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: 18
72
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I think he has proved he can't otherwise he would have.




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JudgeEden

What thread are YOU addressing? Isnt that exactly what he is doing? Believing the media? Thats where he's getting his "suspicions".

To find fault with everything "suspicious" doesnt indicate, imply or suggest everything should be a conspiracy. And with every main event of late...someone says they are "suspicious".

Whats indicatingly suspicious is using the MIRROR, YOUTUBE and FACEBOOK as sources for any kind of "reliability". And conspiracy is exactly what he shouting about...



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
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?



1.) In order for you, and others to understand reverse onus, you must understand the legal definition and how it may apply here. In order to claim reverse onus, one must pass certain criteria.


(1)There must be a pressing and substantial objective

This means that it must be a pressing and substantial issue in relation to upholding the law, more or less. This can certainly be applied here. A serious criminal offense has occurred with serious allegations of a conspiratorial nature. I need not mention that technically, conspiracy is a crime by definition.


(2)The means must be proportional

(this is contingent on the following three points)

(a)The means must be rationally connected to the objective(s)

(of the government, this means maintaining essential order, keeping society to a reasonable standard as defined by the courts and the government)

(b)There must be minimal impairment of rights

(when reverse onus is used, it must not harm the individual to the degree of unreasonable infringement of rights)

(c)There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

(this is about balancing that infringement, and the expectations of that society, the government, and the courts)

In the event that one is accused for this crime, such an investigation would require the acknowledgement that the government, the courts, have justification for this bit of infringement in contrast to the seriousness of this crime, especially when we consider the allegations presented here. This would be consistent with the goals of the government in the pursuit of maintaining order and peace in a society. This argument could go many ways however. Please, ATS - give me time to do case studies. These things take careful examination in law


2.) The manifesto was the evidence I had presented in collaboration with common sociological concepts. This was not a claim. this was reference to evidence.
edit on 5272014 by cocointelpro because: Don't debate a law student



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I think he has proved he can't otherwise he would have.


Sorry boy monkey - the explanation of law takes some time to type up in order for you, and others to completely understand the law.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro

1) so, in your judgement, anytime there is a crime, reverse onus is applicable? And, a follow up: youve shown you can copy and paste the law. Now tell me how it is applicable to your claim that this is about the masons.

The deflection is getting tiresome.

2) the manifesto in no way ties this to masonry, nor does it count as evidence that masonry and or fraternal organizations are to blame for the statistical anomaly that is this scumbag.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: cocointelpro

1) so, in your judgement, anytime there is a crime, reverse onus is applicable? And, a follow up: youve shown you can copy and paste the law. Now tell me how it is applicable to your claim that this is about the masons.

The deflection is getting tiresome.

2) the manifesto in no way ties this to masonry, nor does it count as evidence that masonry and or fraternal organizations are to blame for the statistical anomaly that is this scumbag.


1.) Anytime there is a criminal case which may pass the criteria for reverse onus to be applied, yes. This may happen for various reasons, and is not applicable in most criminal legal cases. I will spare you the lengthy legal details as they have little to do with your retort concerning this case. There is nothing wrong in copying and pasting concepts in law for the general public to understand, thats why I chose to do that. When they had taught my class the concept of reverse onus, the definition is quite close to the copy and pasted text anyways. There's no getting around those definitions.

This had nothing to do with my personal argument that fraternal organizations, or sororities and their culture influenced the shooter, that was a separate argument. I was merely pointing out in the event that an accused is produced, that reverse onus would be carried out in that manner, if claimed.

2.) The manifesto merely elaborates that fraternal organizations and sororities, and the culture of these organizations influenced the shooter. I had previously claimed that this notion may be extrapolated to society in general when we consider organizations like freemasonry. I had already made this argument like 5 pages ago, if you wish to re-argue it, you may refer to the pages where we had previously argued on this point.
edit on 5272014 by cocointelpro because: Legal details.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro

1) so you claiming 'reverse onus' when faced with requests for evidence to back your claims has nothing to do with your claims? You are talking in circles now.

2) I know what your argument is. Im asking for evidence to support it.

How have we gone this many pages without you providing it? Wait, scratch that, I know the answer.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DEV1L79

DEV1L79,

You are right about the faked stuff. But look more at what is presented AFTER the fact.

The killer did the stabbing/shooting. Pluto was transiting his Moon, Uranus, and Neptune. It forced him to delve deeper into his fantasy world and issues with women/mother (Moon). Unfortunately, the drug he was taking really kept him in a hyper aggressive mood.

Many antidepressants/SSRIs are linked to violence, I believe there are several threads here on ATS regarding this.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: cocointelpro

1) so you claiming 'reverse onus' when faced with requests for evidence to back your claims has nothing to do with your claims? You are talking in circles now.

2) I know what your argument is. Im asking for evidence to support it.

How have we gone this many pages without you providing it? Wait, scratch that, I know the answer.


1.) In a court of law, under reverse onus, the accused does not request evidence to be produced by the accuser. You had asked me how reverse onus may be claimed in this case and how its applied; I provided this. If you read my statements correctly, you will see that my claims concerning freemasonry, fraternal organizations, and sororities is a separate argument, separate from you debating the concept of reverse onus and how it applies in this case. This is not talking in circles. This is just me clearly separating arguments for all to understand.

2.) Yes, I have repeatedly told you, the main evidence for my argument concerning fraternities/sororities and their culture, and how it influenced the shooter, is present in the manifesto, collaborated with commonly known sociological concepts we had previously discussed. How many pages have I tried to tell you this? How many pages ago did we argue this ? Please refer back to the pages where I had told you this, and where I had made this point. You are damn right you know this is the answer.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
After reading halfway thru the threads, I find it hard to believe people think the the "mass-shooting mentality" is abnormal in our society. One simply has to point to video games, Grand Theft Auto in particular, so see that mass-killing is also mass-marketing.

