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.

 

Mass Murder "Investigators:" What's it to you?

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 


Why would evidence of any kind about any mass murder be "nice?" Once again, what's it to you? Was your son killed at Columbine? Did you lose family in Aurora? Was your child at whatever the latest outrage was? Why would photos of dead bodies be "nice?"




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 


Why would evidence of any kind about any mass murder be "nice?" Once again, what's it to you? Was your son killed at Columbine? Did you lose family in Aurora? Was your child at whatever the latest outrage was? Why would photos of dead bodies be "nice?"


Oh my God. You're too smart to be this daft. I already told you why it matters to me, because people are using these events to change the country. Period.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 



Oh my God. You're too smart to be this daft. I already told you why it matters to me, because people are using these events to change the country. Period.


Give me one single example of how any of the mass murders going back to the Texas Bell Tower Sniper fifty years ago has been used to change the country!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 



Oh my God. You're too smart to be this daft. I already told you why it matters to me, because people are using these events to change the country. Period.


Give me one single example of how any of the mass murders going back to the Texas Bell Tower Sniper fifty years ago has been used to change the country!


They are trying to change the country. I don't think I need to go and get the articles about Feinstein, supported by Obama, championing new assault weapons bans in the wake of Sandy Hook, do I? Or the innumerable commentaries about gun control and background checks as a result of Sandy Hook.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 



They are trying to change the country. I don't think I need to go and get the articles about Feinstein, supported by Obama, championing new assault weapons bans in the wake of Sandy Hook, do I? Or the innumerable commentaries about gun control and background checks as a result of Sandy Hook.


So in the fifty years since the Texas Bell Tower Sniper, they have started talking about gun control. That's how "they" are changing the country?



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 



They are trying to change the country. I don't think I need to go and get the articles about Feinstein, supported by Obama, championing new assault weapons bans in the wake of Sandy Hook, do I? Or the innumerable commentaries about gun control and background checks as a result of Sandy Hook.


So in the fifty years since the Texas Bell Tower Sniper, they have started talking about gun control. That's how "they" are changing the country?


We can thank American Patriots for that, great men and women who believe in and defend the U.S. Constitution. As for your comment about "they" (implying there is no "they"), well we know who "they" are, they're the central bankers and the Fed.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 



We can thank American Patriots for that, great men and women who believe in and defend the U.S. Constitution. As for your comment about "they" (implying there is no "they"), well we know who "they" are, they're the central bankers and the Fed.


So, returning to the actual topic of the thread, if you've already got it all figured out, why do you need to investigate every mass murder that comes your way? You already know the who and the why. What else is there?



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Thank you for a thoughtful and polite response...

I appreciate the sarcasm, and in this case, it is well deserved. Admittedly, I do get a little wound up when I feel as though someone is trying to dictate my interests. That causes me to ask the same question. "What's it to you?"


Where is the public good in investigating this? Where is the electorate's need to know?

Our government and media have repeatedly proven they cannot be trusted to be truthful to the American public. They have also proven they have and will commit atrocities against the American public. It is therefore in the interests of the American people to watch everything that happens in this country, including nutcases firing on innocent people.


Likewise, we need to know the true causes and meanings of events that can shape our lives as citizens.

The events you're referring to do shape our lives as citizens. Tragedies such as these always do. And legislation, more often than not, comes out of them. We should be more than interested. We should be angry, and demand the facts be known. All of them. Not just what they want us to know. It's time for the nanny state to come to an end.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Right: get specific.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

Oh, I don't know. How about giving black men Syphilis, sterilizing thousands of women, using the population for mind control experiments, drug running, lying to get us into wars, unconstitutional laws, illegal search and seizure. There's a long list right here on ATS over many threads if a person wanted to track them all down. Which isn't a bad idea come to think of it. Seems like every time new "de-classified" documents come out, we find out about more lies.

But back to the point. It is my business what I take an interest in. If that happens to be studying the mass murders committed in the recent. What right does anyone have to tell me I can't, or shouldn't? I don't need to answer questions to justify it.

You happen to be one of those members I usually read when you post. This is just one of those times we disagree. We all have our own perspective on things.



edit on 11/26/2013 by Klassified because: add



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 



You happen to be one of those members I usually read when you post. This is just one of those times we disagree. We all have our own perspective on things.


Erm, thank you. Nevertheless, what does the fact that the government has been known to conduct unethical experiments have to do with the intimate details of what can only be the product of a deranged mind? Can anyone point to a pattern here that is rational?



