Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How often does a shooter take a gun to a place and shoot a load of people without any forethought?

Kilkrazy wrote:How often does a shooter take a gun to a place and shoot a load of people without any forethought?

Crminals often have firearms. premeditaiton means he took the gun to shoot a lot of people, or even more specifically cops.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How often does a shooter take a gun to a place and shoot a load of people without any forethought?

Crminals often have firearms. premeditaiton means he took the gun to shoot a lot of people, or even more specifically cops.

Of course he did! That was obvious from the beginning.

I really hope is not taken alive. If he is fine, I am sure we will get a conviction but I seriously doupt we will see any justice for the familys of the deseased. That was an abush, the cops had no time to react. Even with close combat training you would be extremely hard pressed to recover from an assault of that magnatude. I do wounder what type of crappy body armor if any the cops were wearing? You would think the day of showing bravado by not wearing it would be a thing of the past.

Kilkrazy wrote:How often does a shooter take a gun to a place and shoot a load of people without any forethought?

Like Frazzled said, there's different types of murder.

Premeditated means it wasn't a heat of the moment, emotional reaction. With the statement "I'll be on the news tomorrow", it means that he clearly was going to do SOMETHING, and he had given it forethought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also means there's now even less of a reason for the police to try to bring him in alive, since again--he could get off on a mental disease/defect defense.

Frazz and Kanluwen, I think you are completely missing KKs point, which is that it has been obvious that the bastard had the intention of killing someone, and therefore it was premeditated. Its been kind of obvious. His point was you don't just walk into a place and execute four police officers with a loaded weapon on a whim.

Either way, I am all for the real murderer to get a stray bullet, but the reason our system is in place is to make sure we get the right bastard in the first place. The details are still fuzzy as of right now, which is why they didn't just set the place on fire when they thought they had the SOB cornered.

Either way, the killer is loose, armed, and obviously intent on killing our brave officers. Let's just hope they stop the suspect before he gets to taking hostages.

Altered_Soul wrote:Frazz and Kanluwen, I think you are completely missing KKs point, which is that it has been obvious that the bastard had the intention of killing someone, and therefore it was premeditated. Its been kind of obvious. His point was you don't just walk into a place and execute four police officers with a loaded weapon on a whim.

Either way, I am all for the real murderer to get a stray bullet, but the reason our system is in place is to make sure we get the right bastard in the first place. The details are still fuzzy as of right now, which is why they didn't just set the place on fire when they thought they had the SOB cornered.

Either way, the killer is loose, armed, and obviously intent on killing our brave officers. Let's just hope they stop the suspect before he gets to taking hostages.

No I am not missing it. I am saying that "Premeditation" is not the same as the act. We now have evidence of "Premeditation" which helps confirm the ""Capital" nature of this crime which means in Texas he would get the "needle," but I don't know about Washington, because people on the West Coast are "Lenient" but they pobably use less of these "" when they "Post."

My post was so strange even I didn't get it.

Frazzled wrote:No I am not missing it. I am saying that "Premeditation" is not the same as the act. We now have evidence of "Premeditation" which helps confirm the ""Capital" nature of this crime which means in Texas he would get the "needle," but I don't know about Washington, because people on the West Coast are "Lenient" but they pobably use less of these "" when they "Post."

My post was so strange even I didn't get it.

Well, speaking for KK, I think we are arguing over the same point. He was somewhat snarkily saying that its been obvious that it was premeditated due to the act itself. In other words, he was saying: "No feces Sherlock!".

In other news, just to clear something up, the current suspect has not been proven to be killer, and the authorities haven't given any evidence, yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_officers_shot;_ylt=AsVt5NHV7lpUnewlU47gsKys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNoa2dvdHNkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTMwL3VzX29mZmljZXJzX3Nob3QEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMxMARwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDc3VzcGVjdGlub2Zm

The dude is still a dangerous person, but lets just hope they are closing in on the correct suspect. No matter who it ends up being, the murderer is a dangerous person on the loose, and if this guy turns out to be the wrong one, they are that much further from bringing whomever it ends up being to justice.

EDIT: Also, West Coast? Lol, from my original digs from "Yankee Land", indeed. But damn Phoenix is just a "I couldn't afford LA"-West Coast. Oh you Texans .

"Not proven to be the killer"?

ROFL.

Yeah, let's discount the eyewitness testimony from the barrista, or the other patrons in the cafe. Or the security cameras that saw him.

