Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Las Vegas Shooting
Comments
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Wrong - Your argument was to presume what the investigators where doing based on press statements and an investigation that was only 2 days old.
The investigators know more than the layman
How is that incorrect in any way?
You have access to : google
They have access to : the crime scene, the body, records, CCTV, witnesses, forensics, etcThis argument was not about the evidence this argument was about what the public is told or lead to believe. Again you are not on the investigation team you do not know what evidence they had or even currently have bar what they release.
I didn't need to know, they made the information public. They stated weren't seeking additional shooters
If I remember correctly - you were trying to suggest the presence of another shooter
1. There was no sufficient evidence for it
2. The investigators said themselves there was no evidence and were confident enough to rule it outAgain not true - You do not know this, again you are assuming based on the information you are told!
At the time the wording was "they believe Paddock acted alone" - You said this back last week "The investigators have repeatedly stated they aren't looking for more shooters"
We do know - they said literally said it - They aren't looking for additional shooters. Maybe he had help.
Those two sentences aren't mutually exclusive.
You do understand that "shooter" here means someone physically shooting a gun at the event. You do understand that when an investigation claims something that is all we know.
I think you are confusing information with "belief" hereI have already said this before and I just seem to be repeating myself.
You seem to think because you are on the side of no conspiracy that your arguments are sound and logical..... They are not.
Trying to second guess what is known, what the investigators know and what they are currently investigating is a mistake You even go as far to try and suggest what they have or have not ruled out.
Nothing is ruled out after 48 hours, they might not have any active investigation or evidence to suggest a second shooter but to say "They ruled it out" again is a mistake.
??
In the case of deaths, suspicious death is often ruled out in less than 24 hours. Investigations can often rule out many theories within short periods due to the evidence they obtain
Once police/investigators are confident, they release a public statement.
So to sum up
1. There is no evidence or credible reports of a second shooter
2. They have repeatedly stated they aren't looking for a second shooter
3. You don't "know more" than the authorities0 -
Is it true that police were led to his room by the fire alarm? I heard this on the news in the hours following the incident.
A bit of info for you all. All the doors to all bedrooms, all rooms leading on to a corridor, all the doors that break up a long corridor in a hotel are fire doors. Sound typically drops by 5db through a fire door. Sound doubles (or halves) every 3db. All doors in corridors and escape routes that are electronically held open will release automatically immediately when the fire alarm activates. I don't know the differences between US fire regs and here, but these things I have listed will be the same. In a hotel of that size there would be a lot of fire doors along corridors to inhibit the spread of smoke/fire. The floors will be concrete. The sound generated by the fire alarm will be 75db minimum in each bedroom.
I have listed these things just to give people an idea of how the noise from the gun fire would have travelled through the hotel. It would not have travelled far. Especially after the smoke from the gunfire had triggered the fire alarm, releasing all the fire doors and the effect of the fire alarm sounders drowning out some of the sound.
The fire alarm itself will have given, at a minimum in a building of that size, a text description of the location of the smoke detector that had been triggered. Most likely there would also have been a graphical representation of the location. I would be surprised if the fire brigade didn't arrive before the police. However the hotel may have a delay setmup on the alarm allowing their staff to investigate any activation. In a place like Vegas they probably have a problem with guests smoking in the rooms setting off the alarm a lot. People quickly become immune to alarms once they have heard them a few times and take for granted that it's just another false alarm.0 -
The investigators know more than the layman
How is that incorrect in any way?
You have access to : google
They have access to : the crime scene, the body, records, CCTV, witnesses, forensics, etc
No one is disputing that, what I am disputing again and again is you trying to represent the investigations team and giving your interpretation of what the investigation team know! This is the third time i have said this.
I didn't need to know, they made the information public. They stated weren't seeking additional shooters
Show me where they stated this on the 4th of October? I will address this further below but you keep saying what they said but provide no link to when they said this or how they said it.If I remember correctly - you were trying to suggest the presence of another shooter
As a possibility! At no point did I argue there there was a second shooter, you however argued against the possibility.1. There was no sufficient evidence for it
2. The investigators said themselves there was no evidence and were confident enough to rule it out
We do know - they said literally said it - They aren't looking for additional shooters. Maybe he had help.
