Originally posted by esdad71
The kid was shot, it was a mugging, that is all folks.

That might be all, but then again that might not be all. How do you know for sure? Besides, I was under the impression Michael Zebuhr was a 25 year old man, not a kid.

Originally posted by esdad71
What was so important that this kid was working on that would cause the gov't to follow him home on spring break, wait till he goes out to eat with his family, and then kill him in front of dozens of witnesses.

Good question. Maybe it was just a mugging. Maybe it wasn't.

Originally posted by esdad71
This is a poorly executed robbery performed by more than likely a twitchy fingered junkie. agangbanger, or maybe even a stupid, nervous 17 y/o kid.

It was a brutal, horrific, murder and robbery, but it doesn't appear at this time to be a poorly executed robbery. They escaped with the purse, didn't they? I haven't seen anyone charged yet, either, have you?

Originally posted by esdad71
However, it makes no operational sense to plan an execution in that way. Find out if he goes hiking where he goes to school, or biking, or something where he does an activity alone. That is when you kill someone, and leave no evidence.

How do you know that is the only method of a hit operation?

Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by esdad71
You do not gun down someone on a street in Minnesota. New york maybe, and people would look the other way, but minnesota?

The reason this happens infrequently in Minnesota is why this is an unusual crime. It's an unsolved crime, also, so I think everyone can do without the multitude of internet detectives with flawed logic prematurely slamming this case closed.

Thanks.

Why would this silence you?

Come on people, use the common sense you were born with. If you believe the Government was corrupt enough to kill thousands of people in the Twin Towers, then you probably believe they'd kill members of your group - thus, you'd know that you ran the risk of being killed. So using the reason that they did this to silence the group is laughable. I mean, many people [even on this site] have said the Government would attempt to silence the group, so surely they'd have taken this into account or they're not the scholars they think they are. :|

Thus, if you've found something out you'd have made copies and get it out within moments of finding it out. So the information would be there, for protection. I could understand doing it to silence someone, if it was their family kidnapped, or business but even then, they should expect this and to me it seems sloppy. For the Government to cover September the 11th up so well [which they did do], killing one person should have been a walk in the park - in fact, traffic accident, work place accident, or so on and so fourth would be easy enough and give the Government the get out of jail free card which this way doesn't.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I think this kid knew something or pushed for something and he needed to be shut up. Or it was a regular old mugging in Minnesota...

Both are Very real possibilities. I saw a few people on previous pages in this thread suggest that this particular Scholar might not necessarily have been onto anything himself, and that this is some kind of message to the others, which I think is highly possible as well. In fact I'm leaning towards the latter with what I think happened here. It reminds me of when the bad guy captures two enemies, kills one brutally, and sets the other free to tell the others what's happened. Or when Tribes used to brutally mutilate captured foreign invaders and leave them somewhere they know they will be seen, as a message and a warning to the others. They can't kill all of the Scholars though, of course. That would surely raise a few eyebrows.

We will just have to wait and see if the Police catch anyone. Did I read somewhere the incident was recorded on CCTV? That may speed things up.





[edit on 28-3-2006 by Code_Burger]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Code_Burger]

Originally posted by Odium
Why would this silence you?

(snip) I mean, many people [even on this site] have said the Government would attempt to silence the group, so surely they'd have taken this into account or they're not the scholars they think they are. :|

Of course it was taken into consideration their lives could be in jeopardy, however their blatant assassinations being more a confirmation of the validity of their claim is what appeases that fear, not that they have a fail-safe way for the information to get out as a result of some safeguard they put into effect "in case of their untimely demise"

The message they are given by this kids demise (kid being relative to his young age in comparrison to other's) is that *accidents do happen* and though their lives being in danger has not been a deterrant to their investigation, an actual reality call of how soon their lives could accidentally end is a good deterrant as to how far to push their agenda...how public to make their findings...

They may decide to back off, find a convenient dead end to their speculataions and wait for a more natural demise of old age before they let the truth out now...

It was a clear message and the perfect way to send it. To call it conspiracy related makes it seem conspiracy theorists are generally absurd alarmists...to have had him have an "accident" on a dark empty highway or a mountain biking accident off a cliff would be suspicious...

this was the usual run of the mill random act with witness, it was seemingly then a statistical random act of viloence...with a clear message to those intended for the message.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds that is for sure.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by think2much]

The reason this happens infrequently in Minnesota is why this is an unusual crime. It's an unsolved crime, also, so I think everyone can do without the multitude of internet detectives with flawed logic prematurely slamming this case closed.

