It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Shootings Elliot Rodger Conspiracy.

page: 17
72
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro

Here on ATS it is just good manners If you say something you must back it up.
If you do not many here will ignore you due to you just having an opinion and not anything factual.




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: cocointelpro

Here on ATS it is just good manners If you say something you must back it up.
If you do not many here will ignore you due to you just having an opinion and not anything factual.


Besides the allegations already mentioned in this thread which I need not mention, I had already mentioned that the very common sense facts which surround society, the influence of culture, simply from a sociological perspective as case in point. I will respect the rules of ATS, but I feel obliged to mention the real world rules of law, in this case - reverse onus.
edit on 5272014 by cocointelpro because: Common sense, common law!



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
No evidence. And what he does cite is YouTube and Facebook. There you go. I think his motive here is to just stirs things up without any...none...zero proof except YT and FB.

I'd be curious as to his motive altogether behind this thread. We all know that not everything is a conspiracy...and when thats all someone keeps seeing...welll...again...there you go. Why?

Im thinking perhaps this is how they spend their time...creating conspiracies where none exist.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro

You mentioning them is not backing it up.
Still waiting for aome facts.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro

You are going to great lengths to deflect burden of proof.

Why go to all this trouble of deflecting if you have the evidence, as you claim?

I love the 'reverse onus' defense, though. Nice cop out.
edit on 27-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mak Manto
I've seen some views in here that I consider wrong, so I'll bring them to the light.

First off, to say this is a conspiracy is wrong. A father just lost his child, and he's angry. No one is able to tell him how he should react to this.

Second off, this is not about getting laid. It doesn't matter what he said in the video or his manifesto or the number of forum posts he made on the subject. If you honestly think this is about a kid still being a virgin and he went nuts, you're wrong.

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist or a doctor of any sort, but it seems he wanted acceptance, not just from girls, but from people.

Though, he seems to be, from watching the videos, a narcissistic sociopath. The kid was insane, and the world is better off without him. The only shame is he took six lives before taking his own.


You realize that what you said is no different from every other person against questioning this story, right?

Also, how do so many come to the conclusion that because many say there is some conspiracy, that it has any bearing on the dad who lost a son? How is it wrong? If we believe it to be some conspiracy, how does that affect him in any way? Does it make his grieving worse? I just don't see the connection.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: gortex


Why must people try to find conspiracy when in reality there isn't one , just a messed up kid doing messed up stuff and messing up peoples lives.


Absolutely agree with you ! I was wondering if anyone was seeing this as I was until I read your reply..

A tragic event committed by a troubled individual.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. No conspiracy here, no false flag, not a staged event to take away guns from Americans..

Can't believe some of the stuff I read sometimes.


Oh you say there is no conspiracy, better all be quiet then.

By the way no one to my knowledge even used the words False Flag, better yet
it seems some in this thread don't even know what a False Flag actually is.

The term generally refers to acts carried out by military/Government agencies, which are then blamed on terrorists and/or other nations. At least, that is what it meant.
Example. No one says this is USA assets pretending to be Russian assets who caused these deaths in order to start something with Russia.

Am I missing something here?


It would be considered a false flag operation if Eliot Rodger was manipulated or set up, perhaps with handlers or drugs or both to commit or appear to commit heinous acts of murder in order to enact new gun control legislation.

False flags have been the modus operandi of the American government since forever.

"Remember the Maine!"

I hope this helps.


Ok, if you are so sure what a False Flag is despite me already telling you,
what Flag were they going to blame it on?

All False Flags are conspiracies
Not all Conspiracies are False Flags.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: cocointelpro

You mentioning them is not backing it up.
Still waiting for aome facts.


And I'm reiterating that perhaps here on ATS, you may argue that "facts" and "evidence" is consistent with the notion of innocent until proven guilty, thats fine - but ATS isnt the real world. What I'm saying is that you are wrong to create the impression that evidence and facts are needed to be provided by the accusers in all cases. All I'm saying is that in the real world - if a good lawyer took the allegations here, they could argue for reverse onus and that your demand of evidence or facts shifts onto you that you did NOT commit the crime.

