California shooting WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTO

First topic message reminder :

On BBC news now

Units responding to a shooting incident may be 20 casualties

Nothing further yet

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The SUV wasn't in Redlands at the end though.

But it was just nearby...so much so, that Redlands PD was on the scene before SB PD.  I don't know where the boundary is, precisely.  But Redlands Town Center is on Alabama Street, just south of SB Avenue.  I imagine the PD headquarters is there.  It looks to be only 2-blocks from the SB border.

I just checked, and Redlands extends right up to the airport according to Google maps. The place where the SUV was is just outside Redlands.

I gotta go. I'll look in later.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Christie wrote:Did anyone else see this report? I honestly think that Tashleen Malik was the operative behind it all and not her husband.


The bloodthirsty bride who carried out the San Bernardino shootings pulled the trigger first after her husband appeared to “hesitate” before firing on his colleagues, according to a new report.

Witnesses who survived the carnage told investigators Tashfeen Malik, 29, and her husband, Syed Farook, 28, prepared to open fire from opposite sides of a door to the conference room in the Inland Regional Center, The Sunday Times of London reported.

Malik assumed a firing stance and blasted a group of workers near a Christmas tree as Farook hesitated for a moment — perhaps temporarily losing his nerve or looking for a specific person, according to the report.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shooter-tashfeen-malik-wrote-extremist-facebook-messages-article-1.2456784

It's weird that those witnesses knew that the shooter who hesitated was a man and that the first shooter was a woman, when other witnesses saw three athletically built men.

Yep.  To me, too.

Good. Glad it's not just me.
Discrepancies in eye witness accounts - it wouldn't stand up in court and the case may collapse usually.
But probably not in this case of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But it was just nearby...so much so, that Redlands PD was on the scene before SB PD.  I don't know where the boundary is, precisely.  But Redlands Town Center is on Alabama Street, just south of SB Avenue.  I imagine the PD headquarters is there.  It looks to be only 2-blocks from the SB border.

I just checked, and Redlands extends right up to the airport according to Google maps. The place where the SUV was is just outside Redlands.

Yes, that's what I see too. The airport is across the Santa Ana River...it's actually the Norton Air Force Base. As you cross the river and go south to SB Avenue, the boundary shifts west at about the wastewater management plant. South two-and-a-half blocks is SB Avenue...I believe the boundary is on California Street. So, on what street was the incident?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I can't see an alley.

It was either on the KIRO video or the KABC video.  Early on, the camera is panning around just before zooming in on the SUV.  To the right you see a house, an alley, and then a lawn or some sort of expanse, and I believe a set-back house.  The alley heads south, directly away from the camera.

I see something which could be an alley - it's not very clear though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It was either on the KIRO video or the KABC video.  Early on, the camera is panning around just before zooming in on the SUV.  To the right you see a house, an alley, and then a lawn or some sort of expanse, and I believe a set-back house.  The alley heads south, directly away from the camera.

I see something which could be an alley - it's not very clear though.

Sweep your eyes right, looking for the end of the white picket fence. Then the alley, then the lawn or whatever.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just checked, and Redlands extends right up to the airport according to Google maps. The place where the SUV was is just outside Redlands.

Yes, that's what I see too.  The airport is across the Santa Ana River...it's actually the Norton Air Force Base.  As you cross the river and go south to SB Avenue, the boundary shifts west at about the wastewater management plant.  South two-and-a-half blocks is SB Avenue...I believe the boundary is on California Street.  So, on what street was the incident?  

E San Bernardino Avenue. It's a long road, so if you can find Sheddon Drive, it's just to the east of the junction of Sheddon Drive and E San Bernardino Avenue.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yep.  To me, too.

Good. Glad it's not just me.
Discrepancies in eye witness accounts - it wouldn't stand up in court and the case may collapse usually.
But probably not in this case of course.

You think if Malik was still alive, she'd get off? Not a chance - not after she shot at the police officers.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see something which could be an alley - it's not very clear though.