Look I cannot really trust a word you say on this. If you are quoting what the PD said can you please provide a link as I do not know if they actually said what you are suggesting above or this is your interpretation of what they said you seem to want to put you own spin on everything.
What I know is on the 4th of Oct when you made your original statements, this is what Sheriff J Lombardo said:
13:44
"This is an ongoing investigations, we can never not have enough information. We are continuing to run down leads........... And whether or not he had any accomplices"
22:50
"This is an investigation and we cannot be delayed by providing information that would delay our investigation or cause an individual to go underground"
24:12
"We have not been able to determine if anyone else was in that room besides him"
33:40 Reporter asks "Are there any other persons of interest?"
Lombardo - "No, concrete no but we are looking at it this way Ken, is there another one? And we are determining to find if there was, it is important not to close this case until we run down everything"
34:20
"You got to make the assumption he had to have had help at some point"
I think you are confusing information with "belief" here
Funny considering your next statement??
In the case of deaths, suspicious death is often ruled out in less than 24 hours. Investigations can often rule out many theories within short periods due to the evidence they obtain.
So I am confusing information with belief but you are able to tell me a suspicious death is ruled out in less than 24 hours, investigation teams often rule out many theories within short periods of time?
Do they? But I am confusing information with belief..... :rolleyes:
FYI - In the link i provide the FBI talks about following leads that they know will go nowhere but they still need to follow them....Once police/investigators are confident, they release a public statement.
So to sum up
1. There is no evidence or credible reports of a second shooter
2. They have repeatedly stated they aren't looking for a second shooter
3. You don't "know more" than the authorities
Again according to you, if you want your posts to have any real weight just provide a link to support what you are saying else it is just noise.
Just a point to make, I am not trying to prove there was a second shooter, but you are trying to disprove the existence of a second shooter.
There is a difference.
You are making statements like you are on the investigation team, you are not, in your own words you are a "lay-man using google".
Here is the PC from the 4th Oct
0 -
http://www.snopes.com/2017/10/13/gunman-shot-crowd-seconds-shooting-guard/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Police timeline of six minutes between security guard shot and shooting disputed by MGM.
It's true that the gunfire would have been muffled through the reinforced concrete superstructure of the building and the interior fixtures/carpets/etc.murphthesmurf wrote: »Is it true that police were led to his room by the fire alarm? I heard this on the news in the hours following the incident.
A bit of info for you all. All the doors to all bedrooms, all rooms leading on to a corridor, all the doors that break up a long corridor in a hotel are fire doors. Sound typically drops by 5db through a fire door. Sound doubles (or halves) every 3db. All doors in corridors and escape routes that are electronically held open will release automatically immediately when the fire alarm activates. I don't know the differences between US fire regs and here, but these things I have listed will be the same. In a hotel of that size there would be a lot of fire doors along corridors to inhibit the spread of smoke/fire. The floors will be concrete. The sound generated by the fire alarm will be 75db minimum in each bedroom.
I have listed these things just to give people an idea of how the noise from the gun fire would have travelled through the hotel. It would not have travelled far. Especially after the smoke from the gunfire had triggered the fire alarm, releasing all the fire doors and the effect of the fire alarm sounders drowning out some of the sound.
The fire alarm itself will have given, at a minimum in a building of that size, a text description of the location of the smoke detector that had been triggered. Most likely there would also have been a graphical representation of the location. I would be surprised if the fire brigade didn't arrive before the police. However the hotel may have a delay setmup on the alarm allowing their staff to investigate any activation. In a place like Vegas they probably have a problem with guests smoking in the rooms setting off the alarm a lot. People quickly become immune to alarms once they have heard them a few times and take for granted that it's just another false alarm.
I don't believe the fire alarm was the trigger, and everything I heard about it being passed around in the media was that the fire alarms were disabled by Paddock - what form that disabling took place was most likely (I would assume) just covering the detectors with wet paper towels, no need to cut wires, or initiate a wiring fault that signals the system there is a problem.
