Mass shooting in Las Vegas, 2/10/2017

[stickdog99]

What are the odds, stickdog, that an RI contributor would lose their only son to a mass murderer who had absolutely no history of mental health.

Please pursue your theory, but for goodness sake, you cannot prove this was anything more than a lone "nutter." You have no evidence that it was anything more, so stop trying to have Jack prove something you cannot disprove.

There could be several reasons he would want to end his life this way and most of us would say none of those would be rational, but rational people do not commit mass murder unless they're working for our government as warriors of our armed forces. And afterwards, many of them do commit suicide because ultimately, they cannot rationalize the murderous acts they've witnessed or engaged in.

Paddock could have wanted to outdo his father in notoriety, and if that's the case, he's succeeded.

But let's not forget his recent bookings in other locales - he was shopping for just the right moment at just the right place, which is eerily similar to the man who killed my son, so there's that commonality between these two mass murderers; long in the planning.

Sorry, I missed all previous discussion here about your son getting murdered, and you have my sincere sympathies.

Sure, Paddock could have wanted to be the first US citizen over 55 to mass shoot more than 6 people. That still doesn't make something that has never happened before any likelier.

I only listened to AJ to the first commercial break, but if you listen for those few minutes, you'll hear AJ state "news" that Paddock had been turned to become a Muslim sympathizer by his Muslim wife, which I thought you'd appreciate, or at least mention, so I guess you didn't listen to it.

So the Muslims did it? Do you actually believe that? Thanks for saving me the trouble of listening.

So, would it be fair for me to ask you to point out for us what the shooters in the last 300 mass murders had in common? You know, those that took place over this past year. Is there any commonality at all between shooters, and if so, which ones and why?

What 300 mass shootings are you talking about? People killing themselves and their spouses?

[Burnt Hill]

No US citizen has ever been accused of shooting so many people before. No US citizen over 55 has ever killed more than 6 people in a mass shooting before. No US citizen over 55 shot only strangers in a mass shooting before. Only one US citizen over 55 planned his mass shooting, and that was to get revenge on the people who were about to send him to jail.

This is all only statistically significant.
Each event is an outlier in itself, why attribute such importance to its statistical likelihood?
Seems like an unnecessary age related bias.

[Burnt Hill]

Sure, he could have wanted to be the first US citizen over 55 mass shoot more than 6 people. That still doesn't make something that has never happened before any likelier.

Whats the likelihood any person would have been murdered by a sniper at a country music concert?
This had never happened before either.

Someone always wins the lottery, even the sucky ones, that's why we keep playing.

[stickdog99]

I think something to mull if you believe events such as these are often orchestrated wholly, or in part, by some larger organized force, is that those planning and carrying out those/these events would have to share some of the same psychological equipment of self activating "lone nuts". The only thing separating them really then is resources, organization, and access to technology all provided by institutional patronage, immunity & cover.

What they do not have in common is that the larger organizational forces do not have to then kill themselves. What they do not have in common is that the larger organizational forces can actually profit handsomely and quite easily from these events simply by playing the stock market.

But as technology continues to increasingly "empower" the motivated auteur in all realms then that really matters less and less. Also, institutional support and cover is also negligible to a point - to be completely immune you'd have to have the backing of the whole machinery of the military-industrial-entertainment-academic complex, and then everyone is basically complicit and in on it. In reality, the slaughter of innocent is always the work of evil, insane (or sane but morally bankrupt) people asserting their control over others short term or long term.

Those who order the generals to advance the privates to protect their own interests are perhaps insane, but their insanity is the insanity of all of human history. Individuals killing dozens of strangers for no reason and then offing themselves is in a whole different ballpark of insanity. The former happens continually. The latter almost never happens (fewer than 5 times in US history) and every single time it happens, the availability heuristic for exactly such events worsens exponentially. Who benefits?

