Jump to content

Menu

The Austin Bomber is dead


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’m not implying anything. I’m flat out saying that I find the reflexive move to sympathize with terrorists of this sort unfair, the lack of attention the case initially received unfair, and reductive definitions of terrorism self-serving and unfair. But you’re right, he’s dead. Good riddance.

I haven’t read about anyone sympathizing or feeling sorry for this guy. Feeling sympathy towards his family is not the same. I don’t think any mother anywhere brings home their baby thinking one day they’ll become a monster. I feel sorry for his family, for the victims and their families/friends, for the law enforcement that had to come to the scenes where people were killed and today to witness him blow himself up. I feel this way in all these situations for the families, not especially more for this one. This guy senselessly destroyed many lives.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t read about anyone sympathizing or feeling sorry for this guy. Feeling sympathy towards his family is not the same. I don’t think any mother anywhere brings home their baby thinking one day they’ll become a monster. I feel sorry for his family, for the victims and their families/friends, for the law enforcement that had to come to the scenes where people were killed and today to witness him blow himself up. I feel this way in all these situations for the families, not especially more for this one. This guy senselessly destroyed many lives.

That may be true but I dare you to find a bunch of threads where the first sentiment about Omar Mateen is where did he go wrong and what about his poor family.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cops initially said Stephen House, the 39yo father, killed himself...with a bomb. Forgive me for the incredulity.

 

A lot of people accidentally hurt themselves with bombs.  [edited to remove comments about suicide since I can't find any evidence suicide was ever a theory.]  The other logical possibility would be single targeted killing, but maybe they couldn't figure out a reason why anyone would want to kill him. 

 

You assume that if he had been white, they would have thought "random serial bomber?"  On what basis?  Are serial bombings so common that it's a go-to theory after one bomb goes off?

Edited by SKL
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1A lot of people accidentally hurt themselves with bombs.  2Also a lot of people commit suicide.  3The other logical possibility would be single targeted killing, but maybe they couldn't figure out a reason why anyone would want to kill him.  Statistically, suicide is a lot more common than homicide. 

 

4You assume that if he had been white, they would have thought "random serial bomber?"  On what basis?  Are serial bombings so common that it's a go-to theory after one bomb goes off?

 

1. Really? That's what you're going with? A lot of people accidentally hurt themselves with bombs? This is a common thing among married, 39yo, black men with children where you live?

 

2. Indeed they do but not with bombs.

 

3. There's no evidence that they moved to immediately investigate it as a homicide at all let alone a targeted one. That flies in the face of the labelling it a suicide.

 

4. There's not a doubt in my mind that had the initial victims been white there'd have been swifter recognition of the randomness of the crimes and the need to bring in bomb experts, yes. Studies have repeatedly shown that the innocence of black victims is underestimated and their culpability in their own victimhood overestimated. THAT is the basis for my belief.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Really? That's what you're going with? A lot of people accidentally hurt themselves with bombs? This is a common thing among married, 39yo, black men with children where you live?

 

2. Indeed they do but not with bombs.

 

3. There's no evidence that they moved to immediately investigate it as a homicide at all let alone a targeted one. That flies in the face of the labelling it a suicide.

 

4. There's not a doubt in my mind that had the initial victims been white there'd have been swifter recognition of the randomness of the crimes and the need to bring in bomb experts, yes. Studies have repeatedly shown that the innocence of black victims is underestimated and their culpability in their own victimhood overestimated. THAT is the basis for my belief.

 

Where did you see it labeled as a suicide?

 

How do you know they didn't bring in a bomb expert?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you see it labeled as a suicide?

 

How do you know they didn't bring in a bomb expert?

 

 

Oh. Em. Gee.  For nearly 10 days, police left the suggestion out there that Mr. House killed himself with a bomb, telling the community they had nothing to worry about. The article you, yourself, posted said they indicated it was a possible suicide.