You can sit here and talk about denying the evidence and facts concerning this crime all you want. I've constantly provided you with these things, and so have other posters. Why do you fight to your wits ends to deny reasonable allegations, facts, and evidence I, and other posters have presented ? Why do you fight reasonable allegations to solve a crime that killed many? You are insulting the victims of this tragedy.
edit on 5272014 by cocointelpro because: Legal details.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
No evidence. And what he does cite is YouTube and Facebook. There you go. I think his motive here is to just stirs things up without any...none...zero proof except YT and FB.

I'd be curious as to his motive altogether behind this thread. We all know that not everything is a conspiracy...and when thats all someone keeps seeing...welll...again...there you go. Why?

Im thinking perhaps this is how they spend their time...creating conspiracies where none exist.


There are no conspiracies being created. It seems many read the OP, but those same people fail to process it properly. He never suggested a specific conspiracy; he gave his opinion that the official story is suspicious, that's it.

I'm curious as to your (and others) motive for coming on this topic and wasting your time on something you clearly hate. One would think that you may even keep your disagreement to yourself, as it shouldn't offend. And if you did make your disagreement known, you wouldn't parrot everyone that came before you.

And when I say parrot, I don't mean that you have the same general opinion as another; I mean in how you go about it. All of the opposing posts are the same. You guys do more than just make your disagreement known; you also go out of your way to belittle and insult others. That kind of behavior is repugnant and is conducive to the fact that many will always believe the media.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JudgeEden
There are no conspiracies being created. It seems many read the OP, but those same people fail to process it properly. He never suggested a specific conspiracy; he gave his opinion that the official story is suspicious, that's it.


Really, because I am pretty sure that this exact line from the OP is implying a conspiracy, "As soon as I seen this in the newspaper I knew it is all just a mass hoax for gun control Victims father calls for gun control. "

Keeping in mind we are on a conspiracy site that makes sense so I personally have no issue with people creating conspiracies out of every event that has ever happened in this history of the world.

"with all these mass shootings it is almost always faked as it is not in human nature to do this,"

That line on the other hand is the most naive and oblivious to history and every day occurrences that I have ever read here.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro
Have a look:


A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof onto the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in either a criminal offence or tort claim. For example, the automotive legislation in many countries provides that any driver who hits a pedestrian has the burden of establishing that they were not negligent.


Doesnt fit here. So, care to meet your burden of proof? Or do you want to keep deflecting by passing false info? You have yet to provide even one single piece of evidence to back yourself.
edit on 27-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: JudgeEden
There are no conspiracies being created. It seems many read the OP, but those same people fail to process it properly. He never suggested a specific conspiracy; he gave his opinion that the official story is suspicious, that's it.


Really, because I am pretty sure that this exact line from the OP is implying a conspiracy, "As soon as I seen this in the newspaper I knew it is all just a mass hoax for gun control Victims father calls for gun control. "

Keeping in mind we are on a conspiracy site that makes sense so I personally have no issue with people creating conspiracies out of every event that has ever happened in this history of the world.

"with all these mass shootings it is almost always faked as it is not in human nature to do this,"

That line on the other hand is the most naive and oblivious to history and every day occurrences that I have ever read here.


I believe the most realistic allegation is that these events occur naturally, and the allegations presented by posters are certainly worthy of investigation for inquiring minds in the pursuit of justice. I believe the most reasonable allegation is that these events may or may not occur naturally, however most importantly are used by individuals wishing to pursue political agendas, namely gun control.


In order to provide evidence and facts for that case, the most reasonable approach would be to investigate the media, editors, writers, their political affiliation and views, even those who may of influenced the families of the victims to come out supporting those views of gun control. Have no doubts that there are people who exploit people in their most vulnerable moments (think funeral services), and if that's the case here - that is by far the most disgusting thing ever.

Once again, my prayers go out to the victims of this tragedy. We must not let these crimes go unpunished, we must not let people's vulnerabilities, people's tragedy be exploited for political purposes. This is just sick.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

I've lost more than you'll ever know.

I don't recall whining and crying about it on t.v., and conveniently blaming it on my ideological opposites.

