Another shooting near the National Zoo

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

But how would you truly know unless you were there?

She wasn't there, doesn't know, and misrepresented the article. What benefit do you get from misinformation? Is this just a propaganda exercise for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99% of y'all mofo's don't even go to the damn zoo on Easter Monday so what the hell you complaining about.

Agreed. And most of these dumbasses didn't even know it was AA Family Day. All this hysteria over shit they don't even know anything about.

Fake AA posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

36 rowdy young people with guns speaks for itself. The guns also did not shoot off by themselves. Why not just say it -- violence at the zoo on a "special day"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

36 rowdy young people with guns speaks for itself. The guns also did not shoot off by themselves. Why not just say it -- violence at the zoo on a "special day"

I see a perfect NRA sponsorship opportunity -- guns at a "family day."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

BUT BUT BUT Jeff said we didn't have any FACTS at the time! Idiot.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

How can you say that? The article also says this, "Authorities also don’t know whether the shooter was among those expelled or if the person had even been in the zoo."

This is not something that should be treated like a debate topic in which each side tries to score points selectively choosing facts. That is simply divisive and not helpful to finding a solution.

Are you really this dense? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Someone gets shot after 36 rowdy youts (correct spelling) and about 100 young men and women converge near the front gate of the Zoo and it just happens to be this random straggler at the Zoo for no other reason than to just randomly shoot someone. Wow, just amazing. What were the odds?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

How can you say that? The article also says this, "Authorities also don’t know whether the shooter was among those expelled or if the person had even been in the zoo."

This is not something that should be treated like a debate topic in which each side tries to score points selectively choosing facts. That is simply divisive and not helpful to finding a solution.

come on man. the bad crowd expelled from the zoo caused the disturbance. this is not brain surgery. it is more divisive to dodge every bit of unpleasantness that does not fit your narrative.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

How can you say that? The article also says this, "Authorities also don’t know whether the shooter was among those expelled or if the person had even been in the zoo."

This is not something that should be treated like a debate topic in which each side tries to score points selectively choosing facts. That is simply divisive and not helpful to finding a solution.

Are you really this dense? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Someone gets shot after 36 rowdy youts (correct spelling) and about 100 young men and women converge near the front gate of the Zoo and it just happens to be this random straggler at the Zoo for no other reason than to just randomly shoot someone. Wow, just amazing. What were the odds?

You should join the police force. You would have this case solved by now. The two guys who were shot were apparently never inside the zoo. Why would you assume that the person who shot them had been?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

36 rowdy young people with guns speaks for itself. The guns also did not shoot off by themselves. Why not just say it -- violence at the zoo on a "special day"

All 36 of them had guns? It's this sort of exaggeration that causes hysteria.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

How can you say that? The article also says this, "Authorities also don’t know whether the shooter was among those expelled or if the person had even been in the zoo."

This is not something that should be treated like a debate topic in which each side tries to score points selectively choosing facts. That is simply divisive and not helpful to finding a solution.

Are you really this dense? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Someone gets shot after 36 rowdy youts (correct spelling) and about 100 young men and women converge near the front gate of the Zoo and it just happens to be this random straggler at the Zoo for no other reason than to just randomly shoot someone. Wow, just amazing. What were the odds?

You should join the police force. You would have this case solved by now. The two guys who were shot were apparently never inside the zoo. Why would you assume that the person who shot them had been?

Whether or not the victims or the shooter had been IN the zoo is irrelevant. If they were in the area because of the festivities at the Zoo, the shooting IS thereby RELATED to the event at the zoo. IT IS PART OF THE WHOLE PICTURE. You can not just separate out bits and pieces and call it unrelated.

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing if it was Sunday or Tuesday, rather than Easter Monday, "Family Day" at the Zoo, the shooting would not have happened. Who cares if the criminals stepped foot into the Zoo to coo at the monkeys? Are they still on the loose?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

How can you say that? The article also says this, "Authorities also don’t know whether the shooter was among those expelled or if the person had even been in the zoo."

This is not something that should be treated like a debate topic in which each side tries to score points selectively choosing facts. That is simply divisive and not helpful to finding a solution.

Are you really this dense? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Someone gets shot after 36 rowdy youts (correct spelling) and about 100 young men and women converge near the front gate of the Zoo and it just happens to be this random straggler at the Zoo for no other reason than to just randomly shoot someone. Wow, just amazing. What were the odds?

You should join the police force. You would have this case solved by now. The two guys who were shot were apparently never inside the zoo. Why would you assume that the person who shot them had been?

