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

20Cent

Seeing tomorrow's front pages on Twitter most are using photos from the videos even the Times. The Sun have outdone themselves again. Horrible.

frostyjacks

Streetwalker wrote: »

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

Seems he was a homosexual as well. We haven't heard what football team he supports, or his favourite colour, which is about as relevant as his religious beliefs.

Overheal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Seems he was a homosexual as well. We haven't heard what football team he supports, or his favourite colour, which is about as relevant as his religious beliefs.

Our religious beliefs help shape and define our morality and our understanding of the social contract. To say someone's favorite color has as much say as religious belief is just, plainly, wrong.

Streetwalker

Streetwalker wrote: »

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

Well in fairness his religion seems to have no bearing at all to the reason he did this crime, so ............... what was your point?

RichardCeann

Overheal wrote: »

To say someone's favorite color has as much say as religious belief is just, plainly, wrong.

Well, some of your coppers have a particular colour that definitely isn't their favourite....

Overheal

RichardCeann wrote: »

Well, some of your coppers have a particular colour that definitely isn't their favourite....

Zing. Points. but I speak in another context, here.

frostyjacks

Overheal wrote: »

Our religious beliefs help shape and define our morality and our understanding of the social contract. To say someone's favorite color has as much say as religious belief is just, plainly, wrong.

I agree, but in the context of this crime his religion is irrelevant. Not sure why someone thought to bring it up, if only to enjoy a bit of church-bashing.

Birneybau

20Cent wrote: »

Seeing tomorrow's front pages on Twitter most are using photos from the videos even the Times. The Sun have outdone themselves again. Horrible.

They have photoshopped it (badly) to make it look like the gun is going off. Jesus Christ.

About 3rd paper down:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/26/de-thursday-papers-125/#comments

Overheal

Birneybau wrote: »

They have photoshopped it (badly) to make it look like the gun is going off. Jesus Christ.

About 3rd paper down:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/26/de-thursday-papers-125/#comments

Thats a neat link

mzungu

Birneybau wrote: »

They have photoshopped it (badly) to make it look like the gun is going off. Jesus Christ.

About 3rd paper down:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/26/de-thursday-papers-125/#comments

Christ, even for the Sun, thats a new low.

Birneybau

mzungu wrote: »

Christ, even for the Sun, thats a new low.

I'm not being funny but they make it look like the original version of 'Doom'

Birneybau

Overheal wrote: »

Thats a neat link

?

The Backwards Man

Fcuk sake.

Do you know what though? I'm not half as disgusted at the knobs at the Sun as I am at the knuckle draggers that read and buy their dirty pice of crap rag.

NachoBusiness

Birneybau wrote: »

?

Neat is American for cool/good. Tis a compliment.

mzungu

Birneybau wrote: »

I'm not being funny but they make it look like the original version of 'Doom'

I thought the exact same when I saw it too!

Birneybau

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Neat is American for cool/good. Tis a compliment.

I get that.

The Sun has obviously been playing far too much Doom.

BorneTobyWilde

America where stupidity is nurtured . Hope he burns in hell, fat bastard would need cheat code to play Wii Fit. She took his job, he took her life and that of the camera man.
Everyone who fired his sorry ass was correct in their judgement of him.

murpho999

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.

This is rubbish.
People have work issues all over the word, the fact remains that he was able to get a gun that enabled hm to kill people and this would not happen in countries with gun control laws.

Don't try to blame the employers for those 2 poor people's awful deaths, they didn't pull the trigger.

BorneTobyWilde

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2015/8/26/10408538_1005244636166041_7024558682154887899_n.jpg

R.I.P Allison
If everyone had your glow this world would shine bright.

Dry Rain

I'm not trying to troll but I watched the cameraman's footage AND the footage recorded by the shooter. What do they both have in common? Both the news camera and the phone camera both lose view of the reporter at the exact same time. You cannot see anyone getting shot. In the gunman's footage you can see the gun being shot but it appears to be shooting blanks. Not to mention the fact that after the video changes back to the female in the newsroom, what she says seems staged and she talked very calmly.

Is there evidence from a reputable source that this actually happened? I'm just skeptical because in the past a group of people went to court and were fined and sentenced to jail for being involved in faking a live TV shooting that was staged years before the victims were found living in South Africa under different aliases. It was all organised by protesters of the amendment that allows Americans to own weapons.

