SHOOTING at Mandalay festival

A shout out to both Face and mamat for having the courage to publicly discuss their issues with mental illness.

As far as finding our way to a better world, that won't happen.

We're doomed.

Enjoy the comps, the booze, the drugs, your i-phones and all the high-def football games while you still can.

"We have met the enemy, and it is us."

tick ... tick ... tick

Quote: MrV

We're doomed.

Not necessarily. I was once invited to a "reunion lunch" of some sort. The Hollywood scriptwriter was buying lunch for his friends a year after they had all been under court ordered psychiatric observation for ten days together. Although I was the outsider, I did realize that although their problems were diverse they did share a unique lack of ability to deal with others effectively.

NOTE:
I realize the twelve minutes was probably over before there could have been a response but I do wonder why there was no call for armored cars to act as ambulances/barriers/whatever?

I took a while to digest a few things here.

First, MaxPen, your suggestions at conspiracy, a 2nd shooter, and a left-wing agenda is bordering on lunacy. But that's fine. He probably was a registered Democrat. There was a 50/50 shot at that. He may have even protested Trump. So what. He may have been a left wing loon. So what.

Likely this guy was a paranoia schizophrenic who went off the rails. That's my theory.

Face, you really should look at self-evaluating and then perhaps even get professional help for your mental health condition, or at least some counselling to understand. As for myself, my wife is schizophrenic, and I won't go into it on this public forum, but let's just say that while 99.99% of the time she is not a threat to herself or others, there is that 0.01% of the time (like an hour every year) where she becomes a threat to herself when the delusions, voices, and psychosis take over and there's very little I can do except watch and get the police involves if things go too far. It has been very tough to watch your partner's mind go off on an alternate reality and just have to hope that it doesn't leave to something awful.

It is this 0.01% of the time when I don't want her to have access to a weapon. Now, Face, if there are times when you are just angry beyond control or feel that the "hallucinations" or "voices" are going to take over, you really should lock up your guns and give the keys to a very trusted friend now.

As for your vision of the country and its people due to the internetization of the country (you described a serenity when people just connected face-to-face), I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others. Without getting very deeply into it, using tools such as the internet to connect and for looking up information are very important. However, I also take times to leave my digital devices at home: when out for dinner, on walks with friends, when being with certain people, while providing service at my church. But using your devices to aid in connections and to build on experiences is helpful too.

I don't feel that the country has gone to hell and don't feel that its people are lost or losing perspective. It's just different. The voices that are polarized have been around since Vietnam. Most people are in the middle. Most people care very much for their fellow being. They just go around it differently. Most people strive for personal relationships, but when mom isn't available, the support of a friend on Facebook 3,000 miles away is also helpful.

Quote: MrV

A shout out to both Face and mamat for having the courage to publicly discuss their issues with mental illness.

Using "mental illness" records as a screen for gun buyers...might drive people underground. Stephen Pollack might have had a "mental condition" & simply never reported it.

What do I mean?

I had a female friend in the legal profession. When she felt a depression, she got meds illegally, because she knew that a visit to a psychiatrist would show on her record. And she didn't want that.

People who want to play the professional/corporate/government/military politics game (especially with security clearances) know what they have to hide.
Other people play "dirty pool" with info they can gather. So many people of my age...are VERY hard about releasing any damaging info on the Internet.

Since I am retired, and have no political aspirations...it's very easy for me to talk about my condition.
...but I talked about it 30 years ago even when I was working (and posted about it on social media).

Full analysis of Maxpen's conspiracy theorist:

Assuming that he actually got the .374 seconds right...

The actual speed of sound at 77 degrees and 20% humidity is 1135 fps. The distance from the Mandalay Bay to various areas of the stage is between 1,070 and 1,250 feet away and takes in account the area in front of the state in a square area and also accounts for the 320 foot height he was shooting from.

That means sound takes between .94 and 1.10 seconds to arrive from the shot (1,070 - 1,250 / 1,135)

To hit a "lag" of .374 the bullet must take .566 seconds to arrive to the shortest location of 1,070 feet or .726 seconds to arrive at the longest location of 1,250 feet.

We also have to account for the time that it takes for the sound of the bullet hitting the pavement to the recording device. We would need to assume an average of 90 feet since there are many camera views and you cannot assume that the camera is where the bullet is. That means you have to account for that time which reduces the lag.

To demonstrate, say that you, the video camera holder are at the corner of the venue closest to the shooter in the front right of the audience. The bullets are hitting the other end of the stage 100 feet away from you. You record two sounds, the rifle from the hotel at .94 seconds, and the bullet hitting the ground 100 feet away from you. You hear it on the video at .566 seconds (to get the .374 lag) but the bullet sounds are 100 feet away and take .08 seconds to arrive. That means that the bullet actually arrives at .486 seconds. The time that a .22 caliber AR-45 rifle takes to travel 400 yards (using his calculations) is .528 seconds. Because the bullet is 100 feet away from you and you are 1,070 feet away we would have to shorten that up to .510. We are very close to margins of error here.

Or let's say that you are at the farthest corner of the venue at 1,250 feet away and you hear the bullet hitting 50 feet away from you at 1,200 feet. You hear the sound of the rifle at 1.101 seconds. At 50 feet away there is a .044 second lag for the sound of the bullet to reach your recording device. To get to the .378 lag the bullet hits at .723 in the video less .44 to get the actual bullet time-to-target at .679 seconds which is a much slower bullet.