What had happened, according to both the hotel and police, is the central security system was instead tripped when on of the door's to one of Paddock's 2 rooms was held open for an extended period of time. I wasn't clear on what Paddock was doing with the door held open.0 -
The investigation team have said clearly and directly that they believe him to be the lone shooter. It's beggar's belief that you are rejecting that or pretending it said something other than what it said.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »No one is disputing that, what I am disputing again and again is you trying to represent the investigations team and giving your interpretation of what the investigation team know! This is the third time i have said this.
If they believed that there might have been other shooters, then that's what they would have said.
If they thought his possible accomplices were also shooters, then that's what they would say they were.
They were very explicit and clear what they meant by accomplices. You are inferring that they might possibly mean "second shooter" when it is very obvious and clear that is not what they meant.
Unless you have a good reason for why they wouldn't call them shooters?
If they didn't believe that he was the lone shooter, then they wouldn't have said that. Why do you think that they said that in the statement if that wasn't what they meant?
It is not a reasonable or rational assumption that they found one shooter, yet somehow missed evidence of another. If they didn't have enough evidence yet, then that's what they would have said and they would not have declared him to be a lone shooter. So they had the evidence they needed.
It makes no sense for them to pretend there was only one shooter when there really was more.
You can claim that's what they did, but you are going to have to provide some sort of precedent for this. Provide some example of: 1) something like this ever happening with a shooting or other terrorist attack and 2) a lot of those examples to show such a thing is common practice. Otherwise, your assumption that they are withholding such information for some reason is not a good assumption. It would be a silly one.
Unless you are going to say they wanted to deliberately cover up a second shooter, then we're back into conspiracy theories.0 -
Advertisement
-
The investigation team have said clearly and directly that they believe him to be the lone shooter. It's beggar's belief that you are rejecting that or pretending it said something other than what it said.
I feel I need to give a lesson in logic and basic english...
"they believe him to be the lone shooter."
Does not mean
They "rule it out" as suggested.If they believed that there might have been other shooters, then that's what they would have said.
What Lombardo said was:
"This is an investigation and we cannot be delayed by providing information that would delay our investigation or cause an individual to go underground"If they thought his possible accomplices were also shooters, then that's what they would say they were.
They were very explicit and clear what they meant by accomplices. You are inferring that they might possibly mean "second shooter" when it is very obvious and clear that is not what they meant.
Unless you have a good reason for why they wouldn't call them shooters?
Because unlike you Lombardo knows what to assume and what not to assume. He is careful in what he says.If they didn't believe that he was the lone shooter, then they wouldn't have said that. Why do you think that they said that in the statement if that wasn't what they meant?
It is not a reasonable or rational assumption that they found one shooter, yet somehow missed evidence of another. If they didn't have enough evidence yet, then that's what they would have said and they would not have declared him to be a lone shooter. So they had the evidence they needed.
It makes no sense for them to pretend there was only one shooter when there really was more.
You can claim that's what they did, but you are going to have to provide some sort of precedent for this. Provide some example of: 1) something like this ever happening with a shooting or other terrorist attack and 2) a lot of those examples to show such a thing is common practice. Otherwise, your assumption that they are withholding such information for some reason is not a good assumption. It would be a silly one.
Unless you are going to say they wanted to deliberately cover up a second shooter, then we're back into conspiracy theories.
The rest of this is just nonsense. The PD does not rule anything out, they more or less said they would not release information if they felt it could hinder their investigation i.e. send someone underground.
Did they believe there was only one shooter? Yes more than likely.
Did they rule out the possibility of a second shooter? Absolutely not they would not be that stupid!0 -
Semantics.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »"they believe him to be the lone shooter."
Does not mean
They "rule it out" as suggested.
All the evidence they has showed there was most likely one shooter to the point that it's safe enough to rule out a second shooter.
I'm pretty sure they say that they "believe X amount of people were killed/injured", so does this mean that they haven't ruled out the idea of crisis actors either?
What information would they hold back? That they are looking for a second shooter?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What Lombardo said was:
"This is an investigation and we cannot be delayed by providing information that would delay our investigation or cause an individual to go underground"
Because unlike you Lombardo knows what to assume and what not to assume. He is careful in what he says.
The rest of this is just nonsense. The PD does not rule anything out, they more or less said they would not release information if they felt it could hinder their investigation i.e. send someone underground.