To whit, there has to be individuals who never found a fuehrer nor made the black ops all star team who nevertheless are embarked on a private war against humanity, for free. Some will find a ideology to support their rampage, while others probably will just have a private narrative that supports their actions, and some will do it for the same reason that dogs lick their balls - because they can.

Or so you assume for some bizarre reason. Please name all of these individuals.

A good example is the similar but inverse example to Stephen Paddock, Lakeisha Holloway. A young, poor, single black mother decided to attack numerous innocent pedestrians on the Las Vegas strip by driving her car up on it and running over people, injuring dozens and killing one, all with her toddler in the car. Nothing I've seen so far in life tells me that just the regular day to day humdrum cruelty of society couldn't produce such a person, or nature producing one of its "anomalies", or an individual deciding that their own misery is caused by others and not themselves.

She was a mentally ill person living in her car with her daughter, and she snapped when the security guards at the casinos kept waking her up and telling her to move. How is this comparable to premeditated murder of dozens from a luxury hotel suite? The former is likely. Mentally ill people are well known to snap and lash out at others in a blind rage when pushed to the edge, especially if they feel that they have nothing to lose. The latter has never happened before in US history. No one over 55 has ever mass shot more than a handful of strangers for no reason, and each time one ever did in the past, his rampage was set off by something similar to what set off Lakeisha Holloway.

[stickdog99]

Sure, he could have wanted to be the first US citizen over 55 mass shoot more than 6 people. That still doesn't make something that has never happened before any likelier.

Whats the likelihood any person would have been murdered by a sniper at a country music concert?
This had never happened before either.

Someone always wins the lottery, even the sucky ones, that's why we keep playing.

Again, we are considering the relative likelihoods of a completely and totally brand spanking newly minted mass shooter profile in the all the annals of mass shooting versus the same old, same old well worn and indisputably documented strategy of tension.

I'm not saying he could not have done it because he's old and rich. Some of the worst people I know are old and rich. I'm saying that I don't believe that his shooting strangers for no reason whatsoever on his lonesome then offing himself is the likeliest explanation given that no motive or evidence of his guilt has been presented to me to date. And I think that my old and poor ass would appreciate others' demanding (at least on RI of all places) that some motive for and evidence of my behavior be presented by authorities before concluding it perfectly likely that I killed dozens and then myself for no reason whatsoever (or that I love watching sadistic porn for that matter).

[stickdog99]

This is all only statistically significant. Each event is an outlier in itself.

Indeed. There have been only three previous such events in all of US history in which somebody shot up dozens of innocent strangers for no reason. They are Orlando, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. All three previous cases are plagued by unbelievable law enforcement claims, complete lack of timely law enforcement response, dozens of unanswered questions, and general spook-iness. So why is this one so easy to swallow that we don't even need a motive or a shred of physical evidence before convicting Paddock in the court of likelihood?

Why attribute such importance to its statistical likelihood? Seems like an unnecessary age related bias.

Do you understand that my default is to require evidence before I convict individuals who are accused of doing something totally senseless that nobody else has ever done before in the entire history of the world? Do you get I think it is harmful to assume the likely guilt of individuals who are accused of doing something totally senseless that nobody else has ever done before in the entire history of the world without being presented any motive or evidence?

[stickdog99]

No way he could do it because he amassed some money and property? And you post a Daily Mail article quoting a prostituted woman who says he enacted rape fantasies with her and bragged about his bad blood to bolster your argument?

No, I posted the article about the lying prostitute's "dramatic revelations" because it is clearly clickbait disinfo disseminated solely to demonize a guy who otherwise has no discernible motives whatsoever for his actions. Are you sure it wasn't his questioning 9/11 that makes you so sure he must have mass murdered dozens and then offed himself for no reason?

Oh, and just in case there is any confusion here, the prostitute I am referring to is the patriarchy of The Daily Mail.