 

If there's an axe to grind here, it's your desperate need to believe that race affects nothing, ever.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2016, there were 177 accidental explosions and 83 undetermined (whether accidental or intentional) out of a total 699 explosions reported in the USA. 

 

To say they only think it might be an accident if you're black is a bit of a reach.

 

The people I knew who did it were white.  I'm sure police in all jurisdictions know that people of all colors can have this sort of accident.

 

Again, the report I read said they left it inconclusive but suspicious at first.  Until there was another bomb, there would be no reason to think "serial bomber / terrorist."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. Em. Gee.  For nearly 10 days, police left the suggestion out there that Mr. House killed himself with a bomb, telling the community they had nothing to worry about. The article you, yourself, posted said they indicated it was a possible suicide.

 

If there's an axe to grind here, it's your desperate need to believe that race affects nothing, ever.

 

I'm not seeing the word suicide.  "Killed himself" seems to have meant accidentally based on what I've seen in articles.

 

I mentioned suicide in my earlier post because I interpreted your post to mean they assumed suicide.  Then I went and googled and that's not what I found.  Hence my question - where did you see an article saying it was determined / assumed as suicide?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. Em. Gee.  For nearly 10 days, police left the suggestion out there that Mr. House killed himself with a bomb, telling the community they had nothing to worry about. The article you, yourself, posted said they indicated it was a possible suicide.

 

If there's an axe to grind here, it's your desperate need to believe that race affects nothing, ever.

 

Not sure where you got the bold.  I'm just trying to figure out where you read what you are reporting, as this has gotten you so angry.  I'd like to know if it's true.

 

Wikipedia says:  "After the first bombing, authorities announced they were investigating the death of House as a possible homicide. At the time, Austin Police Chief Manley stated "we have no reason to believe this is anything beyond an isolated incident that took place at this residence, and no reason to believe this is in any way linked to a terrorist act. But we are not making any assumptions. We are conducting a thorough investigation to rule that out."[14] On the following Monday, March 5, Austin police identified the first victim as Anthony Stephan House, and said the death was being treated as suspicious.[15] The first police theory was that House was an unintended victim who was killed by a bomb meant for someone else, perhaps a suspected drug dealer who lived in the neighborhood.[16] Assistant Chief Chacon also stated that police "can't rule out that Mr. House didn't construct this himself and accidentally detonate it, in which case it would be an accidental death."[17]"

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not going to get into a pissing match over whether it was labeled a suicide or accident. The bottom line is that, in doing so, LEOs blamed the vic and the black community for the bombing, assured the community that they had nothing to worry about, and extended the time it took to find the actual killer.

 

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/police-first-focused-drug-case-austin-bombings-they-were-wrong/WD78zcTUe7UK0WbgyykdkN/

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live many states away.  I heard about the first bombing in Austin and that police were investigating.  At that point, with only one bomb, why would you think it is a serial bomber rather than a targeted bombing either of the person actually killed or of someone else who wasn't the victim but was the intended victim.  As soon as the second bombing happened, I heard that police were giving warnings about unidentified packages, and basically calling it a serial bombing case.  I do not see how their investigation would go any faster without that second bombing.  With only one bombing, you have to investigate does someone have it in for the victim or someone close by, etc, etc.  With two that are similar, you see a pattern forming.

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact it's been several years since Conditt graduated high school, the novelty of home schooling is definitely being targeted by the press as a factor.

 

Look at this USA Today article.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/03/21/who-mark-anthony-conditt-austin-serial-bomber/444738002/

 

 

They actually got a statement from the President of the Texas Home School Coalition. Now, I have yet to see any press ask the administration at Austin Community College for a statement, regardless of the fact that that was the most recent educational institution Conditt attended.

 

You'll also note that Tim Lambert, THSC president, claimed that Conditt "reportedly walked away from his faith" years ago. Clearly, he and the others in his community wish to distance their religious and educational philosophies from Conditt's actions in the public mind.

