CDZ I don't know whether Hodgkinson actually sought to kill someone.

[Divine Wind]

Preface:

• If you are a professional who has credible insights to share on how one might obtain and ascertain the answers to the central or explicit inquiries I've below expressed, please keep reading. I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?
• If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it. I can speculate arbitrarily just as well as the next person having no expertise on the matter, i.e., people in the "peanut gallery," which, for this topic, I'm part of the "peanut gallery."

Thread Topic Content:
I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people. I'm wondering that because I hear the man used an "M4-like" rifle, and he didn't kill anyone, yet managed to hit five people. In addition to using an M4-like rifle, I hear the guy had with him "a lot" of ammunition.

So far, I know three of the five injured people did not sustain life-threatening injuries. I don't know the status of the other two.

I'm just wondering how one who hits five people -- I don't know how many shots were in total fired -- using a rifle, has plenty of ammo, and kills none, while at the same time having been of a mind to kill someone.

• Did the guy hit five while trying for someone or some few in particular?
• Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?
• Did the guy seek to hit as many targets as possible without regard to whether his shots were fatal?
• Did the guy start out desiring one objective and upon being "in place" change his mind?
• Did the guy seek to commit suicide by cop?
• Did the guy view himself as a slayer? An assassin? A murderer? A mere killer? None of those things?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I just know that in other widely publicized shooting incidents, shooters using weapons like the one Hodgkinson used seemingly had little or no difficulty actually killing people.


Note:

• Before some nitwit here asks, of course, I would not have preferred the guy killed someone. I don't know WTF it takes for someone to conjure such a question, but I do know it's the misanthropic type of thought that occurs to some of the twisted people who post on here.

Hi Xelor, I am afraid that your inquiry has a few built in fallacies that render an answer to your satisfaction nearly impossible to give. Firstly, you only want a "professional" to answer. A professional marksman? Those rare birds are generally only found in the serving military. I doubt there are many, if any amongst our posters on USMB. A professional psychiatrist? A psychiatrist would not give an off the cuff opinion on the sanity of a person under any circumstance without a one on one evaluation, not counting again the fact that there are probably none here. The only person that can speak to motivations of the shooter was the shooter himself, and he will shortly be pushing up the daisies. His cookie crumb trail speaks to his desire to kill.

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

Please keep in mind that other than visually, there are very few similarities between a commercial version of either of these weapons and those used on the battlefield.

Both types of weapons were developed as a result of real world feedback regarding the use of individual firearms on the battlefields of WWII. The traditional military rifle, the bolt-action, was a reliable, robust weapon that could theoretically hit targets up to a 1000 meters away. One shot at a time, with a full sized, heavy cartridge. During the war it was discovered that soldiers were not engaging targets at ranges much beyond 300 meters or less. Further it was learned that well aimed single shots were not as effective as volume of fire. The full sized cartridge was in fact too powerful.
Thus the Germans developed the first "assault rifle", the STG44, the grand-daddy of all modern military rifles. Gas operated, special small cartridge, stamped metal components.
The requirements:
1) Portability
2) Volume of fire
3) Ammunition load-out
4) Economy of manufacture
5) Economy of maintenance
6) Accuracy
Please note that these are not in any particular order, indeed, which requirement that was considered the "key" by each designer plays an important part in my conclusions.

The Kalashnikov variants, in true Russian fashion, rely on economy of manufacture and maintenance followed by volume of fire as the main requirements. Accuracy, not so much. They were designed to be operated by illiterate grunts after being drug through the mud and dust for days without cleaning. They make up for lack of accuracy with a greater rate of fire and they fire an heavier round with more ballistic energy. They tend to cause through and through wounds. Russian doctrine: saturate an area with fire, close for the kill. Finally, they are inexpensive.

The Stoner variants are a whole different animal, despite coming from the same requirements. The M16 series call for portability, ammunition load out and accuracy as the most important requirements. The US Army, while agreeing that realistic battlefield ranges were only 300 meters, they still wanted to be able to hit that target at that range. Thus the M16 series were built with tighter tolerances with lighter weight components to fire the smaller round designed for it. They tend to cause more grievous non through and through wounds. US doctrine: destroy the target at a distance. Finally, they are expensive.

Now, both types are commercially available in civilian versions. The AK's are much cheaper than the AR's. One is just as plentiful as the other. The AR is much more portable and a lot more accurate than the AK.