Just wow. I guess my original intuition about this thread was spot on. For me the extreme nature of this attack has led me to a critical mass in my thinking and to doubt my past assumptions. In the first days of reading the thread I had the impression that the immediate jumping onto this as a clear strategy of tension event seemed like a way to shield and run interference for yet another misogynistic super-perpetrator and obscure the rust and rot of the crumbling anti life-on-Earth patriarchal infrastructure.

You do realize that I simply think it more likely that more powerful and well organized misogynistic super-perpetrators are to blame? You do realize that I simply think it more likely that those who most profit from the crumbling anti life-on-Earth patriarchal infrastructure are to blame?

[stickdog99]

That, his age, and his lack of documented psychological disorders are the main reason he does not fit the mass shooter profile one iota.

At this point, and considering other evidence, I would see this as he never got the help he needed.

What evidence? The Daily Mail's prostitute? Or the reflexive "evidence" of presumed guilt?

[mentalgongfu2]

[url]

Again, we are considering the relative likelihoods of a completely and totally brand spanking newly minted mass shooter profile in the all the annals of mass shooting versus the same old, same old well worn and indisputably documented strategy of tension.

The idea of a consistent mass shooter profile at all is largely a media myth.

edit: sorry, wrong link
Having trouble finding the correct interview - but it is one I heard to today with this author

http://www.jaclynschildkraut.com/

MASS SHOOTINGS: MEDIA, MYTHS, AND REALITIES NOW AVAILABLE

Jaclyn and her research partner, H. Jaymi Elsass, have released their seminal book, Mass Shootings: Media, Myths, and Realities, under the Praeger imprint. The book provides a critical examination of mass shootings as told by the media, offering research-based, factual answers to often asked questions and investigates common myths about these tragic events.


_______

Not the one I was looking for, but instructive nonetheless:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/after-vegas/

[stickdog99]

[url]

Again, we are considering the relative likelihoods of a completely and totally brand spanking newly minted mass shooter profile in the all the annals of mass shooting versus the same old, same old well worn and indisputably documented strategy of tension.

The idea of a consistent mass shooter profile at all is largely a media myth.

edit: sorry, wrong link
Having trouble finding the correct interview - but it is one I heard to today with this author

http://www.jaclynschildkraut.com/

MASS SHOOTINGS: MEDIA, MYTHS, AND REALITIES NOW AVAILABLE

Jaclyn and her research partner, H. Jaymi Elsass, have released their seminal book, Mass Shootings: Media, Myths, and Realities, under the Praeger imprint. The book provides a critical examination of mass shootings as told by the media, offering research-based, factual answers to often asked questions and investigates common myths about these tragic events.

Not the one I was looking for, but instructive nonetheless:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/after-vegas/

I would love to read this book, and I am relatively certain that is would support my argument that senseless mass shooting events are incredibly unlikely but subject to a clear media driven representative heuristic that encourages us to believe they are likely, which in turn encourages more males to fantasize about them.

I guess I was right, at least according to her doctoral dissertation.

Though rampage shootings are rare in occurrence, the
disproportionate amount of coverage they receive in the media leads the public to believe
that they occur at a much more regular frequency than they do. Further, within this group
of specialized events, there is a greater tendency to focus on those that are the most
newsworthy, which is categorized most often by those with the highest body counts. This
biased presentation can lead to a number of outcomes, including fear of crime, behavioral
changes, and even copycat attacks from other, like-minded perpetrators.

...

Each of these events has become, albeit at varying intensities, what Kellner (2003,
2008a, 2008b) calls a “media spectacle,” whereby media outlets will cover every facet of
a story in an effort to win the ratings war. Through local, national, and even international
media, these stories permeate television screens, especially on 24-hour news stations,
such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Headlines are splashed across daily newspapers,
and the transition of these papers to digital news via the Internet allows even faster and
more frequent story generation. These spectacles essentially take relatively uncommon
events, sensationalize them, and make the events appear far more commonplace than they
actually are (Kellner, 2008a; Surette, 1992). Further, the media use these events to
“present a world of crime and justice that is not found in reality” (Surette, 1992, p. 246).

