Posted on Apr 1, 2023
Newly released FBI documents reveal a possible motive for Las Vegas mass shooting
617
31
17
8
8
0
This FBI report is a big steaming pile of horse hockey. Why? Lets do a quick breakdown.
1. Causation: shooters "animosity towards casinos". He loved casinos. What he didn't love was management. Irrespective, why shoot people at a concert because you don't like the way the casino is managed where you are staying?
2. Heavily redacted documents. This is a criminal investigation not an intelligence operation. Once you redact "information gathering techniques", that should leave the pages still mostly "in the white". The vast majority of information was gathered during the conduct of field and office interviews. There is little new in this area unless coercion is being used.
3. "Another witness said that the murderer believed Hitler was a good man". How would a witness or victim know the murder well enough to say this? This is called "Lets find a way to include the few right-wing lunatics into this story".
4. Warns against harmful speculation. In other words "don't think about this, just believe what we tell you". If speculation is harmful (how?) than why put any information out in the first place? Especially on an old case that regrettably few people are still thinking about?
But there is something happening that the Executive Branch would like to distract you from thinking about. Hummm
1. Causation: shooters "animosity towards casinos". He loved casinos. What he didn't love was management. Irrespective, why shoot people at a concert because you don't like the way the casino is managed where you are staying?
2. Heavily redacted documents. This is a criminal investigation not an intelligence operation. Once you redact "information gathering techniques", that should leave the pages still mostly "in the white". The vast majority of information was gathered during the conduct of field and office interviews. There is little new in this area unless coercion is being used.
3. "Another witness said that the murderer believed Hitler was a good man". How would a witness or victim know the murder well enough to say this? This is called "Lets find a way to include the few right-wing lunatics into this story".
4. Warns against harmful speculation. In other words "don't think about this, just believe what we tell you". If speculation is harmful (how?) than why put any information out in the first place? Especially on an old case that regrettably few people are still thinking about?
But there is something happening that the Executive Branch would like to distract you from thinking about. Hummm
Newly released FBI documents reveal a possible motive for Las Vegas mass shooting
Posted from theblaze.com
FBI
Crime
Firearms and Guns
DOJ
Edited 1 y ago
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 5
6
6
0
There should be zero redactions. This case does/ did not involve national security or sexual crimes. This is the covering of several agencies asses. And even if it's not, the redactions give that appearance
(6)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
Cpl Benjamin Long What externalities? There was no CI. All the victims and responders are known. It's another CYA by a FBI tainted by ineptitude and politicization.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
LTC Trent Klug externalities would obviously not be victims or known parties.. That is the point of being an externality and being redacted... Question is who fears being doxxed..
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
Did you actually read the FBI report, or are you just going by what "The Blaze" is telling you about it? How about providing a link to the report rather than the "news" article telling you what and how to think about the report?
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney - No, even a prosecutor making an accusation is required to prove the guilt of the accused. It has never been required of the accused to prove his innocence.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
CPT (Join to see) - I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you a question. A question you have a problem with, apparently. Wouldn't it be you that is making an accusation of "a big steaming pile of horse hockey" without having actually read the report.
And if someone were to call a report you authored a "a big steaming pile of horse hockey" without having read your report, what would you say to that person?
And if someone were to call a report you authored a "a big steaming pile of horse hockey" without having read your report, what would you say to that person?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Clarence Couch
"How about providing a link to the report" Here you go Top:
:ttps://vault.fbi.gov/stephen-paddock/stephen-paddock-part-01.pdf/view
https://vault.fbi.gov/stephen-paddock/stephen-paddock-part-02/view
:ttps://vault.fbi.gov/stephen-paddock/stephen-paddock-part-01.pdf/view
https://vault.fbi.gov/stephen-paddock/stephen-paddock-part-02/view
(1)
(0)
Sgt Clarence Couch
CPT (Join to see) - Well, IMO, there's enough "guilt" to go around.
You BOTH are misunderstanding each other and Nagel is just "stirring the pot" by countering a right wing media with a left wing media.
imo, having a bias is NOT a bad thing. Seeing something from a certain perspective and believing it is NOT wrong. AN accusation of bias is NOT a conviction of a crime and cause for immediate rejection and dismissal. it is merely an attempt to place things in their proper perspectives.
However, i TOO have a problem with folks who present their opinion as fact AND, folks who purposely deceive with misinformation and lies.,BUT I do NOT believe that anyone here is doing any of that.
Now after saying all that, I'll attempt to "sort out" the confusion: First TOP, if you look at Fleenor's post he IS, in fact, questioning the report from the Blaze AND the FBI. But mainly, he is making an accusation and then listing his reasons for that opinion. One could also say that he has formed an opinion and then listed the reasons for that opinion. IN MY opinion, that is quite adequate and NOT a problem. i myself can THEN do the appropriate research and form my own opinions on the matter, and i have. See I KNOW one thing, reality is NOT what we go through or experience, our reality is how we perceive what we go through or experience. I find it fascinating, when someone says something or forms an opinion, I wonder WHY they;e choosing the words and the actions they do, AND, for whatever reason, they did. I determine what they are perceiving or misperceiving.