Like you, who claim it is a black op? gimme a break. You would not want it in an area where it does not happen alot because it would draw even more attention. Last thing I would want is attention drawn to me if I was killing someone.

Kids die in college towns, there would be an investigation, another kid died in an area where someone else fell,etc,etc. . I understand that this must be a godsend for some of you 9/11 for truth believers but you are making a random crime into the JFK assasination.

one 'side' here believes it could have been black-ops, OR that it could have been an freakishly unusual mugging.

the other side is convinced it was a 'junkie', or' gangbanger' and berates and browbeats those who speculate the three letter agencies are capable of this type of poilitical subterfuge.

this alone talks to people. can you hear it?

i would like to point out to muaddib, (or 'little mouse'), that when i say communism 'works' in china, i am talking about reign by terror. china's 'communism' is reign by terror. i don't want to go there. i am curious why america would let china 'scan for nukes' at an american port. kinda like giving the fox the keys to the hen house, no?

this incident, 'if' it was a black-op, is also reign by terror. like the mysteriously 'un-MEDIA-ted' anthrax attacks used for extreme patriot suppression post-911. the 'terror warning' colour-coded system is used to instill fear in the general populace. extreme ad hominem attacks are constantly used to quell decent; "you're insane", "liberals are worse than terrorists", "you're anti-american", "filthy liberal", "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory", "delusional", "take your meds". people are afraid of being marginalised, too. not exactly 'terror', but an effective psychological programming tool, none the less.

america is sick(ill, out of balance). the behaviour of the forces abroad is a clear indicator.
real americans don't torture people.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by billybob]

Originally posted by esdad71

You would not want it in an area where it does not happen alot because it would draw even more attention.

It was meant to draw attention, and deflect attention, which it does. It would be logical that those who would assassinate to send a message would want it to stand out-enough-and thus be that message for the recipients....while still seemingly be enough of a run of the mill standard random act of violence so as not to validate their cause with a martyr now.

Originally posted by esdad71
Last thing I would want is attention drawn to me if I was killing someone.

The point is this isn't you or an individual who premeditated it for a cause of ending this guys life and trying not to get caught for it. it is possibly a case of wanting to keep him from giving out info he has, and /or sending a clear message to others he was affiliated with, and doing it where it can both be an odd enough statistic in the area, and still have the M.O. seem like a random act of violence.

To me, it is perfect.

Originally posted by esdad71

The reason this happens infrequently in Minnesota is why this is an unusual crime. It's an unsolved crime, also, so I think everyone can do without the multitude of internet detectives with flawed logic prematurely slamming this case closed.

Like you, who claim it is a black op? gimme a break.

Please do not lie and twist things to try and rectify your errors. I have never once claimed this is a Black Op, not once, and neither have I ever called this case closed, or concocted fictitious endings based on assertion, and speculation. Below I will list several statements I have made in this thread as undeniable Proof of this.

Originally posted by Code_Burger

It could have been a robbery and murder totally unconnected to the Scholars 9/11 Truth work, I'm not doubting that at all.

Originally posted by Code_Burger

Maybe it was just a mugging. Maybe it wasn't.

Originally posted by Code_Burger
I may have missed the link, or news stating otherwise, but as I understood things, the killer(s) are still at large. It could have just been a couple of Muggers totally unconnected to any Gang.

Originally posted by Code_Burger
It's an unsolved crime

Can I ask where you read I claimed this was a Black Op? I think it a suspicious murder, but I have never claimed it was a Black Op, and called it case closed. All the "nothing to see here, move along" came from you, and Muadibb.

Originally posted by esdad71
You would not want it in an area where it does not happen alot because it would draw even more attention.

Speculation.

Originally posted by esdad71
Last thing I would want is attention drawn to me if I was killing someone.

While we're speculating, could I just ask how you know the hit (hypothetical hit) wasn't intended to be blatant, or planned so as to draw attention?

Originally posted by esdad71
Kids die in college towns, there would be an investigation, another kid died in an area where someone else fell,etc,etc. . I understand that this must be a godsend for some of you 9/11 for truth believers but you are making a random crime into the JFK assasination.