They're declining to give the evidence because that's proper procedure. You don't discuss ongoing investigations with the media, other than vagueries. To do otherwise could unduly influence the public and allow for a mistrial or jury tampering.

Kanluwen wrote:"Not proven to be the killer"?

ROFL.

Yeah, let's discount the eyewitness testimony from the barrista, or the other patrons in the cafe. Or the security cameras that saw him.

They're declining to give the evidence because that's proper procedure. You don't discuss ongoing investigations with the media, other than vagueries. To do otherwise could unduly influence the public and allow for a mistrial or jury tampering.

Yes, but what if its someone that looks similar? What if they are chasing a known convict (whom in my opinion is 99% the son of a bitch), when the actual murderer is running loose? Killing the rapist/convict/current suspect, no matter how much anyone thinks he deserves it if he is the son of a bitch, could ruin the hunt. Bring him in, question him, try him, strap him to a chair, goodnight. Unless Huckabee intervenes.

Or, bring him in, question him, find out he was somewhere else, send out the SWAT teams to find another suspect and repeat the first circumstance.

That's the process. Like you yourself said, we, the public, have no evidence against him. The police have yet to release it.

Okay. Let's put it like this.

They've already issued a warrant for his arrest on the evidence and statements they have been given. They're currently speaking with his family, who stated that he was planning something and discussing how he will "be on the news tommorow".

It's over. You lose, you're wrong, lalalala. It's really that simple.

Kanluwen wrote:Okay. Let's put it like this.

They've already issued a warrant for his arrest on the evidence and statements they have been given. They're currently speaking with his family, who stated that he was planning something and discussing how he will "be on the news tommorow".

It's over. You lose, you're wrong, lalalala. It's really that simple.

All from the news, who are clearly never ever ever ever wrong. Again, you said it yourself, the police have not made a statement on evidence. Of course a warrant is out, he is the primary suspect, you arrest those people. A warrant isn't an indictment.

You are failing to see the point of my posts, which is to say killing him could hinder the case in finding the true son of a bitch, even though it is most likely him. Even if he was innocent, if he faces off against officers he will be shot dead, and good riddance.

Yeah, let's give him a nice fair trial. That worked out great with OJ.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, let's give him a nice fair trial. That worked out great with OJ.

Still not quite getting my point are you? By arguing against me, you are saying that if they find the current suspect and waste him, all is well with the world again, case closed, end of story? I never knew hunting down suspects was that easy!

I care less about a trial right now and more that every step is stopping the murderer. Whom everyone has so cavalierly (wow that's a word) judged to be the current suspect.

Of which I agree, but my thoughts mean jack donkey in actually bringing down the SOB.

So what's your point other than bumping your postcount?

The evidence is there, the police CANNOT release it. They've given statements to the media, and are actively pursuing the evidence they have. A warrant has been handed down, alongside of testimony being heard from his relatives that was(idiotically) leaked to the press that he was planning on doing something Sunday.

This isn't Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby here. It's John Wilkes-Booth.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, let's give him a nice fair trial. That worked out great with OJ.

.
Yeah, it did.

Mark Fuhrman is the number 1 reason for him not being sentenced guilty. But the case was weak and to this day remains so.

If only for this reason:
The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 CCs of blood were missing from the original eight CCs taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.

Kanluwen wrote:So what's your point other than bumping your postcount?

The evidence is there, the police CANNOT release it. They've given statements to the media, and are actively pursuing the evidence they have. A warrant has been handed down, alongside of testimony being heard from his relatives that was(idiotically) leaked to the press that he was planning on doing something Sunday.

This isn't Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby here. It's John Wilkes-Booth.

You speak as if you have conclusive evidence, when all you have is currently, as far as you know, hearsay. How would justice be served if it is not properly executed, ruling out all potentials. Your method of "solving" this is illogical.

So, a visual identification, video identification, and all the other "circumstantial" evidence is a wash?

Well, then I guess the Beltway Sniper's innocent in your book too, huh?

As far as I can tell Altered_Soul is entirely right. There is no reason why this guys face could not have been slapped onto the story, just to give people something to yell at. The whole connection to Huckabee only makes it more likely to be the case.

That said, whoever is running from the cops right now, if wounded, will die from blood loss soon. I highly doubt there will be any trial either way, but as long as they find the right guy justice will be served either way.

Kanluwen wrote:So, a visual identification, video identification, and all the other "circumstantial" evidence is a wash?

Well, then I guess the Beltway Sniper's innocent in your book too, huh?

