Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Made Comment About 'No More Baby Parts'

a reply to: NthOther

You're correct. We must wait for evidence to surface before we label and condemn.

As of now, we are only speculating. I've been very careful to make sure my comments were open-ended and did not make absolute statements.

So I think it's a bit early to call anyone a hypocrite. Maybe a few, but not many.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Anti abortion
Anti Obama
Told neighbours to be weary of government spies
Lived off the grid
Gun advocate/nut in this case

Had to be one of those progressive liberals.


Edit: then again, 4/5 of those criteria I fit too

Wonder if he was on AtS?

Any well known members missing?

originally posted by: NthOther
One little comment that a cop says the shooter said is not evidence.

It absolutely IS evidence. It's not conclusive. It's not proof, but it's evidence. And we may never know his real motivation for sure. The fact that it was a Planned Parenthood is evidence. Not conclusive, but evidence, nonetheless. Same with his "no more baby parts" comment.

I'm still open to the possibility that abortion was NOT his motivation, but my reasoning skills tells me it probably was. Hopefully, we'll see.

For anything else you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs demanding it.

Posting on ATS is not screaming at the top of one's lungs or demanding anything.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You don't think the cops want to see this guy fry? He supposedly killed one of their own.

You expect them to be truthful and objective?

You're deluding yourself. And you're smart enough to know better.

a reply to: NthOther

They'd be more likely to see him fry if they claimed he said he was targetting police...

Why mention baby parts as if that's gonna make a conviction any more likely.

The guy's a cop killer... End of.

a reply to: crazyewok

Hehe, dunno fella...

I'm sure we'll find out eventually.


He fit the "homegrown extremist" conspiracy theorist moreso than the tinfoil hat type though.


More likely visited far right websites if he had any online presence.

Maybe it was his principles and not his brain health issues that made him go on a shooting spree.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Why mention baby parts as if that's gonna make a conviction any more likely.

Since they released that "info", he's already been convicted. It's the nugget they were waiting for to convict not only him, but all anti-abortion people. They've painted everyone with one broad stroke and already passed down condemnation.

It should be obvious what that "little statement" is being used for. And everyone is swallowing the sinker falling for it.

a reply to: NthOther

It's the nugget they were waiting for to convict not only him, but all anti-abortion people.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if it is true that he was motivated by an anti-abortion belief, it does not reflect on like-minded people in my opinion. My focus is on the propaganda the media and other sources that spread disinformation and lies that resonates with people such as the shooter.

Propaganda is my focus.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If we are to follow our scruples and distrust the media...

Then the narrative that he is a maniac is BS and he is probably as sane as anyone on this forum...



An incoherent first exchange with police notwithstanding, after a siege and such an adrenaline dump 99% of people wouldn't make sense...

Would ramble...

& also, taking into account the questions asked of him, each one could have been as irrelevant to the last one...

Thus making it seem like he was "all over the place" when in actuality it's quite common for police to ask random questions etc



It's a common tactic to cause confusion amongst the interviewee and lead to some sort of confession...

Not that one was "needed" per se... But officially they'd rather lead someone to confess outright than claim insanity off the bat.

Especially when one of their own was killed.




Wow, apologies for the diatribe Les.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

He was known to speak incoherently. I'm willing to concede he may have chosen a planned parenthood for moral reasons, but he killed people for others.

Diatribes are always welcome.

a reply to: NthOther

I'm anti abortion, I'm not broad brushing myself in with this loser.

It's always admirable to distance oneself from the lunatic fringe, but it's even more admirable to look at the evidence and be objective despite our own beliefs...


Where he and I differ, is the idea that killing people, terrorising people, is a way toward political gain...

It isn't.


Do I feel upset that anti abortionists are being broad brushed, a little...
Does it change my belief that this guy was anti abortion, no.


Like Paris, am I upset to be lumped in with ISIS, yes...
Would I deny they're Muslims, not at all.


It's called 'taking it on the chin' in the UK.

a reply to: NthOther

Really?? what difference would his motive make that the police would make one up? he did it regardless. What motive could he have had where he wouldn't fry?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Absolutely, it's officially stated he was incoherent...

What we have to take into acc upon speculation is whether that is because;
A) he's off his meds
B) he's on his meds
C) hes undiagnosed
D) he's leading them to believe he's undiagnosed
E) questions were randomly asked and his random answers account for his "incoherence"
F) adrenaline from a siege momentarily left him "incoherent"


And probably a whole lot more from the alphabet.

Right now, I'd suggest mental illness as a secondary argument to E or F.

Your mileage may vary.

Ultimately, to answer your question...
I'm saying it may have been his principles rather than his mental health.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Where he and I differ, is the idea that killing people, terrorising people, is a way toward political gain...

It isn't.

While I agree...

...none of us have any idea why this guy did what he did. No clue.

That is the only fact we have in this case.

Why dont we have facts or made up outrage yet for this incident, and why are people blaming the liberals and there media for what this guy did.

2 hours in the paris attacks fox was already saying they found a syrian passport, what gives.

a reply to: NthOther

That's if you discount what officials have said about baby parts.
That gives us some idea.

Personally I believe them.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Not many principles or politics call for the murdering of innocent human beings.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

That's if you discount what officials have said about baby parts.
That gives us some idea.

Personally I believe them.

Experience has taught me to never, ever believe anything a cop says. That's my own bias coming into play, for sure (although with good reason).

I sure wish other people could admit their own.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of behavior and conditioning by the media and the rapid onslaught of information constantly coming at people in general isn't causing or at the very least rapidly exacerbating mental illness in the world.

I've been saying that for a while now. The onslaught, or rather the sheer amount of so much different information constantly being shoved into everyone's minds and forcing them to pay attention, and the constant degree of contradictions that we are faced with daily, is a complete sensory overload and likely short circuits people's minds. I'm going to stress that a lot of it is contradictions, both what is seen in daily life and in the media and with information contradicting itself, and contradictions within one's own mind—both present and arising from these differences of information.

Some people can't filter it, or see it for what it is, and some people *try,* but the steady stream of all this crap throws them off their rocker and they snap. Sensory overload that "does not compute" with one's lifestyle or belief system.