Anyone know why a Sandy Hook teacher's *car* was "riddled with bullets" that day?

[rainbow4321]

Saw this article online. The part I don't understand is why her car was shot up. The shooter, I thought, didn't open fire until her got into the school.

Unless the police were shooting outside the school but that wouldn't make sense when the shooter was IN the school when they arrived..surely they were not just randomly firing their guns out in the parking lot?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/survive-war-dies-teaching-article-1.1223210

According to Rousseau, the slain teacher’s 2004 Honda Civic — parked outside the school — was riddled with bullets when authorities removed the vehicle.

[onehandle]

1. The NY Daily News seems to be the only one claiming that, so it's probably bullshit. nt

[jberryhill]

2. A lot of second hand information was circulated that day

You have to consider this was a mother whose daughter had just been shot. She was not in the best condition and very well may have thought that any dent or rust hole in the car was a bullet hole. Or she could be repeating something she heard from someone else. You really can't tell with these kinds of news reports, and it is a safe bet that the reporter did not pepper her with questions about that. Her daughter is dead, so it's not like the reporter followed up with "how many bullet holes? from which direction?" etc. etc.

There are a number of CT's that work on "conflicting early reports" of all kinds of events. In this event, the news organizations published pretty much anything they heard from anybody.

My favorite is that it appears the police, out of due caution, detained various people at the scene, on the assumption the shooter could be one of the apparently "fleeing" people. That's normal. There was an early report that some guy in a leather jacket, for example, was detained. This is now spun by some as proof that there was a second shooter or an accomplice when, in reality, it's normal for police to check out anybody that might be at all suspicious when approaching a scene like this one.

[seabeyond]

3. it really was one of the worst reporting i have watched, on an event like this. nt

[deutsey]

13. Yeah, I'm appalled at just how slipshod the reporting was

The only thing they seemed to get right in the first few hours of this shooting was that there was an incident at the school.

Just about everything after that was flat-out wrong or drastically distorted in some way.

I know in the chaos after a horrible incident like this facts are difficult to pin down. That's why you confirm before you put info out. This rush-to-be-the-first bullshit has got to go.

[seabeyond]

24. i agree, totally. nt

[DURHAM D]

4. Piers Morgan showed pictures of a car with bullet holes

last night. He said they were from the shooters gun and they came from the school building. It was shocking - if the bullets can tear through metal like that (the holes were large) imagine what they can do to a little body.

[Auntie Bush]

6. Little bodies with many of those horrible bullets. A horror too impossible to imagine!

All with a least 3 bullets and a few with 11!!!!!

[DURHAM D]

10. It was really shocking.

The bullets traveled a good distance, possibly ricocheted, and still they tore up the car. I could not believe what I was looking at. The shooter was not just killing the babies, with 3 - 11 shots per body he was mutilating them. Sorry to be so graphic but it added a whole new level of horror.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Effective range for that weapon, the whole school and parking lot were within it.

I learned that shit at shootouts. It was, and is, a good skill to have.

I used that info to at times stage crews outside effective range.

At times we had to go into the hot zone to assist police in evacuating civilians.

The fact that all that is now present when I go shopping, and look for potential cover...

[Downwinder]

5. I believe the Law Enforcement spokesman said at a press briefing

that none of the officers fired any shots.

[southernyankeebelle]

7. I read somewhere that 4 teachers the day before argued with the kid at the school. He

managed to kill 3 of the 4. The fourth teacher was in school that day. But this is the first I heard about a car being shot up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. And I read that was just a rumor.

Seriously, if this principal was as good about building security as they say she was, she would have had security officers or police at the school the day after this supposed altercation took place.

[southernyankeebelle]

21. Who knows there is so much "what ifs"

[allrevvedup]

8. Whoa.

This plot is thickening fast. Thanks for that!

[Chorophyll]

11. Jesus Christ what a sickening comment.

This isn't a movie.

[allrevvedup]

12. No it isn't. That's the point.

In real life things add up.

[Chorophyll]

14. I guess I just don't understand why anyone thinks the killer had some kind of rationale.

Who cares if he argued with someone? Or maybe his mom bought him the wrong cereal. Someone this fucked up doesn't need a reason to do what he did. That's "real life."

[allrevvedup]

15. Remember innocent until proven guilty?

We have a justice system and GE-MSNBC isn't it.

[jberryhill]

28. Fail on two counts

First, he's not "innocent until proven guilty". He's dead. He's not getting a trial.