That doesn't make sense then, as they say they are looking for accomplices.
Why would they hold back the information that they are looking for a second shooter, but then say they are looking for other people involved?
Can you provide an example of anyone doing such a thing anywhere else?
How often do you think something like that happens?
It must be a lot for you to think it's a probable scenario...
So when they stated that they believe there was a lone shooter, what were the chances that they were wrong or lying? 50/50?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Did they believe there was only one shooter? Yes more than likely.
Did they rule out the possibility of a second shooter? Absolutely not they would not be that stupid!
Because for most people when they state something like that, it's a safe bet that's what's what.
The only reason to doubt this is if you are looking for a conspiracy.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I feel I need to give a lesson in logic and basic english...
Y-You feel you need a ban? Because, this attitude will get you a ban. You're already on your last warning about this issue and I'm going to give you one very last, on thread advisement...
"He was the only shooter; I'm very confident of that," McMahill said. "I'm also confident that there were no other people in the room leading up to this event."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/amp/police-confident-no-one-else-shooters-room-las-vegas-attack-n808431
Police have repeatedly said they have ruled out additional shooters. It is not special interpretation by anyone to reiterate this.0 -
Y-You feel you need a ban? Because, this attitude will get you a ban. You're already on your last warning about this issue and I'm going to give you one very last, on thread advisement...
"He was the only shooter; I'm very confident of that," McMahill said. "I'm also confident that there were no other people in the room leading up to this event."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/amp/police-confident-no-one-else-shooters-room-las-vegas-attack-n808431
Police have repeatedly said they have ruled out additional shooters. It is not special interpretation by anyone to reiterate this.
Again this was on Oct 6th original statement was made by OP on Oct 4th before this statement was made.
The OP was ruling stuff out two days before the Las Vagas PD.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Again this was on Oct 6th original statement was made by OP on Oct 4th before this statement was made.
The OP was ruling stuff out two days before the Las Vagas PD.
Was going on reports, mostly on live news, but here are links that repeat the same in reference to the shooting.
""Right now, we believe it's a sole actor, a lone-wolf-type actor," Lombardo said."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/02/who-stephen-paddock/722267001/
"Police said they believe Paddock was a “lone wolf” attacker"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/02/police-shut-down-part-of-las-vegas-strip-due-to-shooting/?utm_term=.1adb2f8c18d5
"They later added: "At this time we do not believe there are any more shooters.""
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-latest-gunman-mandalay-bay-casino-live-music-show-festival-nevada-a7977776.html
"McMahill said investigators remained certain Paddock acted alone in the shooting"
http://in.reuters.com/article/las-vegas-shooting/pence-offers-solace-as-las-vegas-police-puzzle-over-shooters-motive-idINKCN1C70J5?feedType=RSS&feedName=globalCoverage2
"Police believe Paddock acted alone in executing the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/02/las-vegas-gunman-liked-to-gamble-listened-to-country-music-lived-quiet-retired-life-before-massacre/?utm_term=.4d3abf9aafbf0 -
Advertisement
-
Semantics.
All the evidence they has showed there was most likely one shooter to the point that it's safe enough to rule out a second shooter.
Ah so now its "most likely one shooter"... And most likely means the PD will rule it out? I do not know what to say too that...
But Lombardo said on the 4th of Oct:
33:40 Reporter asks "Are there any other persons of interest?"
Lombardo - "No, concrete no but we are looking at it this way Ken, is there another one? And we are determining to find if there was, it is important not to close this case until we run down everything"
So Lombardo is saying they will run everything down, you are saying they have ruled it out???? Who to believe!!!!I'm pretty sure they say that they "believe X amount of people were killed/injured", so does this mean that they haven't ruled out the idea of crisis actors either?
I am begining to understand why you do not understand this.What information would they hold back? That they are looking for a second shooter?
That doesn't make sense then, as they say they are looking for accomplices.
Why would they hold back the information that they are looking for a second shooter, but then say they are looking for other people involved?
What part of this do you not understand?