Whether or not the victims or the shooter had been IN the zoo is irrelevant. If they were in the area because of the festivities at the Zoo, the shooting IS thereby RELATED to the event at the zoo. IT IS PART OF THE WHOLE PICTURE. You can not just separate out bits and pieces and call it unrelated.

It matters because PP is claiming the shooter was among those kicked out. If they had not been in the zoo, they couldn't have been kicked out. Also, metal detectors and the like would not have helped.

[Anonymous]

I agree we don't know for certain if the shooter was ever in the zoo. But we do know that one of the victims was going into the zoo. He said he he was going there to look at the girls.

So,then it boils down to was this a random act of violence? Or was this kid a targeted victim ('as he believes he was)

If he was an intended pre-meditated target, then it is zoo attendee thing. He intended to attend the zoo, someone knew he was coming there on this day, for this event and lay in wait for him. Further, he thinks it is related to other violence that he was previously involved in, so he is a youth, who is mixed up in violent activities, who was on his way to the zoo where families and children are, and not to learn about wildlife. He was under the impression that on this day, there would be lots of teenage girls there, to ogle. I go to the zoo 2-3 times a month, I would not say this is usually the case, but for some reason, this occasion did attract an unusual amount of teenagers for the zoo. And he wanted to be there because other teens were there.

The kids had some reason for all being there, I don't think it is normal for 100 young men and women to show up at the gates at the same time. There must be some clue on twitter, or text messages. Seems like a flash mob scenario. I taught high school, and when there was going to be trouble, the kids knew ahead if time and showed up at the hallway or designate place in the community ahead of time so they could see the fight go down. Sometimes teachers got wind of it and admin was able to stop it ahead of time. Once the kids planned something off campus at lunch but the principal learned of it and sent school security team members and the community police officer to the location before lunch...

Anyway, just saying, a big crowd of teens, seems like there was some word of mouth or social networking alert that there would be something to witness or participate in at that time and location.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

How can you say that? The article also says this, "Authorities also don’t know whether the shooter was among those expelled or if the person had even been in the zoo."

This is not something that should be treated like a debate topic in which each side tries to score points selectively choosing facts. That is simply divisive and not helpful to finding a solution.

Are you really this dense? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Someone gets shot after 36 rowdy youts (correct spelling) and about 100 young men and women converge near the front gate of the Zoo and it just happens to be this random straggler at the Zoo for no other reason than to just randomly shoot someone. Wow, just amazing. What were the odds?

You should join the police force. You would have this case solved by now. The two guys who were shot were apparently never inside the zoo. Why would you assume that the person who shot them had been?

Whether or not the victims or the shooter had been IN the zoo is irrelevant. If they were in the area because of the festivities at the Zoo, the shooting IS thereby RELATED to the event at the zoo. IT IS PART OF THE WHOLE PICTURE. You can not just separate out bits and pieces and call it unrelated.

It matters because PP is claiming the shooter was among those kicked out. If they had not been in the zoo, they couldn't have been kicked out. Also, metal detectors and the like would not have helped.

Do you personally believe that the shooter was not part of the rowdy crowd outside the zoo and just a passerby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree we don't know for certain if the shooter was ever in the zoo. But we do know that one of the victims was going into the zoo. He said he he was going there to look at the girls.

So,then it boils down to was this a random act of violence? Or was this kid a targeted victim ('as he believes he was)

If he was an intended pre-meditated target, then it is zoo attendee thing. He intended to attend the zoo, someone knew he was coming there on this day, for this event and lay in wait for him. Further, he thinks it is related to other violence that he was previously involved in, so he is a youth, who is mixed up in violent activities, who was on his way to the zoo where families and children are, and not to learn about wildlife. He was under the impression that on this day, there would be lots of teenage girls there, to ogle. I go to the zoo 2-3 times a month, I would not say this is usually the case, but for some reason, this occasion did attract an unusual amount of teenagers for the zoo. And he wanted to be there because other teens were there.

The kids had some reason for all being there, I don't think it is normal for 100 young men and women to show up at the gates at the same time. There must be some clue on twitter, or text messages. Seems like a flash mob scenario. I taught high school, and when there was going to be trouble, the kids knew ahead if time and showed up at the hallway or designate place in the community ahead of time so they could see the fight go down. Sometimes teachers got wind of it and admin was able to stop it ahead of time. Once the kids planned something off campus at lunch but the principal learned of it and sent school security team members and the community police officer to the location before lunch...

Anyway, just saying, a big crowd of teens, seems like there was some word of mouth or social networking alert that there would be something to witness or participate in at that time and location.

Damnit, will you leave logic out of this!?? We've all decided this was one gigantic coincidence! They came to see the tulips at the Marriott (by the way, did I miss them?)!