There are a number of outcomes that result from the glorification of mass murder
events beyond ratings. Fear of crime among news consumers can increase (e.g., Chiricos,
Padgett, & Gertz, 2000; Heath & Gilbert, 1996; Kaminski, Koons-Witt, Thompson, &
Weiss, 2010; Kupchik & Bracy, 2009; Liska, Lawrence, & Sanchirico, 1982; Romer,
Jamieson, & Aday, 2003; Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004). In some instances where the fear of
crime is at its highest levels, the over-glorification of a particular issue in the media can
incite what Cohen (1972) called “moral panics,” whereby members of society believe
their personal values and interests are threatened (see also Burns & Crawford, 1999;
Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994; Springhall, 1999).

...

As illustrated above, fear of crime generated by the mass media is considerable
enough that it has warranted an entire body of research. However, there are other
outcomes, both directly and indirectly linked with fear of crime, which result from the
mass media’s reporting of crime news. Such consequences include misinformation of the
public, copycat or contagion effects, moral panics, and political responses to the fear of
crime and subsequent panics. These consequences may be intentional, such as the case
with legislative responses, or unintentional, such as copycat effects or public
misinformation. Each of these facets can be explored independently; however, their
discussion is warranted for the simple fact that they are collectively intertwined.

...

The patterns emerging in the present study indicate that the media focused more
attention on the performer or perpetrator sequence. There are two potential explanations.
First, it is possible that, given the extremely violent nature of rampage shootings, along
with their high number of victims, these events are considered to be more deviant, as
compared to general homicide. By highlighting those who cause the events (the
shooters), the media are able to reinforce the deviant nature of the shootings to the
audience. On the other hand, it may be possible that by highlighting the offenders more
frequently, the media are reinforcing the “normalcy” of these events (Cerulo, 1998).
Despite their rarity, research has shown that people believe these types of shootings are
occurring more frequently than they actually are, particularly as they consume more
media (see, for example, Elsass, Schildkraut, & Stafford, 2013; Schildkraut et al., 2013a,
2013b).

...
What is perhaps most problematic, as illustrated by this study, is the
disproportionality associated with these events, particularly as it relates to the general
public’s perceptions. Research (e.g., Elsass et al., 2013; Schildkraut et al., 2013a, 2013b)
has shown that people believe these events are occurring more frequently than they
actually are and that their perceived likelihood of being involved in a mass (school)
shooting is quite high. This study, in a somewhat indirect way, supports these findings.
The media are contributing to these beliefs.
...
Yet, a larger problem exists beyond just the idea of exploiting these facts for
profit. As noted at the outset of this project, the media serve as the main source of
information for nearly 95% of the general public (Graber, 1980; Surette, 1992). As such,
though without thorough research, disproportional reporting equates to disproportional
understandings about this and even other phenomena. If the main source of information
is not presenting it in an accurate light, how can researchers expect people to understand
how common these events are, or rather, are not? How can it be expected for members of
the general public to know how likely (or more accurately, unlikely) their risk for this
type of victimization is when the media are incorrectly informing them about such odds?
Such a line of questioning must be incorporated in the call for research about these events
and the public’s perceptions of them moving forward.

[stickdog99]

Partial transcript of police scanner from this video:



1:04:14 – “It originally came in saying many subjects were down… there’s one that came in at 23:06 hours saying there’s a shooter at the front desk at NY NY… and there’s approximately 150 subjects sheltered in place inside the kitchen area there, and 2 shots were fired inside casino floor. And there is several subjects down at NY NY / Zumaniti.”

1:05:13 – “Send, if there’s not already 2 strike teams in route, send 2 strike teams in route, they need to advise their call signs, and we need an update as soon as they get there.”

