Shootings at Parliament in Ottawa

There were three shooting incidents today in Ottawa. One was inside Parliament, one at the War Memorial where a soldier was shot, and one near the Rideau Centre Mall. At least one shooter, the one at Parliament, is dead. Prime Minister Harper was inside Parliament at the time but rushed to a secure location.

Much of downtown Ottawa is on lockdown. All Canadian military bases and Ottawa police stations are now closed to the public. The U.S. Embassy is also closed. People are being urged to stay away from downtown as the shooting investigation is still active.

Here's a Reddit live thread. The City of Ottawa twitter feed is providing updates of closures. Ottowa police provide this address for anyone with photos or video of the Parliament shooting.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Leaks in Michael Brown Death Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The soldier has died. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 12:42:17 PM EST

    the Globe and Mail newspaper, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:05:29 PM EST
    the Globe and Mail newspaper, citing federal sources, said he was Michael Zehef-Bibeau, a man in his early 30s who had recently been designated by the Canadian government as a "high-risk traveler" and had his passport seized.

    More (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    from CBC

    CBC News has confirmed the dead shooting suspect is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian born in 1982. CBC News has learned that Zehaf-Bibeau has a criminal record in Quebec dating back 10 years on some drug-related charges. Court documents from that time show that he lived at an address in Montreal.

    Previous name: Michael Joseph Hall (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    Globe and Mail is without question (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:13:57 PM EST
     a more reliable source but also cites unattributed sources and being on a list does not mean there are ties to the Islamic State or any organized group or network.

    Completely agree. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    and just to be clear (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:18:41 PM EST
     I'm not discounting any possibilities. I'm just not willing to rely on unsourced media reports in the immediate aftermath. Even before the Sandy Hook media debacle I was that way and I think that sorry exhibition should make everyone wary.

    Also, just to be clear, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    I merely presented the info as and fyi as reported by the news org. I didn't suggest it meant that there are ties between the shooter and an organized Islamic group, and I don't think the news org did either.

    I know (none / 0) (#57)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:04:48 AM EST
      I did not mean to imply otherwise.

    Claro. (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    Recon, you really need (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    to learn how to show your links without using the long web addresses.  
    Jeralyn does not like this because it skews her site. Use the link button above, highlight one descriptive word in your comment, and paste the link address, which you have copied, into the appropriate box that shows up when you click the link button.

    his comment was deleted (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:31:47 AM EST
    for multiple links not in format.
    I've told him before

    use the link button at the top of the comment box.
    I cannot edit comments, only delete them


    "Lone wolf", "sleeper cell" (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 06:28:04 PM EST
    "OMFG we are all gonna die horribly!"

    The freakout is in full tilt.  I decided to break my house rules and watch Tweety just to see how bad it would be.   He never disappoints.

    May I just say a word in defense of poor slobs who may for reasons beyond their control end up living in their mothers basement?
    I have been watching tv for about an hour and they have been maligned at least 10 times.   Come on.  They may be losers but they are not all terrorists.  Let's not condemn a whole sub culture because of a few lunatics.  

    See, now, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 06:52:34 PM EST
    It's your own fault for watching Tweety.   ;-)

    I don't (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    understand why anyone would want to minimize the danger into which we have been placed.

    Of course we have to go about our lives...

    But shrugging off the actions and potential actions of motivated fanatics doesn't seem to me to be a wise course of action.

    Our government has proven to be totally incapable of protecting us from lone wolf attacks such as happened in Boston.

    And yet they go ahead and provoke those who are chomping at the bit to attack us.

    Determined fanatics have already proven that they don't need long range nuclear missiles to wreak havoc upon us.

    I, for one, am paying attention.
    I just wish there was someone in government willing to represent my point of view - but rightwing republicans and liberal democrats are all in lock step leading us over the cliff.


    You inadvertently (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:19:19 PM EST
      support his point not your point.