22:50
"This is an investigation and we cannot be delayed by providing information that would delay our investigation or cause an individual to go underground"
In short the PD will only release information as long as it does not impact on their investigation. Throughout this thread you have kept on saying things like "Why would the PD lie" or "why would they hold back information"..... Because the investigation was still ongoing.... You seem to have trouble understanding that.Can you provide an example of anyone doing such a thing anywhere else?
How often do you think something like that happens?
It must be a lot for you to think it's a probable scenario...
What? It is what Lombardo tells us. He more or less says look i will tell you what I can so long as it does not jepordise the investigation, I am pretty sire this is standard pratice.... What you think the police spill every detail of an open investigation to the press?So when they stated that they believe there was a lone shooter, what were the chances that they were wrong or lying? 50/50?
Because for most people when they state something like that, it's a safe bet that's what's what.
The only reason to doubt this is if you are looking for a conspiracy.
Again you really do not seem to understand this.
All the evidence from the beginning probably suggested a single shooter, they may have been pretty confident even with in the first 24 hours he was a lone gun man, the part you fail repeatedly to understand is that you seem to think by Oct 4th they would have completely ruled out the possiblity of multiple shooters. You also fail to undestand that the information the PD provide to the public will be scensored, not because they are lying but they need to be careful in what they say so as not to impede their own investigation.0 -
Was going on reports, mostly on live news, but here are links that repeat the same in reference to the shooting.
""Right now, we believe it's a sole actor, a lone-wolf-type actor," Lombardo said."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/02/who-stephen-paddock/722267001/
"Police said they believe Paddock was a “lone wolf” attacker"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/02/police-shut-down-part-of-las-vegas-strip-due-to-shooting/?utm_term=.1adb2f8c18d5
"They later added: "At this time we do not believe there are any more shooters.""
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-latest-gunman-mandalay-bay-casino-live-music-show-festival-nevada-a7977776.html
"McMahill said investigators remained certain Paddock acted alone in the shooting"
http://in.reuters.com/article/las-vegas-shooting/pence-offers-solace-as-las-vegas-police-puzzle-over-shooters-motive-idINKCN1C70J5?feedType=RSS&feedName=globalCoverage2
"Police believe Paddock acted alone in executing the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/02/las-vegas-gunman-liked-to-gamble-listened-to-country-music-lived-quiet-retired-life-before-massacre/?utm_term=.4d3abf9aafbf
Going to say the same thing is said to the OP.
Believing he acted alone and "ruling out" are two very different things.
You think within a few hours of the shooting they stopped looking?0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Going to say the same thing is said to the OP.
Believing he acted alone and "ruling out" are two very different things.
You think within a few hours of the shooting they stopped looking?
Personal incredulity and arguing some pretty extreme semantics
Approx a day after the shooting the police have been confident enough to state that they believe all the killing shots came from Paddock. That he was the lone shooter. So far that remains a fact. I don't see any conspiracy.
Lawyering up on language does come across as overly pedantic0 -
Personal incredulity and arguing some pretty extreme semantics
Approx a day after the shooting the police have been confident enough to state that they believe all the killing shots came from Paddock. That he was the lone shooter. So far that remains a fact. I don't see any conspiracy.
Lawyering up on language does come across as overly pedantic
I do not see a conspricy either. But you and the other OP where taking it too far jumping the gun so to speak.
We believe he acted alone or we believe he was a lone wolfe is not the same as saying "we have completely ruled out the idea that there could of been mutliple shooters"
They had not even counted all the bullets by the 4th, that was also in the press conf.
It is not about being pedantic it was about missrepresenting what was actually said.0 -
Again, if the possibility of a shooter was likely enough to be considered, then they would say this. They didn't because that possibility was not likely at the time.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So Lombardo is saying they will run everything down, you are saying they have ruled it out???? Who to believe!!!!
Then explain it to me.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am begining to understand why you do not understand this.
They said "they believe" that so many people were injured, so obviously that must mean they were still considering the possibility of crisis actors, right?
The part were they would keep the fact they are looking for a second shooter quite, but then also still say they are looking for accomplices.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What part of this do you not understand?