My point is that the "expert" does not take into account the time it takes sound of the bullet hitting the pavement to the recording device nor does it account for the other guns that he used that have slower muzzle velocities and slower times to cover the distance which would account for the lag.

Therefore I debunk his theory.
-He does not present the video where he analyzes the lag times.
-We do not know the distance of the recording device from the shooter and therefore the sound of the rifle can be anywhere between .942 and 1.101 seconds (given a difference of 180 feet between various areas in the venue.
-We do not know the distance of the bullets hitting the pavement to the recording device which can s anywhere from 0 to .158 seconds to the lag (180 feet difference)
-Because we do not know either variable and the guy does not present the video nor the sounds the lag of .374 to .528 is within a margin of error based on the assumptions given. Quite simply, if the bullets are hitting different places in the venue, the differences in those distances can account for the entire difference.

Greetings,

Here is my article on the subject, some disagreement with me in the Comments, which I expect and respect. I'll probably wait for a few more comments and then respond to them all at once.

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/las-vegas-shooting/

Let us face it.
While most of the hot air will be directed at undermining "keep" and "bear"; most of the progress will be made in things like gun sniffers and metal detectors.

Suitcases get brought into hotels by travelers and by hotel luggage carts on which several suitcases may be placed. There is however usually a choke point at which bags can be sensed by magnets or electronic noses or something. Too much metal for the "average" traveler can trigger a further inquiry. Too much weight or too much odor of an exotic lubricant can flag further action.

That hotel on the Las Vegas Strip that was actually located in Culver City, California used to have a security guy schlepping suitcases and greeting people at the front door. Maybe some of the REAL strip hotels will focus on the front door as well.

No need to go overboard and start frisking half naked teen age girls for concealed AK-47s, as enjoyable as that job might be, for it would clearly affect the hotel's bottom line. However concealed metal detectors in corridors, elevators and the like are not offensive.

The one thing I'm reminded of is that drunk who fished from his hotel window and broke an expensive ground floor window pane. When the hotel put up "no fishing" signs in the rooms, they had an increase in such incidents.

Quote: FleaStiff

The one thing I'm reminded of is that drunk who fished from his hotel window and broke an expensive ground floor window pane. When the hotel put up "no fishing" signs in the rooms, they had an increase in such incidents.

I'm confused, are you suggesting that outlawing something makes people more likely to do it? I get that you're proving it can happen in theory by example, but I don't think that is always (or often) the case.

Take restaurants in jurisdictions (or by ownership) that abolished smoking inside of the restaurant, they put up, "No Smoking," signs, and I promise fewer (almost zero) people light up in such restaurants. Same thing with casinos that went (almost none of them willingly) to 100% non-smoking.

Quote: Mission146

Greetings,

Here is my article on the subject, some disagreement with me in the Comments, which I expect and respect. I'll probably wait for a few more comments and then respond to them all at once.

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/las-vegas-shooting/

My only comment is "bump stock", not "butt stock".

Sorry about the mistake! I thought it was butt because it kind of butts your shoulder and fires again. As I mentioned (I think) I only really know anything about handguns.

Quote: Mission146

Greetings,

Here is my article on the subject, some disagreement with me in the Comments, which I expect and respect. I'll probably wait for a few more comments and then respond to them all at once.

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/las-vegas-shooting/

Certainly, in America, for large venues outdoors, I am guessing that there will need to be additional police protection such as a team to scope out the establishments. And the high-rise hotels will build in security. Most Vegas strip casinos already have policies that do not allow guns on their property, with their recourse to trespass you (they cannot take your guns away). They will need to enforce their own policies and it looks like Wynncore (according to Wynn) already does so. This can be via passive metal detectors, gun sniffing dogs, active metal detectors, suitcase checks, room checks, whatever. The police will need to develop security zones where they can enforce enhanced security measures. For example, if there were an event held at Central Park tomorrow, there is little stopping someone from doing the same from the hotels encircling the park or from any high-rise apartment buildings as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from renting an AirBnB from one of these spots and having the same thing happen, or from a resident themselves doing the same thing.

I don't subscribe to the snapped theory. I subscribe to a schizophrenia theory where he deluded himself into a reality where shooting these people became necessary to him. He was on anxiety medicine, made grandiose statements about himself, either drank nothing or drank alot, erected fences around his home to maintain an unusual level of privacy, and screamed aloud in bed. The delusion allows one to keep one's intelligence but act in irrational ways according to their reality. This happens in my home every day. Most schizophrenics are not harmful to themselves or or others. But in this guy's case, he was able to build up some sort of case for making this seem okay to him. It's a doozy. One has to realize that this person's evil probably is the result of a mental health disorder that is in itself rare enough to come to this result where such evil is successfully implemented.

So, as for gun control, I have stated my views. People kill people. Having the availability of weaponry certainly makes it easier for them to do so. I don't support government regulations to limit the number of weapons purchased. A person has the right to build up and have access to their own militia. In fact, one can say that with the advent of police and military weaponized drones that the public needs MORE POWERFUL firearms to rebel against the government if needed to. This MUST BE THE LOGIC for 2nd Amendment advocates who believe that the amendment is there to stop a corrupt government. One can say that because thugs can have access to weapons like this then the LOGIC MUST BE that the public needs access to these same weapons (and more of them) to protect oneself.