I'm scared of getting a warning for this post. I'm not saying the shooting is fake, I'm just saying that it's very strange. It's also sick.

Scuid Mhór

Dry Rain wrote: »

I'm not trying to troll but I watched the cameraman's footage AND the footage recorded by the shooter. What do they both have in common? Both the news camera and the phone camera both lose view of the reporter at the exact same time. You cannot see anyone getting shot. In the gunman's footage you can see the gun being shot but it appears to be shooting blanks. Not to mention the fact that after the video changes back to the female in the newsroom, what she says seems staged and she talked very calmly.

Is there evidence from a reputable source that this actually happened? I'm just skeptical because in the past a group of people went to court and were fined and sentenced to jail for being involved in faking a live TV shooting that was staged years before the victims were found living in South Africa under different aliases. It was all organised by protesters of the amendment that allows Americans to own weapons.

I'm scared of getting a warning for this post. I'm not saying the shooting is fake, I'm just saying that it's very strange. It's also sick.

I think the local hospital identifying their remains very firmly puts an end to any idea that this was an elaborate hoax.

SpaceSasqwatch

Dry Rain wrote: »

I'm not trying to troll but I watched the cameraman's footage AND the footage recorded by the shooter. What do they both have in common? Both the news camera and the phone camera both lose view of the reporter at the exact same time. You cannot see anyone getting shot. In the gunman's footage you can see the gun being shot but it appears to be shooting blanks. Not to mention the fact that after the video changes back to the female in the newsroom, what she says seems staged and she talked very calmly.

Is there evidence from a reputable source that this actually happened? I'm just skeptical because in the past a group of people went to court and were fined and sentenced to jail for being involved in faking a live TV shooting that was staged years before the victims were found living in South Africa under different aliases. It was all organised by protesters of the amendment that allows Americans to own weapons.

I'm scared of getting a warning for this post. I'm not saying the shooting is fake, I'm just saying that it's very strange. It's also sick.

wha dafuq???

Diamond Doll

Conspiracy theories forum is thataway -->

Witcher

Dry Rain wrote: »

In the gunman's footage you can see the gun being shot but it appears to be shooting blanks.

How so?

endacl

Strider wrote: »

How so?

Because you can't see the bullets exiting the muzzle?

I don't know. How can somebody can be smart enough to open an account, but dumb enough to post that kind of crap...

Billy86

Birneybau wrote: »

They have photoshopped it (badly) to make it look like the gun is going off. Jesus Christ.

About 3rd paper down:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/26/de-thursday-papers-125/#comments

The Spectator with some really unfortunate timing there, on their cover.

Call Me Jimmy

Balmed Out wrote: »

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.

What does that even mean?

Oryx

Dry Rain wrote: »

I'm not saying the shooting is fake.

Thats exactly what you are saying. What, did you want more gore? Not explicit enough? Your cynicism is actually depressing.

Dry Rain

endacl wrote: »

Because you can't see the bullets exiting the muzzle?

If you were experienced with weapons then you'd be familiar with the recoil real rounds cause when fired from a handgun similar to the one used by the shooter. You'd probably also be familiar with the kind of recoil blank rounds cause. You'd also notice that the recoil of the weapon in the video is the same as that of what it would be if blank rounds were being shot.

I can explain in more detail if you wish.

Samaris

Dry Rain wrote: »

If you were experienced with weapons then you'd be familiar with the recoil real rounds cause when fired from a handgun similar to the one used by the shooter. You'd probably also be familiar with the kind of recoil blank rounds cause. You'd also notice that the recoil of the weapon in the video is the same as that of what it would be if blank rounds were being shot.

I can explain in more detail if you wish.

Oh for crissakes.

The likelyhood of this being fake is extremely low. There is no real reason for it to have been, it happened in public, it happened LIVE ON TV. Alright, you didn't see bullets entering bodies (thank God), but really, if anyone was going to fake the shooting, I think they might have the common sense not to try it in such a ...

Do you think the guy that shot himself faked it too?

>.>

Don't insult the dead by suggesting that they shot ..I dunno, rubber dummies and ran off together to France, or whatever it is you're going for.

Witcher

Dry Rain wrote: »

If you were experienced with weapons then you'd be familiar with the recoil real rounds cause when fired from a handgun similar to the one used by the shooter. You'd probably also be familiar with the kind of recoil blank rounds cause. You'd also notice that the recoil of the weapon in the video is the same as that of what it would be if blank rounds were being shot.