22:50
"This is an investigation and we cannot be delayed by providing information that would delay our investigation or cause an individual to go underground"
In short the PD will only release information as long as it does not impact on their investigation. Throughout this thread you have kept on saying things like "Why would the PD lie" or "why would they hold back information"..... Because the investigation was still ongoing.... You seem to have trouble understanding that.
That doesn't make sense.
Why would they hide the fact they're looking for a second shooter?
It can't be that they are afraid of people making a run for it, as they announce they are looking for people who otherwise helped him.
Why would they hide this information? How does doing so aid their investigation?
How does announcing the fact they are looking for people not hinder them?
Well then if it's standard practice, please point to some other examples of police hiding the fact there was a second or third attacker.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What? It is what Lombardo tells us. He more or less says look i will tell you what I can so long as it does not jepordise the investigation, I am pretty sire this is standard pratice.... What you think the police spill every detail of an open investigation to the press?
Can you even point to a single instance?
Again, the evidence pointed in one direction. There was no evidence in the other direction. They were confident enough in this to state that he was a lone gun man.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Again you really do not seem to understand this.
All the evidence from the beginning probably suggested a single shooter, they may have been pretty confident even with in the first 24 hours he was a lone gun man, the part you fail repeatedly to understand is that you seem to think by Oct 4th they would have completely ruled out the possiblity of multiple shooters.
Everything you are doing now to pretend this is not what actually happened is just semantics on your part.
So what did they censor?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You also fail to undestand that the information the PD provide to the public will be scensored, not because they are lying but they need to be careful in what they say so as not to impede their own investigation.
It's been 10 days now. What were they hiding?
Do you think they're still investigating the possibility of a second shooter?
At what point can we rule it out?0 -
.....
What had happened, according to both the hotel and police, is the central security system was instead tripped when on of the door's to one of Paddock's 2 rooms was held open for an extended period of time. I wasn't clear on what Paddock was doing with the door held open.
It was my understanding that the security system was activated by a room left ajar down the hallway from the shooters room. At the time it was reported that the shooter had no Key access to that room.
I must admit that I had a hmmm moment at the time - as in what's the chances in a hotel of 3,300 rooms and 43 floors that an unintentional security alarm would be raised a few rooms away from the shooting - NVPD have stated that it was just a coincidence0 -
Again, if the possibility of a shooter was likely enough to be considered, then they would say this. They didn't because that possibility was not likely at the time.
You still do not get this, what do you mean considered? It comes down to evidence you do not know what evidence the PD where processing had processed and what leads they where following.
Your argument was essentially this.
No evidence for a second shooter therefore the PD have ruled out the second shooter idea.
If they thought there was a second shooter then the PD would release that information.
What I have said is, albeit all the evidence may point to a single shooter that does not mean the PD would rule it out, the investigation was still ongoing.
I also said that if the PD had information or evidence of a possible second shooter they might not necessarily release that information.
You then stat on "Why would the PD lie" I told you why, the Sheriff of the Las Vegas PD also tells you why.Then explain it to me.
They said "they believe" that so many people were injured, so obviously that must mean they were still considering the possibility of crisis actors, right?
The fact you are trying to equate the two as similar is so ridiculous it is hard to know where to start.
But again you do not seem to understand any of this.
It is not that the PD will consider every single thing it comes down to evidence they where processing. What I have told you mutiple times is, you where not on the investigation team, you do not know what evidence they had or what evidence they processed. You seem to think the PD would announce every single idea, lead, theory within 48 hours of it happening.....The part were they would keep the fact they are looking for a second shooter quite, but then also still say they are looking for accomplices.
That doesn't make sense.
Why would they hide the fact they're looking for a second shooter?
It can't be that they are afraid of people making a run for it, as they announce they are looking for people who otherwise helped him.
Why would they hide this information? How does doing so aid their investigation?
How does announcing the fact they are looking for people not hinder them?
You are asking questions with little to no information, you do not know what information what evidence they have or their reasons.
You assume way too much.Well then if it's standard practice, please point to some other examples of police hiding the fact there was a second or third attacker.
Can you even point to a single instance?
Standard practice? Did you join the Las Vegas PD? This is the second time I have now said this, I do not need to provide an example the Las Vegas Sheriff stated that they would not release information if they felt it would impede their investigation..... They are not "hiding" or "lying" they are just being careful with the information they provide the public.Again, the evidence pointed in one direction. There was no evidence in the other direction. They were confident enough in this to state that he was a lone gun man.