Therefore, presuming the shooter was not a total loon, if all he wanted to do was spray lead without hitting anyone or anything, he would have more likely chosen an AK over the AR. He wanted to hit and kill, thus requiring the more accurate weapon.
Despite Hollywood's enamorment with "assault rifles" hitting and killing anything they are pointed at, hitting a man-sized moving target is no easy thing at any distance. The victims were lucky this man was apparently a poor shot, because his weapon was capable of delivering a body count.

My conclusion: he wanted kills, a lot of them too.

While I agree he wanted to kill, I fail to see why selecting an AK or an AR makes much difference. Both are well known to be excellent combat rifles and excellent weapons in the field.

That said, I'm a AK fan since it, along with the SKS, are better hog hunting rifles than the AR with it's puny 5.56.

 

[Stasha_Sz]

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

I have to finish reading your remarks; however, so I have the correct context in mind, how do either of those two weapons correspond to the description I've thus far seen of the weapon, that being "like an M4?" All that, along with "M16" and "AK family" means to me is:

• Rifle not handgun/pistol
• Semi-automatic or automatic
• Fires bullets at a high velocity compared to some other fire arms.

I'm going to await your reply to the comment above for I don't want to read about AKs and M16s only to later find out that they are materially different from an M4.

Hi Xelor, the M4 is a version of the Stoner M16 family. The M4 is the current issue to the US military and its allies. One can be identified vis-à-vis the M16 by the telescoping butt-stock and shorter barrel. It is described as a "carbine" which is the name of a short rifle. Functionally, the M4 and M16 operate the same and fire the same round from the same magazine. Besides the size, the M4 also has a burst fire setting, which the M16 does not.
While what the shooter was firing may have looked like an M4, it most certainly was not one. The civilian versions fire only on semi-automatic.
They are a rifle/carbine
Semi-automatic
Velocity would vary by round & caliber, for this exercise, the civilian load for an 5.56mm round is close enough to the military round to be moot for this discussion, not sure if the round is FMJ/HP/SP, though the differences in velocity would be minor, the differences in damage may be greater.
Does this help?

 

[Iceweasel]

I heard it was a 7.76 SKS.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

We don't know how much time this guy spent practicing with his riffle. Anyway. Here's the thing. We know very little about the gunman. A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

I agree with you. That is why I wrote the following in the OP:

I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?

I realize you may not have seen the second of those statements because I added it for clarity's sake after having posted the original OP text.

You know what else I may have not seen in your OP? How you define "professional" and your own "professional" status.

I'm a professional, but not the type whereby matters such as the one under discussion in this thread fall within my areas of expertise.

You didn't answer my questions.

I didn't because I was reading very quickly and saw only one question mark, and I didn't think you seriously wanted me to answer the question "You know what else I may have not seen in your OP?" Obviously, as you've written "questions," plural, I was mistaken. So....

You know what else I may have not seen in your OP?

No. There is no way I can know what you may have not seen anywhere or at anytime.

How you define "professional" and your own "professional" status.

What follows is how I define "professional":

• Professionals, thus, are governed minimally by their professions' codes of ethics and other standards, and profess commitment to high competence, integrity and morality, altruism, and the promotion of the public good within their expert domain. In turn, professionals are thus accountable to those who they serve directly, their clients, and to society in general. A “professional” is someone who derives earns their living by selling their intellectual expertise or specific talents in a given discipline. This is in contrast with a hobbyist or amateur who may occasionally receive compensation for their work in a given discipline, but doing so isn't how they primarily and actively earn a living. Also, a professional is an active member in good standing of a profession. A profession is a disciplined group of individuals who adhere to a clearly defined and publicly disclosed set of ethical and work-product delivery standards. This group positions itself as possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised body of learning derived from research, education and training at a high level, and is recognised by the public as such.
  • Professionals have a sense of history; they live neither in the past nor completely in the present and they see the future as an outgrowth of, thus part of, the present and the past. Accordingly, a professional doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past and yet s/he eschews the hubris that overly discounts the lessons of the past. In short, a professional maintains a mental and practical perspective whereby s/he does not, in their discipline suffer from myopia, s/he does not "wear" blinders
  • .Professionals recognize emerging and ebbing patterns resulting from the interdependence of time, place, person and space.
  • Professionals focus on achieving goals through cooperation rather than doing so in isolation.
  • Professionals have an acute awareness of the nature of complexity in the world, his/her and humanity's knowledge about that world, thus about their work. Professionals know they don't know everything, are neither diminished nor intimidated by that. Accordingly, professionals are not reticent to say "I don't know," and they know how to "find out whatever" if/when need be.
  • Professionals continuously work on their own personal and professional development, in terms of raw knowledge, understanding it, and increasing their sagacity -- in general and in specific areas -- as a result of having done so. In other words, a professional never stops training and learning. For a professional, life is a matter of what to learn about, learn to do, what to think about, discover, etc. next. The journey doesn't end.