 

I actually am inclined to believe Lambert's statement. There has been distinct rejection of establishment religious conservatives by distilled, secularized "alt-right" groups that hate women, gays, and are virulent racists. They are just fine with abortion for minority races. They use phrases that hearken back to Nazi Germany, like "blood and soil" to reference white nationalistic ideals.

 

I was raised in the South, in deeply conservative evangelical Christianity. Though I am an agnostic Episcopalian now, I still appreciate the strong emphasis on equality among God's children that was instilled in me from church. Yes, there was and is sexism, racism, and anti-gay messages in Christianity; but there are also messages of love and universalism built into it that can and are used to counter those that just want a divine blank check to hate.

 

I would say the same of Islam and Judaism and other religions.

 

Conditt's opinions, as expressed in the press, make me strongly suspect he got caught up in some dark corner of the internet that promotes a very hardened, and dangerous form of ultra-right nationalism. Without the moderating effects of his family, church, and home school community to combat the messages he was receiving, I do believe he was effectively isolated and radicalized.

 

So, despite the police statement, I do suspect this was a form of terrorism, of the kind used by Nazi thugs in the 1930's to, well, terrorize, destabilize, and spread their noxious ideals.

 

Of course, this is all said with the caveat that it is just my opinion and still mere speculation at this point.

Edited by Aelwydd
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had a lot of thoughts this way since seeing how my cousin and her family have struggled  because her husband has problems finding a job due to being on the sex offender list.  She ended up having to go back to work to support the family due to this.

 

And yet I understand why the law was made in the first place. It is easy to see why folks that get out of jail might find it easier to commit crimes though because just having that on your record definitely makes things harder.  And not just for the person themselves, but their family around them as well.

The sex offender registry has expanded far beyond the scope of what was originally intended--to restrain and warn people about dangerous, serial predators, especially adults who serially abuse children. Locking such people up is the better strategy, IMO. For the rest, the registry does far more to discourage going on to law abiding life than it does to help. Looking at the blog post reference above, I see a lonely young man facing an intimidating world, possibly who had done wrong, but also possibly with enough emotional empathy to recognize the problems with the registry for future prospects in life for a young person. Juvenile sex offenders are no more likely to go on and commit sex offenses as adults than the general population. Treating them like pariahs for decades or life does increase the likelihood of other criminality as healthier options are foreclosed to them.

 

All that said, this young man was clearly deeply disturbed. Sane, healthy people without strong ideological motives simply don't go around setting bombs. It's entirely possible he did something like was suggested when he was younger and never got treatment/help, and it had been festering in his conscience for years. Or it could be something else entirely.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One article I read stated he’d been on the police’s radar for 3 weeks. If so, it’s very unfortunate he was able to keep terrorizing people.

They can't just lock someone up on anonymous tips and suspicion. They had to investigate and gather enough evidence to get an arrest warrant.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very innocent group of kids and adults. It's not militaristic. Think of a bunch of teenagers going to a local park with pool noodles playing war.

 

I do not think it's right to suspect, much less conclude, that he was mentally ill. There is zero evidence for that as of yet.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

I would argue that any mass or serial murderer is mentally disturbed. If not mental illness, a major personality disorder going on. I would argue that regardless of the race of the person and at least look at it even if they expressed ideological or political motives (though ideological/political motives can give them a level of social sanction within their immediate cultural environment--but again, a healthy person would not gravitate to a subculture which condoned this stuff in the first place).

 

It's not that mental illness drives people to violence--most mentally ill people are not a danger to others and not even necessarily a danger to themselves. But certain combinations of mental illness and personality disorder can make harming others in a way that transgresses social mores and the law more likely. Sane, mentally healthy people do not kill other human beings without legal and/or social sanction for their actions. It runs contrary to the basic survival instincts of human beings, to conform and cooperate in society.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may well be. It's still an impulse that should be examined and checked. There's not nearly enough info here to know if the benefit of the doubt is warranted let alone leap into poor kid, poor family tropes. This kid is not the victim.

