14 Killed in Shooting in San Bernardino (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

I consider myself a moderate on gun issues. I've posted this in the gun control threads but I actually worked at the NRA around the time of Waco and the "Jackbooted Thugs" fiasco. Was an interesting time. The problem is that I find it increasingly hard to be a moderate, as the NRA ILA (which is the lobbying arm) has basically taken an intransigent position against ANY legislation that can be interpreted as curtailing access. This has gotten worse over the last 20 years since I left and is out of step with even what the rank and file members typically want.

The intransigence goes both ways, though. I'd be thrilled to have a huge compromise and have a combined bill that included background checks on every gun sale with outlawing abortions for babies older than 20 weeks.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Apparently another FBI spokesman says they're done with the place, so maybe DD is right.

Is he ever wrong? Spoiler alert: not really.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Apparently another FBI spokesman says they're done with the place, so maybe DD is right.

FBI probably turned it back over to the locals and the locals decided to turn it back over to land owner and not guard it. I'm guessing they didn't expect the landlord to have a open house though. It may seem sloppy but this isn't 1985, the crime scene technology we have now is quite amazing.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

I consider myself a moderate on gun issues. I've posted this in the gun control threads but I actually worked at the NRA around the time of Waco and the "Jackbooted Thugs" fiasco. Was an interesting time. The problem is that I find it increasingly hard to be a moderate, as the NRA ILA (which is the lobbying arm) has basically taken an intransigent position against ANY legislation that can be interpreted as curtailing access. This has gotten worse over the last 20 years since I left and is out of step with even what the rank and file members typically want.

The intransigence goes both ways, though. I'd be thrilled to have a huge compromise and have a combined bill that included background checks on every gun sale with outlawing abortions for babies older than 20 weeks.

GTFO

 

[TobiasFunke]

I consider myself a moderate on gun issues. I've posted this in the gun control threads but I actually worked at the NRA around the time of Waco and the "Jackbooted Thugs" fiasco. Was an interesting time. The problem is that I find it increasingly hard to be a moderate, as the NRA ILA (which is the lobbying arm) has basically taken an intransigent position against ANY legislation that can be interpreted as curtailing access. This has gotten worse over the last 20 years since I left and is out of step with even what the rank and file members typically want.

The intransigence goes both ways, though. I'd be thrilled to have a huge compromise and have a combined bill that included background checks on every gun sale with outlawing abortions for babies older than 20 weeks.

Sounds good. When you get 80% support for your proposed abortion-limiting measure like there was for the "no guns to people on the terror watch list" that the GOP voted down yesterday (and you address any Constitutional concerns) I'll be happy to join you in chastising the Dems for not passing it.

Until then, see Nick Vermeil's post.

 

[Clifford]

I wish Obama would just man up and pass some kind of executive order outlawing sales of firearms until we go one full quarter without a senseless shooting.

ummmmmmm forgot the tag.... right?

No. I have gone on record many times saying there is nothing more stupid or naive when it comes to human nature than the 2nd amendment. It is a completely laughable, outdated notion based on centuries old arms and people.Nothing on earth could be more stupid than saying every single natural born citizen in the United States is sane and responsible enough to own a gun and not be a danger to others or themselves.

/Rant

so how does the stopping of new gun sales stop something like this happening? Or do you think this order would be around for years until every gun out there right now just stopped working.. and if so do we outlaw repair materials and those that repair legally owned guns?Or do you think we should not sell any new guns and send out troops to round up any guns people currently own legally?

Just seems strange to say "stop selling new guns" and think that would be all that is needed.

It would financially motivate Republicans blocking gun control measures to stop blocking them and make efforts to actually do something to stop random mass shootings.

Also please point out where I suggested that would be all that is needed, I don't remember saying that.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Apparently another FBI spokesman says they're done with the place, so maybe DD is right.

Is he ever wrong? Spoiler alert: not really.