They where confident enough to state they believe he acted alone.
The part you and the other OP fail to grasp is, the evidence was still being processed. The reason they say believe is just in case new evidence comes to light, the reason they do not "rule something out" is just in case they are wrong.Everything you are doing now to pretend this is not what actually happened is just semantics on your part.
So what did they censor?
It's been 10 days now. What were they hiding?
Do you think they're still investigating the possibility of a second shooter?
At what point can we rule it out?
Well not in the first 48 hours after it happened, not before all the evidence has been processed. And in reality you cannot not rule it out.
All the evidence suggests one lone shooter that is enough to close the investigation.
An investigation is based on what they know, not on what they to not know. Nothing gets ruled out, that is not how it works, evidence is processed and leads followed to their conclusion.
It is not like cops sit around thinking up possible ideas make a list and go about "ruling them out".0 -
The rest of you post is just pointless semantics, I'm not interested in continuing.
However this point:
No, you claimed it was standard practice to pretend that there's only one shooter when in fact there might be two.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Standard practice? Did you join the Las Vegas PD? This is the second time I have now said this, I do not need to provide an example the Las Vegas Sheriff stated that they would not release information if they felt it would impede their investigation..... They are not "hiding" or "lying" they are just being careful with the information they provide the public.
Yes, they would have to be lying if they stated that there was a lone shooter, but were considering that there might actually be more.
Please provide an example of this ever happening anywhere else.
Otherwise, no it's not standard practice.
In reality, if the police believe that there is a serious, credible and likely possibility of a second shooter, they release that information.
This was not the case in this event because there was no second shooter and the police were confident enough to state this.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Well not in the first 48 hours after it happened, not before all the evidence has been processed.
Why are you chastising people for knowing or assuming anything about the investigation (despite investigators releasing the information to the public)
then making your own assumptions (and arbitrary time limits) like the above
The theory of a second shooter in this thread can be dismissed because there is no evidence for it
Likewise, until someone provides reasonable evidence, anyone in this thread can also rule out aliens, illuminati, the Rothschilds, etc
Semantics and wordplay aren't needed.0 -
The rest of you post is just pointless semantics, I'm not interested in continuing.
However this point:
No, you claimed it was standard practice to pretend that there's only one shooter when in fact there might be two.
I will give you 100 euro if you can find anywhere on this thread I make this claim.
I never said the PD would pretend, I also never assume to know what standard pratice is, you seem to be the only person in this thread that makes spurious claims to what "standard pricise" is.Yes, they would have to be lying if they stated that there was a lone shooter, but were considering that there might actually be more.
Don't be ridicluous. They did not state "there was" they state "they believe" based on the evidence.Please provide an example of this ever happening anywhere else.
Otherwise, no it's not standard practice.
Here we go again about "standard practice" what do you know if standard pratice around a mass shooting in America? You sounds ridiculous!In reality, if the police believe that there is a serious, credible and likely possibility of a second shooter, they release that information.
This was not the case in this event because there was no second shooter and the police were confident enough to state this.
I am done here also, you either do not understand or are being obtuse. Throughout this thread you jump from what the PD believe to what they then "rule out" I have outlined the difference multiple times now you are not even consistant in your answers, this is a huge waste of time.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why are you chastising people for knowing or assuming anything about the investigation (despite investigators releasing the information to the public)
then making your own assumptions (and arbitrary time limits) like the above
Not an assumption a fact, 48 hours after is when you and the other OP first started to speculate on what the PD had done. From the interview on the 4th the Sheriff stated they are still processing evidence.
Also not arbitary very much deliberate.The theory of a second shooter in this thread can be dismissed because there is no evidence for it
Agreed this is true.Likewise, until someone provides reasonable evidence, anyone in this thread can also rule out aliens, illuminati, the Rothschilds, etc
Rule out aliens, illuminiati and Rothchilds? What in gerneral or being involved in the shooting?Semantics and wordplay aren't needed.