 

The bomber is of course not the victim. But his family, I would argue, unless they somehow knew and failed to act on that knowledge (and maybe even so if they failed to act out of fear) are also his victims. And the possibility that the person who did these horrible things was himself a human being, and probably suffering and acting out, does not mean that his actions were excusable. Trying to divest people who commit horrific crimes of their humanity to distance ourselves from their acts does not actually do anything to help us understand--and hopefully eventually be able to prevent--these kinds of tragedies. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always feel sorry for the families in these instances regardless of the situation, but I think it's rare for people to feel sorry for the families unless they identify with them.  

 

I rarely see people express sympathy for black criminals' families...what they must be going through, etc.  Same with Muslim families.  They are, as far as I can tell, assumed guilty unless overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.  

 

I'm wondering if people here are aware of the trial going on in Orlando of Omar Mateen's wife, Noor?? There was a lot more evidence towards the girlfriend of the Las Vegas shooter, BTW, but she has not been charged.  Similarly, the wife of the Boston Bomber was not charged, as well.

 

Mateen's wife is a known victim of domestic violence.

 

She was denied a change in venue...and people who knew victims were not excluded from the jury.

 

Somebody has to pay, right?

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/05/as-the-trial-of-omar-mateens-wife-begins-new-evidence-undermines-beliefs-about-the-pulse-massacre-including-motive/

 

I think the trial of Noor Mateen is absolutely a miscarriage of justice. And when it comes down to it, I would argue that Omar Mateen was another example of a deeply disturbed individual acting out in a horrific way. If we are ever going to stop this kind of violence, the particulars of ideology need to move to a secondary position and we need to focus on healing people so that they aren't attracted to such ideology in the first place.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the question of sympathy for the family--

 

I believe I may have been the first to express that idea on this thread. That expression was in the context of another boardie saying her children knew the bomber's sister, and my own thought that, as homeschoolers, his parents could easily be members of this board. In that context, yes, I absolutely find it easy to empathize with the grief and horror I imagine they must feel.

 

At the same time I understand Sneezyone's point. Society does reflexively label African-Americans and Muslims as criminals or terrorists, while we do tend to presuppose whites must be mentally ill. That disparity does exist. I don't think we're always conscious of it, so calling it out has value. But I would prefer to see us move toward extending sympathy for all families in these horrific situations, rather than denying sympathy to any. And, yes, asking questions about their own ideology is sadly necessary in all these cases, insofar as it may help explain what happened. I don't think that negates the initial assumption of sympathy.

 

Personally I'd tend to reserve the term terrorist for someone with a political or ideological motive, because I think precision of language is useful. I can sympathize, though, with a sense that strong language respects the terror that Austin's African-American community must have endured over the last few weeks. The bombings did seem to target people of color initially.

 

We still don't know an awful lot about Conditt's recent ideology. I hope some clarity emerges.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lethality if his bombs decreased when he was forced to change the delivery method. He could no longer target anyone in particular because of the attention on suspicious packages in that area. He was, essentially, forced to branch out. I get it, I do, it’s easier to blame mental illness than entitlement and rage in these sorts of instances but it begs the question why only mentally ill people like him are randomly rampaging and killing people.

 

Because healthy, sane people do not go around rampaging and killing people?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s time to stop suggesting that the targeting of society (any segment of it) is not, in and of itself, a political move/statement. That very narrow definition of terrorism only benefits one group.

 

It is not a very narrow definition. It covers a wide range of motivations, including those of individuals such as the the OK City bomber, Dylan Roof, and the couple who shot up that clinic in California. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn’t. Randomized acts of mass violence that create terror is a pretty basic definition that does not exclude crazy white men.

 

Except that randomized acts of mass violence with no motive is just random mass violence. Not terrorism. There have been plenty of "crazy white men" who committed actual terrorism. The guy who bombed the OK City Federal Building for instance. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I’m saying ‘the crazy’ is the go-to option/explanation for white perps, which is convenient, because then we can scapegoat everyone else for acts of terror. These acts are no less terroristic.