So, if you are a 2nd amendment activist, then you should be against any restriction that prevents you from (a) protecting yourself and/or (b) being able to prevent a corrupt government. After all, if you enact gun ownership restrictions, you run the risk that the bad guys can outgun out. If you enact gun safety restrictions (guns must be locked up), you run the risk that bad guys will kill you before you can get to to your gun. If you enact mental health restrictions or quantity limits or enact a registry, then you run against 4th amendment rights.

So essentially, the 2nd amendment, as written, dooms us all to higher death rates via murder and suicide compared to other modern countries because of the availability of firearms to all. Since there is no political will at the federal level to adjust the 2nd amendment (thank you NRA), the only solution are state laws (that exist) that restrict one's ability to own / use / store weapons and are still found constitutional. These laws need to be carefully written and followed so as to not infringe on privacy rights and the 2nd amendment right to bear arms while still protecting society.

Quote: mamat

Using "mental illness" records as a screen for gun buyers...might drive people underground. Shooter might have had a "mental condition" & simply never reported it.

I had a female friend in the legal profession. When she felt a depression, she got meds illegally, because she knew that a visit to a psychiatrist would show on her record. And she didn't want that.

People who want to play the professional/corporate/government/military politics game (especially with security clearances) know what they have to hide.
Other people play "dirty pool" with info they can gather. So many people of my age...are VERY hard about releasing any damaging info on the Internet.

Since I am retired, and have no political aspirations...it's very easy for me to talk about my condition.
...but I talked about it 30 years ago even when I was working (and posted about it on social media).

- I think people who really want to get a weapon will do so, but it takes extra willpower to do so.
- And you are right about going underground. For example, certain mental health visits and calls to the police turn up on immigration records, which you might have to explain when trying to enter the country.

New York, and I suspect most cities, have a cadre of trained snipers that position themselves around the perimeter of large gatherings or parades. I imagine Metro does, as well. The problem is for an event like Rt 91, the post would most likely have been on the roof of Mandalay, rendering them next to useless.

Quote: boymimbo

- I think people who really want to get a weapon will do so, but it takes extra willpower to do so.

Yes. Time and effort. Schoolyard tiffs used to be fist fights but when guns and knives are immediately at hand the only effort needed is slight.

Road rage is bad enough but throw in a fire arm and its pure trouble.

Yet being defenseless has drawbacks. Police have come charging in to arrest geriatric poker players or to arrest nine year old girls that somehow got into a felony warrant file. SWATing is a term for malicious computer hacking that sends swat teams to a selectedhome. Many police are corrupt, many departments are revenue generating schemes. What is the use of having a slingshot when the cops have assault rifles?

Quote: boymimbo

I don't subscribe to the snapped theory. I subscribe to a schizophrenia theory where he deluded himself into a reality where shooting these people became necessary to him.

"Snapped" does not involve a year long program of weapon acquisition (and concealment) or trips to view other venues.

Necessary? I would say "desirable" but doubt he was under a delusion of necessity. He surely knew it was wrong since he knew SWAT would show up.

He wanted to go out with a bang and thought it would be fun to mow down dozens as some sort of generalized revenge against the world.

MAJOR revision to time line.
Shocking and puzzling.

Security guard passing by enroute to a routine open door alarm was shot six minutes before carnage commenced.

That is too long for a hotel not tohave done something.

.

Quote: FleaStiff

MAJOR revision to time line.
Shocking and puzzling.

Security guard passing by enroute to a routine open door alarm was shot six minutes before carnage commenced.

That is too long for a hotel not tohave done something.

.

Depends. Pretend you're the security guard. One of the last things you expect is suddenly getting shot through a door. Assuming you can see holes in the door, If you start talking on you radio, he might come out to finish you off.. He might anyway. Just be quiet and get away and get down to the exit. Is he crawling because of leg wound.

Might burn up 2 minutes before he even calls down for the first time.

Add in wtf moments, is he kidding, guards out smoking cigarettes -- might burn up 4 minutes.

I wouldn't be opposed to casinos having more security and checking bags, metal detectors, gun & bomb sniffin' dogs, etc., just like they do at the airport. I just don't think it'd be both feasible and effective. Not to mention, it just deflects the real problem at hand.

Have you ever waited in line to check in on the strip when it's really busy? Now imagine that, but all those people going through a TSA type inspection like at the airport. It's effective, yes. But it's certainly not feasible. Not to mention, they'd also have to do that for everyone entering the casino/hotel. The likely result is either it'd take a very long time to get into the casino from the blvd or the strip would no longer be a place where people walk around, get drunk, etc. Want to go to the nightclub at the Wynn but you're staying at Caesars? Yeah, it's gonna take hours to get into the Wynn then hours to get back into Caesars afterwards. This isn't going to happen.


I don't know much about metal detectors, so forgive my ignorance, but it seems they'd be set to alarm (or whatever they do) when they detect metal and remain normal without metal. Doesn't seem like they'd be able to "only alarm if detects X or more metal, if it's less than X amount detected, then it's fine". Even if that is possible (and seems like it probably is?), sure it'd be feasible, but how effective? If I have something that'll set off the silent alarm in my pocket or some biga** belt buckle, $30k in my pocket, and a security guy wants to search me, I'm just gonna tell him to f*** off and go somewhere else. If I leave he can't search me. So now what, I might have a gun or I might just have a biga** belt buckle or a titanium knee replacement. They're just going to let someone go who they know might have a gun? Not to mention, if there are hordes of people walking in and the silent alarm goes off for the metal detector, are the 10 people around me + me going to be searched? Plus, now you (the casino) gotta hire actual competent security type people who know how to properly conduct a search and know much more about the law than the typical gorillas they hire.

