Tennessee School Shooting

[4merper4mer]

On 11/7/2023 at 3:43 PM, Ann said:

People are trying to discredit him

But....
 

 

 

 

 

Investigation to identify the person????????  Is that for real?

[devnull]

10 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Investigation to identify the person????????  Is that for real?

 

Yes, and there should be.

Whoever leaked the documents likely violated a number of investigative policies

 

That said, I hope whoever leaked the documents retained a good lawyer and will claim whistleblower status

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, devnull said:

 

Yes, and there should be.

Whoever leaked the documents likely violated a number of investigative policies

 

That said, I hope whoever leaked the documents retained a good lawyer and will claim whistleblower status

I mis-read the document.  I took it to mean investigation into finding the person responsible for the shooting, not the person responsible for the release of the documents.  I thought that was outrageous.

 

Upon re-reading I agree with your point above.  It should be investigated.  But I find it just another example of selective application of standards.  How’s the investigation of the Supreme Court leak going?  The cocaine in the WH?  On and on and on.  
 

Luckily I know exactly when people will be held responsible in an equitable manner regardless of their agenda or level of power.

[Ann]

Whistleblower

[snafu]

19 minutes ago, Ann said:

Whistleblower

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm having a real difficult time trying to see what whistle is someone blowing?

Is there some sort of a right that people have to know what's in the private diary of a mass shooter?  Is withholding the manifesto some sort of crime?  What actual purpose does knowing what's there serve?

 

Sounds like a "whistleblower" in this case is someone who wants to direct or refute a narrative.  That's not a "whistleblower" 

 

And if anyone accepts that definition of "whistleblower" then truthfully, if the manifesto shows some sort of mental illness then wouldn't releasing it assist with calls for restrictive gun control?

 

 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

10 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm having a real difficult time trying to see what whistle is someone blowing?

Is there some sort of a right that people have to know what's in the private diary of a mass shooter?  Is withholding the manifesto some sort of crime?  What actual purpose does knowing what's there serve?

 

Sounds like a "whistleblower" in this case is someone who wants to direct or refute a narrative.  That's not a "whistleblower" 

 

And if anyone accepts that definition of "whistleblower" then truthfully, if the manifesto shows some sort of mental illness then wouldn't releasing it assist with calls for restrictive gun control?

 

 

 

 

Not a lawyer but wondering why withholding information like this from the public is imperative.  Wouldn’t the withholding of raw data on any topic be more likely to create or dispel a narrative than the release of raw data?  
 

It’s information.  Because it is part of a government proceeding I would think it would be subject to FOIL or at least could be challenged on those lines.  

 

Should we simply trust “the experts” on what types of manifestos should be released or withheld?

[snafu]

25 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Not a lawyer but wondering why withholding information like this from the public is imperative.  Wouldn’t the withholding of raw data on any topic be more likely to create or dispel a narrative than the release of raw data?  
 

It’s information.  Because it is part of a government proceeding I would think it would be subject to FOIL or at least could be challenged on those lines.  

 

Should we simply trust “the experts” on what types of manifestos should be released or withheld?

 

Is it the Police's job, or the DA's job to to confirm or dispel narratives that are unrelated to the actual facts of the crime they're enforcing?  From their perspective, this is an open and shut case:  whackadoo shot up a school, we know who whackadoo is and we know what whackadoo did.  Case closed.  Box up the evidence and put it away.  Do we know if some "expert" is withholding the diary/manifesto?

 

I don't know. Is all evidence in criminal cases always thrown open to the public for their consumption?  I don't think so.  Did anyone make a FOIL request for the killer's diary/manifesto?  Can certain evidence be withheld from being released to the public.  I think the answer is yes.  Is this the type of evidence that fits that description?  I think the answer may be no -- although it wasn't published in any online outlet and as far as I know these were private papers.

 

In any event, my issue is with calling the leaker(s) whistleblower(s).  In this instance the leakers weren't exposing corruption or lawbreaking.  In fact, if what you indicate is true, and the diary/manifesto can be viewed by the public after making a FIOL request, then leaking those pages certainly isn't blowing a whistle on anything.

 

Whistleblowers get protections -- rightly so.  Leakers don't get protections.