I can explain in more detail if you wish.

I'm experienced with firearms and there is nothing at all unusual about the way the gun recoiled. You're making sh1t up.

SpaceSasqwatch

Dry Rain wrote: »

I can explain in more detail if you wish.

LOL

Dry Rain

Strider wrote: »

I'm experienced with firearms and there is nothing at all unusual about the way the gun recoiled. You're making sh1t up.

Every action has an opposite reaction. Remember that law of physics put forward by Charles Darwin?

When a bullet is fired, it exits the barrel of the gun. The gun gets pushed backwards in the opposite direction. It usually lifts because of the user firmly holding the handle.
When a blank is "fired", there is no bullet. It just blows up inside the chamber. There is force being released which causes the gun in jump in any direction.
It's obvious that when you fire a weapon, it doesn't jump up, down, left, right, or in any other random direction. Even when the video is slowed down there is absolutely no sign of a bullet to be seen flying across the screen. That was on the footage the news camera got.
There is no point in attempting to look for bullets in the shooter's footage for the simple reason that the phone used to record it was suspiciously held at the same height as the gun and directly behind it. It would be a real shame if people got a close up, slow motion view of the bullets coming out.

It's all staged in my opinion.
The shooter recording the "shooting" is the typical way the American government covers things up. Since the camera conveniently fell and landed facing the shooter, it seemed kinda strange, almost fake.
You can see this with the moon landing. NASA shows us fake images of people on the moon, then later back up their claim with fake satellite images of the moon with "evidence" there.

Overheal

Dry Rain wrote: »

Every action has an opposite reaction. Remember that law of physics put forward by Charles Darwin?

You just lost the game sir. Thank you for playing.

Witcher

Dry Rain wrote: »

Every action has an opposite reaction. Remember that law of physics put forward by Charles Darwin?

When a bullet is fired, it exits the barrel of the gun. The gun gets pushed backwards in the opposite direction. It usually lifts because of the user firmly holding the handle.
When a blank is "fired", there is no bullet. It just blows up inside the chamber. There is force being released which causes the gun in jump in any direction.
It's obvious that when you fire a weapon, it doesn't jump up, down, left, right, or in any other random direction. Even when the video is slowed down there is absolutely no sign of a bullet to be seen flying across the screen. That was on the footage the news camera got.
There is no point in attempting to look for bullets in the shooter's footage for the simple reason that the phone used to record it was suspiciously held at the same height as the gun and directly behind it. It would be a real shame if people got a close up, slow motion view of the bullets coming out.

It's all staged in my opinion.
The shooter recording the "shooting" is the typical way the American government covers things up. Since the camera conveniently fell and landed facing the shooter, it seemed kinda strange, almost fake.
You can see this with the moon landing. NASA shows us fake images of people on the moon, then later back up their claim with fake satellite images of the moon with "evidence" there.

Charles Darwin's laws of physics

Bullets moving slow enough to be seen on camera

Blanks 'blowing up inside the chamber'

The amount of BS in your post is astonishing:pac:

Samaris

Dry Rain wrote: »

Every action has an opposite reaction. Remember that law of physics put forward by Charles Darwin?

Newton. Darwin was the biologist.

When a blank is "fired", there is no bullet. It just blows up inside the chamber. There is force being released which causes the gun in jump in any direction.
It's obvious that when you fire a weapon, it doesn't jump up, down, left, right, or in any other random direction. Even when the video is slowed down there is absolutely no sign of a bullet to be seen flying across the screen. That was on the footage the news camera got.

Look up what a blank is.

Also, a bullet travels at about 1,700mph. That is far too fast for a camera to catch, even if you "slow it down". Did you know that when they say on a TV show "zoom in on that" repeatedly and they eventually get a perfectly clear picture of something two inches across from CCTV? I hate to break this to you, but that's bull**** too.

Also, jesus, how many times have you been -watching- a scene of two people being brutally murdered for the sake of your ...amazingly ridiculous conspiracy theory?

It's all staged in my opinion.
The shooter recording the "shooting" is the typical way the American government covers things up. Since the camera conveniently fell and landed facing the shooter, it seemed kinda strange, almost fake.