Sweep your eyes right, looking for the end of the white picket fence.  Then the alley, then the lawn or whatever.

There's a line of bushes at the end of the white fence, then it's just a path to someone's house - no alley there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yep.  To me, too.

Good. Glad it's not just me.
Discrepancies in eye witness accounts - it wouldn't stand up in court and the case may collapse usually.
But probably not in this case of course.

You think if Malik was still alive, she'd get off? Not a chance - not after she shot at the police officers.

Lol

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think if Malik was still alive, she'd get off? Not a chance - not after she shot at the police officers.

Lol

Haven't joined in tonight, but been reading with interest.  Thought provoking.

What do you think sassy?

eddie wrote:What do you think sassy?

I really don't know.  I think whatever happened we haven't found out yet and I don't know if we ever will, but the fact that so many witnesses spoke of 3 athletically built men makes me doubt the official line.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:What do you think sassy?

I really don't know.  I think whatever happened we haven't found out yet and I don't know if we ever will, but the fact that so many witnesses spoke of 3 athletically built men makes me doubt the official line.

Pretty much where I stand

Right I'm off
Night

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

I really don't know.  I think whatever happened we haven't found out yet and I don't know if we ever will, but the fact that so many witnesses spoke of 3 athletically built men makes me doubt the official line.

Pretty much where I stand

Right I'm off
Night

Night, me too

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sweep your eyes right, looking for the end of the white picket fence.  Then the alley, then the lawn or whatever.

There's a line of bushes at the end of the white fence, then it's just a path to someone's house - no alley there.

You are right. I've had another look...it's on the ABC footage. From about 4:00 on the camera pans to the right several times. After the white picket fence there are three houses (not one) and then a roadway moves south past a set-back home.

That's what I was referring to...but whether that is Gouldson alley, I don't know...on Google it shows no alley.

There are lots of reports around which say that Malik sent Facebook messages expressing support for violent jihad before she even went to the US, and yet she was allowed in.

Apparently, the US does now review social media, but how do they find that kind of thing if someone uses a false name on social media? Will they now be much more suspicious if someone applies for a "fiance(e) visa", and is there a lesson here for the UK and other countries?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/14/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

Raggamuffin wrote:There are lots of reports around which say that Malik sent Facebook messages expressing support for violent jihad before she even went to the US, and yet she was allowed in.

Apparently, the US does now review social media, but how do they find that kind of thing if someone uses a false name on social media? Will they now be much more suspicious if someone applies for a "fiance(e) visa", and is there a lesson here for the UK and other countries?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/14/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

Apparently (I heard) the reason for not looking into social media is that it would violate civil rights. Most participants in social media are identifiable by their IP address.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There are lots of reports around which say that Malik sent Facebook messages expressing support for violent jihad before she even went to the US, and yet she was allowed in.

Apparently, the US does now review social media, but how do they find that kind of thing if someone uses a false name on social media? Will they now be much more suspicious if someone applies for a "fiance(e) visa", and is there a lesson here for the UK and other countries?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/14/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

Apparently (I heard) the reason for not looking into social media is that it would violate civil rights.  Most participants in social media are identifiable by their IP address.

I've just read that neither of them supported ISIS on Facebook. I'm not sure if that means Malik didn't say anything about violent jihad on Facebook at all, or if it just means she didn't post that thing on Facebook around the time of the shooting. The report says they did talk about jihad via emails.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-attackers-did-not-express-support-for-isis-on-social-media-a6775731.html

Have the police found that third man yet?

eddie wrote:Have the police found that third man yet?

The one that two people say they saw? Actually, they saw three allegedly, so there are two missing - allegedly.

The FBI dragged a lake hoping to find some incriminating evidence but they're not saying what they found.

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-sb-shooting-20151214-story.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Have the police found that third man yet?

The one that two people say they saw? Actually, they saw three allegedly, so there are two missing - allegedly.