You are still missing the point. I have never once said: The current suspect is innocent. In fact, I have reiterated post after post that from what the news (the news mind you) has told me, along with his priors, and all the stuff you keep bringing up, he is the SOB.

I am countering your brazen lack of looking at a picture much larger than the puzzle piece you covet so dearly. Why, under proper, logical police work, would they stop looking for other suspects, why would they just kill the one they have now? Closure isn't always a bullet in the head. I never said they should stop hunting this dude down. Clearly you are just trying to paint me as some sort of apologist, trolling, or you really don't get my point.

Either that or you think police work works like an episode of Law and Order.

Wrexasaur wrote:As far as I can tell Altered_Soul is entirely right. There is no reason why this guys face could not have been slapped onto the story, just to give people something to yell at. The whole connection to Huckabee only makes it more likely to be the case.

I am not really saying that either. I am saying that a warrant is not an indictment, no matter how conclusive evidence is. A warrant is part of the investigation, not a death sentence. This suspect pulls a gun on a SWAT team, he is going to get a skull full of .223. And all for the better. But finding the SOB is a process, not a posse.

Oh no, I'm very much aware of how police work functions bud.

There is no REASON for them to look for another suspect. They've got all the evidence they need for a slam dunk case, even excluding the priors.

Kanluwen wrote:Oh no, I'm very much aware of how police work functions bud.

There is no REASON for them to look for another suspect. They've got all the evidence they need for a slam dunk case, even excluding the priors.

OK good, we're on the same page. Now to clarify. So you are saying that this scum should be the only suspect ever? And that no one should be thinking that there could be another suspect, ever? A potential cop-killer that is getting away?

I am sure the police who are looking for justice for their fallen comrades feel the same way, they are just going to kill this suspect if he doesn't surrender, and justice is served? That's just ridiculous to limit a hunt for a psychopath like that. You follow your leads, but never assume its a single solution. What if there were accomplices, what if this guy is being framed (however unlikely). As much as I agree that he is the SOB, a logical thought process would be evaluating and following up on anything that progresses the investigation.

EDIT: Spelling.

mstersmith wrote:I do wounder what type of crappy body armor if any the cops were wearing?

I'd assume standard vests under their uniforms, if they were wearing them.

Most cops don't wear tactical armor like SWAT as part of their duty uniforms.
____

@Altered Soul: What's really slowed is that Washington State had him in lockup for child rape and assaulting an officer, but released him on bail 6 days ago. I'd like to know who granted bail.

Altered_Soul wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh no, I'm very much aware of how police work functions bud.

There is no REASON for them to look for another suspect. They've got all the evidence they need for a slam dunk case, even excluding the priors.

OK good, we're on the same page. Now to clarify. So you are saying that this scum should be the only suspect ever? And that no one should be thinking that there could be another suspect, ever? A potential cop-killer that is getting away?

I am sure the police who are looking for justice for their fallen comrades feel the same way, they are just going to kill this suspect if he doesn't surrender, and justice is served? That's just ridiculous to limit a hunt for a psychopath like that. You follow your leads, but never assume its a single solution. What if there were accomplices, what if this guy is being framed (however unlikely). As much as I agree that he is the SOB, a logical though process would be evaluating and following up on anything that progresses the investigation.

Okay. They're not going to start investigating every Tom, Dick, and Harry who pops up saying "Well, I didn't see him shooting those officers--BUT I SAW OSAMA BIN LADEN DO IT!" or garbage leads of that nature. It'd be irresponsible to do that, as would looking for accomplices when you have a number of credible eyewitnesses, surveillance video footage, and the statements from the family members that he was planning something.

That's the "logical thought process" here. You follow the EVIDENCE. You don't start assuming a conspiracy or some kind of frame job, or any number of things of that nature.

Cops got him
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010393433_webarrest01m.html

news article wrote:Maurice Clemmons, the suspect wanted in slaying of four Lakewood police officers, was shot and killed in South Seattle early this morning.

Clemmons was standing outside in the 4400 block of South Kenyon Street when he was confronted by officers. He challenged the officers and was shot around 2:40 a.m.

See, they shot him dead on sight.

Did I call it or what?

Do you want a cookie now John or could you just shut up about it?

Good job, saved the taxpayers some money as they say!

Wonder what would make someone do that.

The executions, not the shooting of the BG.

I guess he had some sort of deep in built loathing of cops, coupled with a mental problem?

We have all met a bad cop, the thing is, we have all met a great cop too. I guess crazy people dont have the ability to empathise with other human beings and as a result dont feel any guilt at all over the thought of killing people you didnt even know.