Gun store owner: We called FBI before Orlando shooting

a reply to: YukonJuan

um, the guy was asking for level 3 body armor and bulk ammunition.
What was he going after? Manbearpig? Chupakabra? Was he expecting the Terminator?
The law is the law, but humans can be quite capable in assessing situations. Apparently, now we know after the fact, the employees of that gun shop were correct in their profiling of their customer. Heck, they could be racist, it makes no difference. The guy was suspicious. It never hurts to err on the side of caution... FBI, I'm looking at you.

I'm no munitions expert, but it seems he was after this:

NIJ LEVEL III: (High-powered rifle). This armor, normally of hard or semirigid construction, protects against 7.62mm full-metal jacketed bullets (US military designation M80) with nominal masses of 9.7 g (150 gr.) impacting at a velocity of 838 m/s (2,750 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against threats such as 223 Remington (5.56mm FMJ), 30 Carbine FMJ, and 12-gauge rifled slug, as well as Level I through IIIA threats. Level III body armor is clearly intended only for tactical situations when the threat warrants such protection, such as barricade confrontations involving sporting rifles.

check out this link

That looks like some serious armor!

My American gun touting friends, (no hate from this side o the pond) please tell me, in your experience, in what situation would you need armor such as this?

I'm really starting to believe that as important as the 2nd is, restrictions on particular munitions/armor, and thorough back ground check/psyche evaluations are necessary for civilian arms*. Don't take away the guns, but Wyatt Earp didn't need no frickin semi-automatic and armor to boot!

(edit to add: hmmm, not just civilians, any member of our society, bottom to top and all around.)

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Boadicea

I have a concern that Obama is intentionally turning a blind eye to what is working in order to promote his agenda. I would go so far as to say he has asked certain agencies to stand down so that the NWO and TPTB can get their agenda rammed through the US Congress.

He is either intentionally doing this or he is a complete moron and I think it is the former. Hilary may even be worse.

At this late stage in the thread; and with all else considered as
a motive, you're likely too right to be starred. Except mine.
Hillary is the chosen one because she will push the sword all
the way in. Nobody in this puppet show is a moron.

a reply to: YukonJuan

Come now. Gun shop owners have enough to worry about. You'll notice the employees had a gut feeling when he asked for Level III body armor which is defined as, "The highest blunt trauma protection rating in soft body armor. The best for very high-risk situations to cover more of the uncommon or unusual threats. Minimizes blunt trauma injury to allow more effective return fire." Moreover, III-A will stop a .44 magnum semi-jacketed hollow point moving at 1400 fps. Do you understand the level of protection he asked for? THEN spoke Arabic and asked for bulk ammo? Gtfo of here if you feel that is racial profiling.

Moreover, if that sincerely upsets you, you and people like you are the problem in this country. Let's just put bumpers on the entire world and PC the # out of existence.

Bc helicopter parents. That's why.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Generally speaking, there is always room for improvement, and it should be a constant concern... and that's the problem. For Obama et al, the concern is to "not offend", not to "protect" -- not to mention importing as many as possible into our nation and around the world. It is a very dangerous situation for all of us.

But whatever we do must follow due process and equal application of the law, because those same folks will use whatever means we give them to violate rights against US -- not THEM. Our biggest problem isn't the terrorists; it's the criminals in Washington that empower and enable and protect them.

Mateen is a perfect example. They had all the information they needed to know Mateen was a problem -- even without the gun store notifying them of Mateen. They dropped the ball again and again and again... but only because they wanted to and chose to. But they sure managed to use whatever laws they wanted and chose to against the Oregon Protesters. We aren't lacking laws or manpower; simply the will.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Is anyone else here noticing that the racism card, distracting from the OP, is being brought up specifically by a group of newbies on here? Or is it just me?

No, I hadn't noticed the newbie status of any posters... but I sure noticed the racism card being played. And pretty desperate in my opinion.

There was much more to be suspicious of than simply his looks, or even the language he spoke. Avoiding the video cameras is a good sign that he did not want to be recorded and recognized. Making a phone call after being denied the body armor indicates he was not acting of his own volition. Speaking a foreign language shows he did not want his conversation overheard. Not to mention the questionable nature of what he was trying to purchase...