I was wrong about starting Tamme over Richard Rodgers

 

[CBusAlex]

I consider myself a moderate on gun issues. I've posted this in the gun control threads but I actually worked at the NRA around the time of Waco and the "Jackbooted Thugs" fiasco. Was an interesting time. The problem is that I find it increasingly hard to be a moderate, as the NRA ILA (which is the lobbying arm) has basically taken an intransigent position against ANY legislation that can be interpreted as curtailing access. This has gotten worse over the last 20 years since I left and is out of step with even what the rank and file members typically want.

The intransigence goes both ways, though. I'd be thrilled to have a huge compromise and have a combined bill that included background checks on every gun sale with outlawing abortions for babies older than 20 weeks.

Man, talk about a trap bill for GOP congressmen. A no vote means you're for killing babies. A yes vote means you let Obama take our guns, presumably so he can use them to kill babies.

 

[shader]

Pledged loyalty to ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Least surprising news ever

What is CNN doing? It goes against Obama's agenda. Gun control. Gun control would have prevented this. Back on task.

To be fair, gun control could make the ISIS problem a lot worse in the US. It would be hard for ISIS to get weapons from the middle east to the US if there were few guns here. Of course that's not something they need to worry with because it appears that half of the people in this country have armories in their basements for some reason.

Unless you have the ability to get rid of all guns in this country, increased background checks, limited round capacity mags, ban on assult weapons (old ones grandfathered in) will change nothing. California has some of the strictest gun control laws and apparently he got the weapon legally (still waiting on full confirmation). California requires a background check for private sales. If that was done, what else do you propose for gun control besides eliminating them?

How about if we try to expand background checks and try to prevent people on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms? Maybe it wouldn't have stopped this attack (although it's possible someone on the list purchased some of the weapons for him). But it could help prevent similar attacks in the future, or reduce the firepower available to the terrorist.

Oh, wait- we did try that. The Republicans voted it down last night.

I'll admit I know little about the process. What means, "The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate"

The Manchin and Feinstein measures went down during a series of votes in which the Democratic proposals were paired with Republican counteroffers that also failed to be adopted by the Senate. All the amendments needed 60 votes to be adopted.

Imagine that no compromise. Everyone to their corners and buckel down.

I'm not sure what the "pairing" references. Maybe it was just a reference to the way they were presented? I'm pretty sure each amendment received a vote. Here's the roll call on the terror watch list amendment.

A measure like this shouldn't be something that requires compromise. The public favors it 77%-18%. Even Republicans favor it 76%-20%. I can't recall seeing low-cost legislation with those kind of numbers get voted down before. This was about one thing and one thing only- NRA money.

If anyone needs proof that Congress is a total sham it's the tweets that show the amount of money that the NRA pays congressmen. It's horrible. And of course, it's not just a republican thing. This kind of thing happens with all congressmen on all sorts of issues. Unbelievable that it's legal.

 

[Sand]

Sounds good. When you get 80% support for your proposed abortion-limiting measure like there was for the "no guns to people on the terror watch list" that the GOP voted down yesterday (and you address any Constitutional concerns) I'll be happy to join you in chastising the Dems for not passing it.

Has to be due process in limiting a US citizen's constitutional rights. I don't believe there is any in being put on the no fly list or this list.

Man, talk about a trap bill for GOP congressmen. A no vote means you're for killing babies. A yes vote means you let Obama take our guns, presumably so he can use them to kill babies.

Never understood the big deal about background checks for private sales - we have accepted them for new gun sales. I'd see it as a huge win for Rs, but the backlash after Obama mows down a bunch of babies with confiscated guns could be sticky, I agree.

 

[Jobber]

Pledged loyalty to ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Least surprising news ever

What is CNN doing? It goes against Obama's agenda. Gun control. Gun control would have prevented this. Back on task.

To be fair, gun control could make the ISIS problem a lot worse in the US. It would be hard for ISIS to get weapons from the middle east to the US if there were few guns here. Of course that's not something they need to worry with because it appears that half of the people in this country have armories in their basements for some reason.

