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.

 

CNN’S Whitfield: Attacking Dallas Poilce HQ ‘Very Courageous and Brave’

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
www.breitbart.com...

A few things stick out to me from the clip and article.

1) the obvious line of "courageous and brave" probably wasn't a great thing to say, but was it intentional or did she trip over her words?

2) I would be interested to know if the guest is still sticking to the line of "he had help." The attack didn't kill anybody so it wasn't exactly a spectacular event, though it was rather ballsy. And one can find pretty much anything on the 'net these days. But...did he?

3) they have a quote from the DPD deputy chief saying "automatic weapons." So that opens up that angle of was it really? If so, how were they obtained? Or did the chief misspeak?

And yea I know it's breitbart, but the embedded video isn't theirs so...yea.

edit on 6/15/15 by hefficide because: Fixed all caps title




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

This story, like many others, seems fishy.

Multiple people to lone gunman.
Automatic weapons.
Revenge.
Bombs.

Okay, a lone gunman, hellbent on revenge, plants bombs at the station, gets ahold of an automatic rifle and starts shooting the place up. Yet nobody is injured in the attack?

They kill the guy while he's held up in an armored van.

I've never thrown out the FF buzz word before, but damn, really? I'd think that all the trouble this guy went through to get revenge, he'd have something?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
www.breitbart.com...

A few things stick out to me from the clip and article.

1) the obvious line of "courageous and brave" probably wasn't a great thing to say, but was it intentional or did she trip over her words?

2) I would be interested to know if the guest is still sticking to the line of "he had help." The attack didn't kill anybody so it wasn't exactly a spectacular event, though it was rather ballsy. And one can find pretty much anything on the 'net these days. But...did he?

3) they have a quote from the DPD deputy chief saying "automatic weapons." So that opens up that angle of was it really? If so, how were they obtained? Or did the chief misspeak?

And yea I know it's breitbart, but the embedded video isn't theirs so...yea.


I'm guessing that the guest was trying to do something that was risky and not likely to work so was trying to emphasize that aspect, not support them. "Courageous and brave" was the wrong set of words as they have positive connotations. I'd say that it was a "ballsy move."



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I'd say that it was a "ballsy move."


I'd say it was a stupid move.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

There is no reason to call the attack "ballsy."
That was a display of sheer idiocy from start to finish.

About anyone with weapons savvy can find a way to make a weapon a full-auto--not that that has a bearing on this story at all. The parts to convert conventional semi-auto to full-auto are out there and a machinist can produce them. Better yet, which will shock some people, a license can be obtained from the feds to own full auto weapons. The same goes for silencers/suppressors.

This episode was about a crazed man, call him a "domestic terrorist" if it serves your needs, but as proven, he was more of a danger to himself than to society at large.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
He did it because he blamed the police for taking his children? I would congratulate the local children's services for one of the few times in my life. After this , think they were justified ? Heck yea......



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Stupid and ballsy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive adjectives.

I know it's not all that hard to modify a weapon but...it's interesting that perhaps he modified the weapon himself but couldn't hit diddly with it. One would think if he's familiar enough to make weapon modifications, he has some degree of proficiency.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
There were witnesses who say they saw more than one gunman. And, in the beginning while the attack was still happening, they were saying up to 4 gunmen in elevated locations. Is it possible that the witnesses were actually correct?

Also, the gunman started walking toward the Dallas police station but then turned around and went back to van. They don't know why he did it. Is that ballsy or stupid? (or smart that he went back to van?)

I've been watching my local news but they're really not saying much.
edit on 15-6-2015 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: texasgirl

Normally I'm the first to say "witnesses suck" but it's curious, isn't it? It would be nice to see some video showing either re van moving while somebody is shooting or two people shooting at once.

One of the things I had read Saturday morning was that possibly one shooter got back in the van and another shooter didn't. I never heard anything else about that, either. Aside from the "it was all one guy."

