BREAKING: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, multiple aides shot at Congressional baseball practice

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe you should move along if you don't like your faulty logic being corrected. Other people may be interested in that even if you aren't.

What are you talking about? You responded to my comment. I didn't direct it at you specifically, I meant it for anyone who was interested in a conspiracy angle. YOU move along. Stop responding to me if you aren't interested.

You seem highly agitated at the facts (all sourced, btw) that I posted. Why does it matter to you so much?

You know perfectly well that I wrote:
"I think it's premature to argue there is some conspiracy behind this shooting, but I also think it's worth considering that Matt Mika may have been targeted. "

But you are hellbent on acting like I said it was a fact that there is some conspiracy behind this shooting. But, I didn't. I didn't overstate anything.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are there forum rules restricting me from responding to anything unless it's directed at me? You posted a ridiculous theory, I pointed out the obvious holes in it. If you're not prepared to take the criticism, don't post your poorly thought out theories. Very simple.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Ah, I didn't catch the suicide! An interesting thing to note!

Did you see in my comment how that human trafficking indictment came up again recently?

a reply to: face23785

Criticism for what? Sharing info that might be relevant?

Good God.

Moving on.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I wanted too respond to two parts of your post.

First the bottom about not judging the shooter. I just think this is misguided. To some extent, every person who ever harms another does so for what the consider good reasons. Even a rapists justifies their actions in their mind. This doesn't mean that we should not be able to judge these people as wrong.

I never said you were breaking any laws. You are right that you can break the law if you want, but you then have to face consequences. However, that does not mean that those of use that have no legal authority have no rights to make judgements.

Rape is immoral. Those that rape are immoral. Those that shoot innocent people are immoral, regardless of their justification. And lets not forget, you made judgements on why the Portland killer committed his acts, how does that jive with your stance here?

But perhaps I misunderstood you earlier, and I want to make it clear that I do not think you would have advocated this guy shooting anyone, I just now think you are saying you are not going to pass judgement. If I misunderstood you earlier, I apologize.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
There's a difference between being open to other explanations, and hunting through the facts searching for one for no reason. He shot the cops too. Maybe he was targeting cops. He shot the ground a lot, maybe he hates the environment. For all we know he was hallucinating and thought he was shooting at paper targets at a proper firing range.

All the evidence suggests he was targeting Republican congressmen though.

And, BTW, I did give reasons. Matt Mika was the only one shot multiple times (4 or 5) and they were more likely to be kill-shots given he was shot twice in the chest.

The ground is not going to die because he possibly hit the ground. Capitol officers aren't going to die from their ankle and calf wounds.

I resent the way you reframed my entire post to be without any reason, at all, for considering that Matt Mika may have been targeted specifically for murder. I didn't overstate anything. I was pretty damned clear.

I think it is an interesting angle. When picturing the scene it does strike me as odd that Scalise was not shot more times - lying prone on the ground. The attacker would have had the time and shot to kill him, but chose not to for some reason. The testimony all says that Scalise was hit and the rest ran, and it was shortly after they got to the dug out that return fire from the police came. In that time Scalise was trying to drag himself along the ground in full view of the shooter. I am not sure where Mika was - on the ground too?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You didn't share new info. You pointed out things that in no way whatsoever suggest Mika was the target, and suggested Mika was the target. I pointed out the flaws in this theory. You don't seem to be able to accept them. All the evidence points to he was targeting Republican lawmakers. Mika just happened to be there. Don't be so desperate to find controversy when there is none.

a reply to: face23785

MME never posts anything that is, " poorly thought out," and as she says sourced the information upon which she has based her notions.

You've been quite rude to her in your past several posts in this thread and offered nothing but spite and ire whereas she has kept civil; at least up to the point I've read.

This is ATS, after all; we question and propose alternate ideas regularly around here in case you forgot.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Top part of your post.

I agree.

I would add that the amount of guns in the US has steadily increased for years, but overall gun violence is down.

Much of that violence comes from people that currently use illegally obtained guns, and it seems illogical that more laws would not stop these people from obtaining guns.

