Mass shooting in Las Vegas, 2/10/2017

[MacCruiskeen]

Friend of Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock describes him as caring person who sought to 'make people happy'

By Karma Allen

Oct 9, 2017, 11:20 AM ET

The man accused of carrying out last week’s deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, Stephen Paddock, was a caring person who tried his best to "make people happy," a friend and longtime employee of his told ABC News’ “Good Morning America” today.

“He actually cared about everybody,” said Lisa Crawford of Dallas, who managed an apartment that Paddock owned from 2006 to 2012.

“He tried to make people happy. He tried to make people care. And I don’t know what happened to him,” she said as she fought to hold back tears.

She said Paddock, 64, who apparently killed himself after the massacre, was a close friend, describing him as a humorous person who was generous with his tenants.


Stephen Paddock and Lisa Crawford are seen here in this undated file photo.



She said she found it hard to believe that Paddock, an accountant, could be capable of carrying out the Oct. 1 shooting on the Las Vegas Strip, which left 59 people dead, including him, and at least 480 others injured.

She said she last spoke with him via email a few weeks ago when he checked on her to make sure she was OK during hurricanes Harvey and Irma. She also shared images of her with a grinning Paddock embracing her warmly.

“I have read them over and over and over again,” Crawford said of her email conversations with him. “I’ve even looked at some photos online of, I guess, him and his girlfriend. You know, I was even trying to look into his eyes to see if I saw something that wasn’t normal, you know. No, I didn’t see anything.”

...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-vegas-s ... d=50364227

Can't embed the photos & film. They are well worth looking at while the campaign of innuendo (the posthumous character-assassination) proceeds apace, as it always does in these cases.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Looks like Daniel Hopsicker is interested in this. He just posted this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XuXNtV7-8U

And wrote:

There are a lot of unanswered questions in the Las Vegas massacre. But if this one doesn't get addressed, there needs to be a sit-in at NBC.

Well the end is always near.

This has a lot more credibility if the woman was really with someone else, though only the woman got taken away?.

The eyewitness being interviewed gives a pretty detailed description of both the woman who was "messing with the other lady" and subsequently escorted out by security and her boyfriend. Presumably, her boyfriend left with her, though that is not clear from the interview.

Not clear if this was a completely first hand account of the situation though.

What is not clear to you? The woman being interviewed is describing what she witnessed prior to the shooting. She said this woman escorted out by security 45 minutes prior to the shooting "told us we were all going to die." The woman being interviewed seems pretty shaken, even though she admits that her group left 10 to 15 minutes before the shooting started. This is because she "thought it had a positive correlation" - that either they were being warned or being taunted by someone with foreknowledge.

And eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, as already known.

As a blanket statement, that's really un-RI to be that dismissive. True, in a court of law this would be considered hear-say. So would Sandra Serrano's testimony about the polka-dot dress lady saying, "We shot him!" regarding the assassination of RFK, yet that didn't stop the LAPD from doing their utmost to make her look unreliable. As a court of public opinion, I think this discussion board needs to look deeper at these sorts of strange contradictions to whatever official story the authorities and media are trying to spread.

[Sounder]

While I do not care to dwell on subjects such as this, when I do, RI is still the place to go.

Thanks Mac for all your observations and focus, and thanks for what you bring also stickdog.

The counterpoint is amusing if a bit shallow and refractory.

I too cynical to participate and prefer playing fiddle anyway.

(Yes I know, that sounds bad but its better than other options.)

[The Consul]

It all goes back to Charles Joseph Wilson & Larry J. Harmon. Though there were others, they were pretty much that tactical template. Both were pretty far out there in psychotic break terms, and could have inflicted far more carnage had they availed themselves with greater firepower.
To me, it is not stupefying that this happens as much as it is surprising it does not happen a lot more. I do not own nor am I any longer familiar with firearms. But I know people who are (ATF, ICE) one who commented after the DC shootings “the only way someone like that gets caught is because they make a mistake, and they only way it goes on that long is because someone fucked up.” The other said," shit, you better hope I never go over the edge, I got enough ordinance under my coffee table to grease a couple hundred people. At least. It’s all about environment. The only constraints would be whether or not there was anyone you didn’t want to kill.”