Second, that shorthand phrase is a procedural rule establishing who has the burden of proof in a trial. It establishes a presumption that is to be applied during the course of a proceeding. It does not negate the free will of anyone to form an opinion about anyone or anything else. It is not some general commandment binding on all ye who hear it.

[allrevvedup]

29. If a survivor sues the school district

or Lanza's estate, there will be a trial. There won't be any trials, I have no doubt, but the fact is, justice won't be done until there are. TV infotainment shows are no place to conduct criminal investigations but we all seem perfectly happy to let talking heads investigate and adjudicate this crime. And yes I know there will be a police report filed eventually.

[jberryhill]

31. "Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with civil suits

Kindly explain your belief that the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" has or would have ANY relationship to a suit against the school by a survivor.

[allrevvedup]

32. You said "He's not getting a trial." Now you're changing the subject.

I'm happy to discuss this with you but not to play semantic games all day. The fact is that a heinous, revolting crime has been committed and we all seem perfectly content to let a gigantic multinational with obvious conflicts of interest -- Lanza's father, who supported his ex-wife and child, gets his paycheck from GE-MSNBC, meaning both responsible parties were essentially on the MSNBC payroll -- tell you everything you need to know about this particular crime.

Does that sound like any way to determine justice in a matter of this gravity? In my view it does not.

[jberryhill]

36. No, I'm not changing the subject

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a shorthand adage of relevance to the presumption afforded a defendant in a criminal trial. Adam Lanza is not going to be getting a trial. He is not going to be a criminal defendant. We do not try dead people.

You then raised the question of "what if someone sues the school". That would be a civil suit, not a criminal trial, and there is no "innocent" or "guilty" in a civil trial, nor any relevant presumptions relating to those terms. In a civil trial, one is found liable or not liable by a preponderance of the evidence, and there are no presumptions on the way in as a general matter other than the plaintiff having the burden to demonstrate liability by a preponderance.

But, what is particularly interesting about your initial statement about prejudice is your conclusion here: "both responsible parties were essentially on the MSNBC payroll -- tell you everything you need to know about this particular crime".

Had I known you were going to crazytown on this, I wouldn't have bothered.

[allrevvedup]

42. Thanks, I hadn't heard that lecture in at least a week.

And if "crazytown" isn't changing the subject I don't know what is, but if you don't want to pursue a conversation on the subject that's fine with me.

[jberryhill]

45. I'm happy to pursue a conversation on the subject

I gather you are asserting that because the shooter's mother was divorced from a guy who worked for GE, that GE has something to do with what happened there. Is that correct?

One would think that your assertion requires a belief that Adam Lanza was indeed the shooter, but perhaps you might explain a bit more about what you are driving at.

Your question above was "Remember innocent before proven guilty?" You have yet to connect that rhetorical question to anything you have said following it.

So, by all means, explain what you meant by that rhetorical question.

[allrevvedup]

47. Fine. Then correct your misquotation.

You said:

But, what is particularly interesting about your initial statement about prejudice is your conclusion here: "both responsible parties were essentially on the MSNBC payroll -- tell you everything you need to know about this particular crime".

That is not my conclusion. You distorted that quotation to make it appear that the subject of "tell" is the preceding parenthetical clause. It isn't. The subject of "tell" is "multinational." Here's the full sentence:

The fact is that a heinous, revolting crime has been committed and we all seem perfectly content to let a gigantic multinational with obvious conflicts of interest -- Lanza's father, who supported his ex-wife and child, gets his paycheck from GE-MSNBC, meaning both responsible parties were essentially on the MSNBC payroll -- tell you everything you need to know about this particular crime.

I'm not interested in having my words twisted in some kind of sick semantic game. If you want this conversation to proceed, then go back and correct that misquotation, and while you're at it omit the word "crazytown," an ad hominem attack which I don't appreciate. Thank you.

[jberryhill]

69. Even reading it that way...

...which is at best ambiguous as to your intent, given your reference to a supposed "conflict of interest", are you seriously proposing that MSNBC is the only organization reporting on this story?

Quite frankly, when events like this happen, I tend to avoid the saturation coverage it gets from the media in general, but I do read quite a number of online newspapers and watch more than one channel.

So, back to the show.... Can you explain your assertion that GE has some sort of "conflict of interest"? GE employs thousands and thousands of people, and are we seriously to believe that when any one of them has a tangential connection to a story - and in this instance we are talking about a spouse who has been divorced from an employee for several years - then someone goes running into the control rooms at NBC and MSNBC in an effort to cover up some supposed personal liability of that employee?