Unless you have the ability to get rid of all guns in this country, increased background checks, limited round capacity mags, ban on assult weapons (old ones grandfathered in) will change nothing. California has some of the strictest gun control laws and apparently he got the weapon legally (still waiting on full confirmation). California requires a background check for private sales. If that was done, what else do you propose for gun control besides eliminating them?

How about if we try to expand background checks and try to prevent people on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms? Maybe it wouldn't have stopped this attack (although it's possible someone on the list purchased some of the weapons for him). But it could help prevent similar attacks in the future, or reduce the firepower available to the terrorist.

Oh, wait- we did try that. The Republicans voted it down last night.

I'll admit I know little about the process. What means, "The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate"

The Manchin and Feinstein measures went down during a series of votes in which the Democratic proposals were paired with Republican counteroffers that also failed to be adopted by the Senate. All the amendments needed 60 votes to be adopted.

Imagine that no compromise. Everyone to their corners and buckel down.

I'm not sure what the "pairing" references. Maybe it was just a reference to the way they were presented? I'm pretty sure each amendment received a vote. Here's the roll call on the terror watch list amendment.

A measure like this shouldn't be something that requires compromise. The public favors it 77%-18%. Even Republicans favor it 76%-20%. I can't recall seeing low-cost legislation with those kind of numbers get voted down before. This was about one thing and one thing only- NRA money.

If anyone needs proof that Congress is a total sham it's the tweets that show the amount of money that the NRA pays congressmen. It's horrible. And of course, it's not just a republican thing. This kind of thing happens with all congressmen on all sorts of issues. Unbelievable that it's legal.

Am I reading this as the Terrorist gun sale bill was standalone? Or was it the usual BS of tacking it onto another unrelated bill?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

lol at curious neighbors with their dogs going in now.

 

[ATC1]

If anyone needs proof that Congress is a total sham it's the tweets that show the amount of money that the NRA pays congressmen. It's horrible. And of course, it's not just a republican thing. This kind of thing happens with all congressmen on all sorts of issues. Unbelievable that it's legal.

Am I reading this as the Terrorist gun sale bill was standalone? Or was it the usual BS of tacking it onto another unrelated bill?

That was where I was going with my question. America is reacting to the events of the other day and the Democracts are using it. Exactly why Trump keeps rising in the polls. I agree this needs to get done, but I don't think the rebulicans want a repeat of Obamacare where a bunch of nonsense is included in a bill. Is that he case here? I don't know.

 

[shader]

ISIS news agency reporting that the attack was carried out by ISIS followers.

I think this is an example of them claiming credit after the fact. I doubt they knew who these two were or that they even existed. Which, I guess, is actually what they want.

 

[The Commish]

Glad to hear this thread has turned into "our president sucks" so quickly.

It's not that, it's just his timing on the statements were so terrible. He just needs to stop making sweeping statements concerning ISIS. They are a real threat to this country. I get that he's trying to calm people's fears, but these guys are so unpredictable there's no telling what they can do.I will say my biggest fear when it comes to terrorism, and I'm surprised we haven't seen it already in this country, is a car bomb. I mean it seems to be a daily occurrence in the Middle East with somebody setting off a car bomb. All it would take is a few of those going off in some major cities and that would create some real genuine fear in this country.

But that's the thing about terrorism, is that if you allow yourselves to be terrified they have achieved their motives. And there are politicians who very much want the fears stoked to achieve their goals. The world is a dangerous place. The US is a dangerous place. I'm not sure how much ratcheting up fear does anyone any good, except those who want to sell guns and lead us down a path to Fascism.

Many thrive on fear

 

[jonessed]

Pledged loyalty to ISIS.http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Least surprising news ever

What is CNN doing? It goes against Obama's agenda. Gun control. Gun control would have prevented this. Back on task.

To be fair, gun control could make the ISIS problem a lot worse in the US. It would be hard for ISIS to get weapons from the middle east to the US if there were few guns here. Of course that's not something they need to worry with because it appears that half of the people in this country have armories in their basements for some reason.