 

They may be no less terrifying, but it's the motive that matters in the definition of "terrorism." Again, the definition does not excluse all white perpetrators. I yet again cite the OK City Bombing and Dylan Roof as examples.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish.  The guy blew himself up.  He is dead.  He doesn't care what you call him and nobody else really cares either.

 

I agreed that his acts were intended to terrorize.  So what?  He's done and I haven't heard anyone was working with him.

 

Honestly I don't understand a motive for making this about race.  I mean the guy was white, we get it.

 

Are you implying white people are generally allowed to hop around the country killing black people?  Stats say 52% of serial killers are white, while 68% of victims of serial killers are white.  46% of serial killers do it for the fun of it.  (Most would say that is crazy.)  A pretty high percent have one or more attributes that point to mental problems.  https://www.statisticbrain.com/serial-killer-statistics-and-demographics/

 

Not all serial or mass murder is terrorism, is I think the point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may be no less terrifying, but it's the motive that matters in the definition of "terrorism." Again, the definition does not excluse all white perpetrators. I yet again cite the OK City Bombing and Dylan Roof as examples.

 

Dylan Roof was never charged with terrorism.   

 

Here's an article on what is and isn't considered domestic terrorism.  In general, if you're not acting on behalf of a foreign group or believed to be acting on their behalf (99% Muslim), then you won't be charged with terrorism.  

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555170250/what-is-and-isnt-considered-domestic-terrorism

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be true but I dare you to find a bunch of threads where the first sentiment about Omar Mateen is where did he go wrong and what about his poor family.

 

Given who he targeted, I would have been no less suspicious of political or ideological motives if he was named Owen Smith and a Christian.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many of us see terrorism as a the worst sort of crime because of major incidents that occurred during our lifetime.

 

It's a crime to make a statement. 

 

As some of you know I am from Oklahoma City and lived there during the bombing. It impacted me personally. It was a horrible thing, to discover that the target was actually a tiny office that made up only a small portion of a large building that was mostly taken up by HUD  and Social Security offices, there was also a daycare. But the target of the building was only a handful of people, not the nearly 200 that were killed. That was terrorism committed by a white christian(debatable) man. NO ONE denies that was terrorism. They charged him with the murder of Federal Agents because it was fast and could be tried in Federal court, the Patriot Act didn't exist then and they were going for the death penalty. If they hadn't got the death penalty they would have kept putting him on trial until they got the death penalty. The state of Oklahoma had made it very clear that they would try him again if the Feds didn't get the death penalty. If he hadn't murdered Federal agents he NEVER would have left the state.

 

Terrorism is not a *worse* crime than murder. It's still murdering people. 

 

I am sure more will be revealed over time, it could be terrorism, but that isn't clear. But this seems to be a serial killer more than a terrorist, they would have KEPT GOING until they were stopped.  He isn't better than a terrorist because he wasn't murdering people for the purpose of terror, he was a serial killer. He was a murderer.  He murdered people who never harmed him and hurt his community. 

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Really? That's what you're going with? A lot of people accidentally hurt themselves with bombs? This is a common thing among married, 39yo, black men with children where you live?

 

2. Indeed they do but not with bombs.

 

3. There's no evidence that they moved to immediately investigate it as a homicide at all let alone a targeted one. That flies in the face of the labelling it a suicide.

 

4. There's not a doubt in my mind that had the initial victims been white there'd have been swifter recognition of the randomness of the crimes and the need to bring in bomb experts, yes. Studies have repeatedly shown that the innocence of black victims is underestimated and their culpability in their own victimhood overestimated. THAT is the basis for my belief.

 

1. That is not a "common" thing among ANY demographic. Police are human beings. They are not omniscient. Investigation revealed better information. Initial reports in ANY crime often have inaccuracies.

 

3. There is no evidence they didn't, either.

 

4. They should have brought in bomb experts from the get-go. Because it was a frickin' bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dylan Roof was never charged with terrorism.   

