Mass Murder "Investigators:" What's it to you?

Now that the latest report on the latest mass murder is being released, there is a stir of excitement among certain members of these boards. No matter what information is released or what conclusions reached, they will be rejecting them while clamoring for more. They seem to think they have an inalienable right to unlimited access to crime scenes and reports. They don't. Go check the Constitution. Here are my questions to those people: What is your interest in mass murder? Why do you find it so interesting? What do you feel can be accomplished by viewing photos of mutilated children? Why do you watch videos of grieving parents so closely? What do you hope to learn? How does it affect you personally? What contribution do you hope to make to society?

Let's try a role play. Pretend that I am the Governor of a state that has just suffered a terrible tragedy. I have the power to release all the information gathered during the course of an official law enforcement investigation, including crime scene photos, interviews with witnesses, autopsy reports and so forth. Try to convince me to give you unlimited access to these files. Remember, as Governor, my duty is to protect the best interest of my constituents, the citizens of our state. Also, I must provide for the smooth and efficient working of government. Here is why I have not allowed amateur "investigators" to visit the scene and have been guarded about releasing information.

1. Crime scenes are chaotic enough without unauthorized people getting underfoot. They can obliterate important clues or, by accident or design, leave false or misleading evidence.

2. Our law enforcement professionals must work as quickly and efficiently as possible; they cannot spend all their time in press conferences or answering questions posed by individuals.

3. Victims and witnesses have been traumatized enough without being exposed to public pressure. It is both in their best interest and the interest of an efficient investigation that they be shielded from unnecessary questioning.

4. Many witnesses will testify only on the promise of confidentiality. (That one is guaranteed by the Constitution!)

5. Certain technical reports, such as autopsies and ballistics tests may not be properly understood by the general public. They are best left to professionals who can interpret them in a court of law, if necessary.

6. Crime scene photographs can be traumatizing, even to those not directly involved, and certainly anguishing to survivors. They should only be released on a "need to know" basis, such as in the case of a legal proceeding.

7. Psychological studies suggest that mass murderers find inspiration from previous atrocities. It is my opinion that giving them as little publicity as possible is sound and wise policy.

There. Try to convince me that your "need to know" outweighs what I firmly believe to be in the best public interest.

Excellent post. If I were a moderator (heaven forbid) I'd give you a dozen applause. Can you imagine armchair detectives on the internet playing forensic investigators with pictures of dead children. They'd be screaming that every last picture was photoshopped ....

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Freud) and ...
Sometimes a crazy person with a gun is just a crazy person with a gun ...

FlyersFan
Excellent post. If I were a moderator (heaven forbid) I'd give you a dozen applause. Can you imagine armchair detectives on the internet playing forensic investigators with pictures of dead children. They'd be screaming that every last picture was photoshopped ....

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Freud) and ...
Sometimes a crazy person with a gun is just a crazy person with a gun ...

Good post yourself, and I gave you your 1,392,300th star in appreciation (have you heard when they're going to fix that code glitch?). Pics of dead kids should be off limits, and pics of the most horrible images of the Sandy Hook scene are hopefully locked away somewhere that only one or two trusted people have access.

And OP, thank you. I think this is the only Sandy Hook related page I've posted on. To paraphrase FF, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a crazed gunman is just nuts.

reply to post by Aleister

Good post yourself, and I gave you your 1,392,300th star in appreciation (have you heard when they're going to fix that code glitch?).

That's not a glitch; FF is a very good poster.

reply to post by DJW001

There. Try to convince me that your "need to know" outweighs what I firmly believe to be in the best public interest.

With your line of reasoning we wouldn't be able to identify or discuss any conspiracy that involves murder.

What if a true conspiracy actually took place or will in the future?

Seems the precedent is put in place to make investigation and free discussion of such an event impossible.

But sometimes what looks like a cigar is something you would never put between your lips and suck back on.

Leave the professionals to do their job I say and let justice prevail. But who hasn't wondered what it would be like to be Columbo? Just one more thing sir!

reply to post by DJW001

What is your interest in mass murder? Why do you find it so interesting? What do you feel can be accomplished by viewing photos of mutilated children? Why do you watch videos of grieving parents so closely? What do you hope to learn? How does it affect you personally? What contribution do you hope to make to society?

Another appeal to emotion, can't you people(you know who you are) discuss things without constantly resorting to Grima Wormtongue-esque type antics?

Cobaltic1978
But sometimes what looks like a cigar is something you would never put between your lips and suck back on.

Leave the professionals to do their job I say and let justice prevail. But who hasn't wondered what it would be like to be Columbo? Just one more thing sir!

So sometimes it isn't? I agree, that's why we should be able to look at, and discuss any case freely.

Leave it to the professionals?

So what's the point in discussing any conspiracy if we can just leave it to the establishment to sort it out?

If find it really hard to believe that statements like this are made in sincerety.

reply to post by ShillBill

With your line of reasoning we wouldn't be able to identify or discuss any conspiracy that involves murder.

Wrong. At some point conspiracies will involve murder. "Two can keep a secret when one is dead." I don't need to see Lee Harvey Oswald's autopsy report to know he got shot in the gut.

What if a true conspiracy actually took place or will in the future?