Las Vegas pawn shops are full of curiosities. Glass eyes, prosthetic legs, wedding rings. Trophies to desperation. Addicted, but not insane. They could be having dinner with you at the Hard Schlock Café, trading jokes, then blithely pull out a Sig Sauer and blow their brains out all over your chocolate mouse.
Which begs the question. Did Stephen C. Paddock have to be insane? By that I mean clinically.
The answer is no. I don’t know if it is more terrifying than hell, no motherfucker in his right mind could do this kind of thing. But how far away is it from so many things we see as normal? Guy that told me there was no Santa Clause got caught stealing a box full of combination locks and had a choice of going to the big house or the Marines. In seven months he was firing dual fifties into hamlets from a swift boat. He as fucking tough, but he wasn’t violent. Necessarily.
And of course, what many of us old timers here wonder, could Paddock have been programmed. Answer : hell yeah. Will we ever know: hell no.
I think what shocks people most when this shit happens is that we secretly recognize it. Like we expect it. You know, like when I was up north I was helping a neighbor with his icey walk, his daughter drives up, gets out of her car and limps on up to the front porch and in through the front door. Cute. “She expects me to believe it happened skiing,” neighbor says, but something happened in Amman.” I knew better than to press for more.
That’s kinda the way I feel now.

[minime]

Cold wet October day, ashamed to say I read the whole thread, and most of the links...

and the thing that impresses me immediately (unfavorably for the most part) is that after a while I stopped looking at the posters' names before reading, and still I could tell who was posting.

What does it mean? It means that truth is not of value so much to the participants. Obviously I'm not talking about everyone, and not all the time. But pretty much. I'll leave you to sort that out. And that's on you. What else does it mean? It means that I've been here too long, to be sure. That I have had no noticeable beneficial effect. And that's on me.

It also means that most of you are not likely to make it out of here. Not that you even know what that means. No matter. Disheartening nevertheless.

Where is the rigorous intuition if the purpose consciously and unconsciously is to cherry pick the facts and distort the presentation to advance an obvious personal narrative to fulfill a personal agenda?


As for myself, I can come only to a few infallable? conclusions regarding the info/disinfo/misinfo made public re: the shootings...

For one, it is not possible, given the facts, seemingly uncontested, that Steven Paddock made his millions ($5 million taxed on gambling alone in 2015) playing video poker, and certainly not at the Mandalay, as their top-paying machine is (and has been for 10 years) a Jacks-or-Better 9/6, which returns .9954 on investment, meaning the longer you play, the more you lose. Playing 14 hours a day, 7 days a week all-year long, strains credulity.

There are only two machines which have more than 100% return (100.7% tops), neither at the Mandalay, and require perfect knowledge and perfect execution to achieve a net return. One simple error, every simple error can erase that scant advantage. Anyone familiar with the odds--available online--would avoid the Mandalay for more advantageous venues. Certainly Paddock would go to the Mandalay for the comps, and why not? But to gamble for profit? No way. And Paddock spent a lot of time at the Mandalay.

I imagine anyone who shacked up at any casino with a Jacks or Better 9:7 and wagered up to $1 million a day (Paddock's testimony) dressed in sweatpants and flipflops, played flawlessly for 14 hours/day, and walked away with an average of $7000 (.7%), or $2+ million per annum (not quite $5 million), would come to the attention of management.

Start from here...

[Sounder]

Thanks minime, I pretty much agree but expectations can be a killer.

Also agree about the bit where the gambler makes money is absurd. Now people do use casinos to 'wash' cash, but they don't 'beat the house', instead they are giving the house a cut of their illicit income stream and get taxable (clean) money in return.

[norton ash]

It also means that most of you are not likely to make it out of here. Not that you even know what that means. No matter. Disheartening nevertheless.

HELLO--oo-oo in there.

Thanks for the legwork and contributions, even if it makes we want to join the Nicolas Cage blackjack team. Although maybe I'll try to hang with Mr. Jackpots instead.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

For one, it is not possible, given the facts, seemingly uncontested, that Steven Paddock made his millions ($5 million taxed on gambling alone in 2015) playing video poker, and certainly not at the Mandalay, as their top-paying machine is (and has been for 10 years) a Jacks-or-Better 9/6, which returns .9954 on investment, meaning the longer you play, the more you lose. Playing 14 hours a day, 7 days a week all-year long, strains credulity.

There are only two machines which have more than 100% return (100.7% tops), neither at the Mandalay, and require perfect knowledge and perfect execution to achieve a net return. One simple error, every simple error can erase that scant advantage. Anyone familiar with the odds--available online--would avoid the Mandalay for more advantageous venues. Certainly Paddock would go to the Mandalay for the comps, and why not? But to gamble for profit? No way. And Paddock spent a lot of time at the Mandalay.

