i-baster wrote: It wasn't a loaded question. I asked you "do you think this would be best served by investigating all possibilities by having an open investigation, or jumping to a conclusion very quickly and then publicly stating that they’d prosecute people who posted any information on Facebook that contradicted their verdict?". It's a perfectly straightforward question which again requires a direct response. You asked me how I know that an open investigation didn't take place. I have showed you that they refused to consider anything that contradicted the police's version of events, even threatening to prosecute people who contradicted it. I've answered your question, you haven't answered mine.
The important notion is, who gets to decide what is or isn't 'misinformation'? If the police say something is 'misinformation' should we automatically accept that this is the case?
If something important is omitted, please let me know what it is.

Gilly wrote:

That is not what I said. I said do we (or in this case you I guess) disbelieve them simply because they are police? My point is that we are essentially in this case saying these witnesses saw two gunmen and ignoring other witnesses who only saw one gunmen. So already we are deciding who to believe or not to believe. I understand a natural skepticism of authority believe me. I just wonder if we decide not to believe the police or the msm simply because they are the police or msm. Remember the police are just doing a job for the most part. Yes they are used by the state and subject to corruption at times but what reason would they have to lie in this instance? Would multiple gunmen not help the anti gun lobby?

Also I have noticed that I mention Columbine and you ask me to stay on topic but WUB brings up something totally unrelated and you say nothing to them. So you might not mean to have a poke but it seems you are. Maybe I am paranoid.

i-baster wrote: I'm not sure whether you're paranoid. However, the issue I brought up was related to whether the police can be relied upon to re-open an investigation, and was of great relevance to a point being discussed.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
It is loaded because it assumes that your inference about the "quick conclusions" and lack of an open investigation are true and I see no evidence of this because the investigation has been behind closed doors and not updated to youtube.


No you provided a video that had nothing to do with the investigation and was only talking about misinformation regarding the investigation. You do not know what evidence was looked at or for how long. They had witnesses and crime scene evidence etc but I have no idea how anybody not involved can say it wasn`t an open thorough investigation.

No but they did not say we are not looking at evidence. They were talking about the spreading of things that are false. If you decide they are not false that is another matter.

I was not saying it was but without the missing video we will never know what import might have been left out. It is a common trick to misrepresent and perhaps more commonly can also be used to save time. I am sure it was nothing in this case but you never know unless we see the uncut version.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
It has much less to do with this issue than Columbine or Virgina Tech which I got told off for mentioning. That was my issue there.

i-baster wrote: Would you describe an investigation that takes place "behind closed doors", in which the authority that is conducting the investigation states that they are the sole source of trustworthy information on the matter, and that the authority conducting the investigation states that it will prosecute people that contradict it, as an 'open investgation'? If so, what is your definition of the term 'open investigation'?

An investigation being behind closed doors simply means that they don`t publish every piece of evidence in the newspaper. To me an open investigation looks into an event with a desire to find out what happened and why it happened as well as how it could have been prevented.

i-baster wrote: Would you describe an investigation that takes place “behind closed doors”, in which the authority that is conducting the investigation states that they are the sole source of trustworthy information on the matter, and that the authority conducting the investigation states that it will prosecute people that contradict it, as an ‘open investgation’?

Guevarista wrote:
I don't have one yet - as in not one I'm certain about.

With Christmas, and the hostility in the Sandy Hook thread, I've not finished researching what's out there. There's so much to wade through. I'd discounted even looking at some of the claims re that one initially, because they just seemed implausible at first glance, but then with a number of them, I'd spot something that would make me ponder them more seriously after all.

Some of them can be ruled out as fresh research comes to light.

There are things that don't ring true with the official lines.

For example, these witnesses. I acknowledge fully that in the heat of the moment, there's bound to be a degree of confusion. But to my mind, it seems more logical that that would explain, for example not everybody noticing that a second gas cannister was thrown at the same time as the first, but from the other side of the room. But if several people did notice it, then you have corroboration, and that's what there is with the Colorado case.

That's the tip of the ice-berg really.

It's points like that that make me strongly suspect that there were other people involved. It wasn't a loan shooter.

So the question is, why would there be insistence from the media that there was only one person responsible in each case.

The only thing I can come up with, is that they there was collusion from authority in each event - these were orchestrated murder sprees, and it suits them to have people believe otherwise. Like Lee Harvey Oswald. Like the anthrax used in so-called terror attacks by foreign enemies after 9/11 which were used to crank up fear of terrorism & justify the erosion of the public's liberty ...even though that particular strain of anthrax was then traced irrefutably to have originated from an American bio-lab. So, hey-presto - it was a lone nutter in the bio-lab who was responsible. Pull the other one!

