Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   "When news breaks of a school shooting like the one at Seattle Pacific University, there's almost always something that the early reports get wrong: that there might be more than one shooter." Here's why   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 46
    More: Interesting, Seattle Pacific University  
•       •       •

6378 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 11:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-06-10 10:19:08 AM  
It's not just that, they tend to get most things wrong.   Columbine is the canonical example of that.

They haven't gotten much better over the years.
 
2014-06-10 11:12:31 AM  
Yeah, you got to watch out for those shooters...

mojoimage.com
 
2014-06-10 11:16:47 AM  
DNRTFA, but I'm guessing, "People make bad witnesses. Even to things they  just saw."
 
2014-06-10 11:18:38 AM  
There is almost never a second shooter.
 
2014-06-10 11:19:27 AM  
Because people are dumb and love to yap about shiat they know nothing about, just to get attention, or to be "helpful."

Makes those people in prison based on eyewitness testimony all the more tragic. If even 20% of eyewitness testimony is accurate, I'd be really surprised.
 
2014-06-10 11:19:39 AM  
Dnrtfa but my guess is shots echo off buildings so it seems like their were shots fired from different locations?
 
2014-06-10 11:20:05 AM  
Because the media is secretly hoping for the worst possible scenario so they can soak in the ratings and up their advertising fee. If that doesn't turn out to be the case, they can always back it down a notch and ignore that they ever made it sound worse than it is.
 
2014-06-10 11:20:24 AM  
Science might even be to blame, confusing people about what they've really witnessed. During stressful situations, "cortisol gets dumped into the body and can impact your perception of memory and distort what you see," Roche said.

Ah yes, clearly that means "science" is to blame.
 
2014-06-10 11:20:29 AM  
FTA: "Most of the multiple sightings are attributed to eyewitness accounts providing conflicting descriptions of the suspect"

In their defense, when you're cowering under your desk or running for you life, it's kind of hard to focus on the details.

ie. Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water... BAM! A farkin bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a fark what kind of pants the SOB who shot you was wearing?
 
2014-06-10 11:21:13 AM  
Back, and to the left

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-06-10 11:21:55 AM  
www.jfk-online.com
"That's impossible. You heard echoes... echoes!"
 
2014-06-10 11:24:43 AM  

Tman144: DNRTFA, but I'm guessing, "People make bad witnesses. Even to things they  just saw."


Yup.
 
2014-06-10 11:25:00 AM  
This is what happens when you have multiple news networks all trying to be the first to bring you 'breaking news.'

More often than not the details get left out.
 
2014-06-10 11:28:05 AM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: FTA: "Most of the multiple sightings are attributed to eyewitness accounts providing conflicting descriptions of the suspect"

In their defense, when you're cowering under your desk or running for you life, it's kind of hard to focus on the details.

ie. Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water... BAM! A farkin bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a fark what kind of pants the SOB who shot you was wearing?


Applauds.
 
2014-06-10 11:33:44 AM  

Tman144: DNRTFA, but I'm guessing, "People make bad witnesses. Even to things they  just saw."


Eye witness reports are often the least reliable form of evidence in every situation. In fact, they can very well do more harm than good.
 
2014-06-10 11:34:12 AM  

TheEdibleSnuggie: This is what happens when you have multiple news networks all trying to be the first to bring you 'breaking news.'

More often than not the details get left out.


Or the wrong ones get reported.  How many times have you heard someone pranking the news media?  I recall it happening a number of times, back when I was stupid enough to watch live cable news channels.  Generally, it involved a fan of Howard Stern.

Now, imagine people calling and giving wrong information, but not saying "Bababooey!" at the end.  Media will treat it as good info, even if it isn't.  And it doesn't even have to be intentionally bad info.  It could just be people who think they saw something.

Moral of the story:  Take a skeptical view of anything that's reported in the immediate aftermath, aside from bare, verifiable facts.  And I'd question those, too, just for good measure.
 