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I agree with much of what you have to say here. In fact, I think that there are times where the suppression of information would definitely fall under the guidelines of acting within the public's best interest. Sometimes, some information would simply serve to promote violence or unfairly target a specific group through guilt by association. However, it depends significantly on what is suppressed and what is selected to be allowed for the public perusal. In the case of the Sandy Hook report, Lanza's possibility of having Asperger's and lack of empathy were repeatedly noted though the attorney general questioned their relevance. He knows that people may, in fact, read his report so everything contained within it is probably written in such a way to provide insight into the perpetrator's acts without aspersion. As a mother of a son with Asperger's, I appreciated his prudence.

To question why people do investigate such things is to deny their wanting to comprehend why such things even occur. What is the first question that everyone asks after such a horrific event? Is it not "how could s/he do such a thing?"? When we had a spate of events such as these back in the 90's, that same questioned was asked and the Secret Service offered to help try to create a profile for the shooters at the time with zero efficacy. Their final report on the subject came to the conclusion in that there was no single profile of such an individual that could do these kind of acts. The question is whether or not that is true or whether they suppressed something within that accumulated data for that greater good and addressed it quietly.

My interest in the subject occurred by accident while researching another subject matter. I look for specific markers or traits, no more or no less, as a result because they do exist. What I do not do is deny the victims' existence, deny that the event occurred, or any of those things that I find to be incredibly distasteful and disrespectful for the surviving families, classmates and neighbors of these victims. I stick with what I know how to do and what I've been trained for.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I'm not sure how to respond to this so I'll just say...

Why did the first man to want to cut a person open to help them want to do it? Curiosity? Seems like curiosity is the reason why humans are where we are today. The question Why. You even do it in your OP!

*stoner realization meme here*



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by Klassified
 



You happen to be one of those members I usually read when you post. This is just one of those times we disagree. We all have our own perspective on things.


Erm, thank you. Nevertheless, what does the fact that the government has been known to conduct unethical experiments have to do with the intimate details of what can only be the product of a deranged mind? Can anyone point to a pattern here that is rational?


Apparently your incapable of rational thinking because you've been giving multitude of good logical answers that don't seem to sink in. So I'm guessing your either trolling or your Piers Morgan, both seem to fit.

And by the way you only need to look up the NY safe act to see what legislation has been passed in the wake of Sandy hook

This was not directed at you Klassified. This is directed to the dink that started this thread.
edit on 27-11-2013 by twohawks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by twohawks
 



Apparently your incapable of rational thinking because you've been giving multitude of good logical answers that don't seem to sink in.


In the fifty years since the Texas Bell Tower Sniper, every significant gun control bill has either failed to pass, been watered down to the point of uselessness or has expired. Sure, politicians from urban areas talk about reviving the assault weapon ban, but we all know that is never going to happen. They also bicker about the exact number of rounds, as though seven rounds will result in fewer casualties than nine. I know you believe in your heart of hearts that people are being massacred all over the country by government agents, but it's just not logical. Not only is there no evidence for it, if you are paying any attention at all you would see that all the evidence is against it! In any event, if you want to expose a government conspiracy, don't look at the victims of the conspiracy, follow the money and get the goods on the people who ordered it. (Unfortunately, when you follow the money, it starts to look like the NRA is behind it all!)


And by the way you only need to look up the NY safe act to see what legislation has been passed in the wake of Sandy hook


What part of the act do you feel poses a danger to you and your loved ones? Do you consider yourself a criminal or dangerously mentally ill and therefore may have your licence revoked? Do you find it limiting not to be allowed to fire upon a first responder? Or are you sulking because you cannot use a grenade launcher with your M16? I know, you object to locking your weapons in a safe where your children can't use them as playthings. Not only is this law ridiculously weak, they have already softened it. You can now have more than seven rounds in your magazine, and if you're a police officer the law doesn't apply to you at all!

www.governor.ny.gov...

But wait! It's probably not going to be around much longer anyway:

scopeny.org...

So if you think you are in any danger of having your right to bear arms repealed, you're delusional. In any event, what does any of that have to do with obsessively watching videos of a crime scene?



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
How about the simple fact that the act makes it illegal to own something you purchased with your hard earned dollars. And was legal when you did it. To answer your question, you asked what legislation had passed or had been passed.

But let's get back to your final point, "obsessively watching videos". The word obsessive is your description. An individual can watch a video and pick out truths within that video without it falling into the category of "obsessive". You seem to have an ax to grind so by all means have at it. Keep your head in the sand and try not to eat too much it. There are much healthier ways to get fiber in your diet.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

DJW001

There. Try to convince me that your "need to know" outweighs what I firmly believe to be in the best public interest.
edit on 26-11-2013 by DJW001 because: Polishing, always polishing. --DJW001

edit on 26-11-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


I see what you did there. Interesting. So we no longer have a "right to know" and you (the politician) do have the right to hide the truth? No. Here's the thing: YOU (as the politician) are the one who cannot be trusted. It is up to YOU to explain to me, the constituent, why you want to hide facts and evidence in direct opposition to 200+ years of open and public legal proceedings -- AT EVERY LEVEL! From the cop walking the beat to the supreme court.