 

Here's an article on what is and isn't considered domestic terrorism.  In general, if you're not acting on behalf of a foreign group or believed to be acting on their behalf (99% Muslim), then you won't be charged with terrorism.  

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555170250/what-is-and-isnt-considered-domestic-terrorism

 

As the article states, this is because at this time there is no Federal offense for domestic terrorism. If you aren't acting on behalf of an international or foreign group, you won't be charged.

 

It should be noted that most domestic crimes aren't charged federally at all anyway, the prosecution is left to the states. There is no reason for the Feds to be involved in a crime that doesn't somehow cross state or international lines. Any state could pass a law making acts of terror special in some way--an additional charge, an aggravating factor for sentencing, etc.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it lets them off the hook because there is no pathologizing of the group the way there is in other situations. I also never said these folks were any more likely to commit these offenses. If you reread my posts, you’ll find that I think (and said) that letting these folks off the terrorist hook perpetuates the myth that some people are more likely to be terrorists than others.

 

My point is that the majority of mass shooters/killers are not labeled terrorists, regardless of race.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be true but I dare you to find a bunch of threads where the first sentiment about Omar Mateen is where did he go wrong and what about his poor family.

 

I dunno...maybe this is why?

 

Before the shooting, he had been investigated for connections to terrorism by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2013 and 2014. During that period, he was placed on the Terrorist Screening Database, but subsequently removed.[1] In a call to 9-1-1 during the shooting, Mateen identified himself as "Mujahideen", "Islamic Soldier", and "Soldier of God";[2][3] and pledged his allegiance multiple times to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the militant jihadist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[4]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mateen

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dylan Roof was never charged with terrorism.   

 

Here's an article on what is and isn't considered domestic terrorism.  In general, if you're not acting on behalf of a foreign group or believed to be acting on their behalf (99% Muslim), then you won't be charged with terrorism.  

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555170250/what-is-and-isnt-considered-domestic-terrorism

 

Yet strangely they all were charged with crimes that got them the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't just lock someone up on anonymous tips and suspicion. They had to investigate and gather enough evidence to get an arrest warrant.

 

I have to admit I have not seen any articles indicating he was on the police radar this whole time.  Considering how quickly they were able to move on him after the Fed Ex incident (which generated a lot of new evidence) and the steps they took to him identify him to make that move, I am skeptical of any claims that he had been identified beforehand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so now we’ve got homeschoolers here claiming that there’s no difference really in the way his ‘story’ is being presented, nor his family members, not much wondering if his conservative religious views tainted him, no talk of how/where he may have been radicalized as most do when the person is non-white,, claiming they can sympathize with the situation because he’s part of their culture( and this from a religious person?), and the usual bringing up ‘proof’ that blacks commit more crime blah blah blah, and one person claiming it’s ok to know the perp rather than the victims because anyone can be a victim...

 

And you guys still wonder why homeschoolers are seen as the ignorant kooks??

 

The difference is that at this moment there is nothing obvious suggesting he had been radicalized or was part of any movement.  The background interviews are what people are saying about him, and while they are part of the puzzle right now they aren't providing any information that suggests this was something he was planning.  If he was quiet, unassuming, generally kept himself and came from a family that seems to be just a normal family, what do you want people to say?  Law enforcement is investigating and the media is digging but unlike a lot of others he just doesn't have a web presence that tells us anything substantial about him.

 

The bolded is a gross misrepresentation of what has been said in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s NOT just about the word terrorist! It’s about the resources that accompany and are directed at crimes that are deemed terrorism. We can talk all day about the criminal cases having the same outcomes (I’m not sure that they do) but the label is a way of signaling, as Chris Hayes’ panel discussed VERY well last night, what we value and whose lives matter.

 

Domestic crimes that lack the terrorism label do not receive the same attention or investigative resources. The FBI has way more money and much more manpower allocated to international terror threats than it does the domestic ones that are far more likely/common. We don’t know the possible motives of people like the LV shooter because we have collectively not given these threats of terror their due and put eyeballs in those spaces.