I'm not convinced enough either way, but it would be nice to get a clear, coherent timeline and some video to back it up.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

That's what sticks out to me. He had the forethought to armor proof his van. Was able to plant and detonate bombs. Was able to get or modify a full auto. Was hellbent on revenge.

And when it was time for the deed... Nothing much happened???

Hard to imagine all the lanning he did was all for naught because of his ineptness



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

The anchor is the one that called it courageous, just to clarify.

The guest is the one who went from smiling to thin lipped.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

**BREAKING NEWS** ...The federal government has just announced that all local and state police departments will now demilitarize to avoid any further escalation of attacks on police club houses.
/sarc.

A few commonalities stick out for me:

1. He's dead.
2. Regardless of #1, the propaganda says he had mental issues (according to someone from his family).
3. Therefore, because of #2, facist government has another reason to wave the "no more guns for you" soup nazi flag.

There is an ever-finer line between the government defined "Terrorist" and the more likely reality that he just snapped "lone gunman" sick of the tyranny individual. Because of #1, we will never hear his story lest he inspire a revolution.

"War is when the government tells you who the enemy is - revolution is when you figure it out for yourself"

edit on 15-6-2015 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: texasgirl



Normally I'm the first to say "witnesses suck" but it's curious, isn't it? It would be nice to see some video showing either re van moving while somebody is shooting or two people shooting at once.



One of the things I had read Saturday morning was that possibly one shooter got back in the van and another shooter didn't. I never heard anything else about that, either. Aside from the "it was all one guy."



I'm not convinced enough either way, but it would be nice to get a clear, coherent timeline and some video to back it up.



That's exactly what I heard, too. Which was why they were stopping cars and asking people if they saw anyone running from the scene.

A little off topic: They put 14 officers involved in this shooting on leave. If they were clearly under attack why do this?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

In a word, yep.

I don't think this is gonna turn into a gun grab, though I can see a pretty easy argument for it. But for me...its Texas. I think it would be pretty hard to pull off a gun grab there. Flip side? What better place to do it than Texas?

In the actual "breaking news" (lol) thread there was a lengthy debate on the label of terrorist being applied to this fella. I don't think it's merited but I wouldn't be stunned to see it.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: texasgirl

It's still an officer involved shooting, regardless of being cut and dry or not.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: Shamrock6



That's what sticks out to me. He had the forethought to armor proof his van. Was able to plant and detonate bombs. Was able to get or modify a full auto. Was hellbent on revenge.



And when it was time for the deed... Nothing much happened???



Hard to imagine all the lanning he did was all for naught because of his ineptness




Here's what else is interesting. That custody case he lost was just recent, like a couple days before the shooting. The judge (who had been repeatedly threatened by him) said he did not show up for court the Monday before it happened. How was he able to get all that ammunition (bombs, etc...) so quickly? Was he stockpiling for a while? Why was he not on their radar then?
edit on 15-6-2015 by texasgirl because: corrected a date

edit on 15-6-2015 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Aliensun

Stupid and ballsy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive adjectives.



This. I've seen some absolutely idiotic things that still took some guts to do.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Just curious...If the police chief himself was involved in the shooting would he be placed on administrative leave, too?


edit on 15-6-2015 by texasgirl because: sentence correction



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: texasgirl

I would assume so, even more so than a regular patrol officer. If a chief wasn't put on leave, there would almost immediately be questions as to whether he was influencing the investigation or not.

That's why departments have deputy chiefs. The big guy goes on vacation some times.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

It is interesting why she said those words.

Was she trying to get at the "ballsy" side of this as you mentioned? News anchors are not exactly mental titans anymore. Was this as good as she could do? IDK

We will probably never know as it got spun and smoothed almost as soon as the words left her mouth.

With regards to the guy with the van, I am glad no others got hurt. For what it is worth, thankfully his plan was pretty flawed and poorly executed.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join