2014-06-10 11:35:09 AM  
years ago, i supplemented my income during lean times by being a night auditor at a hotel chain.

i was robbed one night. the business end of a .45 looks about the size of a dinner plate when its two feet from your face and lookin at you.

anyhow, i held the robbers gaze, carefully led him over to the till, made sure to get him facing the security cameras for a nice still shot, and handed over the drawer.

15 mins later the place is crawling with cops. i have supervisors all over the place. the cops say "hey, we found a guy, come take a look"

we go outside, they drag a skinny black kid that was similar in appearance out of the squad car. but other than the clothing, i could not tell if that was his face or not. utter endorphin fuzzed memory.
 
2014-06-10 11:35:26 AM  

TheEdibleSnuggie: This is what happens when you have multiple news networks all trying to be the first to bring you 'breaking news.'

More often than not the details get left out completely fabricated.


FTFY
 
2014-06-10 11:41:01 AM  
Panic makes people see, say, do, the stupidest things they wouldn't in non-stressed situations...

So when a panicky person is running for their lives, and looks behind them with double vision, or sees another person they would normally recognize, but can't because panic, holding something, they then see "another shooter" in the crowd...

Example of what panic will make a person do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtfY0jQZ5U

Without panic, that person would have just stopped... but PANIC!
 
2014-06-10 11:47:19 AM  
Once you apprehend a shooter it's SOP to look for devices or accomplices cuz you sure don't want to get blowed up or shot in the back while inspecting a crime scene.
Ignorant people interpret this as evidence of a second gunman.
 
2014-06-10 11:48:07 AM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: ie. Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water... BAM! A farkin bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a fark what kind of pants the SOB who shot you was wearing?


Bra-VO!!!
 
2014-06-10 11:51:47 AM  
www.notentirelystable.com
 
2014-06-10 11:52:49 AM  

Igor Jakovsky: Dnrtfa but my guess is shots echo off buildings so it seems like their were shots fired from different locations?


Nope, you're giving people too much credit.
 
2014-06-10 11:53:53 AM  

CeroX: Panic makes people see, say, do, the stupidest things they wouldn't in non-stressed situations...

So when a panicky person is running for their lives, and looks behind them with double vision, or sees another person they would normally recognize, but can't because panic, holding something, they then see "another shooter" in the crowd...

Example of what panic will make a person do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtfY0jQZ5U

Without panic, that person would have just stopped... but PANIC!


Imminent possibility of sex has the same effect. See: goggles, beer and ugly, coyote.
 
2014-06-10 11:59:34 AM  
So what you're saying is that for future mass killings, there should be two killers, but wearing signs marked "1" and "3". Think of the hilarity of that practical joke!

There would be a massive hunt for this number 2 at large. Ha Ha!
 
2014-06-10 11:59:59 AM  

dionysusaur: CeroX: Panic makes people see, say, do, the stupidest things they wouldn't in non-stressed situations...

So when a panicky person is running for their lives, and looks behind them with double vision, or sees another person they would normally recognize, but can't because panic, holding something, they then see "another shooter" in the crowd...

Example of what panic will make a person do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtfY0jQZ5U

Without panic, that person would have just stopped... but PANIC!

Imminent possibility of sex has the same effect. See: goggles, beer and ugly, coyote.


To my credit, i never plow into other cars when i'm getting road head... not even if i come...

But i get where your going with that...
 
2014-06-10 12:04:48 PM  
Las Vegas.
 
2014-06-10 12:06:26 PM  

Delta1212: Science might even be to blame, confusing people about what they've really witnessed. During stressful situations, "cortisol gets dumped into the body and can impact your perception of memory and distort what you see," Roche said.

Ah yes, clearly that means "science" is to blame.


Damn. Came here to say the same. I love how people assume 'science' fits where any field of study becomes even slightly complicated. I suppose you came first though... Proud of yourself?