Either way, what is the news on the missing "person"?
No manhunt?

Raggamuffin wrote:The FBI dragged a lake hoping to find some incriminating evidence but they're not saying what they found.

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-sb-shooting-20151214-story.html

Perhaps it's the third actor?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The one that two people say they saw? Actually, they saw three allegedly, so there are two missing - allegedly.

Either way, what is the news on the missing "person"?
No manhunt?

They're looking for him on the grassy knoll eddie.

And here:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-ln-fbi-san-bernardino-social-media-20151216-story.html

sassy wrote:

I already posted about that. They did post about it via emails though apparently.

So if Malik didn't make that post on Facebook around the time of the shooting, she has no alibi. I did wonder if she wasn't involved in the actual shooting because of that message, but that's gone out of the window now.

I really fail to grasp why so much attantion has been made about their social media accounts?
If they had been planning to murder many people for ages, the last thing you are going to do is draw attention to yourself by stating support for Jihad. I mean come on, the CIA who is just about snooping so many accounts on social media is going to have filter of hits of certain words that will bring people to their attention. So if clearly based off the evidence and the amount of weapons, ammo and bombs they made, you would have to be brainless to draw such attention to yourself, as it would vastly increase the chances of them being found out.

Criminal charges are to be brought against Enrique Marquez, the friend and former neighbour of Syed Farook.

Good. What took them so long?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/criminal-charges-be-brought-against-enrique-marquez-ex-neighbor-san-n481666

I wonder how the investigation into the mother of Farook is going, along with the investigation into other members of the family, and whether the baby should be allowed to stay within that family.

I was just looking on You Tube for possible new footage of the incident, and I came across this video, which I thought was quite good.

Lefties might not like it much though.

One thing I have wondered about is how the SUV ended up with bullet holes in the windscreen and with the side windows shot out, as well as the tyres. In the videos I've seen all the police cars appear to be behind the SUV, and in the footage of the SUV after it stopped I can't see any police cars facing the opposite direction.

Of course there could have been police cars coming from the opposite direction, and they could have been driven out of the way before the footage which has been made public was filmed.

Any ideas?

sassy wrote:BREAKING: One alleged shooter confirmed as white supremacist "Sam Hyde" others unconfirmed as of yet #SanBernadino

Welll that video was bang on the money with Sassy

This is interesting:




Sadly — and predictably — the mass shooting in San Bernardino earlier this week spawned conspiracy theories. Moments after the news breaking, according to Vocativ.com, conspiracy theorists took to social media to proclaim the event a hoax:

Before anyone knew the death toll, motive or identity of the shooters, many wise Americans were certain that the San Bernardino shooting was orchestrated by the Obama Administration. News of a shooting in San Bernardino broke at 11:26 PST. Vocativ discovered that literally one minute later, at 11:27 PST, the first Truther posted a #FalseFlag tweet. For the uninitiated ‘sheep’ out there, ‘false flag’ is a conspiracy-theorist term used to describe a covert government attack against its own citizens. In the first six hours following the massacre, 663 people tweeted about a false-flag attack in San Bernardino.


Shootings and acts of violence have long been grist for conspiracy theorists dating back at least to the 1963 John F. Kennedy assassination. However it has only been in the past few years that mass shootings have been routinely cast as staged “false flag” events designed to provide an excuse for the government  – specifically the Obama administration — to declare martial law and confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. The 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting is perhaps the highest-profile example, in which victims were allegedly photographed visiting with Obama after they supposedly died; some people have even claimed, wrongly, that the school could not have been attacked in 2012 because it had been shut down in 2009. There are several reasons why mass shootings spur conspiracies. One reason is that conspiracies, once the domain of tinfoil hatted shut-ins, has become mainstream. Popular right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, for example, has huge audiences and been praised by presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who himself has unabashedly employed several conspiracy theories in his political rhetoric — most famously asserting that President Obama is a Muslim whose Hawaiian birth certificate is fraudulent.