The guy who published the three pages cleared up the fact that the seven suspended officers were not the leakers.  Seems like he had to because people were mis-characterizing them as whistleblowers.

 

 

 

 

[Ann]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

Is it the Police's job, or the DA's job to to confirm or dispel narratives that are unrelated to the actual facts of the crime they're enforcing?  From their perspective, this is an open and shut case:  whackadoo shot up a school, we know who whackadoo is and we know what whackadoo did.  Case closed.  Box up the evidence and put it away.  Do we know if some "expert" is withholding the diary/manifesto?

 

I don't know. Is all evidence in criminal cases always thrown open to the public for their consumption?  I don't think so.  Did anyone make a FOIL request for the killer's diary/manifesto?  Can certain evidence be withheld from being released to the public.  I think the answer is yes.  Is this the type of evidence that fits that description?  I think the answer may be no -- although it wasn't published in any online outlet and as far as I know these were private papers.

 

In any event, my issue is with calling the leaker(s) whistleblower(s).  In this instance the leakers weren't exposing corruption or lawbreaking.  In fact, if what you indicate is true, and the diary/manifesto can be viewed by the public after making a FIOL request, then leaking those pages certainly isn't blowing a whistle on anything.

 

Whistleblowers get protections -- rightly so.  Leakers don't get protections.

The guy who published the three pages cleared up the fact that the seven suspended officers were not the leakers.  Seems like he had to because people were mis-characterizing them as whistleblowers.

 

 

 

 

 

yes, it was requested. It went to court. I do not know the result.
 

Why hide it? The Buffalo shooter’s manifesto was released asap. Why shouldn’t the public know?

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Ann said:

 

yes, it was requested. It went to court. I do not know the result.
 

Why hide it? The Buffalo shooter’s manifesto was released asap. Why shouldn’t the public know?

 

Again, my issue is the use of the label "whistleblower".

 

Wasn't the Buffalo shooter manifesto posted online by the shooter?

Was this Tennessee diary/manifesto published by the writer, or was it a private document?

Maybe the public should know.  But why does anyone want to know?  Hate is hate, mental illness is mental illness.  I'm obviously speculating, but to me it seems in this case people want to use the hateful words of a mentally ill killer to strike a blow against "woke". 

 

 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Again, my issue is the use of the label "whistleblower".

 

Wasn't the Buffalo shooter manifesto posted online by the shooter?

Was this Tennessee diary/manifesto published by the writer, or was it a private document?

Maybe the public should know.  But why does anyone want to know?  Hate is hate, mental illness is mental illness.  I'm obviously speculating, but to me it seems in this case people want to use the hateful words of a mentally ill killer to strike a blow against "woke". 

 

 

When the narrative is that white men are the only domestic terrorists, it helps paint an accurate picture as to what is really going on when all available

information is accessible.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

When the narrative is that white men are the only domestic terrorists, it helps paint an accurate picture as to what is really going on when all available

information is accessible.

 

 

But, see, we already know that this killer wasn't a white male.

 

 

 

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

But, see, we already know that this killer wasn't a white male.

 

 

 

I get that but specifics would help to undermine the 'painted' narrative.

 

Why else would they continually sweep opposing views and realities under the rug?

[snafu]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

I get that but specifics would help to undermine the 'painted' narrative.

 

Why else would they continually sweep opposing views and realities under the rug?

 

I want to reiterate my issue...this isn't "whistleblowing".

 

Do we know whether non-published, private papers are typically released to the public at large?  Who's calling this a manifesto?  Isn't labeling what appears to be someone's diary/journal a "manifesto" a narrative starter?

 

People are painting their own narrative with or without knowing exactly what's in the document.  They want the papers to be leaked to fuel their speculation and score political points for some purpose.  As if proving that deranged killers can be trans people gets you ... what?  It doesn't appear that anyone is sweeping opposing views under the rug.  Everyone is free to speculate -- and they certainly have speculated. 

 

 

[Ann]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

I want to reiterate my issue...this isn't "whistleblowing".

 

Do we know whether non-published, private papers are typically released to the public at large?  Who's calling this a manifesto?  Isn't labeling what appears to be someone's diary/journal a "manifesto" a narrative starter?