      Precisely because we have taken many preventive measures over the years fatalities in auto accidents have drastically declined. In 1941 over 28 out of 100,000 people died in auto accidents in the USA. Today the rate is just over 10 out of 100,000.

       In terms of deaths per vehicle miles traveled the rate has declined from a  11.43 per million miles in 1941 1.13-- a tenfold improvement.

      Had people simply said , oh people die in all sorts of ways, so there is no good reason to make motor vehicle travel safer, we likely would not have seen such improvement. Instead, "frightened" people decided safer roads and cars were a good idea because they might save lives.

    Since you seem not to be able to specify (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:09:13 PM EST
    short of closing up our borders, how we can 'reduce' this 'epidemic' of Muslim extremist attacks, the comparison is irrelevant.

    Nice try, and, as you see, Jim went to the nuclear card when he senses that his arguments are a losing proposition.


    Mordiggian do you think (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:49:37 PM EST
    closing our borders is a bad thing??

    I realize your bias towards Mexico, CA and SA in general so I assume you want open borders.

    The nuclear "card" as you call it in an attempt to disparage debate is real. Iran is building one. And based on what their leaders have said they will use it.

    Should we just ignore them?

    Come now. Tell us what you would do to stop the spread of radical Islam.


    Yes, unless you're going (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:55:33 PM EST
    to turn away from the rest of the world, trying to seal the borders of a country with thousands of miles of coast and land borders is madness.

    The East Germans tried to seal their borders to keep people from getting out, which is an easier proposition than keeping them from coming in, and with much less border miles they weren't able to do so despite being a totalitarian regime that didn't have to worry about civil rights and so forth.

    Are we going to the land of the Free and the Brave, or the Sheepish and Cowardly.

    That's the question you don't want to answer, IMHO.


    No. It is much easier to keep people out (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:08:36 PM EST
    because the local population isn't plotting with the law breakers.

    With the exception of Democrats, of course. ;-)

    Your question is a straw man. Defending your borders is neither sheepish or cowardly. It is just what countries do to define who they are. If you can't control your borders you aren't a country.

    And you still haven't offered a plan to protect the country from radical Islam.


    Jim, just can the insults against Democrats (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:49:33 PM EST
    if you want real dialog instead of taking time out to demonstrate what an a**hole  you can be.

    Hmmmm (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 11:26:48 PM EST
    1.5 billion Muslims... 5% radical would be 75 million... versus what you have... 10? 12? nut cases???


    And how are these "radical" Muslims (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 11:52:30 PM EST
    Suppose to get here to behead us for being infidels?  Flying carpets or camels?

    Uh, have you ever heard of (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    planes and ships???

    No?? Thought so.


    The last time I checked, getting people (none / 0) (#74)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    Over here by planes and ships costs money, something ISIS or their Saudi paymasters don't have an infinite supply of.

    Glad to be of service here.  😊


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    Yes, ISIS, and other groups, have a very large amount of money.

    Infinite?? No.

    But I am glad you now realize that they can purchase airline tickets......

    You must have read up on the 9/11 terrorists.


    Airplane tickets have become much more (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    difficult to get because of the 9/11 hijackings, which your fear-mongering about planes fails to take into account.



    So you are saying (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    that no terrorist can fly in... or walk across the southern border.

    Okay fine.


    That's funny, coming from someone who (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    Asks people to quit spinning things.

    Yeah, AQ didn't take advantage of our relatively unguarded southern border, but ISIS will.

    Thanks for clearing that up for all and sundry.


    Just examples (1.50 / 6) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 12:37:40 PM EST

    of what the Obama administration would call "workplace violence."  Who knew they had crazy Tea Party types in Canada?

    And just what (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    the he!! do the shootings in Ottawa have to do with Obama?

    I Don't Think... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    ...the unhinged do not like the FBI classifying workplace shootings as.... workplace shootings rather than terrorist attacks when the gunman is Muslim.  aka the Fort Hood Shooting.