I don't know how much these types of security measures would cost, but it doesn't seem cheap. Can small off-strip casinos pay for this type of thing? Bars? You can do plenty of damage walking into a packed bar with an AK-47, probably be able to kill more people than Paddock did. What about down-town casinos...100% of the reason people go there is for the atmosphere and walking around outside, going in and out of casinos.


Aside from all that, what about just public places, like the street on the strip? None of these security measures would stop a van or two driving down the strip, a few guns pointed out the windows, shooting anyone in sight. That's at least assuming, people would still be walking the strip....and if these new security measures are introduced in casinos, foot traffic will have a huge negative impact. why go to Vegas to be stuck in your casino the entire trip when you can do the same thing at your nearest resort casino in CA, NJ, MS, PA, etc.? I think LV is hurting as it is....cutting way back on the strip foot traffic as well as downtown foot traffic would be just another reason not to travel to LV. Granted, I realize many people going to LV don't do it for those particular reasons, but for conventions and whatnot.

I don't know the particular geography around the Mandalay Bay's concert area, but it seems like there are a number of public places Paddock could have been, he didn't have to be in a casino/hotel. Same applies for other venues, I would imagine.

I'm sure drug & gun sniffin' dogs work, but my experience is a little different. It's a combination of "If a dog can't smell an ounce of weed, that dog can't smell sh**" and "The dog could smell drugs that weren't even in my car." Those were two very different scenarios that aren't related, other than the damn K-9 didn't do its job properly. Granted, the car situation was basically a dirty cop trying to search my car and made the dog "hit" on my car. The 1 oz thing, I wasn't directly involved, but observed someone get by just fine with quite a bit in his pocket.

I just don't see how you can get security at casinos, at least on the strip and downtown, to be both feasible and effective at the same time.


inb4 people start suing casinos because they were "prejudicially profiled" (aka: "I got searched because I have a beard, it doesn't matter if I reak of GSR!!")

#FreeMaxPen

Quote: FleaStiff

NOTE:
I realize the twelve minutes was probably over before there could have been a response but I do wonder why there was no call for armored cars to act as ambulances/barriers/whatever?

The traffic on LV Blvd. was jammed with abandoned cars and running people. There's no way armored vehicles could have gotten there to be organized and effective. Keep in mind that the initial reports were of multiple shooters, some firing inside of the concert perimeter.

The law enforcement personnel that came up the stairwell reported that the stairwell door had been barred with a piece of metal screwed into the jamb. They were able to pry it open and distract the suspect until better armed SWAT officers arrived.

The camera that was hidden in the cart was suspected to be an explosive since wires were spotted running from it under the door to the suite. An explosive charge was used in hopes of neutralizing it. This charge set off the hotel's fire alarm system, resulting in even more panic/confusion. All of this was over in less time then it takes to get from a gate a McCarren to a rental car counter.

Quote: MaxPen

.....

I'm really not interested in dishing my opinions on this matter to a board full of sheep.

...

Quote: MaxPen

Do you have to be chemist to understand mixing bleach and vinegar is a bad idea?

#BAAAAAAAH

Max,

You're kidding me, right? Doubling down on insulting the forum?

4 days break.

People are hearing you and responding on the merits, and you've even gotten some thank yous. Your thoughts on the sublect are welcome, including refuting those you disagree with. It's even more important on a topic like this that we all have a voice.

But ya gotta be civil. I know you know this. See you in a few.

Quote: FleaStiff

That is too long for a hotel not tohave done something.

The guy is holed up with an arsenal of weapons and shooting out the door.
What should the hotel do?

Quote: RS

I wouldn't be opposed to casinos having more security and checking bags, metal detectors, gun & bomb sniffin' dogs, etc., just like they do at the airport. I just don't think it'd be both feasible and effective. Not to mention, it just deflects the real problem at hand.

#FreeMaxPen

I'm not sure about it. We're already a culture of fear. As others have pointed out, Americans are a pretty safe people on the whole. Violent crime is down. We face no significant foreign threat, (not sure I trust Canada). In colonial times, and most of human history, losing a kid or two was par for the course. Plus we were at actual risk of foreign invasion. That's when they set up the Bill of Rights we now want to shred. Yet we are constantly scared and talk about things like safety, "I want the president to keep me safe."

FDR said "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" back when we were just bombed by a huge military and were entering a war we could have lost, and in which 400,000 Americans died.

While I do not think 9/11, the shooting, etc. were staged by the government and media, I think they are exploited to make us more fearful and easily controlled. For whatever reason, liberals seem to have an irrational fear of mass shooters while conservatives have an irrational fear of terrorists. And we're all afraid of child abducters, African viruses, etc.

Not that we shouldn't have some fear of these things, and take some steps to reduce them, but it's nothing to completely restructure our society over.

It also makes me think of gated communities and stuff like that. You know, there are now gated communities, IN gated communities? You have to go through a guard to get into the big community. Then you have to enter a gate code to get into the sub-community. Like, dude, did you testify against the mob or something?