/*snort*
 
2014-06-10 12:16:21 PM  

BigNumber12: Igor Jakovsky: Dnrtfa but my guess is shots echo off buildings so it seems like their were shots fired from different locations?

Nope, you're giving people too much credit.


So the answer was eyewitnesses suck? Still dnrtfa.
 
2014-06-10 12:18:48 PM  

Naesen: So what you're saying is that for future mass killings, there should be two killers, but wearing signs marked "1" and "3". Think of the hilarity of that practical joke!

There would be a massive hunt for this number 2 at large. Ha Ha!


http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/06/reynolds_high_sh oo ting_police.html
 
2014-06-10 12:19:11 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Once you apprehend a shooter it's SOP to look for devices or accomplices cuz you sure don't want to get blowed up or shot in the back while inspecting a crime scene.
Ignorant people interpret this as evidence of a second gunman.


That, and saying "there may be additional gunmen" is a fairly common-sense CYA.

If you say there may be many shooters, and there's just one, you might inconvenience people. If you say there is only one shooter, and there are actually many, you might risk lives.
 
2014-06-10 12:20:14 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: In their defense, when you're cowering under your desk or running for you life, it's kind of hard to focus on the details.


I'm surprised taking selfies with the shooter hasn't become a phenomenon yet
 
2014-06-10 12:20:25 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: BigNumber12: Igor Jakovsky: Dnrtfa but my guess is shots echo off buildings so it seems like their were shots fired from different locations?

Nope, you're giving people too much credit.

So the answer was eyewitnesses suck? Still dnrtfa.


The answer is that these seem to be selling better than anyone suspected:

img.fark.net

"There's shooting happening! I see someone running! That must be the shooter!"
 
2014-06-10 12:24:40 PM  

All Latest: Naesen: So what you're saying is that for future mass killings, there should be two killers, but wearing signs marked "1" and "3". Think of the hilarity of that practical joke!

There would be a massive hunt for this number 2 at large. Ha Ha!

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/06/reynolds_high_sh oo ting_police.html


Doesn't quite fit the criteria, but bonus points for a live example of this phenomenon.
 
2014-06-10 12:32:15 PM  
Speaking of school shootings, Oregon is having one right now...
 
2014-06-10 12:32:49 PM  

Naesen: So what you're saying is that for future mass killings, there should be two killers, but wearing signs marked "1" and "3". Think of the hilarity of that practical joke!

There would be a massive hunt for this number 2 at large. Ha Ha!


Actually, that could kind of be a valid strategy for terrorism.

Perhaps the third-most effective terrorist-type attacks in the US, after 9/11 and the OKC bombing, were the DC Sniper attacks.  They tied up the DC area for *WEEKS*.

Now imagine multiple teams, numbered 1 through X (for this example, we'll say 4 teams, so a total of 8 people).  The individual teams do not know who the other teams are.  They just know their own number.  They don't even know if there are teams after them.  Team 1 doesn't need to know there are other teams.

Each team other than the first one is told "OK, when the team before your number is caught or killed, you wait a few days, then activate.  Until then, your job is to lay low and act normal.  Don't change your routine".

Team 1 starts it off, and they are eventually either caught, or killed.  Public breathes a sigh of relief.  Then the sniper attacks start again.  Police and public will be pre-disposed to think "copy-cat".  Eventually, that team is also neutralized.  Then Team 3 steps up to the plate.  *NOW* everyone will recognize that there is a major problem.  Media will go apeshiat.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Even after the last team is caught or killed, everyone will be on pins and needles for a while, not knowing if there are more attacks coming.

The only real hard part is coordinating something like that without becoming the single point of contact that could be used to roll up all the teams at once.   So it's the kind of thing where the only real way to pull it off is to recruit overseas, and for the coordinator to remain out of the reach of the US government.  Otherwise, they'll squeeze that person for information on who the remaining teams are.
 
2014-06-10 12:38:33 PM  

SubBass49: Speaking of school shootings, Oregon is having one right now...


CNN says shooter dead.
 
