Active shooter at Youtube headquaters

originally posted by: GuidedKill

Breaking now. (CBS SF) — There is a report of a possible active shooter at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno.

Police have not been able to confirm the report. People near the area report hearing shots fired, police activity and lockdown procedures No other information was immediately available.

Active shooter at Youtube headquaters

Don't know if it is true but the internet is starting to buzz...


More sources later.

Do feminists have a term for Female Toxicity? Because between this and abortions being the number 1 reason for deaths (way above gun shootings and even Heart Disease), it seems that they are getting to be pretty toxic for our country.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: yuppa

That doesn't justify violence.
They are aholes, but don't deserve to be shot.

This.

We are all responsible for our actions,and if getting shot for shooting off your mouth or being a jerk to someone happens it was your own fault and you deserved it.

What kind of messed up logic is that?

It’s ok to shoot people the if they offend you?

That's the best example of American logic you'll ever have. We're an irrational, illogical bunch with a violence complex across the pond here.

Np we're not. I'm actually pretty rational and logical... I am also not a violent person...

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Shame that the shooter looks like a trans- woman. So do you have a name for painting all women with one brush and then including birth males into the equation?

I have but it would be rude.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yep this story is going to vaporize in about 48-78 hours.

I THINK the markets may be the new story, this week may be the worst for the us stock markets in close to a century.
They can blame trump with that story, not a crazy gun toting woman, who we dunno if she was a citizen or not storming into YouTube shooting people over censorship.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Piss-poor no-weapons policies?

Yes, that's what I said.

You mean schools? Yeah, most schools are gun free zones. You want students bringing guns to schools? Of course not. That'd be dumb right? So, arm teachers? You want dead kids, arm tens of thousands of teachers or hundreds of thousands of teachers like the idiot liar suggested. That'll end well.

A few things:

A. This thread is about the shooting yesterday at YouTube HQ, not about schools.

B. Yes, schools are often targeted because they are "soft targets," as has been explained numerous times in threads that you get all emotional and illogical in, and when you funnel in mass amounts of kids into areas that are not protected well, you get the proverbial fish-in-a-barrel scenario where crazy people who don't care about gun laws or the value of human life go easily murder people.

C. Students already bring guns to school fairly regularly, and it's against the law. Laws don't stop stupid people from doing stupid things. And most kids who do this are already well under the legal age to possess such weapons (which, in most cases of unsupervised possession, the age set by federal law is 18, but many states have made the age 21).

D. You're not Nostradamus, so stop with the predictions that you cannot prove or disprove just because you're concerned about arming willing volunteers who will have to undergo extensive training.

How about concerts? Bars? Sporting events? Let's arm everyone and then give them alcohol. And when the shooting breaks out and the cops show up, they can just shoot everyone holding a gun.

You have a depraved mind when it comes to talking about this. You simply don't understand how it works. There are already laws against possessing a gun while intoxicate in most, if not all, states. Your concern over drunken shooting sprees is so ignorant that it doesn't warrant further discussion.

This idea that "gun free zones" are somehow the cause of mass shootings is as idiotic as thinking that banning guns will stop people from killing people.

You're right, and I never said that gun-free zones are the cause of anything, I just said that it makes these places easier targets and it stops law-abiding, licensed people from carrying a weapon that could be used defensively to stop or limit the destruction of life caused by these shooters.

That's a simple concept to grasp.

People shooting people is the singular cause of mass shootings. People shouldn't have to work in places where everyone is packing or else have wingnuts throw out this dumb # about "oh didn't he see the gun free zone sign DERP DERP DERP!" when their place of employment gets shot up.

You're conflating two different issues. See, I support the right of privately owned businesses to put up no-weapons signs, but when it comes to public property, they should not get special treatment just because of their status. It should not be a felony for me, who is licensed by my state to carry a concealed weapon (and were open carry is legal) to do so just because there are a few more kids around in a building than normal. There is no good logic behind that, because when a weapon is carried concealed, the kids don't know that I have it.

If you think that people don't carry in many, many workplaces without their colleagues knowing, then you are kidding yourself. If you think that them carrying (legally or not) in any way has made these workplaces more dangerous, you're kidding yourself. This narrative of oh-no-people-shouldn't-have-to-be-around-people-with-guns is ignorant--second-amendment rights don't end where your unsubstantiated fears begin.

How about stupid? Is it politically correct if I call them stupid?

It's ignorantly opinionated, but you can call them what you want, but it doesn't make you correct.

Go play your silly reindeer games with someone else--I promised my wife that I would avoid perpetuating discussions with people whose ideology clouds their ability to understand reality.