I know I pull this number out every time. I actually thought 13,000 people a year die of food poisoning but it seems to be 3-5000. Still, a 9/11+ every year. And over 100,000 hospitalizations. Everybody knows about deaths on the roads. etc. But we all eat food we left out for a while, we all speed, we all drive when tired, etc. Because we haven't become consumed with fear over this greater threats. Only the ones on the news.

This seems to drive gun ownership/behavior as well. People seem to spend a lot of time worrying that a serial killer is going to pick their house at random or something.

Ultimately, we all gonna die. But living in fear is optional. So I don't want the strip to turn into an Israeli airport.

A lawsuit was filed today against Slide Fire Solutions by the law firm of Eglet Price. Don't know much about them beyond the fact they aren't one of the seemingly hundreds of attorneys who advertise heavily on Vegas television.
Evidently, Slide Fire makes bump stocks.

Quote: terapined

The guy is holed up with an arsenal of weapons and shooting out the door. What should the hotel do?

Send Room Service to the room or perhaps dial 911 and report 'shots fired, room 3215".

Quote: beachbumbabs

Max,

You're kidding me, right? Doubling down on insulting the forum?

4 days break.

People are hearing you and responding on the merits, and you've even gotten some thank yous. Your thoughts on the sublect are welcome, including refuting those you disagree with. It's even more important on a topic like this that we all have a voice.

But ya gotta be civil. I know you know this. See you in a few.

And yet, what was said about all Filipino women is ok? I think he may have made a triple down.

Quote: AxelWolf

And yet, what was said about all Filipino women is ok? I think he may have made a triple down.

I don't think one implies the other.

But he's talking mainly about someone who's become a public figure, not about forum members to my knowledge ,on a famously misogynistic board. All grey areas re:suspension.

The double hit is directly in contravention of forum rules, and has precedent.

I think both sets of comments are deflection anyway.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I'm not sure about it. We're already a culture of fear. As others have pointed out, Americans are a pretty safe people on the whole. Violent crime is down.

Violent crime is not down, life saving technologies are up. Just because homicide rate is decreasing doesn't mean ATTEMPTED homocide rate is

A friend of mine wrote an article discussing the character of Las Vegas and encouraging people to return.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/10/06/i-help-make-the-magic-of-las-vegas-happen-tourists-please-come-back/?utm_term=.ea1c0fa47f11#comments

Viewers watching the tragedy and its aftermath unfold might understandably see Las Vegas as some sort of grown-up Disneyland on steroids, but below the surface there is another side that I’d like to share: Underneath the glitter and neon and wild, over-the-top excess, Vegas is a town made up of ordinary people whose mission in life is to show you a good time — and I’m one of them. Now, thanks to last week’s massacre, people like me are likely looking at hard times in the coming months.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Vegas is a town made up of ordinary people whose mission in life is to show you a good time — and I’m one of them. Now, thanks to last week’s massacre, people like me are likely looking at hard times in the coming months.

The only people getting rich in Vegas in the near future are the lawyers and they are notoriously poor tippers.

Shooter fired on fuel storage tanks but it may have been to illuminate his targets.

Did unearned income from family business interests emasculate the shooter? Did years of living off comps warp his spirit?

Quote: FleaStiff

The only people getting rich in Vegas in the near future are the lawyers and they are notoriously poor tippers.

Do you believe that the lawyers will "get rich" by successfully suing MGM or other individuals / entities for negligence or some other legal theory arising out of the massacre?

I've no doubt that they're salivating at the prospect of a huge payday, but I cannot envision a successful legal theory / strategy for them to employ to get there.

Thus far I see no basis to sue MGM, the event promoters, or law enforcement: what do you see that I don't?

Of course they will receive and apportion Paddock's reamaining assets, but I see little if any prospect, based on information currently available, that would allow them to get "rich" by successfully identifying and suing a target defendant with deep pockets.

I did not necessarily mean the lawsuits would be against MGM, METRO etc.

Just look to the MGM fire litigation.... over forty defendants?

I did not necessarily mean the lawsuits would be against MGM, METRO etc.

It will be battles over his estate, rapid fire mechanisms.

The MGM probably did nothing wrong though a failure to send police seems strange.
Casinos like to have the police go to the security office and then to the trouble location.
Lawyers will still be waging battle and getting high fees even if all they do is get complaints against MGM dismissed.

I imagine there was a lot of 'when in doubt run in circles curse and shout' at the concert.

One woman mentioned how everyone trying to use their cell phones simply opened up a wall of light for the shooter to take aim at.

Quote: FleaStiff

Lawyers will still be waging battle and getting high fees even if all they do is get complaints against MGM dismissed.

I thought that lawyers in this type of case would represent people on a contingent fee basis, and not bill hourly.

The lawyers advance all the costs in the hopes of recovering the costs plus a good percentage of any settlement or jury award.

Paddock's estate, call it a couple million, is a drop in the bucket when compared to the damage done; bump stock mfr.'s could face some trouble, but how many of them have deep pockets?

As Mr. Wynn inferred in his FOX interview last weekend...and then skirted the issue when a follow up was asked...(if we assume CBS isn't making it up)

"Law enforcement sources told CBS News that Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock is believed to have used the freight elevator at the Mandalay Bay hotel casino in the days leading up to last week's deadly attack. "

How Mr. Wynn got the information is another interesting question. He called it a "back door" during the interview letting us know that's not possible at his resort.