    Unknown to just about everyone, including me, the the FBI, according to AAA, asks Obama how to classify any given crime.

    And they really don't like it when people point out the lunatics that go on killing sprees may have been devout republicans/teapartiers. aka the 2011 Tucson shooting.

    But the leap in logic for this shooting is beyond me, but that is what lunatics do, find meaning where not exists and declare it a conspiracy.


    What a horrible comparison (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    The Tuscon Shooter was in no way a "right wing" extremist.  

    Not in the way that the Fort Hood shooter was clearly an Islamist.

    IMHO the media goes out of its way to minimize the influence of Islam in these types of shooting because discussing it means we have to once again confront the reality that Islamic extremism is much worse then all other forms in terms of depth and scale.


    Ummmm... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    ...I was simply explaining the right wing nutery comment.

    Talk to AAA, you two seem to have the same issues.

    Obviously, I disagree with both trains of thought.  Not sure how you insist one persons political affiliations are irrelevant and in the same breathe insist that their religious affiliations are.

    Neither matter with crazy people IMO.


    Not sure how you can even (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    equate the Tucson shooter to Islamic radicalism.

    You seem to have a need to do this in order not to judge it for what it is.

    Even if they are comparable one is a world wide problem and one is a one off.

    If your point is lets see if this is just a lone crazy guy or indeed a new Islamic radical then I agree, we shouldn't jump to conclusions.


    No Scott (1.33 / 3) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    you clearly snarked about Repubs/TeaPartiers. Here are the facts.

    Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right." But a former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views as "left wing, quite liberal," "radical."



    You should read your own links (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    Apart from the fact that the tiny portion you like is from a twitter posting from someone who claims to have been a classmate who hadn't seen Loughner for years before the shooting and his psychotic break, whereas his friend said he was apolitical.  Not to mention that this person gives no indication of what constitutes "quite liberal" or "radical"  (Don't you call yourself a "liberal" - heh).  But you skipped another part:

    Records show that Loughner was registered as a Republican and voted in 2006 and 2008, but not in 2010.



    Jim, the Snark Was to the AAA Comment... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    ...of course I snark on a party that watches republican news, that votes republican, and whose entire 'party' was the creation of filthy rich republicans, who want the world to believe they are their own party.  Much like you, they are under the impression if they say it enough, some idiot is going to believe they aren't republicans.  They, like you, are simply republicans who are ashamed of their own identities because of they voted for the worse President ever, GWB, twice.

    Was is the quote about protesting to much, but you and Slado seems to... doth protest too much, methinks.

    And WTF is Murderpedia, you are the King of obscure links, which would also explain you being the King of ridiculous reasoning.

    Like I explain to my mother time and time again, just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true.  What the actual Wikipedia couldn't back your claim, so you decided to Google it and link to whatever random site backed your claim.

    So sad that Yman discovered you are incapable of that simple task.


    Nothing... (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    but Obama came into my mind because, imo, by jumping into this mess with ISIS, he has put us all in danger.

    That is, according to one report I heard, the rationale for the attack in Canada - which is participating in a relatively limited way in our "coalition".


    Lentinel, can you (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    provide a link to that report you heard?
    I'm not saying that Obama has reacted in the way I would prefer with regard to ISIS/ISIL/IS, but Abdul's snippy response really had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama and ISIS.  It was an inappropriate, knee-jerk, right-wing "workplace violence" snipe.

    Agree (2.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 04:03:52 PM EST
    about Abdul's comment.

    I was more conversing with you.

    I can't link to anything because I heard it on a tv report - they accompanied what they said with a scary ISIS-type looking menacing.

    The attack in Ottawa was described in terms of terrorism - and frankly - the ISIS threats and calls for lone-wolf actions came to my mind.