2014-06-10 12:39:58 PM  

SubBass49: Speaking of school shootings, Oregon is having one right now...


I was surprised that there wasn't a newsflash and thread.  Then I thought that maybe THIS was that thread.  I guess they all blend together.  I'm sure all the same arguments will be fired back and forth.
 
2014-06-10 12:52:37 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SubBass49: Speaking of school shootings, Oregon is having one right now...

CNN says shooter dead.


/grumpycat_good.jpg
 
2014-06-10 01:00:09 PM  

dittybopper: Naesen: So what you're saying is that for future mass killings, there should be two killers, but wearing signs marked "1" and "3". Think of the hilarity of that practical joke!

There would be a massive hunt for this number 2 at large. Ha Ha!

Actually, that could kind of be a valid strategy for terrorism.

Perhaps the third-most effective terrorist-type attacks in the US, after 9/11 and the OKC bombing, were the DC Sniper attacks.  They tied up the DC area for *WEEKS*.

Now imagine multiple teams, numbered 1 through X (for this example, we'll say 4 teams, so a total of 8 people).  The individual teams do not know who the other teams are.  They just know their own number.  They don't even know if there are teams after them.  Team 1 doesn't need to know there are other teams.

Each team other than the first one is told "OK, when the team before your number is caught or killed, you wait a few days, then activate.  Until then, your job is to lay low and act normal.  Don't change your routine".

Team 1 starts it off, and they are eventually either caught, or killed.  Public breathes a sigh of relief.  Then the sniper attacks start again.  Police and public will be pre-disposed to think "copy-cat".  Eventually, that team is also neutralized.  Then Team 3 steps up to the plate.  *NOW* everyone will recognize that there is a major problem.  Media will go apeshiat.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Even after the last team is caught or killed, everyone will be on pins and needles for a while, not knowing if there are more attacks coming.

The only real hard part is coordinating something like that without becoming the single point of contact that could be used to roll up all the teams at once.   So it's the kind of thing where the only real way to pull it off is to recruit overseas, and for the coordinator to remain out of the reach of the US government.  Otherwise, they'll squeeze that person for information on who the remaining teams are.


Difficulty: having ordered teams without letting the teams know the numbering scheme means after team one goes down all subsequently numbered teams will activate simultaneously, whuch may not yield the same result.
 
2014-06-10 01:08:09 PM  

Delta1212: Science might even be to blame, confusing people about what they've really witnessed. During stressful situations, "cortisol gets dumped into the body and can impact your perception of memory and distort what you see," Roche said.

Ah yes, clearly that means "science" is to blame.


Glad I'm not the only one who saw that.  This kind of thing really pisses me off - like putting "science" to assuage readers' fragile egos that might be injured if they realized someone might know more about a topic than they do.
 
2014-06-10 01:13:23 PM  

Naesen: Difficulty: having ordered teams without letting the teams know the numbering scheme means after team one goes down all subsequently numbered teams will activate simultaneously, whuch may not yield the same result.


Apparently you missed this part:

The individual teams do not know who the other teams are.   They just know their own number. They don't even know if there are teams after them.  Team 1 doesn't need to know there are other teams.

They'll be watching the news, so Team 2 will know that Team 1 was killed/caught.  Likewise, Team 3 will be watching.  They'll know when Team 1 was caught/killed, and they'll subsequently know when Team 2 is caught/killed.  Same with Team 4.  They'll be watching the TV, reading the papers, whatever.  They'll know when it's their turn.

All they have to do is watch the news, read the paper, or just have some contact with the news media.  Because it would dominate the news coverage (which is the point of terrorism).
 
2014-06-10 01:54:44 PM  
That's not nearly as bad as what the late reports get wrong: That it was all a false flag operation because Obama is try'na take our guns and all the people you saw on TV were really actors and they're not dead but living in Argentina with Elvis and Hitler and one of the Lee Harvey Oswalds and they say there's a crazy person on every bus but I've never seen him and just you wait those damn Muslims is going to do that Shariah law thing and make us all get gaymarried and you only call me paranoid because you're a shill for the Illuminati and they've been trying to discredit me since 1963 it's all true just watch this one YouTube video and you'll understand everything.
 
