Shooting in San Bernardino, California - 14 Dead.
Blind Sniper
Moderator
https://www.rt.com/usa/324372-san-bernardino-active-shooter/
Police in San Bernardino, California are responding to reports of an active shooter in an office building. There are 20 victims, according to the fire department. The location is around the corner from a Planned Parenthood.
The San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office is urging the public to avoid the area of Orange Show Road, South Waterman Avenue and Park Center Circle.
I don't think people know much else at the moment. Hopefully more people don't get hurt and manage to stay safe.
EDIT: A Reddit live News feed is up at https://www.reddit.com/live/w0nn1o5hu90y
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Oh my god, not again.
What else is freaking new. This world sucks and is just going to hell. I realize it's "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but the world would be alot better without guns
A Reddit live news feed is up:
https://www.reddit.com/live/w0nn1o5hu90y
You gotta be fucking kidding me...
Damn, again?
Heavens above, Another mass shooting? Sadly, I cannot say that I am surprised, for we seem to be in the midst of a vicious cycle. One mass shooting happens, then another few months pass, another happens, and then the cycle continues. The fact that I was actually waiting for this to happen is scary.
How many shootings are we going to allow and pretend we don't know how to fix it? Put the blame somewhere else so don't the face the problem? This isn't like a flu on society where eventually it'll go away, it's cancer and it'll eventually wreck everything if no one with the power to make a difference tries to change.
Just, goddammit.
Well said!
I'm curious, what do you say is the culprit, and what is the solution?
So. . . when can we ban the mass exploitation of these events by media outlets? It gives these people precisely what they desire. . . attention.
Who do you think they'll blame for this one?
I'm taking bets.
Looks like the police killed some of them.
No. They shouldn't censor the press more than it already is. Besides how can you "ban" something like that.
I have no idea. I can't even make an educated guess. All I know is there's another shooting, don't even know at what kind of location it is.
Not allow major news publications to cover the stories. Obviously stoping social media isn't feasible. Not allow the police to reveal the information so quickly, like motives, etc. Waiting months to share that information, after the initial "Another shooting!" reaction has died down, would be beneficial. If media outlets want to cover the topic months after it has happened then by all means, but since they are all about ratings, which these tragic events reel in only right after the fact, I have my doubts they'd be interested in the slightest.
You advocate not allowing major news publications to report on active shootings with multiple casualties and suspects still on the loose until months after the event? Are you out of your mind?
Information like names, motives, pictures, associations, etc. Most definitely.
There's more than one? Christ.
At least three, two died in a shootout with police. Now they're saying only one is dead. It seems like no one really knows wtf is happening.
Not only is that a direct violation of the first amendment, it's just plain immoral to leave the public in the dark about the people who killed their friends and families. I get your concern about potentially glorifying killers, but that concern does not trump the responsibility of the press to notify the public of the people who harmed us. And it's not as if not revealing a killer's true name and motive is going to stop him from being glorified. All that does is fuel intrigue, speculation, and conspiracy theories.
The families should be notified, but it does trump the "responsibility" of the press to notify the public at large of the people that harmed "us". It might fuel theories, but it doesn't solidify anything. I could say it was potentially 3 employees attacking the place where they worked, which it could have been, but few people will take that information at face value, and with good reason. The implications on the first amendment could be argued by both sides, but I'm not interested in that discussion.
I think we can safely say the world is falling apart.
Sounds like that would make the wildly irresponsible fearmongering even worse, let alone the constitutional implications.
Wow. I remember during other massacres the cops usually operate under the assumption that there are multiple gunman, but it usually gets cleared up pretty fast.
Who the fuck wants to massacre social workers and disability specialists?
Not sure how "freedom of the press" can be argued to stop the press from talking about something. But anyway, suppose these were terrorists who wrote a note making threats to other places or people. Are you not going to notify them and let them conduct business as usual? Or suppose, like the current situation, there are still suspects on the loose. Will you conceal the identity of the apprehended suspects so there's no way the public can help with the capture of the ones at large?
What you're suggesting undermines the purpose of the press--to inform the public of significant current events. Addressing tragic events like these means developing a greater understand of why and how they are perpetrated, not resigning ourselves to ignorance for the sake of spiting some psychopath who's probably already dead.
Well I happened to turn on the news a few minutes after coverage started. I have to say, this one seems different than the usual psychopath with a gun. This was three or more people attacking a party and being gone before law enforcement showed up. They didn't even skip town after.
It wouldn't make the fear mongering worse, the people normally responsible for causing the fear in the first place would have no basis for their claims.
"It's because of the Muslims!"
"How do you know that?"
"Cuz its gotta be!"
The constitutional implications can be argued for either side. It's not the first time freedom of speech would be withheld for reasons specific to a form of speech.
It's really disheartening that I can't yet remove "Active Shooting" from the title.
I can't imagine how uneasy people feel knowing that one of the gunmen are still at large for this long.