Top, what YOU have done is basically rejected Fleenor and his opinion with YOUR own biased opinions: FIRST, that the Blaze is NOT credible and accused them of telling folks "how and what to think" , and 2nd, that ANY opinion is NOT credible unless it is based in the FBI report. 3rd, YES, YOU DID accuse Fleenor of basing his "biased" opinion on the Blaze report, instead of the FBI report BUT, after a coupe of exchanges, I can't determine if you really don't like THAT, or vehemently disagree with his actual opinion that the FBI report is "horse hockey", OR simply his 'insubordinate disrespect" for the FBI. YOU asked him if he read the FBI report, but THEN admitted that YOU had not. Well, I have to ask YOU if YOU have read the Blaze report, as well. I'm guessing not and so I'm wondering how you got to that rank, being the way you are.To quote Mr. T, I pity the fools under your command.
SO, first off, if you DID read the Blaze article, you'd see that they indeed did a GREAT job of NOT telling people "how and what to think." IN fact they went off what the local Las Vegas news station reported; which was that the Las Vegas Metro police worked with the FBI, and the local news station interviewed them, so the LVPD gave their assessment, which was that they had NO idea what the motive was. AND, the news DID read the FBI report and THEY reported that it was basically worthless to glean any (credible) info and CERTAINLY no conclusions on the motive. NOR did the LVPD. IN fact, LVPD warned against speculation, saying it'd do more harm than good. Do yourself a favor and at LEAST look at the video of the LV news report, that's IN the Blaze article and rea;lixz\ze that YOU are quick to be disrespectful to others and feel justified in judging them, simply based on YOUR contrived misperceptions of them- with NO evidence.
NOw, CPOT Fleenor,IF you know anything about the FBI is, that they are experts interviewing EVERYONE who has come in contact with a perp. The fact that YOU chose to question and dismiss the people that the FBI interviewed reveals things about you too. ONE of your reasons for saying that the FBI report was "horse hockey". was that YOU rejected and dismissed the statements that the people that were interviewed said. For some reason, you connected their statements to the FBI. The TRUTH is,the FBI simply recorded what they said and the local news reported it. For instance, the woman who gave her statement that he was strange and a loner and wouldn't shake her hand ,was a neighbor.Why wouldn't her statement be credible? I find that strange of YOU. YDO know that when folks give a statement in an interview, alot of it is THEIR opinion and assessment, whether it's based in reality or not. THAT is a whole nother issue. BUT, afa YOU, your choice to reject interviewers' statements, based on your own biases, OR that it didn't make sense to you, OR that you actually spin a statement to mean something other than was intended. reveals you. SO, why is it SO hard to believe that his neighbor found him strange? Or the fact that another said that the perp said that 'Hitler was good"? SO, have you ever been inside a casino? I lived in las veags for 2 years and knoW hwat goes on in those casino..If so, ever played the slots? Or seen how the slot machines are layed out? FYI, they're situated right next to each other, in rows. Now, folks will spend hours on a slot machine, some every day. And folks on the machines right beside the one you're playing, are within arms length. It is common for folks to have conversations while playing slots, because folks have a tendency to play the same machines. Now, it's well known that the killer went to casinos ALOT, for years, and played slots lot. Over time, those relationships can get deeper and more personal, so it's quite feasible for someone to report that he said that. NOW afa total spinning, the LVPD said that they could not conclude why the killer did what he did, BUT that arbitrarily speculating why he did it is NOT good. Now you don't agree with that? Do you think that willy nilly speculation is GOOD? Well, we won't know your position on that because you TOTALLY spun it to some nefarious intent. SO maybe YOU can explain how YOU twisted, "Don't speculate" to "Don't think". FYI, they didn't say 'Don't speculate".They said speculation can be more harmful than good and YOU ask HOW? REALLY? FYI, speculation causes protests, speculation causes riots, speculation causes assassinations, etc. FYI, don't confuse speculation for theorizing and testing theories. Theories are based on observations of real evidence. Another word for speculation is "spitballing", with no evidence, or worse, misconstrued or misinterpreted info and open to a full immersion into biases.
You BOTH are misunderstanding each other and Nagel is just "stirring the pot" by countering a right wing media with a left wing media.
imo, having a bias is NOT a bad thing. Seeing something from a certain perspective and believing it is NOT wrong. AN accusation of bias is NOT a conviction of a crime and cause for immediate rejection and dismissal. it is merely an attempt to place things in their proper perspectives.
However, i TOO have a problem with folks who present their opinion as fact AND, folks who purposely deceive with misinformation and lies.,BUT I do NOT believe that anyone here is doing any of that.