 

I completely reject the idea that the label is meaningless because the impact on things like how this case was investigated are so profound. The idea that the police would assume gang members are building bombs to settle scores (their first leap) or that this man’s Money troubles made him accidentally kill himself with his own bomb (their second leap), was influenced by perceptions of criminality that just don’t match pattern or practice in reality.

 

They looked for ANY excuse to blame the victim before being forced by the facts to look outward. That should bother us all.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s NOT just about the word terrorist! It’s about the resources that accompany and are directed at crimes that are deemed terrorism. We can talk all day about the criminal cases having the same outcomes (I’m not sure that they do) but the label is a way of signaling, as Chris Hayes’ panel discussed VERY well last night, what we value and whose lives matter.

 

Domestic crimes that lack the terrorism label do not receive the same attention or investigative resources. The FBI has way more money and much more manpower allocated to international terror threats than it does the domestic ones that are far more likely/common. We don’t know the possible motives of people like the LV shooter because we have collectively not given these threats of terror their due and put eyeballs in those spaces.

 

I completely reject the idea that the label is meaningless because the impact on things like how this case was investigated are so profound. The idea that the police would assume gang members are building bombs to settle scores (their first leap) or that this man’d Money troubles made him accidentally kill himself with his own bomb (their second leap), was influenced by perceptions of criminality that just don’t match pattern or practice in reality.

 

They looked for ANY excuse to blame the victim before being forced by the facts to look outward. That should bother us all.

The FBI will assist with serial killer cases as well and also the ATF sometimes since it was a bombing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI will assist with serial killer cases as well and also the ATF sometimes since it was a bombing.

After the fact. They also weren’t brought into this case en mass until the FedEX packages. FBI also has long-term assets that infiltrate organizations and movements deemed worthy of monitoring. Again, it’s a matter of priorities, who matters and who doesn’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s NOT just about the word terrorist! It’s about the resources that accompany and are directed at crimes that are deemed terrorism. We can talk all day about the criminal cases having the same outcomes (I’m not sure that they do) but the label is a way of signaling, as Chris Hayes’ panel discussed VERY well last night, what we value and whose lives matter.

 

Domestic crimes that lack the terrorism label do not receive the same attention or investigative resources. The FBI has way more money and much more manpower allocated to international terror threats than it does the domestic ones that are far more likely/common. We don’t know the possible motives of people like the LV shooter because we have collectively not given these threats of terror their due and put eyeballs in those spaces.

 

I completely reject the idea that the label is meaningless because the impact on things like how this case was investigated are so profound. The idea that the police would assume gang members are building bombs to settle scores (their first leap) or that this man’d Money troubles made him accidentally kill himself with his own bomb (their second leap), was influenced by perceptions of criminality that just don’t match pattern or practice in reality.

 

They looked for ANY excuse to blame the victim before being forced by the facts to look outward. That should bother us all.

 

Choosing the LV shooter and this bomber in an attempt to make your case seems odd, and neither seem to have been involved with domestic terror organizations.  I am not sure what proposal you think would have changed that.

 

Regarding the first bombing, everything I have read indicates the Austin police were investigating multiple possible angles.  When a seemingly random act occurs that is SOP in every police department.  The same thing happens with the first discovered victim of every serial killer.  The vast majority of murders are committed by someone the victim knows and is a normal place to start. Considering this seemed to be a targeted attack or an accident (and a significant % of bombing deaths are accidental), jumping to an assumption that it was a terrorist attack would seem absurd,  There is also zero evidence the police missed anything in the initial investigation.  The reality is that serial killers are caught over time as evidence builds/the killer makes mistakes, which is exactly what happened here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the fact. They also weren’t brought into this case en mass until the FedEX packages. FBI also has long-term assets that infiltrate organizations and movements deemed worthy of monitoring. Again, it’s a matter of priorities, who matters and who doesn’t.