The mass shooting conspiracy theories circulate widely because they are used as a vehicle for social protest. In their book “American Conspiracy Theories,” Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent, both associate professors at the University of Miami, note:

“Conspiracy theories ignite when socialized motive meets political opportunity … lots of people have conspiracy theories that no one else cares about, and appeals to the most conspiracy-prone people are unlikely to reverberate widely. Therefore, conspiracy theories that involve the biggest groups, biggest gains, and biggest foes will gain the most adherents.”

What’s at stake, according to many conspiracy theorists, is nothing less than the American way of life.

As American politics becomes more contentious and the cultural divide between Democrats and Republicans becomes wider and more politicized, the conspiracies that each uses to attack the other become more prominent. Many conspiracy theories — especially those involving shootings and government cover-ups — are widely shared because they help promote a specific social or political agenda.

Mass shootings would, at first glance, seem a very unlikely and essentially impossible event to fake. Not only would dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses, police officers, crisis actors and others be involved (and somehow silenced), but there’s the undeniable deaths of real people. If the whole thing was faked, that means the victims who were living normal ordinary lives until the horrific attacks either somehow never really existed — thus all the employment, school, medical and other records dating back decades were faked, along with their friends and families pretending to have known them. Or they were cynically sacrificed by an evil government who had them killed, with the collusion of hundreds of others – all to provide yet another opportunity to take away guns.

If this all sounds far-fetched, it should. But the literal truth of a given specific conspiracy claim (that Obama was born in Kenya, for example, or that the San Bernardino mass shooting was faked) is far less important to the person sharing it than the larger symbolic “truth” it represents: Obama and/or the U.S. government is a threat to freedom and American civil liberties.The person sharing the conspiracy theory need not even really believe it—and may in fact completely doubt it—but it doesn’t matter because it’s a symbolic protest.

The indisputable fact that none of the countless faked or “false flag” events over the years have actually resulted in martial law or nationwide gun confiscations doesn’t seem to bother conspiracy theorists, who credit their patriotic vigilance with thwarting Obama’s plans. Ironically, in the San Bernardino shootings, the emerging picture does indeed point to the attack as an act of conspiracy; the shooting had apparently been planned for weeks or months, and at least three people had a role in arranging it. Similarly, the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were without doubt the result of a conspiracy—among Osama bin Laden, the hijackers, and others affiliated with Al Qaeda. Those real-life, proven conspiracies are not only too simple and uninteresting for theorists to believe or share, they also don’t help further an agenda.


http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/why-mass-shootings-spur-conspiracy-theories-151205.htm

Does Sam Hyde even exist?

Speaking of people allegedly not existing, this is a good one where a guy claims that the woman in the photos of Malik doesn't actually exist. I don't quite understand the bit at the end where he discusses a photo of a completely different woman. He's also very sure that it's a Zionist plot.

Sorry what a absolute loon, what evidence did he present?

Errr zero, just an assumption based on being a crackpot lol

Again blame the Jew.

I mean Mossad the best intelligence service in the world seemed to be also the most clumsiest as well leaving so much evidence

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Sorry what a absolute loon, what evidence did he present?

Errr zero, just an assumption based on being a crackpot lol

Again blame the Jew.

I mean Mossad the best intelligence service in the world seemed to be also the most clumsiest as well leaving so much evidence

There are a lot of videos like that. They usually start off by saying they're going to PROVE to you that it was a false flag, so of course you watch it, and then they do nothing of the sort.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I really fail to grasp why so much attantion has been made about their social media accounts?
If they had been planning to murder many people for ages, the last thing you are going to do is draw attention to yourself by stating support for Jihad. I mean come on, the CIA who is just about snooping so many accounts on social media is going to have filter of hits of certain words that will bring people to their attention. So if clearly based off the evidence and the amount of weapons, ammo and bombs they made, you would have to be brainless to draw such attention to yourself, as it would vastly increase the chances of them being found out.