Several years ago, a close family member was killed, and it became a very public case. Our family successfully petitioned the court (as did both the prosecution and defense) to have all photos of the deceased sealed after demonstrating that these photos had no value to the public (their right to know), and no value in the courtroom; i.e., the photos of the deceased could not help to either prove or disprove guilt of the defendant. The written autopsy report was not sealed. Photos of the crime scene were not sealed. 911 calls were not sealed. Everything except the photos of the deceased were made public, and yes, it hurts my heart every time I see those pics on TV or the internet, and even more as I sat in court during the trial. But I knew it was necessary not just for this case, but for the integrity and honesty of our legal and judicial system. While we have much criticism for the media and how they handled the case, we never questioned the wisdom of an open and transparent process.

In the Sandy Hook case, I have to wonder who exactly the politician is protecting by hiding evidence. The families of the deceased are going to hurt forever. They will never get over it -- pics or no. So who are they protecting from the truth? For example, there were reports that an aide to a certain politician was the son of either the principal or one of the teachers at Sandy Hook, and combined with the early reports that the perpetrator was the son of a first grade teacher, it makes one wonder if -- just maybe -- the event no doubt happened, not by one Adam Lanza, but perhaps by this politician's aide... Especially given Adam's virtually non-existent records, documentation, and paper trail. Accuse someone that doesn't exist, ensuring no trial and therefore no evidence presented at trial, and the guilty (and his family and business associates) are protected from the fallout. I am not saying I think this happened, simply that it is an example of how and why the gatekeepers would hide the truth.

From my experience and perspective, sealing ALL records from public view serves to protect the guilty, not the innocent. So, please, try to convince me that your need to hide the truth and the facts outweighs the public's right to know. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. My way affirms truth, honor and integrity... your way only creates doubts, suspicions and crazy conspiracy theories.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Boadicea
 



I see what you did there. Interesting. So we no longer have a "right to know" and you (the politician) do have the right to hide the truth? No. Here's the thing: YOU (as the politician) are the one who cannot be trusted. It is up to YOU to explain to me, the constituent, why you want to hide facts and evidence in direct opposition to 200+ years of open and public legal proceedings -- AT EVERY LEVEL! From the cop walking the beat to the supreme court.


Please read the Constitution. You have never had a "right to know." You have freedom of speech and assembly, you cannot be forced to quarter troops in your home, your property is secure from unwarranted seizure, you can even join a militia and protect the commonwealth. Nothing in there about a right to know anything. True, tradition dictates that court cases be open, but we are not talking about a case that has reached that point. In the hypothetical situation I have explained, as a servant of the people, why I have chosen to handle on ongoing investigation the way I have. If you have a problem with that, you can file a complaint in the legal system, but you had better have a better and more compelling case than: "I want to know, whether it is in the best interests of the citizenry or not."

I have deleted the off topic discussion of other cases.


From my experience and perspective, sealing ALL records from public view serves to protect the guilty, not the innocent. So, please, try to convince me that your need to hide the truth and the facts outweighs the public's right to know. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. My way affirms truth, honor and integrity... your way only creates doubts, suspicions and crazy conspiracy theories.


Actually, the tradition is that every suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If adverse publicity can prejudice the process, it is in the best interests of fairness to treat evidence with a certain amount of discretion. Remember, the jails are filled with innocent people who were condemned because it was impossible to find an unbiased jury! I did not say, in this hypothetical case, that I would never release any evidence; I merely pointed out why I would not want to release information that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation and fair trial! At the right time and place, the facts would be made known. Can you think of anyone whose best interests would be served by having large numbers of obsessive conspiracy theorists posting their theories on the internet?



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

FlyersFan

Taggart
You bring this up in EVERY thread related to Sandy Hook. No one is asking for that.

YES they are. Fortunately those people get their posts deleted by the moderators.
And that's exactly what would be in the FULL INVESTIGATION information that people
are whining about. They have no need to have any of that stuff.





I don't agree with you.
When it comes to Sandy Hook threads, the mods don't normally delete posts.......
They close the whole thread down.

I agree with deleting posts when they get out of hand but Sandy Hook threads DO tend to get closed.....



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


This is all way off topic. I hope you understand why it will be deleted.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join