In a prior post, I shared my professional status. If you want to know more, click here.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

I have to finish reading your remarks; however, so I have the correct context in mind, how do either of those two weapons correspond to the description I've thus far seen of the weapon, that being "like an M4?" All that, along with "M16" and "AK family" means to me is:

• Rifle not handgun/pistol
• Semi-automatic or automatic
• Fires bullets at a high velocity compared to some other fire arms.

I'm going to await your reply to the comment above for I don't want to read about AKs and M16s only to later find out that they are materially different from an M4.

Hi Xelor, the M4 is a version of the Stoner M16 family. The M4 is the current issue to the US military and its allies. One can be identified vis-à-vis the M16 by the telescoping butt-stock and shorter barrel. It is described as a "carbine" which is the name of a short rifle. Functionally, the M4 and M16 operate the same and fire the same round from the same magazine. Besides the size, the M4 also has a burst fire setting, which the M16 does not.
While what the shooter was firing may have looked like an M4, it most certainly was not one. The civilian versions fire only on semi-automatic.
They are a rifle/carbine
Semi-automatic
Velocity would vary by round & caliber, for this exercise, the civilian load for an 5.56mm round is close enough to the military round to be moot for this discussion, not sure if the round is FMJ/HP/SP, though the differences in velocity would be minor, the differences in damage may be greater.
Does this help?

Does this help?

Yes. It tells me that for the scope and context you've likely addressed in the remainder of the post I have to finish reading that the differences between the M4 and the M16 don't matter and that if I find you have written something that doesn't align with the similarities and differences you've just above noted they may matter and that I should ask about them (or do some research of my own) if I determine that they do to me seem to matter.

 

[westwall]

Preface:

• If you are a professional who has credible insights to share on how one might obtain and ascertain the answers to the central or explicit inquiries I've below expressed, please keep reading. I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?
• If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it. I can speculate arbitrarily just as well as the next person having no expertise on the matter, i.e., people in the "peanut gallery," which, for this topic, I'm part of the "peanut gallery."

Thread Topic Content:
I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people. I'm wondering that because I hear the man used an "M4-like" rifle, and he didn't kill anyone, yet managed to hit five people. In addition to using an M4-like rifle, I hear the guy had with him "a lot" of ammunition.

So far, I know three of the five injured people did not sustain life-threatening injuries. I don't know the status of the other two.

I'm just wondering how one who hits five people -- I don't know how many shots were in total fired -- using a rifle, has plenty of ammo, and kills none, while at the same time having been of a mind to kill someone.

• Did the guy hit five while trying for someone or some few in particular?
• Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?
• Did the guy seek to hit as many targets as possible without regard to whether his shots were fatal?
• Did the guy start out desiring one objective and upon being "in place" change his mind?
• Did the guy seek to commit suicide by cop?
• Did the guy view himself as a slayer? An assassin? A murderer? A mere killer? None of those things?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I just know that in other widely publicized shooting incidents, shooters using weapons like the one Hodgkinson used seemingly had little or no difficulty actually killing people.


Note:

• Before some nitwit here asks, of course, I would not have preferred the guy killed someone. I don't know WTF it takes for someone to conjure such a question, but I do know it's the misanthropic type of thought that occurs to some of the twisted people who post on here.

Not suitable for CDZ. Moved to Current Events.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Preface:

• If you are a professional who has credible insights to share on how one might obtain and ascertain the answers to the central or explicit inquiries I've below expressed, please keep reading. I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?
• If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it. I can speculate arbitrarily just as well as the next person having no expertise on the matter, i.e., people in the "peanut gallery," which, for this topic, I'm part of the "peanut gallery."