When I grew up men weren't expected to be so emotional. We were told to man up. Not a whole lot of that going on these days, is there, Mr. touchy-feely?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: cocointelpro
Have a look:


A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof onto the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in either a criminal offence or tort claim. For example, the automotive legislation in many countries provides that any driver who hits a pedestrian has the burden of establishing that they were not negligent.


Doesnt fit here. So, care to meet your burden of proof? Or do you want to keep deflecting by passing false info? You have yet to provide even one single piece of evidence to back yourself.


This certainly can fit here because this was a criminal offense. It says right there in your own definition that you provided that reverse onus applies to criminal cases.

In a court of law, I don't need to meet the burden of proof for reverse onus. I have previously made reference to the allegations, facts, and evidence mentioned by myself, and other posters. If you wish to re-read those claims, feel free to browse the previous pages in this thread.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tacocat

Bully for you and your oh so manly views....
Sorry but not everyone can keep their emotions hidden and why should they?
Man up....GTFO the guys son has just been murdered and you want him to man up?.
Pfft.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro

You are completely lost on what 'reverse onus' is. It is not a shift of the burden any time you want to. It is saved for cases in which the law assumes guilt. Get it?

Just making claims and then yelling "reverse onus" is a cop out.

One piece of evidence. Thats all im asking for. You claim youve already provided it, so please, repost it for us.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: JudgeEden
There are no conspiracies being created. It seems many read the OP, but those same people fail to process it properly. He never suggested a specific conspiracy; he gave his opinion that the official story is suspicious, that's it.


Really, because I am pretty sure that this exact line from the OP is implying a conspiracy, "As soon as I seen this in the newspaper I knew it is all just a mass hoax for gun control Victims father calls for gun control. "

Keeping in mind we are on a conspiracy site that makes sense so I personally have no issue with people creating conspiracies out of every event that has ever happened in this history of the world.

"with all these mass shootings it is almost always faked as it is not in human nature to do this,"

That line on the other hand is the most naive and oblivious to history and every day occurrences that I have ever read here.


Elliot Rodger has a similar anagrammic ring to Elliot (the dragon) in Petes Dragon. Just rearranging the letters around would give Elliot Rodgar.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
hmmm, lemme get this straight, this f'd up dude has grave mental health issues going back 15 years, reported to have seen counselors, some time periods including daily, throws out manifestos of hate filled psychotic dribble, is whacked beyond belief, cuts up a couple guys with machetes or knives, hammers a few to boot, runs people over with cars, shoots a couple folks, and somehow it's the NRA's fault?

you who choose to believe a ban on guns will.....well, result in a ban on guns, are quite naive.

it will result in a ban on YOUR ability to legally own a gun, but the guy that's out to kill you, he'll have one for sure.

go on, tell me the criminal gang banger, politician, or street thug is gonna say 'ewwwwwwwwww, no gun for me, they're banned'...........haha, now THAT'S funny.

this idiot killed these folks, he's a killer, a murderer. only chance they may have had would have been if they had a gun themselves....hmmmmm, now there you go thinkin' again country boy......uh, never mind.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: cocointelpro

You are completely lost on what 'reverse onus' is. It is not a shift of the burden any time you want to. It is saved for cases in which the law assumes guilt. Get it?

Just making claims and then yelling "reverse onus" is a cop out.

One piece of evidence. Thats all im asking for. You claim youve already provided it, so please, repost it for us.


It's a shift of the burden in applicable cases. Reverse onus is used in cases on the basis of proportionality, goals of the government, and other contingencies which may be applicable in this case. If you wish for a complete legal definition, feel free to ask. This is no cop out. All I said was that many allegations here can be construed to use reverse onus for an accused in this case.

The evidence I had provided was about an argument concerning the influence of closed elitist groups. I had claimed that closed elitist groups such as fraternities, or a sorority, the culture that they facilitate, obviously influenced the shooter. The evidence is in the manifesto itself. I merely illustrated commonly known sociological concepts based on that one piece of evidence.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro
1) you are totally lost. Please, explain how making a claim and refusing to back it up, repeatedly, makes reverse onus applicable. Not the legal definition, but how it is applicable here.

2) you making a claim is not evidence. Whatsoever. So we are back to this: can you provide ANY evidence to back your claims?



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join