Unless you have the ability to get rid of all guns in this country, increased background checks, limited round capacity mags, ban on assult weapons (old ones grandfathered in) will change nothing. California has some of the strictest gun control laws and apparently he got the weapon legally (still waiting on full confirmation). California requires a background check for private sales. If that was done, what else do you propose for gun control besides eliminating them?

How about if we try to expand background checks and try to prevent people on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms? Maybe it wouldn't have stopped this attack (although it's possible someone on the list purchased some of the weapons for him). But it could help prevent similar attacks in the future, or reduce the firepower available to the terrorist.

Oh, wait- we did try that. The Republicans voted it down last night.

I'll admit I know little about the process. What means, "The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate"

The Manchin and Feinstein measures went down during a series of votes in which the Democratic proposals were paired with Republican counteroffers that also failed to be adopted by the Senate. All the amendments needed 60 votes to be adopted.

Imagine that no compromise. Everyone to their corners and buckel down.

I'm not sure what the "pairing" references. Maybe it was just a reference to the way they were presented? I'm pretty sure each amendment received a vote. Here's the roll call on the terror watch list amendment.

A measure like this shouldn't be something that requires compromise. The public favors it 77%-18%. Even Republicans favor it 76%-20%. I can't recall seeing low-cost legislation with those kind of numbers get voted down before. This was about one thing and one thing only- NRA money.

If anyone needs proof that Congress is a total sham it's the tweets that show the amount of money that the NRA pays congressmen. It's horrible. And of course, it's not just a republican thing. This kind of thing happens with all congressmen on all sorts of issues. Unbelievable that it's legal.

Am I reading this as the Terrorist gun sale bill was standalone? Or was it the usual BS of tacking it onto another unrelated bill?

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

 

[The Commish]

Apparently newspaper reporters, shocked at what they're seeing, called the FBI to ask if the apartment is open to the media and were told no, that it's still an active investigation site.

Excellent work, everyone.

Jesus that landlord is a moron.

hard pressed to blame the landlord here for ultimate responsibility....where is the FBI?? herding cats??

 

[Loan Sharks]

lol at curious neighbors with their dogs going in now.

Are the charging the yokels two bits a gander?

 

[The Commish]

Glad to hear this thread has turned into "our president sucks" so quickly.

It's not that, it's just his timing on the statements were so terrible. He just needs to stop making sweeping statements concerning ISIS. They are a real threat to this country. I get that he's trying to calm people's fears, but these guys are so unpredictable there's no telling what they can do.I will say my biggest fear when it comes to terrorism, and I'm surprised we haven't seen it already in this country, is a car bomb. I mean it seems to be a daily occurrence in the Middle East with somebody setting off a car bomb. All it would take is a few of those going off in some major cities and that would create some real genuine fear in this country.

But that's the thing about terrorism, is that if you allow yourselves to be terrified they have achieved their motives. And there are politicians who very much want the fears stoked to achieve their goals. The world is a dangerous place. The US is a dangerous place. I'm not sure how much ratcheting up fear does anyone any good, except those who want to sell guns and lead us down a path to Fascism.

Best post I've read in a thread on terrorism or an incident in a long time.

"Don't let the terrorists win" is such a simple message but it still can't be repeated enough. This case is unusual, but generally speaking, killing people isn't the end goal of terrorists, it's a means to an end. Don't let them achieve that end.

 

[jonessed]

ISIS news agency reporting that the attack was carried out by ISIS followers.

I think this is an example of them claiming credit after the fact. I doubt they knew who these two were or that they even existed. Which, I guess, is actually what they want.

The FBI has already stated they were in contact with known terrorists and we know that the wife proclaimed allegiance to ISIS. Why would a connection back to a terrorist organization be unexpected? It would seem rather obvious to me.

 

[The Commish]

Apparently newspaper reporters, shocked at what they're seeing, called the FBI to ask if the apartment is open to the media and were told no, that it's still an active investigation site.

Excellent work, everyone.