Why on Earth would anyone consider this a Godsend? Do you think I would wish death on a young Ph.d student, and sit here thinking it's a "Godsend" just to prove some kind of point that has been proven a million times already? The Official Story of what happened on September the 11th is utter fiction, we don't need the death of some poor guy to prove that.

Good Evening.

(P.S. Edad71, "The kid" was actually a 25 year old man, as I have already reminded you once today. Nice to see your paying attention.)




EDIT: Fixed quotes, corrected spelling.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by Code_Burger]

Originally posted by Code_Burger

EDIT: Muadibb, I just read your post above this one... Since you decided to play Mod with me the other day, and tell me to stay on topic (even though I was); I would just like to remind you this thread is not about Communism, and that you ought to remain on topic. Nice deviation though, it was quite fantastic.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by Code_Burger]

*sigh* You are out of your mind.... You are trying to get back at me for what you did in another thread by going out of topic....I didn't say I was a mode btw, and I made that clear...so nice try to get me in trouble... Anyways...you are saying this behaviour of yours is not childish?....

Now that another member made a direct question trying to brand me once again either as a government agent, or some kind of tyrant like he always does with a couple of friends of his around these boards when their theories don't make sense and I call them on it....and you are using this to get back at me?.....

Unless you are going to make a direct question about this topic, I will not waste my time with you anymore.

As to your assertion that there is no proof that whoever shot him was a gangmember or street thug. The police arrested three people, two men and a woman who they chased not too far away from the crime scene, they threw out guns and other items as they were being chased by the police, and even though there was no evidence given that they were definetly involved in the crime, there is a possibility it was them.

The vehicle these three were on matches the vehicle where the two men that shot this man had used to flee the scene.... You want to sue me for thinking that it seems the evidence points to these street thugs who could very well have commited the crime?... go ahead, I am not losing any sleep over this...or because i called them gangmembers.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Age is a state of mind, so if you are over 18 and don't ever feel like a kid I feel sorry for you. I read all the posts, trust me.

He was a young man, who was shot in the prime of this life in a random crime. I am basing my assertion off of common sense and it is an educated guess at best.

Can anyone give us a reason why this particular member of the group would be killed?

He was described as a student activist, and as I said a couple times before, student activist groups have historically given the government the most trouble from the general populace. Students and student groups are becoming more and more politically active lately, just look at the immigration demonstrations. Maybe this was the Kent State of the New Millenium, if that isn't too much of an exaggeration for you. The feds must have learned something from having the ONG fire on those kids back in '70.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Unless you are going to make a direct question about this topic, I will not waste my time with you anymore.

I have been on topic in every single post I have made in this thread. If I go too far off topic, it won’t be long before a Moderator appears to say something about it, believe me.

Originally posted by Muaddib
As to your assertion that there is no proof that whoever shot him was a gangmember or street thug.

Could you please stop lying? What are you talking about? I have said over and over again that it's very possible this is a mugging, or a murder by Gang members. Are you blind?

Originally posted by Muaddib
The police arrested three people, two men and a woman who they chased not too far away from the crime scene, they threw out guns and other items as they were being chased by the police, and even though there was no evidence given that they were definetly involved in the crime, there is a possibility it was them.

Yeah, a possibility, as I've been saying all throughout this thread! My God what the hell is wrong with you? This whole argument started when you decided to pick a possibility and then somehow conclude that's exactly what happened, as if it was the truth. I will quote you on this once more so anyone reading knows what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, i feel sorry for this man's family, they had to watch as some gangmember killed their son, and brother in front of them. That has to be one of the worse things that could happen to a mother, and a sister. Really sad.

Thud.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The vehicle these three were on matches the vehicle where the two men that shot this man had used to flee the scene.... You want to sue me for thinking that it seems the evidence points to these street thugs who could very well have commited the crime?... go ahead, I am not losing any sleep over this...or because i called them gangmembers.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Your choice of words here are very amusing. Now it only "seems the evidence points to these street thugs", and that you are only "thinking" that this is the case. You've changed your tune ever so slightly, haven't you? Only a few hours ago you had this case wrapped up and concluded as a gang murder and robbery, and that there was nothing more to it than that. What happened? Oh, that's right, I called you out on it and got you to stop spreading assertion as the truth. That's what happened. I guess if you think I'm not contributing anything to this thread though I'll just go ahead and shut up.


