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.
Originally posted by mishigas
And what other words were exchanged between Salzgeber and JLL at that time?
If anyone knows of anything else Salzgeber said, they're not talking about it. The shooter, Zamudio, reported Salzgeber threatening to kill Loughner with the murder weapon while waving it around. Is Zamudio lying? Badger reports Salzgeber harming Loughner more than once, violently twisting his arm and choking him when Badger tried to question him. Is Badger lying?
Originally posted by mishigas
Yes, but anything you get at this point is either courtesy or bait.
Likewise. I choose to base my conclusions on the public statements of participants. You apparently choose to believe the tabloid headlines.[
Originally posted by mishigas
Police are under no obligation to show you anything unless you're part of the case. So, the fact that you are working with incomplete evidence is sad but your problem alone.
It's pretty obvious the police have only the statements of participants, since they all showed up long after the shooting stopped, and stepped into a crime scene controlled by the shooter himself, Zamudio, and his accomplices. That they quickly drew the wrong conclusion isn't surprising.
Originally posted by mishigas
Accuracy, you say? His primary target, Gabrielle Giffords, is still alive, and improving daily.
Oh, you know who the primary target was in this mass murder? How did you come by such knowledge? Did you participate in it? There's as much testimony putting the gun in your hand as there is in Loughner's hand, where were you when all this happened? Do you have an alibi?
Originally posted by commdogg
Speculation about deficiencies in the evidence such as where you "think" the cameras in parking lot were pointed, is pure conjecture and has even less bearing on the truth of the events than even ambiguous or contradictory eyewitness testimony.
Originally posted by commdogg
Yet not accepting it for that reason is ridiculous. It sheds additional light on the events, which is enough for it to be pertinent.
Originally posted by commdogg
When you ask any witness or victim a broad general question about what happened you will likely get very similar descriptions. If you ask everyone to rattle off other details, you'll probably find 15 different answers on what color his socks were. To some, that's a flaw, to me, its irrelevant.
Originally posted by mishigas
So now Zamudio is the shooter? Really?
Originally posted by PlautusSatire
Originally posted by mishigas
So now Zamudio is the shooter? Really?
Sure looks like the most likely suspect to me. He's the only participant I've seen who could pass for Loughner with a black hoodie on. He carries a gun and when he came from the Walgreens he said he was ready to execute Loughner if he'd been trying to run. Now he's content to wait for the lethal injection. That Zamudio stayed so long that day at the crime scene is very suspicious in itself. One wonders why the police let him wander around there like that carrying a concealed weapon inside his black wool coat and his black hoodie.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
What makes anyone think this guy INS'T insane? That's a perfectly legal defense.
Sure, it's a legal defense. But JLL is not innocent by reason of insanity. He made comments and expressed remorse for what he would do by apologizing beforehand. That means his murders were premeditated and he knew they were wrong to do. people who are innocent by reason of insanity do not realize their actions are wrong, therefore they do not apologize to anyone beforehand.
edit on 14-1-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by PlautusSatire
Originally posted by PeoriaAZ
There is no doubt that he is guilty, there were a ton of people there, they couldn't frame for the act if he didn't actually pull the triggerp
We often see comments like this explaining Sylvia Browne and other psychics, as well as many other spurious belief systems. When a magician on stage makes a tiger disappear, do we conclude that since so many people were watching that the tiger really did vanish? Or is it a trick? How difficult do you think it would be to confuse people at the scene of a mass murder? People in theaters all over the world are routinely fascinated by "magic" that they're expecting. When you're simply on your way to the Safeway to get some Frutopia, it's that much easier to fool you. When you're the police who arrive on the scene after the magic trick is over, it's even easier still to fool you.