Jesus that landlord is a moron.

hard pressed to blame the landlord here for ultimate responsibility....where is the FBI?? herding cats??

Nevermind...finally got to the end of the thread.

 

[shader]

ISIS news agency reporting that the attack was carried out by ISIS followers.

I think this is an example of them claiming credit after the fact. I doubt they knew who these two were or that they even existed. Which, I guess, is actually what they want.

The FBI has already stated they were in contact with known terrorists and we know that the wife proclaimed allegiance to ISIS. Why would a connection back to a terrorist organization be unexpected? It would seem rather obvious to me.

I guess my point is that the one odd thing to me is that ISIS didn't claim responsibility early on. You'd think this is something that they would want to jump on. They've been talking for the last year about hitting America.

Now hours after the FBI confirms that the woman was an ISIS follower, ISIS comes out and claims that their followers did it.

I don't think ISIS knew this was going to happen or planned it, which is my point. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything and in some ways it scarier if these things start happening without ISIS knowing about it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm not sure what the "pairing" references. Maybe it was just a reference to the way they were presented? I'm pretty sure each amendment received a vote. Here's the roll call on the terror watch list amendment.

A measure like this shouldn't be something that requires compromise. The public favors it 77%-18%. Even Republicans favor it 76%-20%. I can't recall seeing low-cost legislation with those kind of numbers get voted down before. This was about one thing and one thing only- NRA money.

If anyone needs proof that Congress is a total sham it's the tweets that show the amount of money that the NRA pays congressmen. It's horrible. And of course, it's not just a republican thing. This kind of thing happens with all congressmen on all sorts of issues. Unbelievable that it's legal.

Am I reading this as the Terrorist gun sale bill was standalone? Or was it the usual BS of tacking it onto another unrelated bill?

It was an amendment to the Obamacare partial repeal and planned parenthood defund, but it was a standalone vote. Each proposed amendment gets a vote during the amendment process. They were voting up or down on the terror watch list restriction alone. If they had approved it then eventually it would have been subject to another vote rolling it in with the rest of the bill, but it never got to that stage.

This wasn't the first time around for this idea, by the way. It's been proposed in one form or another since 2007, with gun rights advocates and members sympathetic to their cause blocking it each time. There are IMO some reasonable concerns, namely the breadth of the terror watch list. But I would argue that if we're willing to block something as fundamental as the right to travel freely under the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the name of public safety and an abundance of caution, we should be more than willing to block the right to gun ownership (especially since it says "well regulated" right there in the Amendment). And it would be simple enough to set up an appeals process.

 

[Clifford]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

 

[Clifford]

I'm not sure what the "pairing" references. Maybe it was just a reference to the way they were presented? I'm pretty sure each amendment received a vote. Here's the roll call on the terror watch list amendment.

A measure like this shouldn't be something that requires compromise. The public favors it 77%-18%. Even Republicans favor it 76%-20%. I can't recall seeing low-cost legislation with those kind of numbers get voted down before. This was about one thing and one thing only- NRA money.

If anyone needs proof that Congress is a total sham it's the tweets that show the amount of money that the NRA pays congressmen. It's horrible. And of course, it's not just a republican thing. This kind of thing happens with all congressmen on all sorts of issues. Unbelievable that it's legal.

Am I reading this as the Terrorist gun sale bill was standalone? Or was it the usual BS of tacking it onto another unrelated bill?

It was an amendment to the Obamacare partial repeal and planned parenthood defund, but it was a standalone vote. Each proposed amendment gets a vote during the amendment process. They were voting up or down on the terror watch list restriction alone. If they had approved it then eventually it would have been subject to another vote rolling it in with the rest of the bill, but it never got to that stage.

This wasn't the first time around for this idea, by the way. It's been proposed in one form or another since 2007, with gun rights advocates and members sympathetic to their cause blocking it each time. There are IMO some reasonable concerns, namely the breadth of the terror watch list. But I would argue that if we're willing to block something as fundamental as the right to travel freely under the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the name of public safety and an abundance of caution, we should be more than willing to block the right to gun ownership (especially since it says "well regulated" right there in the Amendment). And it would be simple enough to set up an appeals process.