Thread Topic Content:
I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people. I'm wondering that because I hear the man used an "M4-like" rifle, and he didn't kill anyone, yet managed to hit five people. In addition to using an M4-like rifle, I hear the guy had with him "a lot" of ammunition.

So far, I know three of the five injured people did not sustain life-threatening injuries. I don't know the status of the other two.

I'm just wondering how one who hits five people -- I don't know how many shots were in total fired -- using a rifle, has plenty of ammo, and kills none, while at the same time having been of a mind to kill someone.

• Did the guy hit five while trying for someone or some few in particular?
• Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?
• Did the guy seek to hit as many targets as possible without regard to whether his shots were fatal?
• Did the guy start out desiring one objective and upon being "in place" change his mind?
• Did the guy seek to commit suicide by cop?
• Did the guy view himself as a slayer? An assassin? A murderer? A mere killer? None of those things?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I just know that in other widely publicized shooting incidents, shooters using weapons like the one Hodgkinson used seemingly had little or no difficulty actually killing people.


Note:

• Before some nitwit here asks, of course, I would not have preferred the guy killed someone. I don't know WTF it takes for someone to conjure such a question, but I do know it's the misanthropic type of thought that occurs to some of the twisted people who post on here.

Hi Xelor, I am afraid that your inquiry has a few built in fallacies that render an answer to your satisfaction nearly impossible to give. Firstly, you only want a "professional" to answer. A professional marksman? Those rare birds are generally only found in the serving military. I doubt there are many, if any amongst our posters on USMB. A professional psychiatrist? A psychiatrist would not give an off the cuff opinion on the sanity of a person under any circumstance without a one on one evaluation, not counting again the fact that there are probably none here. The only person that can speak to motivations of the shooter was the shooter himself, and he will shortly be pushing up the daisies. His cookie crumb trail speaks to his desire to kill.

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

Please keep in mind that other than visually, there are very few similarities between a commercial version of either of these weapons and those used on the battlefield.

Both types of weapons were developed as a result of real world feedback regarding the use of individual firearms on the battlefields of WWII. The traditional military rifle, the bolt-action, was a reliable, robust weapon that could theoretically hit targets up to a 1000 meters away. One shot at a time, with a full sized, heavy cartridge. During the war it was discovered that soldiers were not engaging targets at ranges much beyond 300 meters or less. Further it was learned that well aimed single shots were not as effective as volume of fire. The full sized cartridge was in fact too powerful.
Thus the Germans developed the first "assault rifle", the STG44, the grand-daddy of all modern military rifles. Gas operated, special small cartridge, stamped metal components.
The requirements:
1) Portability
2) Volume of fire
3) Ammunition load-out
4) Economy of manufacture
5) Economy of maintenance
6) Accuracy
Please note that these are not in any particular order, indeed, which requirement that was considered the "key" by each designer plays an important part in my conclusions.

The Kalashnikov variants, in true Russian fashion, rely on economy of manufacture and maintenance followed by volume of fire as the main requirements. Accuracy, not so much. They were designed to be operated by illiterate grunts after being drug through the mud and dust for days without cleaning. They make up for lack of accuracy with a greater rate of fire and they fire an heavier round with more ballistic energy. They tend to cause through and through wounds. Russian doctrine: saturate an area with fire, close for the kill. Finally, they are inexpensive.

The Stoner variants are a whole different animal, despite coming from the same requirements. The M16 series call for portability, ammunition load out and accuracy as the most important requirements. The US Army, while agreeing that realistic battlefield ranges were only 300 meters, they still wanted to be able to hit that target at that range. Thus the M16 series were built with tighter tolerances with lighter weight components to fire the smaller round designed for it. They tend to cause more grievous non through and through wounds. US doctrine: destroy the target at a distance. Finally, they are expensive.

Now, both types are commercially available in civilian versions. The AK's are much cheaper than the AR's. One is just as plentiful as the other. The AR is much more portable and a lot more accurate than the AK.

Therefore, presuming the shooter was not a total loon, if all he wanted to do was spray lead without hitting anyone or anything, he would have more likely chosen an AK over the AR. He wanted to hit and kill, thus requiring the more accurate weapon.
Despite Hollywood's enamorment with "assault rifles" hitting and killing anything they are pointed at, hitting a man-sized moving target is no easy thing at any distance. The victims were lucky this man was apparently a poor shot, because his weapon was capable of delivering a body count.