Commies.
it just sounds like a huge infringement on freedom of the press, for little tangible benefit. I'm no fan of the media witch hunts, but People should be able to know what's going on in their own country.
Freedom of speech is negated for other reasons, this could be just another exception. I think we both know the answer to your question, if there is reason to believe it is a terrorist group with plans to continue their endeavors the targeted groups should be notified. Yes, I would withhold their identities. The chances of the captureds' identities giving away the at larges' identities, without law enforcement being able to connect them already, is lousy. Now if they have the identity of the person at large and release it then that is a different story.
No. That information would still be attainable for anyone interested in it. It would just eliminate, mostly, the sensationalism surrounding the cases right after they happen, and in doing so take the spotlight off of the people commiting the acts.
And I think it sounds like a meaningless infringement on freedom of speech for a completely justifiable rational. People should be able to know the things that concern them, the name if the offender and a nice mugshot do not fall under that categorization, especially when emotions are high and people are taking note.
Tell me about it. I feel if weapon production halted at the melee weaponry stage I think it would've been at least a lot less worse then where we are now.
That's the thing though, they don't know if one of them is still on the loose.
A police conference just wrapped up. Two suspects are dead, a man and a woman. They have someone in custody who was fleeing from the scene, but they don't know if that person was involved. There may still be someone at large.
It looks to be 1-3+ shooters, so far at least 14 innocent people have been killed along with two of the suspects, as well as one suspect being in custody and another's whereabouts being unknown. It hasn't been disclosed yet, but it's most likely that the guns used (either AK-47 or AR-15) were illegally obtained, as most guns used in shootings usually are. The shooters' motive has not been released yet either, as far as I know. What really makes my blood boil is that this shooting happened at a center for people with developmental disabilities. Absolutely despicable.
EDIT: Now that more information has been released, we know that 14 people were killed and 21 were wounded at a Christmas party being hosted at a center for people with developmental disabilities. The 2 shooters, who were shot and killed by the police, were husband and wife, both Muslim. The husband was also allegedly in contact with Islamic extremists. I won't jump to conclusions, since the police still have not officially released a motive, but it certainly seems like this is going to turn out to be another act of Terrorism carried out in the name of Radical Islam, it's difficult to believe that this shooting was solely motivated by the husband's problems at work. The shooters also had 12 pipe bombs, along with several tools/materials used to make explosives, and over 3,000 rounds of ammunition at their home. They basically had a bomb factory at home, how did this go unnoticed? There also had been 3 pipe bombs planted at the scene of the shooting, thankfully, none of them went off. It has been reported that they had 2 legally purchased pistols on them, as well as 2 rifles, though the rifles were the guns primarily used in the attack. The 2 rifles used (Smith & Wesson M&P15′s ) were apparently legally owned by someone else who had nothing to do with the shooting. It hasn't been disclosed yet whether the 4 guns were purchased out of state or not. I'm still waiting for more details to be released and for reports to be officially confirmed, but there's quite a lot of felonies as well as potential felonies racked up here, seeing as CA has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
My heart goes out to the victims and their families, and I pray that those who were injured make a full recovery. These monsters got off too easy being taken out by the police. They've made their own baby an orphan, and for what? Just so they could go slaughter and terrorize innocent people at a Christmas party. It's still both incredibly unnerving and disheartening that these sorts of people exist in the world.
Yeah, the cruelty of attacks like this and Sandy Hook are pretty astonishing.
Yeah, like public safety. Not "I don't like how the press is handling these stories." If we abridged freedom of the press every time we get annoyed at a headline, there would be no press.
But that's the thing. We need the spotlight to be on the people committing these acts because it's important that we identify the root causes of these events, whether they be ideological, psychological, or something else. A society, especially one based on democracy, relies on an informed populace. If people aren't made aware and reminded of the damage that unchecked mental illness (Sandy Hook) or bigotry (Charleston) can inflict, they would be less likely to take steps to address it and those things will keep happening. All this to, what, potentially dissatisfy the one or two who do this kind of stuff for fame?
Maybe they made the shooter jump through one too many hoop to get care.
No, we don't need to spotlight on these people to identify the roots of their actions. At least not in the capacity and timing we see it now. Again, I'm not suggesting we just not cover the information, just that we cover it in a different way. People would still know about Sandy Hook and Charleston and the reasons behind them, what they wouldn't be so inclined to recall is the names and faces of the people that did the killing. They would see the faces of the ones lost and, if they were curious about stopping these events in the future, would have complete aceess to relevant information. "The one or two who do this kind of stuff for fame." Do you honestly think the numbers are that low? I certainly don't. I think they see the people that have committed atrocities before them take center stage for days on end, have their stories talked about relentlessly for days, and they want the same treatment. They want to be recalled in infamy, in nightmares and media. And they see how it has been thusly for the infamous before them, and they follow suit.
EDIT: Sorry for the multiple errors, I'm watching an interesting show on Discovery. I don't feel like fixing it!