Now after saying all that, I'll attempt to "sort out" the confusion: First TOP, if you look at Fleenor's post he IS, in fact, questioning the report from the Blaze AND the FBI. But mainly, he is making an accusation and then listing his reasons for that opinion. One could also say that he has formed an opinion and then listed the reasons for that opinion. IN MY opinion, that is quite adequate and NOT a problem. i myself can THEN do the appropriate research and form my own opinions on the matter, and i have. See I KNOW one thing, reality is NOT what we go through or experience, our reality is how we perceive what we go through or experience. I find it fascinating, when someone says something or forms an opinion, I wonder WHY they;e choosing the words and the actions they do, AND, for whatever reason, they did. I determine what they are perceiving or misperceiving.
Top, what YOU have done is basically rejected Fleenor and his opinion with YOUR own biased opinions: FIRST, that the Blaze is NOT credible and accused them of telling folks "how and what to think" , and 2nd, that ANY opinion is NOT credible unless it is based in the FBI report. 3rd, YES, YOU DID accuse Fleenor of basing his "biased" opinion on the Blaze report, instead of the FBI report BUT, after a coupe of exchanges, I can't determine if you really don't like THAT, or vehemently disagree with his actual opinion that the FBI report is "horse hockey", OR simply his 'insubordinate disrespect" for the FBI. YOU asked him if he read the FBI report, but THEN admitted that YOU had not. Well, I have to ask YOU if YOU have read the Blaze report, as well. I'm guessing not and so I'm wondering how you got to that rank, being the way you are.To quote Mr. T, I pity the fools under your command.
SO, first off, if you DID read the Blaze article, you'd see that they indeed did a GREAT job of NOT telling people "how and what to think." IN fact they went off what the local Las Vegas news station reported; which was that the Las Vegas Metro police worked with the FBI, and the local news station interviewed them, so the LVPD gave their assessment, which was that they had NO idea what the motive was. AND, the news DID read the FBI report and THEY reported that it was basically worthless to glean any (credible) info and CERTAINLY no conclusions on the motive. NOR did the LVPD. IN fact, LVPD warned against speculation, saying it'd do more harm than good. Do yourself a favor and at LEAST look at the video of the LV news report, that's IN the Blaze article and rea;lixz\ze that YOU are quick to be disrespectful to others and feel justified in judging them, simply based on YOUR contrived misperceptions of them- with NO evidence.
NOw, CPOT Fleenor,IF you know anything about the FBI is, that they are experts interviewing EVERYONE who has come in contact with a perp. The fact that YOU chose to question and dismiss the people that the FBI interviewed reveals things about you too. ONE of your reasons for saying that the FBI report was "horse hockey". was that YOU rejected and dismissed the statements that the people that were interviewed said. For some reason, you connected their statements to the FBI. The TRUTH is,the FBI simply recorded what they said and the local news reported it. For instance, the woman who gave her statement that he was strange and a loner and wouldn't shake her hand ,was a neighbor.Why wouldn't her statement be credible? I find that strange of YOU. YDO know that when folks give a statement in an interview, alot of it is THEIR opinion and assessment, whether it's based in reality or not. THAT is a whole nother issue. BUT, afa YOU, your choice to reject interviewers' statements, based on your own biases, OR that it didn't make sense to you, OR that you actually spin a statement to mean something other than was intended. reveals you. SO, why is it SO hard to believe that his neighbor found him strange? Or the fact that another said that the perp said that 'Hitler was good"? SO, have you ever been inside a casino? I lived in las veags for 2 years and knoW hwat goes on in those casino..If so, ever played the slots? Or seen how the slot machines are layed out? FYI, they're situated right next to each other, in rows. Now, folks will spend hours on a slot machine, some every day. And folks on the machines right beside the one you're playing, are within arms length. It is common for folks to have conversations while playing slots, because folks have a tendency to play the same machines. Now, it's well known that the killer went to casinos ALOT, for years, and played slots lot. Over time, those relationships can get deeper and more personal, so it's quite feasible for someone to report that he said that. NOW afa total spinning, the LVPD said that they could not conclude why the killer did what he did, BUT that arbitrarily speculating why he did it is NOT good. Now you don't agree with that? Do you think that willy nilly speculation is GOOD? Well, we won't know your position on that because you TOTALLY spun it to some nefarious intent. SO maybe YOU can explain how YOU twisted, "Don't speculate" to "Don't think". FYI, they didn't say 'Don't speculate".They said speculation can be more harmful than good and YOU ask HOW? REALLY? FYI, speculation causes protests, speculation causes riots, speculation causes assassinations, etc. FYI, don't confuse speculation for theorizing and testing theories. Theories are based on observations of real evidence. Another word for speculation is "spitballing", with no evidence, or worse, misconstrued or misinterpreted info and open to a full immersion into biases.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google