Four dead in shooting at newspaper building in Maryland, suspect in custody
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Four people were killed Thursday in a shooting at a local newspaper building in Maryland, a senior federal law enforcement source tells CBS News. One suspect is in custody.
The shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper prompted a massive police response, with employees evacuated from the building with hands raised above their heads. The Gazette is a local newspaper owned by The Baltimore Sun.
The first shots were reported at 2:40 p.m. after the shooter entered the building, which also houses other businesses, CBS Baltimore reports.
Phil Davis, a Gazette reporter, tweeted that he was in the building when the shooting happened. Davis said via Twitter the gunman shot through the glass door to the office and opened fire on multiple employees. He said he hid under his desk and employees heard the gunman reload.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annapolis-shooting-four-dead-in-shooting-at-capital-gazette-newspaper-in-maryland-suspect-in-custody-2018-06-28-live-updates/
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
110 visitors
I will be away from the site this evening and consequently, will lock the article until I return; until then, anyone who cares to comment will have time to formulate an intelligent, well-considered comment, pro or con.
In the event it is determined that the shooter had no political motivation, or, if no clear motivation of any kind is determined, or, if the motivation was political, but in no way logically relatable to the historically and documented fascist ideology that "the press is the enemy of the people," I will take down the article and apologize for my inference and its implication.
NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS … STATE YOUR CASE in a logical, intelligent manner.
Based on the available evidence as published, you should take this down and make your apologies. I'm surprised you went there with no facts to back it up.
I'm not. For the liberal crowd to go off Hf Alfies cocked is getting routine .
We do NOT go off Hf Alfies cocked! That's the right, they go off Hf Alfies cocked ALL the time.
More pronouncements from those with nothing to add but AD hominem.
I guess it wont be long until it's "Another day, another mass shooting". Ho hum.
I don't think it had anything to do with politics or terrorism - more recent reports indicate it was a personal grudge against the newspaper, something to do with a lost lawsuit.
Yeahbutt, as you can see, there are always those who will make it about politics or terrorism.
I heard on the radio this morning that it was related to a suit/case, something to do with harrassment, 5-6 years ago. Haven't seen much else.
If it began five or six years ago, what was it that pushed the shooter over the edge these many years later?
Could it be a POTUS that demonizes the press every day and drives a would-be catastrophe to an actual one?
Trump gives validation to the worst tendencies and hatreds and emboldens the worst behaviors. Do we really need a “leader” to stoke the unstable actors in our country?
Love conspiracy theories.
Can't blame an AR15 for this one. It was a Joe Biden "Buy a shotgun " !
Well, if we're going to speculate, it could be the constant whininess of the Liberal Left that pushed him over the edge. It could be he got subliminal messages from your photography to kill people.
Or it could be that his is mentally disturbed and decided he was finally going to fix the 'wrong' he saw done to himself.
Speculating on the cause is nothing more than a silly game at this point.
Instead of inventing imaginative, anti-Trump speculations regarding motive(s) perhaps people should wait for law enforcement to release facts. We already know that the shooter lost a lawsuit and posted hateful things on social media that were unrelated to POTUS.
When making a case to establish motive, a good prosecutor puts all plausible information before the jury; possibly you gentlemen are a bit fearful that I speculate based on particulars that fit time frame and, the definition and law regarding incitement.
I made quite a few cases back in the day establishing motive, not to indict the motive itself, but to complete the triad of means, motive and opportunity.
Incendiary fighting words have proven consequences, and particularly when spouted from high profile individuals.
I will hold on to my speculation and see if the shooter at some point, explains both his motivations and his tipping point.
Thank you got making my morning; pissing off the defenders by positing a plausible scenario often is a sign that they realize the plausibility and it makes them nervous.
I thought the purpose of the article was to demonstrate exactly the type of fake news Trump has been talking about.
Well, you thought incorrectly ... but did show that Trumpsters will invariably find a way to call anything they don’t wish to hear, fake news.
Atta’ boy!
It should say, “thank you for making my morning.”
It’s tough to use an iPhone keypad.
Do we really need a “leader” to stoke the unstable actors in our country?
The leftist press has demonized every Republican president going way back. Why would anybody support a press that was not fair and balanced, but obviously political.
Weapon of choice not the issue ... when such a crime is perpetrated, investigators will try to determine all factors leading up to that crime ... even when there is no question as to the perp’s identity, such information is obtained in the hope of predicting and preventing similar such crimes.
Check your battery.
Yeah; FOX and Breitbart are purveyors of shit; for once we agree, Greg.
And fake, leftist news didn’t manufacture Trump’s comments, nor those of any other authoritarian.
This time ?
If an AR15 was used, the Liberal media, and YOU, would be ALL OVER IT and deranging themselves on gun control again !