    My take on our involvement is along the lines that Obama finally caved into right-wing pressure to "do something" about a situation that was being increasingly hyped - as the Syria thing was - as the Ukraine thing was. So, after holding out, he went in the direction of the republicans - and in the process gave them credibility they did not deserve. (IMO)

    And - in so doing - I believe he put us in unnecessary danger.
    (It is notable and noticeable to me that, considering the frenzied calls to action, "the single greatest threat this country has ever faced" and the like - leading to our involvement, detailed reporting on the war has disappeared from the front pages.)

    So - my response to your post was more in the nature of a free association than any attempt to justify Abdul's remark - which I find incomprehensible - as in - I don't know what he's talking about.


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    Well, I find Abdul's remark pretty incomprehensible, myself.

    We shall see (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    I think what he is predicting is the government and media will downplay the connection to Islamic terrorism.

    Look for the buzz words..."Lone Wolf"  "No "No clear connection to ISIS", "Self Radicalized" etc... etc...

    What he is referring to is the high burden of proof many put on Islamic connections because the conversation about religion is a difficult one and the media would prefer to avoid it if it's not obvious that someone is directly connected to a terrorist group.


    predicting? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    or possibly reflexively deflecting?

    As in, deflecting away from the obvious fact that another violent lunatic wrecked havoc with easily-obtainable firearms?


    Huh? (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    Canada has much stricter gun laws then the US so I'm not sure how this incident has anything to do with gun laws.

    Unless you are in favor of banning the use of all guns anywhere.


    You do realize (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    that we are speaking of Canada here, not the United States?
    The Canadians, in fact, didn't characterize the attack last Monday regarding the man who ran over a Canadian soldier as some kind of "Lone Wolf."
    (CNN) -- A man shot to death after running down and killing a Canadian soldier with his car was "radicalized" and classified as a "potential important threat" to the country, Canadian authorities said Tuesday at a press conference.
    Police arrested Martin Rouleau Couture, who reportedly converted to Islam about a year ago, last July and confiscated his passport, but lacked enough evidence to keep him in custody, said Martine Fontaine of the RCMP.
    "When he was arrested, he was about to go to Turkey," Fontaine said. "We stopped him as he was about to leave Canada for terrorist actions. He was questioned when he was arrested. We have not been able to determine any real threat at this time."
    On Monday, a man driving a car hit two members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were walking in a strip mall parking lot in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, said David Falls, spokesman for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
    One soldier died and the other was injured. The suspect led police on a chase before his car rolled into a ditch in the town, southeast of Montreal, Falls said. Police said the man exited the car before officers shot and killed him.


    "Radicalized."  "Potential important threat to the country."
    Doesn't sound like the news from Canada is calling him a Lone Wolf.


    You cannot (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    have a discussion with a conservative about Islamic radicals because it always devolves into them wanting a holy war and trying to wipe out an entire religion which has NEVER worked. And you have to shut off reason and turn on hysteria and we all remember the rhetoric from George W. Bush that set all this in motion. What's the point in discussing it if the only solution put forth is a jihad vs. jihad holy war.

    Terrible summary (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    GW pushed the "Islam is a religion of peace" meme so you need to review the facts when before you lash out at supposed Islamaphobia on the right.

    I would counter that liberal/progressives will do mental gymnastics to avoid the real problem of Islamic radicalism because they'd rather believe anything then have to agree with someone on the right.


    He also (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:21:37 PM EST
    is the one that started all this current mess did he not? Yes, he had the Islam is a religion of peace and he also had they're all going to kill you if you don't kill them first thing going on too.

    The problem is that what is the solution? I don't see conservatives offering any solutions other than more of the failed Bush Doctrine. Is there something else that they are proposing that no one has heard?


    Ga, the only acceptable solution to the radical (2.00 / 3) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 07:24:12 PM EST
    Muslims is surrender to them and become part of the Islamic Caliphate.

    If you have a solution that doesn't involve that please quit blaming Bush and send Obama an email. He badly needs help.