The details continue to be interesting and lead to more and more conspiracy theories. I noticed the "girlfriend" is now on a travel watch list..not sure what that means.

Quote: MrV

I thought that lawyers in this type of case would represent people on a contingent fee basis, and not bill hourly.

The lawyers advance all the costs in the hopes of recovering the costs plus a good percentage of any settlement or jury award.

It would, more likely than not, be a class action, wouldn't you say?

Revised timeline is odd:

1) Security guard investigating door alarm hears drilling sounds as Paddock is cutting a hole in a wall. No details on whether it was inside or outside, but it appears to be from the inside.
2) Paddock opens fire through the door hitting the security guard in the leg. Police report he fired 200 rounds through the door. This means he reloaded, or changed weapons a few times. How long was he shooting through the door?
3) Meanwhile, after being wounded, the security guard retreats down the hallway and calls for help. How long between the first shot and the call for help?
4) Six minutes after shooting the guard, the gunfire begins to fall on the crowd at the concert. He rains fire for 11 minutes. Was he exchanging gunfire with the police during the 11 minutes? Why did he kill himself rather than use the 1,000 rounds of ammo that remained to shoot it out with the police?

It sounds to me like he was caught early in his preparations, and forced to move up his timeline. I think he was simply changing weapons and not reloading. When each was emptied, he discarded it. Just my guess though. Maybe he was seriously injured by return fire from the police? I note that in pictures of the room, some of the rifles have their bi-pod stands extended, but the weapon is on the floor. This is odd because the bi-pod would only be helpful if the shooter was in a prone position, or shooting from a bench. The pictures of the room show the glass missing from the top to the bottom of the frame. The whole pane wouldn't need to come out if the shooter was prone, and I did not notice a table in the window since the drapes were billowing out. Maybe the police moved the furniture around?

Quote: Ayecarumba

Revised timeline is odd:

Agree. A bit fishy.

>>>>It sounds to me like he was caught early in his preparations,
>>>>and forced to move up his timeline.
A reasonable conclusion for him to make.

>>>> I think he was simply changing weapons and not reloading.
Yes. Sounds on tape differ.

>>>>Maybe he was seriously injured by return fire from the police?
There was no return fire from the police.
>>>>>some of the rifles have their bi-pod stands extended, but the weapon is on the floor.
Makes it easier to pick up and use in standing position.

MGM finds the revised timeline fishy as well and disputes it.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Why did he kill himself rather than use the 1,000 rounds of ammo that remained to shoot it out with the police?

My guess is he was afraid of surviving. Not that I think his odds were high he would survive a shootout, but there is a possibility he thought about the police blowing the door open and knocking him unconscious and taking him alive.

(of course, my guess there is a better than even chance some of the cops would have shot a non-moving body on the floor)

Quote: Face

I am both glad and saddened to see this much attention being given to mental illness. Glad, because it's a "real" answer. Saddened because, damn, that's a tough nut to crack.

I'm "mentally ill". Been so since at least 16, but I bet you could go all the way back to age 6 or 7. I don't have a neat and tidy diagnoses with a known plan of action. No family history or genetic markers. I'm just "broken" as a result of TBI. Sometimes it manifests itself into a sort of serene acceptance, a thought that "every thing is over, and that is OK". Sometimes it causes "phantoms", a feeling that someone is in the room, or voices I can hear just outside my door. Nothing nearing a delusion; I'm never compelled to believe that they're real. Mostly it's like a very low grade hallucination. Concerning, but not debilitating. Sometimes I am swept away but such a savage temerity it's as if i could carry the entire world on my back, be thankful for the opportunity, and be glad for it. And other times a rage so pure and intense I feel as though i could fling an entire college campus across the state by giving it no more than a directed thought.

This is one face (yay puns!) of mental illness. How would you treat it? How would you assign "risk value"? How would you determine how likely it is for me to engage in gun violence? Is there a way to?

I bring this up because I am the man you need to convince. I represent the opposition with whom you need a promise of solidarity. And i think one of the big areas of contention is not only that you wish to have judged that which is difficult if not impossible to judge, but you have appointed what I assume to be our worst enemy (I assume gunners have a higher propensity for .gov distrust than the average citizen) as the arbiters.

I'm not intending this post to be a challenge to you, or... I dunno, an attempt to disrupt your path. Just sharing the mindframe of someone with whom you're opposed but also need by your side. There are hurdles, here. Real hurdles. And I think it's these hurdles which people get caught up on, are unable to articulate, and simply fall to the old standby of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", or manifest themselves in conspiracy-lite fashions such as "Registration leads to confiscation". The sometimes whackadoo catchphrases aren't always a product of low-think, sometimes it's just the best one knows how to do because the concept in their heart is too big for their brain to communicate.


My minor contention aside, I am HUGELY behind you on the subject of mental health, but my determination in this regard goes wayyy past the one, tiny issue of gun violence (and it is tiny, if you could see what's in my head). I truly feel that our society is damned. Maybe not in the Christian fashion, but damned all the same. The things we've created, that we pine for, that have lead us to such prosperity and growth, I feel, are in direct conflict with how we are made, in direct conflict with the spirit of humanity.