There was plenty to be suspicious of.

a reply to: Aazadan

I've asked this question several times now and no one has given me a response, or even an attempt at one....

My apologies. I thought I was keeping up with the thread, but I guess not! Didn't mean to ignore your previous comments...

What do you expect the FBI to do? He legally bought a weapon, and up until the point he was heading to the club to shoot it up had broken no laws (and arguably he hadn't broken any until he pulled the trigger). What evidence exactly do you want them to act on? Should they arrest him and charge him with crimes he hasn't yet committed?

In this specific case, we aren't talking about an unknown quantity. He had been "on their radar," under investigation, known to be associating with terrorists -- including one who went on to commit a terrorist act (not here) -- with a history of violence and threats of shooting rampages. There was plenty to be suspicious of.

Hypothetically speaking, the authorities could have had a little chat with him, possibly convincing him to postpone or cancel any planned attack. They could have put a tail on him, and thus seen him loading firearms and ammo in his vehicle and detained him -- thus stoppping an attack. They could have noted known associations with other suspicious folks or even known terrorists.

They also could have provided photos of known persons of interest matching his description to the gun shop employees. They could have suggested better camera views/locations or other strategic steps to take that would make surveillance more effective.

I understand that there was/is only so much anyone can do.... but we can at least do what we can.

Im gonna throw this out their solely for consideration.

When law enforcement investigates someone it has to be because a law violation may have occurred. Circumstantial / non corroborating information can end the investigation. Investigating a person who has full constitutional protections, finding nothing, and continuing to investigate can cause civil rights violation issues.

Every single person in this country has the presumption of innocence, regardless of their citizenship status, and the government is the one who is required to prove their case, not the person they are investigating.

Stripping someones civil rights because of religion, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic background, country of origin etc is a move worthy of Hitler. By stripping rights we become no better than ISIS as they arbitrarily execute people without due process / crimes being committed.

We are being distracted and in the distraction we are demanding the government take action. That action will be directed back at the American people, like gun control, terror watch list, no fly list with the added push to allow the government to remove a right based on your name being on a list.

S. Feinstein introduced a bill in 2015 that pushed the no fly / terror watch list. That bill spelled out how a person can be denied for being on a list etc. Further down the bill a section wipes out the redress challenge by saying the government can use "national security" as a grounds to deny the accused access to the information they used to put them on the list in the first place. Without that info it becomes impossible to challenge the decision.

Approach this gun control issue with extreme caution and do not do not do not simply take the words of your elected officials that the bill doesn't affect anyone's rights.

Example -
* - S. 551: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015

For FFL's the AG is the determining factor to deny -

(g)

Attorney General's ability To withhold information in firearms license denial and revocation suit
(1)

In general

Section 923(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: "However, if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(3) or (e)(1)(C), any information upon which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner, if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.".
(2)

Summaries

Section 923(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: "With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.".
(h)

Attorney General's ability To withhold information in relief from disabilities lawsuits

Section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: "If the person is subject to a disability under section 922(g)(10) of this title, any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.".

Notice the denial is arbitrary.
Notice the use of the word reasonable (A police officer needs reasonable suspicion a crime occurred to pull a car over. A police officer needs probable cause to effect an arrest).
Notice the complete absence of "probable cause".
Notice the use of the word "national security".
Notice it states the government may provide "redacted" information to the judge, denying the judge and the acused the information to make a fully informed ruling / defense.

As a side note when the government prosecution fails to provide all exculpatory information to the defense its called a brady violation.

Thank god this bill never saw the light of day. I guarantee you this is going to come back up, probably worded differently but with the same effect.

Do your due diligence and educate yourself on the bills we are seeing being introduced. We must not give up our rights out of fear. There are currently a half dozen bills submitted so far that deal solely with gun control that's related to the Orlando massacre. Ironically enough all bill sponsors are Democrats.

Resource
* - Government Legislation Tracker

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for adding that. You make very important points. It's important to protect the people, but how we do so is equally important.