I'll start with you, starting now.

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Shame that the shooter looks like a trans- woman. So do you have a name for painting all women with one brush and then including birth males into the equation?

I have but it would be rude.

I have been on other boards all morning and I think this person is a transgender for sure. I haven't been back since making this thread but I am leaning more towards this person being a Trans. To say they suffer from mental illness is a understatement at this point. This person what ever it is was obviously sick.


Wonder how long it takes to disappear if in fact the person is Trans. I'm sure it will be a non story soon enough...

Woke up and read a piece on the shooter and well I'm going to hell cause I laughed..

Female, vegan, bodybuilder, animal rights activist... the really hardcore anti-gunners must have come close to an aneurism when that information broke.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician


Do feminists have a term for Female Toxicity? Because between this and abortions being the number 1 reason for deaths (way above gun shootings and even Heart Disease), it seems that they are getting to be pretty toxic for our country.

The Patriarchy.

You're welcome.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Woke up and read a piece on the shooter and well I'm going to hell cause I laughed..

Female, vegan, bodybuilder, animal rights activist... the really hardcore anti-gunners must have come close to an aneurism when that information broke.

Nope. She was known to have mental health issues. Her father called and reported that she was likely going after Youtube.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yep this story is going to vaporize in about 48-78 hours.

They're way ahead of you. California has heavy gun control laws, neither the shooter nor the gun works for the narrative they want to push. They have no more interest in the story.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Woke up and read a piece on the shooter and well I'm going to hell cause I laughed..

Female, vegan, bodybuilder, animal rights activist... the really hardcore anti-gunners must have come close to an aneurism when that information broke.

Nope. She was known to have mental health issues. Her father called and reported that she was likely going after Youtube.

Oh you mean the two actual common denominators in these incidents? Mental health and failure of local officials to act? Yeah, time to talk about porn stars again.

Another high visibility shooting where witnesses report the shooter wearing body armor.
This is looking like yet another FBI involved shooting to me.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Another high visibility shooting where witnesses report the shooter wearing body armor.
This is looking like yet another FBI involved shooting to me.

If this is some kind of false flag, why would they be wearing body armor? They know they're going to a place where they'll meet no resistance, and obviously the idea is that they are escaping and someone else is taking the fall. Why wear armor and create all these conflicting reports? It would make a lot more sense to dress like the person you're setting up to be the patzy.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Another high visibility shooting where witnesses report the shooter wearing body armor.
This is looking like yet another FBI involved shooting to me.

From what I understand, that claim was made by one person in a whatsApp discussion, but it has not been revealed whether or not that person was even at YT when it happened.

She wrote on her website,

Be aware! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics! They only care for personal and short-term profits and do anything to reach their goals even by fooling simple-minded people, hiding the truth, manipulating science and everything, putting public mental and physical health at risk, abusing non-human animals, polluting the environment, destroying family values, promoting materialism and sexual degeneration in the name of freedom and turning people into programmed robots!

She goes on to quote Adolf Hitler saying, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it."

February 20, YouTube enacted a new advertising policy that demonetized channels with less than 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 hours of watch time. Though Aghdam's main English channel had more than 15,000 subscribers, many of her videos appeared to be demonetized.

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: rickymouse
This reminds me of your Avatar.

Why would anyone want to go after Youtube? Probably someone's ex all fired up.

Probably one of the die-hard conspiracy nuts that have had their channels taken down for violations.

Says the guy on a conspiracy website

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Another high visibility shooting where witnesses report the shooter wearing body armor.
This is looking like yet another FBI involved shooting to me.

From what I understand, that claim was made by one person in a whatsApp discussion, but it has not been revealed whether or not that person was even at YT when it happened.

He made the claim in the WhatsApp discussion and also posted something similar on Facebook....according to seattlepi and SFGate:

“I was in the courtyard and we heard the gunshots, then saw him,” Salahodeen Abdul-Kafi, a YouTube product manager, wrote on Facebook. “He had a shooting mask on, full body armor and was calmly walking and firing a handgun. We jumped to the floor then ran as fast as we could.”

SFGate left out the references to "him" and "he," however, in the portion they quoted. I tried to find his Facebook account to verify it, but it has either been deactivated or I just can't find it by his name. Neither news outlet linked to it.

Also, this is the link to the person on Twitter who shared the WhatsApp conversation, for reference: Link

I think it quite possible given the fact that female shooters are rare, that the guy who believed it to be a male shooter was just presuming so, and, looking at the woman herself she is rather manly and I understand was wearing body armour

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I think that's reasonable.