They added resources as it progressed but the FBI and ATF were present early on. I don't tend to watch television news so I don't know how the coverage was.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the fact. They also weren’t brought into this case en mass until the FedEX packages. FBI also has long-term assets that infiltrate organizations and movements deemed worthy of monitoring. Again, it’s a matter of priorities, who matters and who doesn’t.

 

You mean like this?

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/index.ssf/2017/04/white_supremacist_phillipsburg.html

 

Or this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/white-supremacists-arrested-on-hate-crime-conspiracy-charges/

 

Maybe this one?

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125856761

 

Does this count?

https://www.policeone.com/federal-law-enforcement/articles/2032919-Undercover-FBI-agent-infiltrated-anti-police-militia/

 

I don't have time to link the numerous other ones but their have been multiple arrests of people in the sovereign citizen/militia movements over the past couple of years which have been due to undercover operations involving state and federal authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They added resources as it progressed but the FBI and ATF were present early on. I don't tend to watch television news so I don't know how the coverage was.

 

Correct.  The ATF and FBI were involved when the 2nd and 3rd bombs went off (same day).  A joint reward from all agencies involved was announced the next day.

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/atf-fbi-and-austin-police-department-announce-reward-50000-re-package-explosions

 

It's significant to note there was a 10-day gap between bombs 1 and 2, while 2 and 3 happened close together.  It is easy to see how the APD would not suspect a serial bomber when there is only 1 bomb planted for over a week.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They actually got a statement from the President of the Texas Home School Coalition. Now, I have yet to see any press ask the administration at Austin Community College for a statement, regardless of the fact that that was the most recent educational institution Conditt attended.

 

 

 

The community college was indeed asked for a statement, I have seen it in numerous articles. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Chocolate - all indications are that from the beginning, they investigated diligently regardless of the color of the first victim's skin.

 

After the 2nd black person was killed, the narrative began (again) that police and white people don't care when black people are murdered.  It was a reach then and it's a reach now.  It's an agenda being tacked on to a horrible situation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The community college was indeed asked for a statement, I have seen it in numerous articles.

My bad, I did not realize that. The (3 or 4) articles I've read so far had not mentioned anything but the fact of his attendance there. But I'll take your word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for this guy being a homeschooler and a loner - the words initially used to describe the man's personality could have been used to describe me in my adolescence.  I was never homeschooled.  I do wish people would not jump to conclusions.  It's also similar when someone in the adoption community does something crazy.  Or the foster system etc. etc.  I think the media could be a bit more responsible about this.  They think themselves so intelligent, maybe use a bit of that intelligence to do the right thing once in a while.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Chocolate - all indications are that from the beginning, they investigated diligently regardless of the color of the first victim's skin.

 

After the 2nd black person was killed, the narrative began (again) that police and white people don't care when black people are murdered. It was a reach then and it's a reach now. It's an agenda being tacked on to a horrible situation.

When the police are on record, see linked article upthread, apologizing to the man’s family for their initial reaction and the impressions they left behind? Right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing the LV shooter and this bomber in an attempt to make your case seems odd, and neither seem to have been involved with domestic terror organizations. I am not sure what proposal you think would have changed that.

 

Regarding the first bombing, everything I have read indicates the Austin police were investigating multiple possible angles. When a seemingly random act occurs that is SOP in every police department. The same thing happens with the first discovered victim of every serial killer. The vast majority of murders are committed by someone the victim knows and is a normal place to start. Considering this seemed to be a targeted attack or an accident (and a significant % of bombing deaths are accidental), jumping to an assumption that it was a terrorist attack would seem absurd, There is also zero evidence the police missed anything in the initial investigation. The reality is that serial killers are caught over time as evidence builds/the killer makes mistakes, which is exactly what happened here.

Which makes perfect sense unless you actually know something about how matters operate in the hood. Bombs aren’t now nor have they ever been the weapon of choice. Too indiscriminate. Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...