1:06:24 – “Ok, whoever is responding to NY NY through control side, I need someone to get in and see if this is a diversion” 1:06:54 – “Ok, now I’m getting information about an active shooter at Tropicana”

1:07:12 – “Be advised there is an active shooter at the Tropicana”

1:07:19 – “Be advised, we are getting multiple calls of active shooters at multiple locations. May or may not be diversions”

1:09:23 – “at Tropicana, they are advising there is was a Hispanic male, dark skin with an afro, unknown clothing with a backpack, said he squatted in a driveway at Hooters and looks like a suspect.”

1:10:47 – Explosive breach conversation before entering main suspects room

1:10:47 – Explosive breach conversation before entering main suspects room

1:11:21 – “Breach, breach, breach!”

1:12:05 – Shots reported fired in park area of NY NY, and also Aria. Immediately dispelled for NY NY. Clearly a diversion.

1:13:15 – “We’re sending 2 teams into Excalibur right now based on that earlier detail.”

1:13:22 – On Boulevard and Tropicana, “Be advised, you got a Jeep coming up that way, going through the roadblock of cones, headed E bound on Tropicana at the Boulevard…”

1:13:51 – “I got medics reporting that they’re getting shot at, at the Tropicana!” “We have a strike team available, send them to the Tropicana”

1:14:33 – “We need the air clear for Zebra-20, they have one suspect down inside the room”

1:15:20 – Reporting negative shots fired from inside the Tropicana. (another diversion)

1:15:55 – 1:16:26 - Confirmation of main shooter down by Zebra-20 (SWAT)

1:19:33 – Reports of shots fired at Cesar’s and Bellaggio

1:20:22 – Zebra-20 asking no more people on floor 32. One officer shot “that did fire”.

1:21:21 – “We have reports of a guy with a gun here!” “75 Victor what’s your location” “At the Paris”…

1:21:41 – “Is that reported or confirmed?” “We have people running (a phone call wouldn’t do that), we have security trying to point out where the gunman is, and we can’t find him!”

[stickdog99]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ8mn8Hj3x2/

[stickdog99]

Victim says he is certain that he was shot from ground level.

This video shows a wound that seems consistent with his story of being shot horizontally.

[stefano]

I am still waiting for someone to produce the list of previous senior citizen millionaires who shot scores of people to death for no reason.

I don't know how rich they all were, but here's a list of older rampage killers I posed in this thread last week

Campo Elías Delgado was 52 when he killed 29 people on a rampage in Bogota, Friedrich Leibacher was 57 when he killed 14 on his rampage in Zug (Switzerland), Ljubiša Bogdanović went on a rampage in Serbia at 60, two Spanish brothers called Izquierdo killed nine people in a rampage when they were 53 and 58 respectively.

Check out this list of American rampage killers, the length of that. Mad.

One of them was Ira Attebury, 64 years old, who opened fire at a festive crowd of parade spectators in downtown San Antonio in April 1979. "The police said at first that he had been slain by a sharpshooter, but later said that Mr. Attebury had shot himself in the head with a revolver."

[Elvis]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ8mn8Hj3x2/

In the video in that Instagram post, again we hear what sounds like two "machine guns" (or bump fire etc.), but a commenter offers this explanation for the second sounds, which could be when the raking bullets passed over bricks or concrete:

freddies153 The low claps are from the gun it's self the loud almost smashing bricks together are from the rounds hitting concrete 1 shooter 1700 feet about half a second delay from muzzle to targets that's why it sounds like 2 shooters

Give the clip another listen and see what you think.


BTW, the several apparent "diversions" noted in the scanner chatter are intriguing; Paddock could easily have made the calls. Though, without accomplices, it would be harder for Paddock to rig some kind of gunshot sounds, as diversions, at the other locations. And I'm not sure we can rule out gunshot sounds at those other places, at least for the Bellagio. Sometimes it's too easy to say "it was all just panic." I don't know.