Network execs and they allowed his desperation to get out of hand. Large corporations have to be able to look after their people and make sure their contract is kept and work place conditions are satisfying to all.

Balmed Out

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This incident is not gun law case it seems to me to be Labour rights issue. This guy was a frustrated employee, had serious difficulties with colleagues behaviour, no place to turn to make a complaint. He was evidently not been listened to by the Network execs and they allowed his desperation to get out of hand. Large corporations have to be able to look after their people and make sure their contract is kept and work place conditions are satisfying to all.

Not knowing much about this event why do you say that? Seems to me the guy was just a bit unbalanced and blaming others for his problems.

Lirange

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This incident is not gun law case it seems to me to be Labour rights issue. This guy was a frustrated employee, had serious difficulties with colleagues behaviour, no place to turn to make a complaint. He was evidently not been listened to by the Network execs and they allowed his desperation to get out of hand. Large corporations have to be able to look after their people and make sure their contract is kept and work place conditions are satisfying to all.

It sounds to me like he was the problem tbh. Not his colleagues. He has a history of alleging racism going back to his previous news job in Florida. People that have worked with him in both places have described him as being hot tempered, bizarre, and difficult to get along with. We certainly have more evidence to support those characterisations than the allegations of the murderer against his victims.

martingriff

Streetwalker wrote: »

Seems he was a Christian. Religion of peace my hole.

Ya because a persons religion defines them. He was a committed murders and his faith had nothing to do with it

Overheal

Old Jakey wrote: »

That is what is actually taught now in American colleges. Only whites can be racist and only men can be sexiest.

I'm attending an American University and can't recall at any point in my curriculum being given that, or any instruction on what racism/sexism is except to say that the university doesn't tolerate discrimination: on the contrary the university is very well diversified and we even enroll high school graduates with special needs in a program that is specially designed to give disabled teens the chance at experiencing college life: http://www.clemson.edu/hehd/departments/education/culife/about-clemson-life/.

So I find your statement to be empirically false: I'd appreciate it if you try and be more careful with matter-of-fact language when there is no clear justification for doing so. It does upset me when people think these things, especially say these things, when they have no direct cause to do so: maybe you heard it from a friend of a friend who said it one day in the pub while he was fired up and it sounded good in the conversation, but it didn't derive out of fact.

Thanks

seamus wrote: »

It's a reflection of a poisonous ultra-capitalist society that the US has allowed to foster. When you have zero social supports for poor people, a health system that only serves the upper 20%, a for-profit education system and absolutely no individual protections in employment law, it's inevitable that the have-nots will increasingly become violent because they have nothing left to lose.

Throw in free availability of weapons and these incidents will continue happenig more frequently unless they have the good sense to move to a more socialist European model.
People tend to ask why other counties like Switzerland or Canada don't have the same problems when guns are just as available. And it's because those countries don't leave you out in the cold and piss all over you when you get sick or lose your job. The USA does.

I don't have anything handy to disagree with all that. This is a killing that wouldn't have been triggered if losing your job was not the 'life-ending' stress that it currently feels like in some cases. That said, he would have had some net to fall on, we still have unemployment payments and such (depending on the nature of termination though it can get dicey, I had to wait several weeks after a termination to begin receiving payments in one instance). But yes, in broader terms we propagate a culture where we focus on what others have and how we can get more of it.

Whether or not this was a racially motivated attack I think is largely irrelevant in my opinion: we simply have race issues in our country and they need to be addressed so we don't still have racially motivated killings 20 years or more from now.

[Thank you After Hours mods for keeping this discussion civilized!]

Deranged96

Black guy shoots two hardworking white young and ups.

I'm gonna make a shamelessly uneducated guess and say that this will be the message a lot of Americans will take from this horrific incident. With all the racial flare ups in the past year over there, and huge media coverage of incidences where blacks were horrifically treated by white police officers, I imagine a certain contingent of supremacists will feel vindicated in their hated.

I'm not sure imposing gun laws on a personal-freedom obsessed culture will solve America's problem. Guns are the symptom and not the cause. American society is being eroded by inequality. The only presidential hopeful that seems to want to go about changing this is Sanders.

One of the best moves made during the foundation of this State was the provisional government's decision to make an Garda Síochána unarmed. Thanks be to god guns are not normalised in this country.