It also says militia. So if we are going to keep this outdated and incredibly destructive "right" how about we start interpreting it as strictly as possible.

Sorry, I will curtail gun rights talk so this can be about news.

 

[Slapdash]

So apparently the landlord let TV news folks into the suspects' apartment and they're just walking around rifling through stuff on air right now.

WHY!@#!@#!@#!#@

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FASCINATION

CNN reporters are narcissistic ####lords

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm not sure what the "pairing" references. Maybe it was just a reference to the way they were presented? I'm pretty sure each amendment received a vote. Here's the roll call on the terror watch list amendment.

A measure like this shouldn't be something that requires compromise. The public favors it 77%-18%. Even Republicans favor it 76%-20%. I can't recall seeing low-cost legislation with those kind of numbers get voted down before. This was about one thing and one thing only- NRA money.

If anyone needs proof that Congress is a total sham it's the tweets that show the amount of money that the NRA pays congressmen. It's horrible. And of course, it's not just a republican thing. This kind of thing happens with all congressmen on all sorts of issues. Unbelievable that it's legal.

Am I reading this as the Terrorist gun sale bill was standalone? Or was it the usual BS of tacking it onto another unrelated bill?

It was an amendment to the Obamacare partial repeal and planned parenthood defund, but it was a standalone vote. Each proposed amendment gets a vote during the amendment process. They were voting up or down on the terror watch list restriction alone. If they had approved it then eventually it would have been subject to another vote rolling it in with the rest of the bill, but it never got to that stage.

This wasn't the first time around for this idea, by the way. It's been proposed in one form or another since 2007, with gun rights advocates and members sympathetic to their cause blocking it each time. There are IMO some reasonable concerns, namely the breadth of the terror watch list. But I would argue that if we're willing to block something as fundamental as the right to travel freely under the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the name of public safety and an abundance of caution, we should be more than willing to block the right to gun ownership (especially since it says "well regulated" right there in the Amendment). And it would be simple enough to set up an appeals process.

It also says militia. So if we are going to keep this outdated and incredibly destructive "right" how about we start interpreting it as strictly as possible.

Sorry, I will curtail gun rights talk so this can be about news.

Obviously you're right, but that battle is lost. Reason and logic lost out to NRA lobbying and messaging on the Second Amendment decades ago. This, however, is a battle that still can be won.

 

[jonessed]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

It's not a boundless right. We strip the right to gun ownership from plenty of people based on things like age, mental health, and drug addiction (with no criminal conviction needed) in the name of public safety. And we make people wait all the time, which is all you'd be doing if you passed the law and included an appeals process for those who feel they were wrongly excluded.

To my knowledge not one of the people who opposed the legislation said that they did so because they felt they were obligated to do so under the Constitution. Those who spoke on it gave "practical" reasons for their votes.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

 

[Willie Neslon]

CNN just found that Malaysia plane in the guy's house!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

Has the FBI itself commented on this yet?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Blake McCoy Verified account ‏@BlakeNBC

An absolute circus here at shooting suspects' apartment. Door being boarded back up by landlord.

https://twitter.com/BlakeNBC/status/672847284011315200

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Jesse Marx ‏@marxjesse 8m8 minutes ago

FBI asst dir Bowdich says two crushed cell phones have been recovered. Suspects tried to destroy digital fingerprint.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

Has the FBI itself commented on this yet?

Not sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Richard Winton Verified account ‏@LAcrimes 7m7 minutes ago

“We are working with our foreign counterparts,” said Asst dir of FBI calling San Bernardino shooting "act of terrorism “

 

[sho nuff]

On the one who purchased the rifles.

"is the person in custody"

"He is not under arrest at this point"

Question repeated with same answer repeated.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Reporter threatening to deport the housekeeper!

 

[sho nuff]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

Has the FBI itself commented on this yet?

Guy just commented that once they went through and cleared what they needed they were no longer in control of the scene.