2014-06-10 02:14:10 PM  

dittybopper: Naesen: Difficulty: having ordered teams without letting the teams know the numbering scheme means after team one goes down all subsequently numbered teams will activate simultaneously, whuch may not yield the same result.

Apparently you missed this part:

The individual teams do not know who the other teams are.   They just know their own number. They don't even know if there are teams after them.  Team 1 doesn't need to know there are other teams.

They'll be watching the news, so Team 2 will know that Team 1 was killed/caught.  Likewise, Team 3 will be watching.  They'll know when Team 1 was caught/killed, and they'll subsequently know when Team 2 is caught/killed.  Same with Team 4.  They'll be watching the TV, reading the papers, whatever.  They'll know when it's their turn.

All they have to do is watch the news, read the paper, or just have some contact with the news media.  Because it would dominate the news coverage (which is the point of terrorism).


That's the problem, Mr. Clancy, they just know their own number, know nobody else's number, nor the numbering order or scheme. What happens, to the extent of my original scenario, when the numbering schemeis irrregular, for added security? Even with a normally numbered scheme, 1
 
2014-06-10 03:46:04 PM  

Naesen: That's the problem, Mr. Clancy, they just know their own number, know nobody else's number, nor the numbering order or scheme. What happens, to the extent of my original scenario, when the numbering schemeis irrregular, for added security? Even with a normally numbered scheme, 1


Why would the numbering scheme have to be irregular?  That doesn't seem to add any actual security.

Team knows their own number, except for team 1, who for all they know are the only team, because they don't have a need to know.  None of the other teams know how far up the numbers go, not even the last team.

So, here is the timeline:

Team 1 starts up on some set date or from some fixed signal to begin.  They do their thing, and then get stopped by the police.

Team 2, who knows that there is a team before them, then activates without waiting for a signal.  They see that the first team got captured/killed on the news, which is their cue.  They then going on their little spree, until they are stopped by the police.

Team 3, who knows by their number that there were 2 teams before them, then self-activates.  They saw on the news that both Team 1 and Team 2 got stopped, which is their cue to go ahead.  Eventually, they too get stopped by the police.

Let's say Team 3 gets captured alive, for the sake of argument, and lets further assume they start singing like birds, telling the police everything they know:  We're team 3.  We don't know the other teams.  We don't know if there are more.  We just know we are #3.

While that's going on, Team 4 starts up.  But the information provided by Team 3 isn't any help to the police, not without some common thread they can pull on.  If the people who planned the attacks are overseas, it's going to be hard to arrest them and interrogate them.

Eventually, of course, Team 4 gets caught or killed.  Then you have to wait for a while to see if indeed you really did get all of them, or if there are more on the way.

Of course, you could just tell all 4 (or whatever) teams to go at it simultaneously, but that's doesn't draw out the terror, which is the farkin' point of something like that in the first place:  The police will recognize fairly quickly through forensic evidence  that they are dealing with multiple shooters and will plan accordingly.

BTW, nothing says it has to be 4 teams, any number greater than 2 would work fine.

Ideally, you'll have 2 man teams, because they'll reinforce each other, whereas a single person might lose their will.
 
2014-06-10 05:32:36 PM  

CeroX: dionysusaur: CeroX: Panic makes people see, say, do, the stupidest things they wouldn't in non-stressed situations...


Imminent possibility of sex has the same effect. See: goggles, beer and ugly, coyote.

To my credit, i never plow into other cars when i'm getting road head... not even if i come...

But i get where your going with that...


Sorry the mobile Fark doesn't let one edit the parent post as part of reply - I could have cleaned that up a little first.

/ Say, Drew and company?  Could we maybe get on with that?  Please?
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report