I feel sorry for everyone involved.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: DEV1L79

DEV1L79,

You are right about the faked stuff. But look more at what is presented AFTER the fact.

The killer did the stabbing/shooting. Pluto was transiting his Moon, Uranus, and Neptune. It forced him to delve deeper into his fantasy world and issues with women/mother (Moon). Unfortunately, the drug he was taking really kept him in a hyper aggressive mood.

Many antidepressants/SSRIs are linked to violence, I believe there are several threads here on ATS regarding this.


Concerning the idea that antidepressants/SSRI's are linked to violence - there is also correlating evidence suggesting this may be the case as well, if we consider previous cases of school shooters. There had been a few articles such as this one which have highlighted this fact:

www.cchrint.org...



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: cocointelpro

1) you invoked reverse onus when asked for evidence of your claim. Now you are talking about court of law. This is too obvious at this point.

Perhaps you should go back and reread. Maybe you forgot what we were talking about when you cited reverse onus.



2)this is ridiculous. You are far too obvious.

So, just to be clear, the only thing you have to back up your claims that
a) this is about masonry;
b) these things would stop happening if fraternal organizations didnt exist (and by default, claiming that they havemt been around for longer that frats);
c) other cultures dont have these problems;


Is his manifesto?


edit on 27-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: cocointelpro

1) you invoked reverse onus when asked for evidence of ypur claim. Now you are talking about court of law. This is too obvious at this point.

Perhaps you should go back and reread. Maybe you forgot what we were talking about wjen you cited reverse onus.



2)this is ridiculous. You are far too obvious.

So, just to be clear, the only thing you have to back up your claims that
a) this is about masonry;
b) these things would stop happening if fraternal organizations didnt exist (and by default, claiming that they havemt been around for longer that frats);
c) other cultures dont have these problems;


Is his manifesto?



1.) I had not invoked reverse onus concerning my claims about the influence of fraternities/sororities . Rather, I had mentioned that in response to your comment that the burden of proof relies on the accuser, when this is not always the case in law. Perhaps you should go back and reread when you had first mentioned burden of proof. You had created the false impression that this is always the case in law, when it is not. I only wanted to highlight this important point. It had nothing to do with my claim before that.

2.) I had never claimed this is solely about masonry. I merely claimed that the issue presented here concerning fraternities/sororities and the notion of elitism they present may be extrapolated to society in general, especially when we consider organizations like freemasonry.

These things would not necessarily stop if these organizations did not exist. I had also mentioned this has much to do with cultural expectations of western society, as elaborated in the shooters manifesto.


Other cultures do suffer the problems of violence - one cannot refute this. However the issue of violence is contingent on different cultural issues. Take the suicide bomber in the middle east for example - this has to do with religious-cultural expectations.
edit on 5272014 by cocointelpro because: The reverse onus arguement was ONLY to retort the original (false) claim that burden of proof is on the accuser, in all cases



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DEV1L79

What stinks is he posted his disturbing videos long before the shooting and had sheriffs come to his door and question him because of it. One small conversation was all they needed to assume he was no threat.

They were already on to him but let him go because he was articulate....


I wonder if this is a ruse to promote pre-crime in the U.S.? When someone makes any kind of threatening remark, they are not held accountable until they actually commit a crime. But, with a stupid confession video and written confession, could people in the future be held liable for crimes they have yet to commit? This is further proof that the NSA and FBI are powerless despite their collection of data.

There was another good point about psychiatric drugs. Risperdal? That is the same medication I keep seeing on late night television claiming boys were getting gynocomastia and developing male breasts. Maybe this Elliot douchebag had a nice pair of B-cups? Would explain his repulsiveness (or jealousy) to women.

Rogers probably posted the pictures because he knew the media would be all over his profile. One of these idiot recent shooters even had his Adult Friend Finder account dug up by the scavengers of media. It was a way to ensure he would be shown how he wants.


All I know is that there is a problem in this country when it comes to mass shootings. The common person loses their liberties and everyone looks for someone to blame. There is no such thing as crazy anymore in the eyes of the media.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: oneupShadow

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DEV1L79

What stinks is he posted his disturbing videos long before the shooting and had sheriffs come to his door and question him because of it. One small conversation was all they needed to assume he was no threat.

They were already on to him but let him go because he was articulate....


I wonder if this is a ruse to promote pre-crime in the U.S.? When someone makes any kind of threatening remark, they are not held accountable until they actually commit a crime. But, with a stupid confession video and written confession, could people in the future be held liable for crimes they have yet to commit? This is further proof that the NSA and FBI are powerless despite their collection of data.


It certainly could be construed for those purposes from my legal perspective, however this had not been commented on by the media - I don't think that's quite the political agenda for this event. Sure - it's quite a glaring piece of evidence that most would claim law enforcement agencies carelessly overlooked in the prevention of this crime. That notion can certainly be exploited in the objective of limiting free speech, or using such statements in videos and typed statements for the purposes of charging someone with a crime.

I would rather argue that those statements made, in video and typed could of easily been used to charge the shooter for uttering death threats. If the shooter was monitored, either by local police agencies or intelligence agencies, I don't see why they could not of prevented the crime by charging him with uttering death threats. This too, is worthy of investigation. It certainly questions whether the objective to serve and protect the public had been ignored here. It should infuriate the public if they had carelessly turned a blind eye merely on the basis of character. All serious threats that pose a present danger, with clear definitions, must be investigated to protect the public.
edit on 5272014 by cocointelpro because: Grammar.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
72
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join