    In the meantime:

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: ....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.



    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 07:34:30 PM EST
    Dick Cheney. We know you endorse his failed strategy that unleashed a million horrors. You can cut and paste stuff from a dead terrorist a million times and it won't change the fact that the Bush Doctrine is/was a massive failure and it would seem you've got nothing else to offer.

    Ga, Cheney is retired. (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 08:50:38 PM EST
    and OBL may be dead...

    But his spawn ISIS is chopping heads and attacking in Ottawa.

    So I say again.

    What would you do???


    I would (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:43:14 AM EST
    use containment as a strategy. Now Mr. Cheney do you have any other ideas other than the failed Bush Doctrine?

    On what basis do you attribute this shooting (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    (or these shootings) to "crazy Tea Party types"?

    Violent nuts with guns (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 04:12:45 PM EST
    are more of a workplace hazard than violent nuts without guns.

    it was a worker with a gun (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    who saved the second woman from being beheaded in Oklahoma.

    Gun control is off topic.


    (It's Ottawa.) (none / 0) (#1)
    by leap on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 12:24:36 PM EST

    Harper is addressing (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    the country tonight.  That's not very typical is it?

    He should start sleeping (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:25:16 AM EST
    on the roof of his house so they can't crawl out from underneath his bed to cut off his head after he falls asleep.

    35K people die of the flu about every year.  A typical America is more likely to die of that or diabetes, heart disease, or a car accident then by the efforts of a sekret, scary jihadi in this country.

    And then again, (none / 0) (#55)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:52:11 AM EST
    there's what happened recently in Boston.

    A few guys and a pressure cooker.
    With disastrous results.


    You're more likely to die from the causes (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:02:04 AM EST
    I mentioned above than in that kind of terrorist attack in this country.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:30:52 AM EST
    So you say...

    But, Canada was paralyzed by one gunman.
    Ottawa shut down.

    And you're leaving out the devastating impact on our rights.

    Look at what happened to our country since 9/11 - and now it is happening in Canada, the UK, everywhere.

    Surveillance cameras on every corner...

    And you're also leaving out the horrific fact of what a dozen men did to us on 9/11 and the horrific transformation of our country into a quasi-police state.

    And what a couple of kids did in Boston.

    And that is before ISIS and a determined campaign to incite people to similar "lone wolf" activities.

    We have enough going wrong without having to provoke these determined fanatics - who are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

    And they haven't as yet resorted to more vile things that can devastate larger areas which I will not name because I don't want to suggest something...

    I don't understand the impulse to minimize the danger into which we and others have been placed by a frantic, self-serving and clueless government officials.


    And we have an area here in the states (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    that has been paralyzed by one nut job gunman who's been doing the survival routine for awhile now . . .

    What do you propose we do about those guys? Seems we have more of those than ISIS wannabes and ebola patients combined.


    No. The area is not even close to being (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:43:52 PM EST

    If you give into fear and trembling (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:33:12 AM EST
    then you're doing the terrorists's work for them.

    And if you (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    put on blinders, whose work are you doing?

    And, (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    as to that thought, our government is very adept at doing the terrorists' work for them.

    Monitoring our emails our cellphones warrantless searches our economy in shambles billions for more obsolete weaponry and war.

    But that's OK.
    These are homegrown fascists. Our very own.

    Friendly fire.
    Just as dead, but it's OK.


    Noting that you're more likely to (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    die of a lightning strike than a terrorist attack isn't putting on blinders, but you can check for jihadis under your bed at night if it makes you feel any safer.

    Maybe not (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09:11 AM EST
      but it is a totally irrelevant observation.

     I'm statistically far more likely to die of  heart disease  than in a car accident (by a factor of 20, but that does not lead me to ignore the perils of operating a motor vehicle and take no precautions.


    So, what precautions can one take (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    To not be the victim of a terrorist attack?