Conspiracies take place all the time. The question is: why do some people single out bloodshed, study it intensely and then justifying it by claiming they are "investigating a conspiracy?"

Seems the precedent is put in place to make investigation and free discussion of such an event impossible.

Not at all. I have asked you to explain why you think what appears to be an act of a madman worthy of your attention.

ShillBill
can't you people(you know who you are) discuss things without constantly resorting ...

Cant you people (you know who you are) discuss things without constantly resorting to illogic and insults? The OP presented a very logical and non-insulting presentation that counters the hysteria that some here are showing in regards to the Sandy Hook investigation.

ShillBill
So what's the point in discussing any conspiracy if we can just leave it to the establishment to sort it out?

The point is that there is no big conspiracy with Sandy Hook. It's not a hoax. There were two dozen funerals showing it happened. There may be an error here or there with the investigation due to basic human error, but the facts are overwhelming that a man with mental illness stole weapons from his mother, killed her in a rage, and then killed the children in the two rooms she worked at in school because they had 'stolen her love' from him. Psychologically speaking .... its a textbook fit in abnormal psychology.

reply to post by ShillBill


Yes we should be able to, but only after all the evidence and facts are presented surely? Otherwise all sorts of speculation and assumptions are made.

That's the problem with having a little knowledge, it can be very dangerous at times and make people look foolish.

reply to post by ShillBill

Another appeal to emotion, can't you people(you know who you are) discuss things without constantly resorting to Grima Wormtongue-esque type antics?

Why can't you simply answer the question?

reply to post by DJW001


I already did.

It's not my fault you weren't able to identify it.

ShillBill
reply to post by DJW001

 

There. Try to convince me that your "need to know" outweighs what I firmly believe to be in the best public interest.

With your line of reasoning we wouldn't be able to identify or discuss any conspiracy that involves murder.

What if a true conspiracy actually took place or will in the future?

Seems the precedent is put in place to make investigation and free discussion of such an event impossible.

That precedent has already been set.

People died during WW2, therefore questioning the 'holocaust', I should say thee holocaust, is punishable by law, in many countries.

Because, remember, people died!!!


This is precisely what the NWO is all about.

When they have their way, and similarly control the entire world, not just a few countries, continents, and a conspiracy message board, then there will be no way to resist their tyranny.

It's what they are counting on.

# 84

reply to post by ShillBill

So sometimes it isn't? I agree, that's why we should be able to look at, and discuss any case freely.

Very well; let's investigate you! I demand to know everything about your police record, your sexual history, your credit rating everything! I'm sure if we look hard enough, we can find a conspiracy in there somewhere.... How does that shoe fit?

Leave it to the professionals?

Leave what to the professionals? You still haven't explained what you mean by "investigation." Does it involve watching YouTube videos looking for hidden clues?

So what's the point in discussing any conspiracy if we can just leave it to the establishment to sort it out?

Excellent question! But first, you need to explain what you mean by "conspiracy." Is everything a conspiracy? Why choose to investigate one event rather than another? That's one of the fundamental questions I am posing and you are refusing to answer.

If find it really hard to believe that statements like this are made in sincerety.

Which statements are you referring to?

Cobaltic1978
reply to post by ShillBill

 

Yes we should be able to, but only after all the evidence and facts are presented surely? Otherwise all sorts of speculation and assumptions are made.

That's the problem with having a little knowledge, it can be very dangerous at times and make people look foolish.

In't that what people are asking for, or are trying to find?

All the evidence?

So instead of encouraging this, people are actually being actively discouraged from doing so, or it is even made impossible.

So, judging by your post, you must not agree with this crackdown on the SH subject, right?

reply to post by ShillBill

I already did.

It's not my fault you weren't able to identify it.

Pardon my stupidity; please answer in words I can understand.

reply to post by TheWhiteKnight

That precedent has already been set.

People died during WW2, therefore questioning the 'holocaust', I should say thee holocaust, is punishable by law, in many countries.

Because, remember, people died!!!

Wrong. You are perfectly entitled to investigate the Holocaust. You simply are not allowed to lie about it.

reply to post by ShillBill

In't that what people are asking for, or are trying to find?

All the evidence?

So instead of encouraging this, people are actually being actively discouraged from doing so, or it is even made impossible.

You have yet to explain why you are trying to find the evidence. What's it to you? Do you want me finding evidence about you?

reply to post by DJW001

Wrong. At some point conspiracies will involve murder. "Two can keep a secret when one is dead." I don't need to see Lee Harvey Oswald's autopsy report to know he got shot in the gut.

But how did you know he was shot in the gut?

Conspiracies take place all the time. The question is: why do some people single out bloodshed, study it intensely and then justifying it by claiming they are "investigating a conspiracy?"

There are lots of potential conspiracies being discussed that don't directly involve murder, this one happens to do, it is being singled out because it doesn't add up.

You seem adament to make it look llike people are only interested because children were allegedly murdered.

The notion is ridiculous and only devised to make the CT's look bad, it is pathetic.

Not at all. I have asked you to explain why you think what appears to be an act of a madman worthy of your attention.

Because I can, because it is a free country, because the case doesn't add up? I don't have to justify why I pay attention to certain subjects, noone does.