Anything the government has the power to do for us, they have the power to do to us.

a reply to: Boadicea>>> So... we can't trust the government to keep us safe and they don't trust us to keep ourselves safe, so where does that leave everyone? We're paranoid of the government and they're paranoid of us. And we're both paranoid of moslems, except for Obama who is happy in his blissful ignorance.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: Boadicea>>> So... we can't trust the government to keep us safe and they don't trust us to keep ourselves safe, so where does that leave everyone? We're paranoid of the government and they're paranoid of us. And we're both paranoid of moslems, except for Obama who is happy in his blissful ignorance.

That's pretty much where we're at...

Except I would note that government has no rights and no interests beyond the best interests of the people -- the Social Contract. They are there for OUR benefit... we are NOT here for their benefit. If they're paranoid of us, it's because they are not doing right by us and they know it.

I wouldn't say we're paranoid of Muslims either. I would say that we have a healthy fear of radical Islamists and all terrorists. The problem is that we cannot tell the difference until the extremists show themselves, and by then it's usually too late.

And I sure wouldn't call Obama ignorant. He knows damn well what he's doing. We just don't all the whys and wherefores, much less his end game.

For everyone asking why the FBI didn't do anything with the information provided by the gun store, the FBI did not have any information upon which they could decisively act or follow up on.

I can tell you that if it had been me (and probably many of you here), I would have gone out to the parking lot and made note of the make/model/license plate # of the vehicle he got in and been absolutely sure I had as much information as possible to pass along.

I've helped investigations along and have had to deal with others having incidents investigated enough to know that specific information is always necessary if any follow up is to be expected.

For example:

I worked for a storage company at one point in time and noticed something a bit odd (what appeared to be a stack of blank passports and laminating machines) in one of our tenant's spaces when we cut his lock as part of the lien process for auctioning the unit. I passed that information along to a sheriff who also had a space at our property.

A month or so later I was visited by the State Dept, which is the division tasked with investigating passport fraud, but by that time the things I had seen were gone and had been replaced with other items of oddness; about 4-6 of those mailbox units you see in central locations of apartment complexes.

A couple of weeks later, the Texas DPS came out and investigated. He brought a color photo copy of a person's drivers license. It was for the tenant of the space in question but it was a different name that we had on file. We had a copy of a license with the name he used to rent the space in and it was not the name the DPS had for him.

A month or so passes and then we find out that he and about 8-10 other people were involved in an identity theft ring that had defrauded dozens of people of somewhere around 12 million dollars. It even eventually made the news here.

Luckily we had plenty of information on the customer as part of our normal procedures that the authorities were able to investigate and determine the extent of the organization behind the identity theft.

Here's the thing though, company policy prohibited me from making the first call I did after I saw the blank passports laminating machine but I called anyway. Eventually my boss told me that he knew I broke company policy but that he was very glad I did.



Point of this story?

If you see something, say something.

Just use your brain. If something looks/feels out of place, then it possibly is indicative that something is out of place. Observe carefully what you feel is odd, gather as much information as possible (especially identifying info)and report such information to the appropriate authorities.

Hopefully the organizations tasked with keeping us safe are allowed to do their jobs rather than being restricted by some sort of political (-ly correct) ideology.

originally posted by: Xcathdra


We are being distracted and in the distraction we are demanding the government take action. That action will be directed back at the American people, like gun control, terror watch list, no fly list with the added push to allow the government to remove a right based on your name being on a list.

Agreed.

Something is being slowly engineered and it really stinks, if people take the time to step back from the drama and look in from the outside, maybe we'll get a more logical picture.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Well put indeed.

My guess is this guy was under investigation by FBI at the time of the attack. Likely he was being guided by FBI informant in what to do just as FBI is known to do. Give the subject a cause, give the subject the means, then give the subject the target. FBI either fumbled the ball and didn't get to the sting operation in time, or the FBI purposely allowed this attack to be carried out. Either way the FBI needs a good house cleaning.

a reply to: beyondtruth

Or, an agency OTHER THAN the FBI was working this asset.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: beyondtruth

Or, an agency OTHER THAN the FBI was working this asset.

That could very well have been the case, however FBI seems like the obvious candidate due to this type of operation being in their wheelhouse. It would be naive to think that even without a positive ID by the gun shop clerk who contacted them, that the FBI couldn't make the connection to Mateen considering the size of the town of Ft. PIERCE and the distance between Mateen residence and the gun shops he was visiting.