I imagine anyone who shacked up at any casino with a Jacks or Better 9:7 and wagered up to $1 million a day (Paddock's testimony) dressed in sweatpants and flipflops, played flawlessly for 14 hours/day, and walked away with an average of $7000 (.7%), or $2+ million per annum (not quite $5 million), would come to the attention of management.

Start from here...

Thank you so much for illustrating in a factual, mathematical way what I was trying to describe from an amateur perspective a few pages back. To me, this is the most indicative anomaly in the perp/patsy's narrative that reeks of spook behavior. These are the areas real journalists should be exploring. I sure hope Hopsicker is doing more than just watching videos.

It also means that most of you are not likely to make it out of here.

Nobody does. Not even Jim Morrison, with all his spook connections.

[stickdog99]

Could your reasoned analysis help explain why comfortable millionaires simply do not become mass shooters for no reason?

I challenge everyone here to name a single millionaire other than Paddock who shot any number of complete strangers in a premeditated fashion and then killed himself (or herself). Can anyone here recall a single news report of this ever happening?

Dude you keep begging the question. Why do you think he was comfortable? Because he was rich? Lots of the rich are extremely uncomfortable, often precisely because they're rich.

Can you name a single millionaire other than Paddock who ever shot any number of complete strangers in a premeditated fashion and then killed himself (or herself)? Can you recall a single news report of this ever happening before in the history of the world?

Here's what I am hearing from most of you. "Of course, millionaires turn into suicidal mass shooters just like everyone else!"

My counterpoint to this textbook example of the availability heuristic is that extremely few people of any stripe, demographic or level of comfort discomfort ever become suicidal mass shooters, regardless of any of the millions of highly believable motives we all could all easily contrive for their doing so! And almost all of those who do become suicidal mass shooters are young, powerless and economically distressed males who blame others for their economic straits and either snap when pushed over the edge by some distressing life change or kill someone in anger after some sort of provocation and only then decide they have nothing more to lose. You can count all the humans who have ever shot multiple total strangers senselessly after careful planning and then offed themselves the same day on your fingers and toes. In fact, there have been so few of these people in human history that no one here can name a single one who was clearly rich at the time he committed such a bizarre and unlikely atrocity.

However, we can all name multiple events when we were assured by our authorities that someone not only shot multiple total strangers senselessly after careful planning and then offed themselves the same day, but was superhumanly successful at doing so while the police busied themselves elsewhere. Because we can all name these events, we are all subject to the availability heuristic effect when it comes to mass shootings. Even though such events are exceedingly rare and the most shocking ones have all probably been staged in one way or another, we have all been led to believe that there are ticking time bombs all around us, that every man has a mass shooter capable of taking down scores of strangers before offing himself somewhere in his heart of darkness, which of course results in undeniable positive feedback.

For those who haven't heard of it, the availability heuristic effect occurs when mass media and Hollywood make us all hyper-aware of certain wildly improbable events such that we all start to believe they are far, far more probable than they actually are. For example, the last time anyone successfully hijacked a commercial US domestic flight before 9/11 was in the 1970s. But because of one event that should have been stopped by the people we pay trillions to supposedly defend us, we have since spent at least an extra trillion pretending to slightly diminish the threat of an event that is less likely than somebody getting struck by lightning twice in the same week in two different storms. And now when we see suspicious unattended packages and/or brown people in public places, we shudder, "I could easily be the next victim of terrorism!" And when TSA agents pull one of us aside to fondle our crotches, we say, "Thank you for keeping us safe from the nonexistent boogeyman we socially constructed!"

Edited to fix two typos.

[IanEye]

Who is more affluent:
your parents, or Adam Lanza's parents?

[stickdog99]

One encouraging thing is that there appears to be some tension or conflict between the Feds and the Vegas police, not to mention the hotel staff and customers. So I expect that the corporate media, following instructions, will put a state-of-the-art silencer on this "investigation" very soon.

Yes. Check out Great God of Google's news page.

Not one mention of Paddock or anything else about the worst mass shooting event in USA history among the 50 top stories.

[SonicG]

What if the woman warning about everyone getting shot was the working lady he had "rough" sex with?

Oh those pesky conspiracy theories though, just won't go away...

Column: Conspiracy theories about Las Vegas shooting plant seeds of doubt, intrigue

"We need a motive," wrote Tom P., another reader.