Tragedies will always happen, but we should not take rights away from lawful people based on the actions of the unlawful

a reply to: UKTruth

You're not thinking about this right. The guy wanted to kill as many people as possible. He shot Scalise, then proceeded to shoot others. After that he was under fire from the cops and had to take cover. It's not like he could stand out in the open and take the time to aim carefully at Scalise, who was on the ground. Laying on the ground makes you a more difficult target to hit because you present a smaller cross-section to the shooter.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

No, her theory was poorly thought out. There's no evidence that suggests Mika was the target. Sorry if she's your buddy, her other posts may very well be well thought out, but that one wasn't. I don't mince words. If you post a ridiculous theory, I'll tell you.

a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't been able to find much info on exactly how the shootings took place. I feel like info on Matt Mika has been flimsy. His family has put out statements on his progress though.

Interestingly (TO ME) is that the family included the fact that Matt is communicating via notes in their public statement. If they are concerned he may have been targeted, I thought that was a smart move.

Anyway, I just thought it odd that so many bullets were fired at Matt Mika and they were aimed higher...it could all be meaningless though, but still worth considering as meaningful.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: UKTruth

You're not thinking about this right. The guy wanted to kill as many people as possible. He shot Scalise, then proceeded to shoot others. After that he was under fire from the cops and had to take cover. It's not like he could stand out in the open and take the time to aim carefully at Scalise, who was on the ground. Laying on the ground makes you a more difficult target to hit because you present a smaller cross-section to the shooter.

It's more a case of considering possibilities than drawing any conclusions.
There IS something about the shooter leaving Scalise on the ground as a sitting duck and instead leaving his clear shot to walk around to try and get access to the others - and straight into the police line of fire - that isn't quite sitting right with me.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't been able to find much info on exactly how the shootings took place. I feel like info on Matt Mika has been flimsy. His family has put out statements on his progress though.

Interestingly (TO ME) is that the family included the fact that Matt is communicating via notes in their public statement. If they are concerned he may have been targeted, I thought that was a smart move.

Anyway, I just thought it odd that so many bullets were fired at Matt Mika and they were aimed higher...it could all be meaningless though, but still worth considering as meaningful.

From what I could piece together the sequence was:

Initial shot rings out
Everyone is a bit stunned
More shots ring out and shouts go out that there is a shooter.
Scalise is hit and others run for cover
Others have been hit in the process
Scalise drags himself 15 yards or so and stops, lying prone on the ground - at which point the gunman is only 40 yards or so away from him behind the fence
Once the others are in the dug out, cover fire is laid down
The gunman leaves his position and walks around the fence into the line of fire of the officers and they have a shoot out (both taking cover behind vehicles)

That's just a sequence from the various eye witnesses - could be wrong.
No one sees to mention much about Mika, when he was hit, why he was hit 5 times, and whether he made it to the dugout.

The part I find odd is why he decided not to finish Scalise.

a reply to: UKTruth

The witnesses have said in interviews he did try to shoot Scalise again, he just missed. The guy either wasn't an expert marksman or he was so nervous because he'd never been in a real firefight before that he couldn't make the shots. Again, a person lying prone on the ground is a more difficult target than they are standing. Nothing happened that can't be explained by the mere fact that real life shootings are more chaotic than they look in the movies.

originally posted by: UKTruth

The part I find odd is why he decided not to finish Scalise.

I find it odd, too. Of course, there could be a non-CT explanation, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind how that worked out.

And, info on Matt Mika during the shooting IS very scarce...I'm glad you noticed that, too.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: UKTruth

The witnesses have said in interviews he did try to shoot Scalise again, he just missed. The guy either wasn't an expert marksman or he was so nervous because he'd never been in a real firefight before that he couldn't make the shots. Again, a person lying prone on the ground is a more difficult target than they are standing. Nothing happened that can't be explained by the mere fact that real life shootings are more chaotic than they look in the movies.

He was a good enough shot to hit Matt Mika 4 or 5 times.

ETA: Was Matt standing up for all of those shots?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

There were certain kids who were hit more at Columbine too. Are we to believe they were the real targets and everyone else was hit accidentally? The fact one person got shot more than another is not evidence he was the target. Real life gunfights are very chaotic scenes. Until the investigation is complete we won't know for sure the entire sequence of events. There's still no reason to think Mika was the target.

Also, I'd like to know if Matt was taken by ambulance or airlifted to the hospital. One of the capitol officers (with a minor injury, by comparison) was airlifted.

I am wondering if Matt was, too. I can't find any info on that either.