My conclusion: he wanted kills, a lot of them too.

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

I have to finish reading your remarks; however, so I have the correct context in mind, how do either of those two weapons correspond to the description I've thus far seen of the weapon, that being "like an M4?" All that, along with "M16" and "AK family" means to me is:

• Rifle not handgun/pistol
• Semi-automatic or automatic
• Fires bullets at a high velocity compared to some other fire arms.

I'm going to await your reply to the comment above for I don't want to read about AKs and M16s only to later find out that they are materially different from an M4.

Hi Xelor, the M4 is a version of the Stoner M16 family. The M4 is the current issue to the US military and its allies. One can be identified vis-à-vis the M16 by the telescoping butt-stock and shorter barrel. It is described as a "carbine" which is the name of a short rifle. Functionally, the M4 and M16 operate the same and fire the same round from the same magazine. Besides the size, the M4 also has a burst fire setting, which the M16 does not.
While what the shooter was firing may have looked like an M4, it most certainly was not one. The civilian versions fire only on semi-automatic.
They are a rifle/carbine
Semi-automatic
Velocity would vary by round & caliber, for this exercise, the civilian load for an 5.56mm round is close enough to the military round to be moot for this discussion, not sure if the round is FMJ/HP/SP, though the differences in velocity would be minor, the differences in damage may be greater.
Does this help?

TY for the discussion about guns. Unfortunately, none of what you wrote in post 31 helps me understand which among Hodgkinson's "behaviors or statements, in your professional opinion, indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," where "X" and "Y" are any of the options offered explicitly in my OP's bulleted list of options, or implicitly in the thread title.

Of course, I can infer that by his having obtained and fired at people an M4-like gun, Hodgkinson minimally intended to harm someone. Should I instead from those two actions and their objects be of the mind that killing somebody is the only outcome one can soundly infer Hodgkinson had?

While what the shooter was firing may have looked like an M4, it most certainly was not one.

Based on my having read that Hodgkinson used an "M4-like" gun, I knew that, unless the writer was a poor or sloppy one, Hodgkinson didn't use an M4. The article I read didn't discuss the manner and extent to which Hodgkinson's weapon is like an M4, so I don't know whether appearance is among the two weapons' homologous traits.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Preface:

• If you are a professional who has credible insights to share on how one might obtain and ascertain the answers to the central or explicit inquiries I've below expressed, please keep reading. I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?
• If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it. I can speculate arbitrarily just as well as the next person having no expertise on the matter, i.e., people in the "peanut gallery," which, for this topic, I'm part of the "peanut gallery."

Thread Topic Content:
I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people. I'm wondering that because I hear the man used an "M4-like" rifle, and he didn't kill anyone, yet managed to hit five people. In addition to using an M4-like rifle, I hear the guy had with him "a lot" of ammunition.

So far, I know three of the five injured people did not sustain life-threatening injuries. I don't know the status of the other two.

I'm just wondering how one who hits five people -- I don't know how many shots were in total fired -- using a rifle, has plenty of ammo, and kills none, while at the same time having been of a mind to kill someone.

• Did the guy hit five while trying for someone or some few in particular?
• Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?
• Did the guy seek to hit as many targets as possible without regard to whether his shots were fatal?
• Did the guy start out desiring one objective and upon being "in place" change his mind?
• Did the guy seek to commit suicide by cop?
• Did the guy view himself as a slayer? An assassin? A murderer? A mere killer? None of those things?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I just know that in other widely publicized shooting incidents, shooters using weapons like the one Hodgkinson used seemingly had little or no difficulty actually killing people.


Note:

• Before some nitwit here asks, of course, I would not have preferred the guy killed someone. I don't know WTF it takes for someone to conjure such a question, but I do know it's the misanthropic type of thought that occurs to some of the twisted people who post on here.

He was clearly trying to murder republicans.

the fact that this is the spin only means that the dnc and their media cronies know that the run of the mill dem is dumber than

than


well, I can't think of anything that could be that dumb.

 

[Chuz Life]

Some people just can't shoot for shit . . .

Especially when the shit is hitting the fan.

The North Hollywood shootout, . . . Both perpetrators were killed, twelve police officers and eight civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and police.[1]