I could not possibly write out my philosophy on this page, so will have to use cliche. I hope folks can stifle the knee jerk and see through this to get what I'm trying to say. You see, we are made (by evolution or a creator matters not) to both have and relieve stress. It's all chemicals in the brain and body that produce feelings that make us avoid that which is harmful and acquire that which is helpful. Everyone here knows of seratonin, dopamine, and oxytocin, of cortisol and epinephrin. In a perfect world, we would still have stress. Life is stress. But in a perfect world, we use helpful and healthy ways to cope. A hug from mom. A long talk with a true friend. Completion of a long forgotten project. In today's world, we too often turn to that which gets the job done, which releases the feel good we need, but in ways that do not help. Booze releases seratonin. Cigarettes. Pinners. Glue in a bag. Tinder hookups. Facebook likes. Retweets. Reddit gold.

The problem is, this brand of feel good is fake. That Swipe Right sure feels good. That Swipe Right also has the same amount of Real Good that a fat bump of Columbian Marching Powder has. It, like the rest of our society, is "instant". It comes with no work, no effort, no heart. It is feel good that is undeserved, and therefore, does nothing for the spirit.

We are suffering from atrophy of the soul. When's the last time you went to a holiday at the family and had no phones present? When did you last go out with the boys/girls and no one updated their Instagram? When's the last time you put your heart out and just went up to that girl, awkwardness and all, and put yourself out there? When's the last time you sat with your mother, father, son, daughter, Best Friend Five Ever, and talked with no game on TV or social media app open?

A soul can only be filled by that which is Real, and Real takes time. Real takes investment. Real takes an effort to create, maintain, and protect. We're losing that. We've replaced Real with 5min rice, with next day delivery, with 24/7 connectivity. We don't even teach our kids what is real anymore. We teach that everyone gets a trophy, that they can be anything they want, that the world is their oyster if they just work hard, take their vitamins, and say their prayers. You can't even go to a doctor of medicine anymore. I know more about me and my illness than any one of the 14 billion people who have ever existed. Do I even get questioned? Is my knowledge ever requested? No. "Take this pill". An instant cure.

Is it any wonder we are all f#$%ed up?

I do not for a second believe that I could change the path on which this country, this world, is headed. I have lost any and all faith that my answer lies in some chemists' mortar and pestle. And I'd be a fool to believe that my beliefs are shared by any one person and we'll fix it together. But what I do know is, and I encourage you to check for yourself, that the one thing that all of these f#$%wad mass murdering monsters have in common is extreme self isolation. A feeling or sense that they are all alone in the world, and those rage episodes I began my post with, all come when I am at my most secluded.

Instant connectivity ruins our connections. A digital avatar has replaced a human face. URL's to a song replace a warm embrace. And our souls just continue to rot. Well, I'm done with it. I see what it's gotten me, and I see where I'd be headed without intervention. And that is not the life I choose.

I don't think the answer lies in a pill, or in the destruction and rebuilding of the land in which we live. I think all it takes is individual effort. It really is "the little things". You, boymimbo, and rxwine, and terapined, each and every one of you I've battled on the gun debate. But, both you and rx have shared my joy in my racing thread. terapined and I have no qualms discussing love of video games or kayaking. We've, as Babs so excellently pointed out, have not fallen to the defensive thought that because i feel I am right, the other person must be wrong. There's a girl I've got at work. She's the only person I talk to there. She's the only person in my life that, for much of the last year+, was there when I really needed someone. Despite that my distemper, my violent demeanor, my garb, my truck all made her assume I'd probably be one of those folks that call her "nigger" when her back was turned, she took a chance on me. And we've been best friends ever since. It's my real best friend, who despite having to weather all my fits and bouts with depression and the like, has never judged and never abandoned me. None of this costs a single red cent, but goddamn if it just might not have saved a life.

If you wait for all this to be fixed, you'll be waiting your whole life. YOU must be the fix. A held door, a genuine greeting, a simple word of kindness. That's all it takes to change the world. What if Paddock had been questioned about his rough appearance, his rough drinking, and found an open heart to speak with? What if the homophobes hadn't continued to harass Mateen? What if Dylan and Cleibold had a circle of like minded individuals with which to play and converse and grow?

As Bob Ross has taught us, "Everyone needs a friend". Life's a tempest; be the lighthouse.

I agree with a lot of this and haven't had time to really respond. I don't really now.

However, a lot of these issues are why I'm interested in stuff like ancient philosophy. In the West, we've sort of removed self examination and morals (in the broad, "how to live a full life sense") from the equation. Religion does some of the job, but many aren't religious. Psychology does some of the job, but it's mostly used to diagnose and patch over problems as they arise. Self-help gurus do some of the job, but many are charlatans or just idiots, working with no foundation, and oriented towards the wrong things. "Scam people and live in a big house!"

I find myself listening to a lot of Buddhist talks, though I'm not a Buddhist. If I read, I'm more interested in pre-Christian philosophy like Stoicism and Epicurianism. However, that tradition doesn't really exist in The West much, where you have people who are actively basing their whole lives on those teachings as they did in antiquity. Some of these Buddhists believe in literal reincarnation and flying monks and stuff, but 90% of it sounds similar to stuff Marcus Aurelius would say.

Annnnyway, I listened to this talk last night and it was strikingly similar to what Face was talking about. Most of the content is actually about neuroscience. The short version, as I remember it is that our brains are incredibly malleable. However, if we adopt rigid thinking, we forfeit this as our brains physically change to simply repeat patterns. There's a lot of stuff about how this leads to alienation. Lots of stuff about the lack of human connection, dependence on quick, superficial stimulation and so on. I was pretty amazed by the overlap with face's post on those subjects. I was going to just PM it to face but maybe someone else would like it too.