By the way....where is the Liberal media going on this anyway ?
Seems they are just emphasizing the guy....NOT THE FUCKING GUN this time. Geeeeee…….
Read on, my friend, I have explained myself clearly and specifically.
Except that my speculation is based on verifiable recent and persistent incendiary comments … ON VIDEO!
Some speculation ABOUT SPECULATION is merely rhetorical … I always stipulate my reasons for positions … SPECIFICALLY!
IF my grandmother had had testicles, she would have been my grandfather …
Let's have an actual point-counterpoint discussion … my hypotheticals are base of specific, verifiable events with plausible cause-effect properties.
It's all inclusive of ALL discussions that have been going on since 2009 on this subject.
Either the "Gun" is the problem....or the "Person" is the problem. There are truly ONLY two choices here.
This time.....the "Gun" isn't the problem.
Doesn't fit a narrative huh.
WRONG! There are three elements …
Means, motive, and opportunity. ... Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means … a firearm in this case), the reason the defendant committed the crime (motive or motives), and whether the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity).
You can continue to deflect from the particulars of this incident, or, you can try to discuss in the manner as it would proceed in an objective venue such as an investigation, trial or debate governed by rules (each individual offers constructive statements, followed by rebuttal statements. The affirmative gives the first constructive statement, and the rebuttals alternate: negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative. The affirmative has both the first and last speeches of the debate.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR A FORMAL DEBATE PROTOCOL … but it would be a refreshing change to have intelligent PRO AND CON discussion on serious issues …
Got it…..this time....THE "GUN" ISN'T THE PROBLEM.
Whose deflecting this time ?
"I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR A FORMAL DEBATE PROTOCOL … but it would be a refreshing change to have intelligent PRO AND CON discussion on serious issues …"
Every time that's tried....the "Gun" becomes the "Issue" in yours and Liberal land. Fits a narrative I guess.
What's changed this time ?
oooooo….ooooooo…...ooooooo….Pick me !
It wasn't the right gun this time !
And that's the Fucking truth of it ALL !
So calling your fake news article fake news is wrong because you wanted to demonstrate fake news.
Another ad hominem word salad with Trump dressing.
Make a cogent argument.
It wasn't the right gun this time !
And that's the Fucking truth of it ALL !
The "fucking truth" is that you want to make this discussion about the straw man you keep pushing it to.
If you cannot viably rebut my contention by explaining why, to you, it has no plausibility, by all means; but don't divert the point, after which you decry the bogus point YOU RAISE!
The "Goose Gander" thing. If it's good for one, it MUST be good for the "Other".
YOU....choose to ignore what has been pushed when it meets a certain criteria for political gain.
The only difference between this shooting and the others.....the "Wrong" gun was used.
Let me make it ridiculously easy for you …
My contention is, THAT TRUMP'S CONTINUOUS CALLING OF THE MEDIA, "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE," PLAUSIBLY COULD PUSH UNSTABLE CHARACTERS WITH AN AXE TO GRIND, OVER THE PROVERBIAL EDGE WHERE THEY MIGHT MURDER MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA.
Now, your choices (and the choices of others who don't agree with my contention) in order to be on-topic in MY discussion … are, as follows.
1) Specifically explain why my contention is, in your mind, not plausible
2) Simply say "I DISAGREE"
DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST
• ANYTHING I HAVEN'T CONTENDED HEREIN
• ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE MAY HAVE CONTENDED IN OTHER DISCUSSIONS, PAST OR PRESENT, NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO MY CONTENTION HEREIN
Rebut, or concur with the stipulated topic … that's it.
Ya might want to talk to Maxine Water types on that.
Now that's an honest to goodness True thought huh. She flat out says to get in peoples faces.
So you seem to admit that certain speech can incite … isn't that what I've been contending.
Do give us the exact language spoken by Waters that even comes close to "The media is the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!" … I insist.
I'll help …
"Get in people's faces" - slang behaving or done in a direct, often rude way that is annoying and cannot be ignored."
AS CONTRASTED WITH: CHECK THE VIDEO at the link …
6 A. Macarthur
Actually....YOU DID !
I just threw an example of the opposite "Politician type" that fits your narrative.
Calling for "rudeness" and calling for "violent acts" are somewhat different.
Thought it might make sense to differentiate … but hold on …
RUDENESS -- lack of manners; discourtesy
VIOLENCE -- behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
Life is much less complicated when we define our terms.
Later.
The word "Harass" takes on a few meanings these days. Ones "Mental" state dictates what it means.
It is 5 dead, not 4.
NOTE: My grandkids are in a DISNEY MUSICAL (gloat, gloat) which I will be attending, during which time I will LOCK the article; say what you need to say shortly, or, wait until I unlock it.