I agree. There is so much about this day that doesn't fit with good sense. If they just shot up a Christmas party, what were they still doing in town?? Where are the 'three men'? What mother kisses her 6-month old daughter and goes out for a morning of murder and mayhem? A lot of questions.

Raggamuffin wrote:Criminal charges are to be brought against Enrique Marquez, the friend and former neighbour of Syed Farook.

Good. What took them so long?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/criminal-charges-be-brought-against-enrique-marquez-ex-neighbor-san-n481666

Why don't they just file the charges? Enough talk about it.

Any thoughts about the absence of police cars facing the other way Quill? Do you think they were there and then moved?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Criminal charges are to be brought against Enrique Marquez, the friend and former neighbour of Syed Farook.

Good. What took them so long?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/criminal-charges-be-brought-against-enrique-marquez-ex-neighbor-san-n481666

Why don't they just file the charges?  Enough talk about it.

Enough evidence too I would have thought. I guess they wanted his help at first though.

Raggamuffin wrote:I was just looking on You Tube for possible new footage of the incident, and I came across this video, which I thought was quite good.

Lefties might not like it much though.

Just a load of adjectives. No factual content.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I was just looking on You Tube for possible new footage of the incident, and I came across this video, which I thought was quite good.

Lefties might not like it much though.

Just a load of adjectives.  No factual content.

Not about the actual event no, it's about the immediate reactions and the assumption that it was the work of "white" terrorists.

Raggamuffin wrote:Any thoughts about the absence of police cars facing the other way Quill? Do you think they were there and then moved?

Well, as the KABC video makes clear, San Bernardino Avenue was completely closed. But I'd have to know where the Bearcats and police cars were coming from.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Just a load of adjectives.  No factual content.

Not about the actual event no, it's about the immediate reactions and the assumption that it was the work of "white" terrorists.

I didn't hear any of that, apart from this video. There's always background noise that you filter out, while looking for real facts.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Any thoughts about the absence of police cars facing the other way Quill? Do you think they were there and then moved?

Well, as the KABC video makes clear, San Bernardino Avenue was completely closed.  But I'd have to know where the Bearcats and police cars were coming from.

Yes. Of course we're missing some footage. We have the video of the SUV being pursued by police, and we have videos and photos of the SUV after it had stopped and before any vehicle or officer had approached it, but we don't know what happened in between. If the windscreen was shot at, either one of the police cars must have overtaken it, or there must have been police cars coming in the opposite direction.

In later photos the windows on the passenger side are shattered too, but that could have been done later I guess.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not about the actual event no, it's about the immediate reactions and the assumption that it was the work of "white" terrorists.

I didn't hear any of that, apart from this video.  There's always background noise that you filter out, while looking for real facts.

Well a picture of "Sam Hyde" appeared very early in this thread, and was named as one of the shooters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I didn't hear any of that, apart from this video.  There's always background noise that you filter out, while looking for real facts.

Well a picture of "Sam Hyde" appeared very early in this thread, and was named as one of the shooters.

I saw it, but placed it in the margins of thought, unless and until something more came up about it. That happens frequently. You are looking for facts; something comes up, and you wait until in connects up to something more.

It's not a full-blown RW or LW advertisement, as was this video. The video is purporting to tell me how to think and feel...which I can do quite well on my own, based on the facts. That's a waste of my time.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well a picture of "Sam Hyde" appeared very early in this thread, and was named as one of the shooters.

I saw it, but placed it in the margins of thought, unless and until something more came up about it.  That happens frequently.  You are looking for facts; something comes up, and you wait until in connects up to something more.  

It's not a full-blown RW or LW advertisement, as was this video.  The video is purporting to tell me how to think and feel...which I can do quite well on my own, based on the facts.  That's a waste of my time.

I didn't force you to watch it Quill. I just came across it and thought it was interesting.