It's the one called Neuroscience Conflict and Compassion.

http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/22/

Quote: rxwine

My guess is he was afraid of surviving. Not that I think his odds were high he would survive a shootout, but there is a possibility he thought about the police blowing the door open and knocking him unconscious and taking him alive.
(of course, my guess there is a better than even chance some of the cops would have shot a non-moving body on the floor)

Sometimes SWAT uses 'stun' grenades: a very loud bang, a blinding and disorienting light that disables a barricaded suspect: he can't see, can't hear and for a while he can't really think.

Its likely that swat would have shot anyone in the room who did not have empty hands. The cops saw and heard the carnage and knew there was massive firepower in that room. Anything other than hands that were immediately seen to be empty meant shoot. They simply would not have any other choice and probably not any other inclination.

Although some "scoop and run" operations had been underway much of what was being done to save lives was being done under fire or constant threat of gunfire, the only way to stop the carnage and get a triage station set up was to put that shooter down.
Innocent bystanders? Put the shooter down. Hostages? Put the shooter down. A propane tank? Put the shooter down. There would have been no other choice. None.

There have been many advances in artificial neural networks and it seems these artificial brains that deal solely on "reinforcement of neural circuits" are much like real brains.

Excessive feedback in one pattern can get so reinforced that there is nothing else. No resilency, no alternative pathways.

I previously posted about On Being Sane in Insane Places. The grad student who coordinated that program later developed the theory of Learned Helplessness and even later he wrote about Learned Resilency.

Its possible for the brain to learn bad habits and stick to them.

Perhaps it comes down to You Are What You Do and You Do What You Choose, but for many its not a choice, its just an overly reinforced habit.

The 21 year old girl who won the race to the courthouse alleges negligence in allowing 10 suitcases to be brought in over three day interval, surveillance cameras to be set up, insufficient response to guard being shot and there will undoubtedly be argument that the entire industry is negligent in this regard due to changed patterns of mass shootings.

Bringing suitcases into a hotel? What is going to raise alarms about that particularly if its on different shifts?

Surveillance cameras? They were CONCEALED surveillance cameras. What is more reasonable in a hotel corridor than a room service cart left there for housekeeping to deal with?

Whether its an industry wide failure is interesting but hotels watch for women being brought in, booze being brought in, etc. I don't think the hotel could have done much different. What security guard would get suspicious about a suitcase. Its a hotel that is what people carry into hotels. Suitcases.

The suggestion that he had an escape planned seems preposterous to me, except in the case if he believed he was going set off those massive jet fuel tanks. I suppose that could create enough chaos that anything might be possible. Fortunately that wasn't possible.

Agree. preposterous. He was going to die, he knew that but with the aid of the cameras he would go down shooting.

Quote: Mission146

It would, more likely than not, be a class action, wouldn't you say?

The first suit was just filed and the local Las Vegas attorney involved has experience litigating class action personal injury cases.

I haven't seen the complaint, but I see nothing in the article about a class action.

Not saying it won't happen; am saying an experienced class action attorney could have sought to file one and seems not to have.

Quote: MrV

I haven't seen the complaint, but I see nothing in the article about a class action..

No way. If he had filed it as a class action he would bear the expenses of notification and the burden of demonstrating that he could adequately represent the interests of all the sub classes and conflicting classes. Hotel guests, paid concert goers, concert employees, hotel employees, vendors, country music press photographers, medical personnel, etc. Gunshot wound injuries, stampede injuries, lost spouses, lost friends, etc.

He might amend later but what is the rush?

I'm still confused about that guard getting shot and nothing happening.

Quote: MrV

The first suit was just filed and the local Las Vegas attorney involved has experience litigating class action personal injury cases.

I haven't seen the complaint, but I see nothing in the article about a class action.

Not saying it won't happen; am saying an experienced class action attorney could have sought to file one and seems not to have.

She's got a whole crew representing her:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/10/11/paige.gasper.-.complaint.pdf

Lots of Pro Hac Vice pending in the caption!

Liability pursuant to insufficient exits at the concert venue itself, manufacturing of bump stocks, negligence on the part of MGM, naturally, apparently for not encumbering the shooter....etc. (Page 5, Item 14)

"Grossly negligent in the staffing, hiring and training..." must be for not hiring Rambo. (Item 16)

Failure to:

-Properly surveil
-Monitor Premises
-Timely Respond to Shot Employee
-Take Precautions
-Notice of set up of (Paddock's) surveillance
-Notice or Prevent busting of windows
-Failure to adequately train to notice suspicious persons

(Item 32 above)

Too funny, Item 34:

Quote:

At all relevant times, Defendants MGM, and/or MANDALAY CORP., and/or
DOES/ROES knew or should have known that it was reasonably foreseeable that a breach of their
duties to keep their premises reasonably safe in the aforementioned manner might result in
catastrophic injury perpetrated by a gun-toting guest with an extreme intention to harm others,
including concert-goers at an adjacent venue like Plaintiff GASPER.

They knew or should have known the shooting would happen!

Okay, I'm done. There's the link above if anyone wants to read the thing.

I wouldn't touch MGM stock with a 10 foot pole- they could get sued into bankruptcy if everything that comes out is true
Who in their right mind would ever star at Mandalay Bay- it's beyond tainted forever