There is nothing I can say here that won't get me banned.

You can see this with the moon landing. NASA shows us fake images of people on the moon, then later back up their claim with fake satellite images of the moon with "evidence" there.

Ah, that explains everything. *shoos gently to the conspiracy forum* I know you want to see a conspiracy in everything, but for heaven's sake, have some respect for the dead even if you have no respect for anyone else's intelligence.

Sunflower 27

Oh come on, do some people really think this is fake? Are the two killed going to really be given false identities and shipped off to some faraway land and never be heard of again.

And the woman being interviewed, she was in on it as well?

Just think how absurd that sounds.

pmasterson95

briany wrote: »

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?

Well thats obviously a danger of the teacher going "nuts" but the gun fanatics cannot understand that.

pmasterson95

Dry Rain wrote: »

Every action has an opposite reaction. Remember that law of physics put forward by Charles Darwin?

When a bullet is fired, it exits the barrel of the gun. The gun gets pushed backwards in the opposite direction. It usually lifts because of the user firmly holding the handle.
When a blank is "fired", there is no bullet. It just blows up inside the chamber. There is force being released which causes the gun in jump in any direction.
It's obvious that when you fire a weapon, it doesn't jump up, down, left, right, or in any other random direction. Even when the video is slowed down there is absolutely no sign of a bullet to be seen flying across the screen. That was on the footage the news camera got.
There is no point in attempting to look for bullets in the shooter's footage for the simple reason that the phone used to record it was suspiciously held at the same height as the gun and directly behind it. It would be a real shame if people got a close up, slow motion view of the bullets coming out.

It's all staged in my opinion.
The shooter recording the "shooting" is the typical way the American government covers things up. Since the camera conveniently fell and landed facing the shooter, it seemed kinda strange, almost fake.
You can see this with the moon landing. NASA shows us fake images of people on the moon, then later back up their claim with fake satellite images of the moon with "evidence" there.

A wild conspiracy theorist appears

darkpagandeath

Oh dear god if I hear another 15 year-olds expert opinion from Call of duty on how weapons work... What are they expecting the reaction of a bullet being fired to look like? Do they even know how much energy is being exchanged in the gas expansion to accelerate the bullet. Are they expecting some kind of Robocop people flying around when they are shot ? It's getting depressing all the CT nuts coming out with their Expert opinion on how the videos are fake. You know like the unfortunate French police officer. What possible reason whould there be to Fake this ?

Junkyard Tom

Dry Rain wrote: »

I'm not trying to troll but...

You lost me at 'but'.

Fallschirmjager

it seems it was, as far as the killer is concerned, part of a race war...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-26/virgina-killer-sent-suicide-note-abc-says-massacre-race-war-reaction-charleston-shoo

the_monkey

Dry Rain wrote: »

Every action has an opposite reaction. Remember that law of physics put forward by Charles Darwin?

...twaddle...

Yeah Charles Darwin was a great physicist, why on earth would something like this be staged ??

osarusan

Dry Rain wrote: »

Every action has an opposite reaction. Remember that law of physics put forward by Charles Darwin?

:pac:

Dry Rain wrote: »

Even when the video is slowed down there is absolutely no sign of a bullet to be seen flying across the screen.

:pac:

Oh man, keep it coming.

namloc1980

What's the story with the boyfriend going all over twitter only hours after her death and then he also did an interview showing off a private photo album of the two of them.

Kev W

namloc1980 wrote: »

What's the story with the boyfriend going all over twitter only hours after her death and then he also did an interview showing off a private photo album of the two of them.

People use Twitter to interact with the world, particularly people in media.

Ash.J.Williams

Just heard Hillary sh1ting on about "if only there was something we can do"...it's almost like they are pretending any gobsh1te can't just buy a gun. FFs he put a deposit down on the day of the charlestown shooting.

darkpagandeath

namloc1980 wrote: »

What's the story with the boyfriend going all over twitter only hours after her death and then he also did an interview showing off a private photo album of the two of them.

He needs to steep out of the limelight I feel for his loss but it's a bit much the stuff going on.

darkpagandeath

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Just heard Hillary sh1ting on about "if only there was something we can do"...it's almost like they are pretending any gobsh1te can't just buy a gun. FFs he put a deposit down on the day of the charlestown shooting.

There is Make the price of bullets for public use 500 dollars per bullet.