 

People are painting their own narrative with or without knowing exactly what's in the document.  They want the papers to be leaked to fuel their speculation and score political points for some purpose.  As if proving that deranged killers can be trans people gets you ... what?  It doesn't appear that anyone is sweeping opposing views under the rug.  Everyone is free to speculate -- and they certainly have speculated. 

 

 

Maybe they want the papers to be released to determine the truthfulness of the narrative.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Maybe they want the papers to be released to determine the truthfulness of the narrative.

agreed. 
is that whistleblowing?

[Joe Miner]

On 11/9/2023 at 2:34 PM, snafu said:

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm having a real difficult time trying to see what whistle is someone blowing?

Is there some sort of a right that people have to know what's in the private diary of a mass shooter?  Is withholding the manifesto some sort of crime?  What actual purpose does knowing what's there serve?

 

Sounds like a "whistleblower" in this case is someone who wants to direct or refute a narrative.  That's not a "whistleblower" 

 

And if anyone accepts that definition of "whistleblower" then truthfully, if the manifesto shows some sort of mental illness then wouldn't releasing it assist with calls for restrictive gun control?

 

 

 

 

 

If there was actually a manifesto to release I would be in favor of it being released solely due to authorities politicizing every shooting incident as an attack on the second amendment.  If you actually have some truth about the incident, there's a slim chance you can have a conversation about the real cause of the shooting.

 

But much like everything Crowder does, this is another example of over promise and under deliver. What he showed isn't a manifesto, he knows that, but he's all about click bait.  He's gotta get those subs.

[snafu]

19 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

If there was actually a manifesto to release I would be in favor of it being released solely due to authorities politicizing every shooting incident as an attack on the second amendment.  If you actually have some truth about the incident, there's a slim chance you can have a conversation about the real cause of the shooting.

 

But much like everything Crowder does, this is another example of over promise and under deliver. What he showed isn't a manifesto, he knows that, but he's all about click bait.  He's gotta get those subs.

A manifesto is published — or intended to be published — by the person who wrote it.  If the shooter instructed someone to publish the document, then I agree with you.  But this doesn’t appear to be a manifesto. Seems to be a journal or a diary that someone unearthed.  Maybe it came from Melania Trump’s underwear drawer for all we know.  My issue all along has been the use of the word “whistleblower” and the related use of the word “manifesto”.

 

Do people want it published in order to have their “told you so” moment? If so, they’re politicizing the incident just as much as they claim politicians do. It seems to me that they want to show that LBTGQ people can be unhinged angry mass shooters, too, in spite of what all the TV commercials, MSM, and movies tell us.  Am I getting that right?

 

And it seems (from the three pages that were released) that the shooter did have mental/emotional issues/disorder. I said it in an earlier post: if I were the “authorities” and wanted more gun control, I’d want to have the document published. If I wanted more gun control I’d propose that every gun owner submit to semi-annual mental health screening and I’d use these most recent mass shootings as examples of why.  Watch people’s heads explode over that and hold them up as examples of why mental screening would be a good idea.

[Ann]

Judge orders FBI to hand over trans school shooter Audrey Hale's manifesto
Audrey Hale killed 6 people at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville, Tennessee, in March 2023

A federal judge in Tennessee has ordered the FBI to hand over the "manifesto" left behind by a transgender killer who gunned down three adults and three children at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville last year before responding officers put an end to the mayhem.

 

</snip>

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Judge orders FBI to hand over trans school shooter Audrey Hale's manifesto
Audrey Hale killed 6 people at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville, Tennessee, in March 2023

A federal judge in Tennessee has ordered the FBI to hand over the "manifesto" left behind by a transgender killer who gunned down three adults and three children at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville last year before responding officers put an end to the mayhem.

 

</snip>

They’ll comply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the 12th

[devnull]

12 hours ago, Ann said:

Judge orders FBI to hand over trans school shooter Audrey Hale's manifesto
Audrey Hale killed 6 people at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville, Tennessee, in March 2023

A federal judge in Tennessee has ordered the FBI to hand over the "manifesto" left behind by a transgender killer who gunned down three adults and three children at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville last year before responding officers put an end to the mayhem.

 

</snip>

 

Here's a preview