They left the list of what they took and got out and its up to either local or the landlord now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

Has the FBI itself commented on this yet?

Guy just commented that once they went through and cleared what they needed they were no longer in control of the scene.

They left the list of what they took and got out and its up to either local or the landlord now.

Thanks.

 

[Ladsud]

Why arent they releasing the picture of the foreign national terrorist?

 

[netnalp]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

I just hope the FBI is more thorough than police are when it comes to collecting evidence. Granted my experience of poor police work is limited to one investigation. But they missed a bunch of evidence my brother had placed into an XBox gaming console box. They had the box in their custody but never bothered to open it.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

YAY Religion!

 

[top dog]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

I just hope the FBI is more thorough than police are when it comes to collecting evidence. Granted my experience of poor police work is limited to one investigation. But they missed a bunch of evidence my brother had placed into an XBox gaming console box. They had the box in their custody but never bothered to open it.

I once had my car towed because it was parked illegally and having fictitious plates. I was 17, the car was my parents. Plates didn't match because the plates were never transferred properly from the previous car when they bought this one. I showed up at the car when the police were having it towed and they informed me it was being impounded and if I had anything of value to remove it from the car. This allowed me to pull a gym bag out of the trunk that had some contents in it that would have gotten me in much more trouble than the plates not matching the car.

 

[Mr Fantasy]

Jesse Marx ‏@marxjesse 8m8 minutes ago

FBI asst dir Bowdich says two crushed cell phones have been recovered. Suspects tried to destroy digital fingerprint.

Taking a page from Brady's handbook

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

I just hope the FBI is more thorough than police are when it comes to collecting evidence. Granted my experience of poor police work is limited to one investigation. But they missed a bunch of evidence my brother had placed into an XBox gaming console box. They had the box in their custody but never bothered to open it.

How did they eventually discover it?I can't imagine the volume of evidence when it comes to a serial killer.

 

[top dog]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

I just hope the FBI is more thorough than police are when it comes to collecting evidence. Granted my experience of poor police work is limited to one investigation. But they missed a bunch of evidence my brother had placed into an XBox gaming console box. They had the box in their custody but never bothered to open it.

How did they eventually discover it?I can't imagine the volume of evidence when it comes to a serial killer.

If I remember the story, netnalp took it to the police and they didn't really want it.

 

[beer 30]

Apparently another FBI spokesman says they're done with the place, so maybe DD is right.

'maybe' should never be uttered in the same sentence with regards to a DD statement. He is about as black & white as they get.

And I learned a new term today, self-radicalization. Funny what lengths the media will go to to not call it an act of terrorism.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Re: open house

I spoke to a lead federal investigator in a major U.S city and he said there was no reason for the FBI to secure the scene any further. Both suspects were dead, they already took all the evidence they needed, and they most certainly looked in the walls, under the house, etc.

Talking heads may disagree, but this isn't the FBIs first rodeo. If they bring a case against you, believe that it is thorough.

Now I've been to crime scenes (mostly homicide and fire) and some are more involved than others. Arson scenes can take weeks to clear, homicide scenes several days depending on the variables. But 15-20 federal agents in an 1100 square foot house can clear a scene like this in a few hours. So I'm gonna guess they went over that scene 5+ times.

I just hope the FBI is more thorough than police are when it comes to collecting evidence. Granted my experience of poor police work is limited to one investigation. But they missed a bunch of evidence my brother had placed into an XBox gaming console box. They had the box in their custody but never bothered to open it.

How did they eventually discover it?I can't imagine the volume of evidence when it comes to a serial killer.

If I remember the story, netnalp took it to the police and they didn't really want it.

Wow. I couldn't find that thread when looking a few weeks ago. Link? Wanted to reread the details.

 

[GroveDiesel]

If I were the FBI, I'd release a statement saying that the house was still being processed for fingerprints and that anyone's fingerprints that they can identify will have to be taken in for questioning and have a deep background check run on them.

Make those idiot reporters sweat.