Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 6) (bot |
XavierItzm (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
The fact pattern here is abundantly clear, 100% consistent, and undeniable. For more complete coverage read the 20+ page detailed FBI complaint against Marquez. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.230.240.49|72.230.240.49]] ([[User talk:72.230.240.49|talk]]) 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The fact pattern here is abundantly clear, 100% consistent, and undeniable. For more complete coverage read the 20+ page detailed FBI complaint against Marquez. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.230.240.49|72.230.240.49]] ([[User talk:72.230.240.49|talk]]) 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
*Agree. Investigation had ended, Islamist/terrorist motive is clear.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 20:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
*Agree. Investigation had ended, Islamist/terrorist motive is clear.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 20:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
== New characterisation of attacker's motives being removed (twice in less than 24 hrs) in violation of 1RR == |
|||
On 9/9/16, the ''Los Angeles Times'' published an in-depth article on occasion of the DOJ after-action report and the ''LAT'' characterised the attack's motivation as "inspired by Islamic terrorists", a characterisation different from all other characterisations previously included in the article. This was summarily removed from the article for reason of "'''There's already a subsection devoted to that. See below.'''" |
|||
The referred section did not include the new ''LAT'' characterisation. |
|||
To avoid further conflict, the new characterisation was added the the subsection referred, and the subsection title modified to reflect the new information. The addition was summarily removed for reason of "'''Redundant, all already mentioned in other parts of the article'''", in an all-blanking edit in violation of 1RR and furthermore a separate issue/quote from the San Bernardino Sun (unmentioned elsewhere and therefore not redundant) was also summarily eradicated. |
|||
Could compromises be reached instead of wholesale blanking out of the quotes from the ''San Bernardino Sun'' and the ''Los Angeles Times''? Thanks in advance. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 20:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:14, 29 September 2016
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Police Foundation investigation - report due March 7- 21
The Police Foundation
http://www.policefoundation.org/
Hired: 1/25/2016 report due March 7- 21
Chief Behavioral Scientist: Karen Amendol
One issue to be investigated - how, and when the first responding police should engage with recent "mortal danger" level trauma survivor victims? Here, both the shooters and the police were dressed in highly similar tactical gear, carrying similar looking assault firearms. Several trauma victims therefore had difficulty distinguishing friend from foe early on, and may have experienced substantial additional anguish when yet more gunmen came into their close-in physical proximity.
First responding police may also have been emotionally activated given the carnage and horror at the crime scene. Fear and emotional activation can be highly contagious. Police, despite having extensive training, full body armor, and substantial assault weapons ready to respond to any threats may have had clouded judgement in terms of tactical priorities and the immediate needs of the defenseless and unshielded trauma victims.
Apparently police engaged survivors immediately at the scene, remaining in a side hallway adjacent the actual recent killings, prior to removing them from that perceived threatening environment.
Primary use of the report is likely to be ways police might train better to immediately identify themselves to terror victim survivors (as a friend vs. being perceived as an additional foe) so as not to accidentally increase their terror and suffering, and how to best balance the needs for immediate tactical intelligence with the physical safety and psychological needs of trauma victims. Various quality of information aspects might also be explored, in the vicinity of overwhelming trauma, such as "set change" timing dynamics, reality vs. perception under extreme duress, and time periods needed to relieve hyper-attention and high emotionality attached to being subjected to substantial terror.
Perhaps a entry level background article: [9/11: The Psychological Aftermath]
Police Foundation Report
NYT obtained a draft report (see below) and later reported:
‘It Finally Clicked That This Wasn’t an Exercise’: Report Recounts San Bernardino Shooting. In that articles its reported:
- After The New York Times obtained a draft version and reported on its contents, the Justice Department on Friday released the final document. Some details changed — including the number of times the killers were shot, how many shots they fired and how their vehicle was traced — but the overall picture was unaltered.
Can't seem to locate the original NYT coverage of the draft report they had at an earlier time. Nor can I locate any official press release by Justice covering the report. (Attorney Eileen Decker, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California is however quoted in the NYT.
Sometime after it was announced the Police Foundation would do a report they changed their web site to remove all mention of it.
Did someone leak the draft report to NYT and did they use that to get the actual final document released? Will this document be admissible evidence in the Marquez case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.28.218 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Claims Against County of San Bernardino
Renee Wetzel (widow, mother on behalf of three children)
Status: County has not yet responded to the claims
Filed: late December, 2015
Respondents: the county and 25 unidentified individuals
Allegation: death was preventable and caused by negligent, careless actions of the respondents.
Attorney: #1 Andrew J. Nissen http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/284313, #2 ?
Claimed for Widow
- $3 million for loss of wages
- $25 million in general damages
Claimed for minor children
- $10 million in general damages for child 1
- $10 million in general damages for child 2
- $10 million in general damages for child 3
Notes: Claims are originally filed directly with the county: http://www.sbcounty.gov/riskmanagement/default.aspx, if rejected (likely here) they may be subsequently filed in court here: http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/CIVIL/
Description and technical details of the weapons used?
The article says that in addition to a couple pistols, two assault-style rifles were used. But other than saying they were "AR-15 type" semiautomatic rifles, there is no other information about them. What was the size of the magazine(s) used? Were they detachable? If so, in what way were they detachable? (E.g., a "bullet button", or...?) How many magazines did the shooters have?
This information is relevant to the ongoing public debate over gun control. Indeed, California already has very strict restrictions on the sale of so-called "assault weapons" (perhaps the strictest in the nation), so I have to wonder how these "AR-15 type" rifles were obtained, or more specifically, in what way did they comply with California's stringent restrictions on the sale of these types of weapons. Captain Quirk (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Motive - "under investigation" vs. Islamic Terrorism
Changed motive to Islamic Terrorism but was reversed, nearly instantly, by someone demanding "discuss in Talk first." No other reason was provided.
Its obvious the "Motive" here is no longer under active investigation, so an update is clearly needed.
Best evidence of motive was first person accounting of the motive by one shooter who posted, contemporaneously to the incident, on FB that her motive was to support Islamic Terrorism. There hasn't been one iota of evidence to refute that.
FBI has stated on innumerable occasions that the event was classified as Islamic Terrorism.
Corroborative evidence is the FBI's very first count in USA v. Marquez (a secondary player to the actual shootings, but intimately involved, over a several year period, with excellent awareness of the primary shooters motive) is for 18:2339A(a) CONSPIRACY TO PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS.
The fact pattern here is abundantly clear, 100% consistent, and undeniable. For more complete coverage read the 20+ page detailed FBI complaint against Marquez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.240.49 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Investigation had ended, Islamist/terrorist motive is clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
New characterisation of attacker's motives being removed (twice in less than 24 hrs) in violation of 1RR
On 9/9/16, the Los Angeles Times published an in-depth article on occasion of the DOJ after-action report and the LAT characterised the attack's motivation as "inspired by Islamic terrorists", a characterisation different from all other characterisations previously included in the article. This was summarily removed from the article for reason of "There's already a subsection devoted to that. See below."
The referred section did not include the new LAT characterisation.
To avoid further conflict, the new characterisation was added the the subsection referred, and the subsection title modified to reflect the new information. The addition was summarily removed for reason of "Redundant, all already mentioned in other parts of the article", in an all-blanking edit in violation of 1RR and furthermore a separate issue/quote from the San Bernardino Sun (unmentioned elsewhere and therefore not redundant) was also summarily eradicated.
Could compromises be reached instead of wholesale blanking out of the quotes from the San Bernardino Sun and the Los Angeles Times? Thanks in advance. XavierItzm (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)