It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by swansong19
What exactly do you not understand about children being minors? Maybe in Canada the news can interview children without the consent of parents but they cannot do that in America.
Originally posted by swansong19
Originally posted by vkey08And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..
I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a capital crime?
Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much is, apparently, up in the air.
Originally posted by sconner755
Originally posted by swansong19
Originally posted by vkey08And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..
I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a capital crime?
Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much is, apparently, up in the air.
Hello? McFly? Knock knock knock. Anybody home?
Police don't conduct their investigations based on YOUR lack of understanding. The police have all the evidence. You have what the media fed us in their rush to provide any details without confirming them first.
There was a video system at the school. There were other eye-witnesses. You have no idea who the police interviewed, or what's on the video.
Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's odd or that there's a conspiracy. Asking these ooh... Probing questions isn't making anybody look like a genius. Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19
Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...
...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?
Originally posted by swansong19
Originally posted by vkey08And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..
I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a capital crime?
Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much is, apparently, up in the air.
Originally posted by vkey08You also asked for their names,
Originally posted by swansong19
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19
Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...
...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?
If you don't understand the difference between an informal interview...and an official one in the 2nd largest mass shooting in American history I'm not about to try and explain it to you.
Originally posted by swansong19
Originally posted by vkey08You also asked for their names,
That doesn't sound like me. If I did actually "ask for their names", please point it out to me so I can edit it out of my post.
Keep in mind...we have no names of thse escaped children...we don't know how they got out...and it has been announced that no one will interview them.
Originally posted by vkey08from your comment, bold by me, certainly looks like you want to know their names...
Originally posted by swansong19
If anyone would like to answer a question for me I'd appreciate it.
From the same story...
The children escaped from the first-grade classroom of teacher Victoria Soto,
The six children who escaped Lanza's rampage ran to a home a short distance from the school.
The arriving officers encountered a shocking scene in Soto's classroom. Lanza had shot her, as well as special education teacher Anne Marie Murphy and six of Soto's 6- and 7-year old students. Seven of Soto's students were found huddled and unharmed in a classroom closet,
Now take a look at this class photo from this year.
www.nypost.com...
Count up the kids and add it to the reports.
Anything strike you as odd?
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19
Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...
...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?
Originally posted by sconner755What strikes me as odd is the obsession over finding conspiracies in this case, especially in the first two weeks before any official reports have been made public.
Originally posted by swansong19
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19
Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...
...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?
Noooo....
"Informally interviewed"? It doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Actually...if you read it...it doesn't even say if they spoke to the kids. They say they "learned, generally from the kids." You may infer from that, that they spoke to the kids...but it is just as possible that they got the information from Rosen...or a parent.
The authorities have learned generally, from the children who ran away
For someone who wants facts you're pretty quick to make them up.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Originally posted by swansong19
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19
Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...
...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?
Noooo....
"Informally interviewed"? It doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Actually...if you read it...it doesn't even say if they spoke to the kids. They say they "learned, generally from the kids." You may infer from that, that they spoke to the kids...but it is just as possible that they got the information from Rosen...or a parent.
The authorities have learned generally, from the children who ran away
For someone who wants facts you're pretty quick to make them up.
So, by your very own quote that you posted it says that they got information from the kids that there may have been an issue with the gun....but you are claiming that doesnt mean that they spoke to the kids? How does "learned, generally from the kids" not equal they spoke to the kids? If they learned it from rosen, why would they have said they learned it from the kids?
If this semantics game is the best you have got.....well....im not really sure what to tell you.