You say semantics and word play. But if you cannot see the significant difference to "believing" in something and "ruling" something out then I cannot help you.0 -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104961304&postcount=342ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I will give you 100 euro if you can find anywhere on this thread I make this claim.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What? It is what Lombardo tells us. He more or less says look i will tell you what I can so long as it does not jepordise the investigation, I am pretty sire this is standard pratice.... What you think the police spill every detail of an open investigation to the press?
So when there is a mass shooting the police do not declare that a shooter was a lone shooter until there is good reason to declare this.
If they thought that there was a serious possibility of a second shooter, then they would either say that, or not declare it was a lone shooter.
It's not standard practice for the police to say there is only one shooter when there is a serious possibility of a second.
I am skeptical that this has happened ever.
So when the police say that they believe that there was only a single shooter, then the most likely thing is that there was a second shooter. This is so likely that it's not worth considering that there are more shooters.0 -
This is why arguing with you is a waste time you are flat out disingenuous.
You claim I say that "pretending is standard pratice".
You take a snipped where I say "I am pretty sure this is standard praticse" but i am referring to something Lombardo the says, not something I made up like you do consistanly through out this thread but something that the Police Sheriff says.So when there is a mass shooting the police do not declare that a shooter was a lone shooter until there is good reason to declare this.
If they thought that there was a serious possibility of a second shooter, then they would either say that, or not declare it was a lone shooter.
It's not standard practice for the police to say there is only one shooter when there is a serious possibility of a second.
I am skeptical that this has happened ever.
So when the police say that they believe that there was only a single shooter, then the most likely thing is that there was a second shooter. This is so likely that it's not worth considering that there are more shooters.
A few others have tried to reason with you on the line of logic you literally have listened to no one I should of let it go. You are not a detective you are trying to portray what you think the PD would do or not do. Your opinion on "standard practise" is worth literally nothing. My comment on standard practise was to comment on something the PD actually did not something I am making up. And my comment was to suggest "I am pretty sure this is standard parctise". The reason I sayt pretty sure is 1. I am not a detective maybe Lombardo does not play by the "normal" rules. 2. Even as a non detective I completely understand why he would not necessarily realse all information on an active investigation.0 -
ShowMeTheCash banned.0
-
There's something like 5 cameras for every person in your average Vegas casino and hotel. And all the hotels and casinos are on a network and shared frequency to share information about all clients and potential scams etc.
How did that one guy walk in there with enough firepower and equipment for an entire squad and not get noticed?0 -
http://www.seacoastonline.com/zz/news/20171011/vegas-shooting-survivor-california-charity-co-founder-dies-suddenly
http://realfarmacy.com/las-vegas-witness-dead/
This tells me everything I need to know about what happened in Las Vegas.0 -
No system is perfect and as you say, it's looking for scams and cheaters more than looking for mass shooters.There's something like 5 cameras for every person in your average Vegas casino and hotel. And all the hotels and casinos are on a network and shared frequency to share information about all clients and potential scams etc.
How did that one guy walk in there with enough firepower and equipment for an entire squad and not get noticed?
It's been established that he stockpiled his weapons over a few runs, so all he needed to do was put them in a bag. No one would thing that a person leaving and entering a hotel with a bag is unusual enough to take a photo.
So what's the alternative explanation? Where all of the hotel guards in on it?0 -
http://www.seacoastonline.com/zz/news/20171011/vegas-shooting-survivor-california-charity-co-founder-dies-suddenly
http://realfarmacy.com/las-vegas-witness-dead/
This tells me everything I need to know about what happened in Las Vegas.“Kymberley had epilepsy and she’s always been prone to seizures — she told her friend that she recently had three focal seizures,” Norton told the Daily Press. “I believe the stress from the shooting took her life.”
Why would the Shadowy they kill her?
Why would they use 2 shooters?0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/26/las-vegas-shooting-conspiracy-theories-social-media
And again, victims are being harassed by believers in the inherently silly conspiracy theory.
This happens every time and it will happen on the next shooting as well.0 -
Advertisement
-
Paddock's laptop was missing its hard drive evidently http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/25/stephen-paddock-removed-hard-drive-from-laptop-found-in-las-vegas-hotel-room-report-says.html
we are just finding out now..0
Advertisement