    Can be taken? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:37:08 AM EST
      As an individual, one is obviously somewhat limited, beyond studiously avoiding being present in locations where terror attacks are more likely.

     Acting collectively, just as obviously, many actions can be taken. The real question,  and one that often gets subsumed in silly rhetoric, is which actions that are available should not be chosen because the negative moral, political, social practical, etc. costs of those actions outweigh the degree to which they reduce the danger.


    Briefly... (none / 0) (#102)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:36:42 PM EST
    we could threaten to throw the bums out who keep investing our blood and treasure in these idiotic episodes.

    If, that is, both parties weren't in lock step...

    Did I mention that we destroyed our democracy - speaking of doing the terrorists work for them...


    Boiling down (none / 0) (#97)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    My opinion:

    1. We have a homicide. No question.

    2. The homicide was committed by intentional use of a deadly weapon and the person who employed the deadly weapon understood the likely consequences of doing so.

    3. There exists a  presumption that the person intended the likely consequence of his action.

    4. Thus we have an intentional killing.

    5. The remaining questions are state of mind and reasonableness of the actions.

    6. I don't think first degree murder appears supportable unless the published reports prove to be very inaccurate.

    7. From second degree to lawful self-defense, I think no potential findings have been eliminated by what we (think we)know at this time.

    8. I think the critical issue is what was happening at the time and immediately   before the officer fired the fatal shot[s].

    9. Even if Brown attacked him in the car and deploying the weapon at that time was totally justified, Wilson could still be guilty of some degree of homicide. Those events are probative to a degree of his subjective  fear and the objective reasonableness of it, but far from dispositve.

    10. There are obviously large and significant differences in the accounts from witnesses.

    11. At this time, we have no real way of evaluating the accounts   based on anything but general  biases and prejudices.

    12. Based on what limited information I have, I don't see the physical evidence disclosed to date  as helping much to determine whether Wilson was justified in firing the fatal shot[s].

    13. One thing that makes me think this case needs to go to a jury is precisely that the key issues seem to depend primarily on credibility determinations. A no true bill does send the message that a self-interested cop's word outweighs other testimony.

    14. That feeling is buttressed by the observation  that it is not typical behavior for a wounded and unarmed man to attempt to rush a person who is shooting at him. That is especially true if there is a distance to traverse which would allow time for multiple more shots. That's not saying it could not have happened that way, but it would definitely way heavily in my personal determination of whether probable cause exists to indict for a homicide offense.

    Great analysis (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    wrong thread.

    can you repost in correct thread (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:11:27 PM EST
    so I can delete this? I would like this thread to stay on topic. Thanks.

    Sorry, I dont how i did that (none / 0) (#101)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:14:48 PM EST
     and I do know the difference between weigh and way.

    Jim's off topic comments (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    have been deleted. The tea party, Obama, Iran and politics are not the topic here. Jim, please don't write comments directed to certain commenters by name outlining your theories on a topic. Get your own blog for that. And please comment in moderation, you are blogclogging this thread.

    Also make sure your comments are free of bigotry against entire groups and religions.

    If you can't do these things, please find another blog to comment on.

    The topic here is the shooting in Ottawa. Lone wolf attacks, ISIS, the war on terror, terror laws, etc.  are part of the topic. Iran, your views about Muslims in general, Obmaa, the tea party, gun control, etc. are off topic.

    Well now (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    We have a person in NYC attacking 4 police officers with a hatchet.

    Of course it isn't terrorism... Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

    The purpose of terrorism... (none / 0) (#111)
    by unitron on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:02:10 PM EST
    ...is to terrorize, with an eye towards stampeding the populace into bringing down the existing government and creating a power vacuum that can be exploited by those behind the terrorism.

    Was that the purpose of the hatchet wielder?

    Or was he just nuts?


    Jim and Lentinel (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Politalkix on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:12:43 PM EST
    can hold hands and cower together.