NOT!


It was my understanding Two of the Three arrested have been released? Why have you not mentioned this? Why do you keep asking me to sue you? look, the evidence may point towards the "gangmembers", but nobody has been charged yet. Who do you think you are delivering verdicts?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Code_Burger

EDIT: Muadibb, I just read your post above this one... Since you decided to play Mod with me the other day, and tell me to stay on topic (even though I was); I would just like to remind you this thread is not about Communism, and that you ought to remain on topic. Nice deviation though, it was quite fantastic.

*sigh* You are out of your mind.... You are trying to get back at me for what you did in another thread by going out of topic....

No I'm not.

Originally posted by Muaddib
I didn't say I was a mode btw, and I made that clear...so nice try to get me in trouble...

I know you didn't say you were a Moderator, and I never said you did. Could you please stop twisting things and lying outright? I wasn't trying to get you in trouble, I was proving a point.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways...you are saying this behaviour of yours is not childish?....

Yes.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Now that another member made a direct question trying to brand me once again either as a government agent, or some kind of tyrant like he always does with a couple of friends of his around these boards when their theories don't make sense and I call them on it....and you are using this to get back at me?.....

Nice Rant. What the hell are you talking about and how does it relate to me? If you're trying to say I think you're a Government agent, I don't, because I seriously doubt you're anywhere near intelligent enough.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by Code_Burger]

Talking about being on topic doesn't qualify as actually being on topic

Also, let's keep the personal shots out of the discussion, alright? There's absolutely no need and it detracts from the thread.

Last warning everyone.





[edit on 28-3-2006 by parrhesia]

Who knows really? The shooter at least.

What bothers me is the double head shot in front of witnesses left alive. That indicates reckless disregard of consequences and a sincere desire to see one of the individuals in the group dead as a door nail. If they were wearing double-breasted suits I'd conclude mob hit.

I'd be interested in what the family has to say about the incident. The local cops say it was unprovoked so it sounds like the kid wasn't mouthing off although if some @#*@ head was messing with my mom I would not let it go by without challenging him verbally at a minimum no matter how big a cannon he's carrying. If he mouthed off the whole thing was probably a robbery gone bad. If he kept quiet it looks much, much more suspicious.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Who knows really? The shooter at least.

What bothers me is the double head shot in front of witnesses left alive. That indicates reckless disregard of consequences and a sincere desire to see one of the individuals in the group dead as a door nail. If they were wearing double-breasted suits I'd conclude mob hit.

I'd be interested in what the family has to say about the incident. The local cops say it was unprovoked so it sounds like the kid wasn't mouthing off although if some @#*@ head was messing with my mom I would not let it go by without challenging him verbally at a minimum no matter how big a cannon he's carrying. If he mouthed off the whole thing was probably a robbery gone bad. If he kept quiet it looks much, much more suspicious.

Are you saying that people haven't been shot by being quiet and just looking at the criminal?

These days, and more so in big cities, if you look at someone and they don't like the way you are looking at them you could get shot, and you didn't even have to say a word.

Some people don't want to accept that the "simplest" anwser is more likely than a "plot to kill this man". Unless there is some evidence that definetly says this was something else than what it is, all people are doing is speculating.

If the police worked cases based on speculation and not on the evidence, they will never solve any case...

We have jails full of people that if you ask them if they are guilty of the crimes they committed, most of them will say they are innocent despite the truth that they did commit a crime. They will try to deny at all cost what they did.

Deny ignorance is ATS's motto, not Deny the truth.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

These days, and more so in big cities, if you look at someone and they don't like the way you are looking at them you could get shot, and you didn't even have to say a word.

I agree. It's insane.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Some people don't want to accept that the "simplest" anwser is more likely than a "plot to kill this man".

Who? Anyway, the "simplest" answer isn't always the correct answer.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Unless there is some evidence that definetly says this was something else than what it is, all people are doing is speculating.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest what this is in the first place. Can I ask you what evidence you have found that tells you "this wasn't something else than it was". More importantly, can I ask how you know what this was in the first place? It seems to me the only one speculating is you (AGAIN)! Your doing a lot worse than just speculating though, of course, because your actually championing speculation as if it were the truth (AGAIN)!