The only motive I can think of is the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

This is not about disrespect or lack of sympathy for the bereaved - very far from it. If any citizen has been murdered in order for the public to be manipulated by the government, it's beyond a disgrace, and needs urgently to be uncovered. That will never happen if people are just happy to write off all the discrepancies, and accept everything without question.

I'd like to think that this is way off the mark, and will be happy if the more points I look at, the more I can rule out as having been satisfactorily answered.

Where are you getting this info from, btw..?
Guevarista wrote:
...There's no mention in statement of prosecutions only applying where complaints have been received.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Statements to the press do not tell you anything about the criminal investigation. The man speaking to press is handling the PR side of it which tells you nothing about the investigation.

i-baster wrote: So I am to understand that the statements of the police officer who stood up and spoke to the press, who stated that any information not emanating from the police should be ignored, and that the authorities reserved the right to prosecute (and, indeed, did prosecute) anyone that posted what the police considered to be 'misinformation', should be disregarded? Was he not telling the truth? What was the intention of him feeding this information to the press?

What do you mean? He is PR which means he handles public presentation of an investigation. That doesn't mean he is lying it just means his main concern is how his investigation is perceived. He is talking about wrong information being passed around as truth. Things that might be hurtful to family of victims or something perhaps.

You assume he is closed minded to evidence but that is not what he is saying. He is saying essentially to ignore people on Facebook saying things that are not true. That does not mean he is saying the investigation will ignore evidence.

The issue of whether the law should prosecute information or misinformation on social media is another topic and not an indication of conspiracy in my view.

i-baster wrote: He's not 'PR', he's a police officer. You're right that he's handling public presentation of the investigation, and he's telling people not to question the police's interpretation of events, and threatening to prosecute people who present information that contradicts the police. Anyone can see that in the video. I'm sure you know, you certainly ought to know, that this is a transgression of the First Amendment. Just because someone might get a bit upset, this is no justification for this.
We don't know if they're true, or not, that's the whole point. The whole point is, who decides what is or isn't 'misinformation'? If the police decide, and also state that they are the sole source of valid investigation, and threaten to prosecute people who spread what they call 'misinformation' this is a very dangerous situation. Can you not understand this?
I would to some extent agree with that, but if you don't investigate all the possibilities, and prosecute those that contradict you then it doesn't really matter what evidence comes to light.
This has no relevance to my question.

Anybody appointed as a spokesman for a group is doing PR. I imagine a modern police includes PR as very much a part of their job.


So you think the crime scene should be open to the public? Misinformation is information that is false. He didn't say new information would be ignored.

They threatened to prosecute people who posted anything that disagreed with the police's version of events. Surely you can't possibly be missing the importance of that! The threat was specifically aimed at everybody. It could equally apply to a family member who saw or heard something they shouldn't have! It's not a question of possibly hurting someone's feelings. They're being silenced under threat of prosecution.

Watch this video and see the difference an edit can make. It is a 14 minute video but the first few minutes he clearly states what he is talking about and who is being threatened with prosecution.

i-baster wrote: Yeah, he states:

"All information relative to this case is coming from these microphones. And any other information coming from other sources cannot be confirmed. And in many cases it's been found is inaccurate”.

After that he goes on to state that "anyone" who's putting information on social media in “any manner that can be construed to be a violation of a state or federal law, will be prosecuted”. Adding the bit at the start about some people who have allegedly pretended to be police officers or the shooter - which seems like a contrived argument to justify what they're doing - does not change the implication of this in the slightest.

It totally changes the context of his "threats".
I am guessing that is exactly why that part was edited out. It is not uncommon by the way for police officials to threaten criminals with prosecution.

i-baster wrote: No, not at all. You've fallen for a very simple technique. What you want to do is close down dissent, or at least tar dissent with a negative brush. So what you do is say "here's an example of a bad person that is dissenting". And pretty soon the audience is associating all dissent with bad people. This happens all the time, it happened in Britain quite explicitly with regard to certain public demonstrations. Notice he did not say "we will prosecute people who impersonate police officers" - which is presumably an offence, anyway - he said "anyone” who’s putting information on social media in “any manner that can be construed to be a violation of a state or federal law, will be prosecuted". Your brain just heard it the way that you were supposed to. Pretty soon most of the public associate all information being posted on Facebook that is contrary to the authorities' viewpoint to be bad. Job done. Despite the fact that this is a First Amendment violation.

BTW, the person in the video is probably not a bad person, and probably genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing.

State or federal law. Highlighting the word anyone then ignoring the part about breaking the law is failing to understand what is clear. The deceptive edit is now seen for what it was.