Yes, we do. However, the same can't always be said for people with mental illness who commit despicable acts. And trying to understand such madness is like trying to understand the need for a fish to ride a bicycle. Not everything in life adds up.

Still, such murderous mysteries not only confound us, they also trigger something in us to question the facts. And also to suspect something more complex than just one human being losing his mind and committing such a heinous act.

Conspiracy theories date back centuries. They are as much a part of our collective DNA as fearing the unknown or trying to understand what's not totally understandable. It's a search in the dark for a pebble of truth in a turbulent sea of lies, rumors, whispers and exaggerations.

More than a half century after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, a sizable group of Americans continue to question the facts behind the Nov. 22, 1963, shooting in Dallas. Later this month, sealed documents related to the case will be released by the National Archives, if President Donald Trump doesn't block it.

...

"I want to emphasize that (the gunman) is solely responsible for this heinous act," Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Undersheriff Kevin McMahill told media. "We are aware of the rumors outside of the media and also on social media that there was more than one assailant."

Yet it hasn't stopped armchair detectives and suspicious theorists to insist they have all the answers. One internet webpage I stumbled on shows an alleged police photo of the deceased gunman after he took his own life before police stormed his hotel room.

His head is in a pool of blood but at least two bullet casings rest atop the blood without a splattering of any kind on them. This has led theorists to insist that the gunman was killed by someone else but made to look like it was a suicide.

"Why are there clean shell casings on top of the blood puddle?" asks one reader.

"And why is his handgun so far away from his body?" asked another reader.

Such pointed questions are all it takes to plant the seed of doubt or suspicion in our otherwise stable minds. Hmmm, we ask ourselves. It's another reminder that wild speculation is much more interesting than the somber truth.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/p ... story.html

Even though it was the police who first suggested an accomplice, but it was just that crafty Paddock ordering too much room service to make the hotel staff think he wasn't alone...for no real purpose whatsoever...Wasn't it supposedly normal of him to hole up in a suite all by himself? Didn't they "know him well" comping him thousands of dollars worth of sushi, according to his brother...
I have to admit, it is difficult keeping up, especially with Christopher Knowles going full tilt on the terribly hard to follow Facebook format, but I realize there is so much fishiness going on here...So much so that there is indeed, a lot of fishes riding bicycles that I cannot completely wrap my head around. Law enforcement is stuck here as they have to keep providing details, faked and fudged as they might be, that might eventually provide pathways for some real, uhm, truth....

[stickdog99]

You're right: The alphabet agencies have turned over a new leaf, abandoned lying as their routine strategy and very raison d'être, stopped being defenders, enablers, and perpetrators of mass murder, and started telling the truth. It's all good news.

This is nothing I ever said and remote from anything I ever said.

The question here so far is what seems likelier as an explanation for the 58 or more real dead people in Las Vegas and various reports about the incident since then. Our disagreement need not discourage you from anything.

---

As to that, generally:

The development with the security guard being shot before the concert shooting is the most interesting thing that's come up so far, other than the spooky profile of Paddock as reported from the beginning. (If that's not skepticism enough for you, sorry.)

So you are now actually starting to question the official narrative a bit? Are you now thinking that perhaps the LVPD and FBI have not been telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about this event?

If you only put your mind to it, I'm sure you could invent some scenario in which the LVPD and FBI had to lie about this for wholly altruistic investigatory purposes. I mean, their original "lone senior citizen millionaire did this for no reason and we were all heroes" narrative was just so damn persuasive. Don't let go yet!

[brekin]

Could your reasoned analysis help explain why comfortable millionaires simply do not become mass shooters for no reason?
I challenge everyone here to name a single millionaire other than Paddock who shot any number of complete strangers in a premeditated fashion and then killed himself (or herself). Can anyone here recall a single news report of this ever happening?

Dude you keep begging the question. Why do you think he was comfortable? Because he was rich? Lots of the rich are extremely uncomfortable, often precisely because they're rich.