Originally posted by Muaddib
If the police worked cases based on speculation and not on the evidence, they will never solve any case...

Exactly! So why are you, with no evidence whatsoever, and a massive, massive, bag of speculation, and assertion, going around telling thousands of people here on abovetopsecret.com that this is deffinatly only a mugging? Here is what you said about 2-3 posts back:

Originally posted by Muaddib
even though there was no evidence given that they were definetly involved in the crime, there is a possibility it was them.

Even you yourself have said there is no evidence against them. So again, I ask you what evidence you are going on that these guys are guilty of the crime? All your doing is picking possibilities. Earlier reports say 2 of the 3 suspects held have been released. An eyewitness at the scene said it was too dark to properly identify the men running away. The latest reports go as far as to say authorities haven't arrested any suspects at all. So why are you still saying it was gang members, and that you know what happened?

BECAUSE YOU DO NOT!

Originally posted by Muaddib
We have jails full of people that if you ask them if they are guilty of the crimes they committed, most of them will say they are innocent despite the truth that they did commit a crime. They will try to deny at all cost what they did.

And this is evidence that Michael Zebuhr's murder was a mugging how? Sounds like complete speculation to me (again).

Originally posted by Muaddib
Deny ignorance is ATS's motto, not Deny the truth.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Yes, I am well aware, thank you, and so should you ought to be. Could I ask why you are doing the exact opposite of that motto? I thought a rule of ATS was that you are not allowed to post information you know to be false?



EDIT: Text size tags fixed, thank you, 12m8keall2c.




[edit on 29-3-2006 by Code_Burger]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Some people don't want to accept that the "simplest" anwser is more likely than a "plot to kill this man". Unless there is some evidence that definetly says this was something else than what it is, all people are doing is speculating.

If the police worked cases based on speculation and not on the evidence, they will never solve any case...

Deny ignorance is ATS's motto, not Deny the truth.

What is the truth here? The truth is the simplest answer? The truth is this was just a routine gang mugging and act of random violence? Where is the evidence to back that up? I am not denying truth, but it seems very ignorant to not consider the possibilities about this unsolved crime.

It is not that I do not WANT to believe that the simplest answer is "more likely", I just do not see how it is "more likely" unless you are equating "more likely" with "easiest to appease the masses" or "easiest for the average person on the street to buy into and believe."

You do need evidence, but in the begining of an investigation it is speculation on where the evidence points, and where it leads to that directs the investigation UNTIL conculsions can be based on CONCLUSIVE evidence. Right now they have some facts, they are gathering some facts, they are looking for evidence, and we are speculating on possibilities-ALL of us, including you are speculating, and we may never know the truth, but it is not a crime, nor ignorant of us to speculate.

I think it is an intesting point to consider that the people in the car the police was chasing, which fled their persuit, were witnessed tossing guns, and yet they've been released...guess they couldn't find the guns or any other evidence. What I do wonder though, were why the mother and sister were not asked to try to ID these men before released...or were they? Did I miss that?

Also, logically, if you have a car and driver for get away, and two armed men...why take some lady's purse downtown and kill her son with two shots in the head?

Most random acts of violence have to do with usually a mentally unstable person, most often drug addicted, walking up to someone on the street and mugging and/ or killing them. It is not planned or orchastrated with a get away driver for a routine purse snatching. Same with gangs-a woman driver and two guys, fish-out-of-water down town... for a purse snatching? That goes so wrong a guy gets shot in the head twice?

Maybe if he was in a rival gang and they wanted to send a message...

Yep, I'm speculating, because the "evidence" is pointing to this NOT being an everyday random act of violence, so I'd like to see more investigation, speculation, and evidence, and fear we'll not get anything but what is swept under the rug.

Does anyone know what type of weapon was used? This could lead us to what type of crime it was. 22 and 25 slugs leave little forensic evidence and are the generally the chosen caliber of such crimes that do not want ot be traced? Did they pick up the shells?

or did the kid just reach forward to protect his mother, the shooter freaked and shot him twice at close range. He was shot twice in the head and did not die on the scene, which means this was not two to the forehead. I mean, that is what I would have done, is protect my mother if someone had a gun in her face demanding a purse. A police report with ballsitic information would go a long way to resolve this in this forum.

side note- to compare this to Kent state is like comparing dog# to diamonds.