Can you name a single millionaire other than Paddock who ever shot any number of complete strangers in a premeditated fashion and then killed himself (or herself)? Can you recall a single news report of this ever happening before in the history of the world?
Here's what I am hearing from most of you. "Of course, millionaires turn into suicidal mass shooters just like everyone else!"
My counterpoint to this textbook example of the availability heuristic is that extremely few people of any stripe, demographic or level of comfort discomfort ever become suicidal mass shooters, regardless of any of the millions of highly believable motives we all could all easily contrive their doing so! And almost all of those who do become suicidal mass shooters are young, powerless and economically distressed males who blame others for their economic straits and either snap when pushed over the edge by some distressing life change or kill someone in anger after some sort of provocation and only then decide they have nothing more to lose. You can count all the humans who have ever shot multiple total strangers senselessly after careful planning and then offed themselves the same day on your fingers and toes. In fact, there have been so few of these people in human history that no one here can name a single one who was clearly rich at the time he committed such a bizarre and unlikely atrocity.
However, we can all name multiple events when we were assured by our authorities that someone not only shot multiple total strangers senselessly after careful planning and then offed themselves the same day, but was superhumanly successful at doing so while the police busied themselves elsewhere. Because we can all name these events, we are all subject to the availability heuristic effect when it comes to mass shootings. Even though such events are exceedingly rare and the most shocking ones have all probably been staged in one way or another, we have all been led to believe that there are ticking time bombs all around us, that every man has a mass shooter capable of taking down scores of strangers before offing himself somewhere in his heart of darkness, which of course results in undeniable positive feedback.
For those who haven't heard of it, the heuristic effect is when mass media and Hollywood make us all hyper-aware of certain wildly improbable events such that we all start to believe they are far, far more probable than they actually are. For example, the last time anyone successfully hijacked a commercial US domestic flight before 9/11 was in the 1970s. But because of one event that should have been stopped by the people we pay trillions to supposedly defend us, we have since spent at least an extra trillion pretending to slightly diminish the threat of an event that is less likely that somebody getting struck by lightning twice in the same week in two different storms. And now when we see suspicious unattended packages and/or brown people in public places, we shudder, "I could be a victim of terrorism." And when TSA agents pull one of us aside to fondle our crotches, we say, "Thank you for keeping us safe from the nonexistent boogeyman we socially constructed!"

I look at it the other way. I'm just glad most lower/middle class suicidal mass shooters can't afford an arsenal of 42 guns.

Many people express shock and horror when they hear of a wealthy or famous person killing another person. As a society, we seem to expect the rich and famous to behave better, to commit fewer crimes, to be immune to the passions that inspire other, less prominent people to kill. After all, the rich and famous have everything―why would they need to murder? But the rich and famous kill for the very same reasons others do: love, power, money, jealousy, greed, revenge, and rage. Here, Scott takes us on a tour of murders committed by the rich and famous during the last century, looking at the motives, the responses of the community and local law enforcement, the media, and the outcomes. She argues that the rich and famous may kill for the same reasons as others, but they receive vastly different treatment and are often able to get away with murder.

Homicide by the rich and famous is not new in this country, nor is fascination with the crimes committed by our most revered citizens. But being among the upper echelon of society does afford such suspects with a greater ability to escape punishment. They have greater access to better respresentation, they have the means to flee the country, they have influential friends in high places willing to put themselves on the line, and they are generally treated better by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. This book profiles the many ways in which homicides committed by the rich and famous are similar to other murders in their motives, but differ from those committed by everyday citizens in their outcomes. Scott provides readers with a showcase of crimes that will infuriate and fascinate readers.

https://www.amazon.com/Homicide-Rich-Fa ... 0275983468

[JackRiddler]

So what is a stickdog, is that like a strawman? That would make sense, if so.

You seem to be confused. True, I have not nodded affirmatively to every one of your often ill-founded speculations. This is not the same as believing whatever the authorities say. Tough shit. And "skepticism" is not the same as assuming (and insisting on) the exact opposite of what they say. (It also doesn't put me in that special box for normals that only the highly enlightened minime seems to have escaped.) You want your privileged status, you could stand to earn it by employing the occasional logic and circumspection. Now, if you want to back off from your condescension and totally unwarranted arrogance, this thread might turn away from Jonestown shock videos and consider some of the genuine open source information on this case.

This conversation seems to be returning to the evidence of a very spooky background for Paddock. I always found that interesting, from the first night. I suspect if you go back to the start of this thread you'll find I was either the first or among the first to point it out. This is something we can actually look into. (Sorry that we don't get inside the Vegas evidence room or the crime scene(s) or you might be able to actually assess how many of your wild guesses and sheer fantasies might have a basis. But Paddock's life, that's relatively available.)

I'll stop this tone if you do, by the way.

I appreciate the excellent meditations on the video poker odds. Where is all that money coming from and why doesn't it ever run out? That is fucking interesting, no? Your decision if you want to consider it or roll out more empty insults.

.