Is that what you are trying to say?

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Ignore them - allrevvedup is a conspiracy theorist

who claims 'professional assassins' killed the children: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2002948

They also claimed the demonstrators for women's rights in Egypt were fake: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=330998

[allrevvedup]

53. The protests are an attempt to interfere with a lawful referendum

supported by Obama, and name-calling is juvenile and unseemly. There are better ways to disagree.

[LanternWaste]

58. I'm not quite as clever as you are...

" tell you everything you need to know about this particular crime. .."

I'm not quite as clever as you are... could you tell us "everything we need to know", and the precise and objective relevance of the professions of the parents? (To better avoid semantic games, you see...)

[allrevvedup]

59. The subject of "tell" is "multinational."

The point more simply is that we shouldn't let multinational corporations that happen to own TV networks to adjudicate crimes of this magnitude. MSNBC isn't the only game in town, but they have an obvious conflict of interest, Lanza's father being on their payroll.

[LanternWaste]

60. To precisely what effect?

"Lanza's father being on their payroll..."


To precisely what effect?

[allrevvedup]

61. Not sure what you're asking.

Can you flesh it out a little?

[LanternWaste]

63. You have stated (albeit disjointedly) that

You have stated (albeit disjointedly) that as his father works as MSBNC, that tells us "everything we kneed to know" What was his precise position, how (objectively & precisely) does that affect the reporting, and precisely how does that deny objectivity on the part of the report? What is the relevance of a company being a multinational is this particular context?

And no guesses, conjectures or prognostications please... simply facts with objective and valid connectors woll do just fine.




Unless of course this is merely the Orly Taitz fiction she's peddling today. My patience with logical fallacies and absurdities is rather low.

[allrevvedup]

64. Orly Taitz?

Do you really think I'm going to take you seriously? Look you need to read what I've said at least four times now, with a special paraphrase just for you. If you still don't understand it, I'm sorry, but I don't think you want to. But to help you one more time:

The subject of the verb "tell" is not the conflict of interest, it's "multinational," i.e., MSNBC. To paraphrase again, "We are letting MSNBC tell us everything," etc.

Get it now?

[LanternWaste]

67. Possibly you are

" "We are letting MSNBC tell us everything," etc.

Possibly you are. I think the rest of us are getting our information from numerous sources. I don't know if you take me seriously or not, but regardless... you're the prognosticating a conspiracy with zero evidence (much as Orly Taitz is currently doing-- hence, the topical reference). I'd think the burden is on you to present us with evidence, and valid interpretation of fact to bolster your premise, rather than simply dismissing those who are trying to understand your position.

[Chorophyll]

9. Are you suggesting the killer had a motive? I mean, why was ANYTHING riddled with bullets

that day? Or anyone? The killer was nuts, and he had unrestricted access to his mother's firearms.

That's why.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

17. You can't be nuts and also have a motive?

[Chorophyll]

19. Sure, but what difference does it make?

What could we possibly find out about this kid that would in any way explain what he did? Or prevent future incidents? (I'll take that back -- if he was on some medication that made him more violent, THAT would be useful information.) But having argued with a teacher? That happens everywhere, every day, without causing a mass shooting.

[allrevvedup]

20. Why do we have laws?

A very serious crime has been committed. What if other people were involved? Did it ever occur to you that the nice teevee lady on CNN isn't always telling you the whole story?

[Chorophyll]

33. Pardon me. First, I do not watch CNN, but I'll let that slide.

Second, do you really believe this was the work of more than one person? Really? Is there any evidence to suggest that?

[allrevvedup]

35. If you're asking whether I think Adam Lanza is soley reponsible

for these crimes, no I do not. I don't think it's remotely possible. Beyond that I have theories but nothing definite at this point.

[morningfog]

46. I'm curious about your theories.

Who else do you think is responsible for this massacre?

[allrevvedup]

48. PM me. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

54. While you're at it, can you also tell us who carried out the 9/11 attacks?

And where was President Obama born?

[allrevvedup]

57. Hilarious. n/t

[LanternWaste]

65. What objective facts specifically leads you to the premise

" I don't think it's remotely possible..."

What objective facts specifically leads you to the premise that it could not have been done by fewer than two people?

[allrevvedup]

66. Please see my remarks in post #64 above. Here's the link:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2040657

I don't think this is a conversation I want to have with you right now. Thanks for your interest.

[LanternWaste]

68. No evidence to present usually leads to

I can understand your reticence. No evidence objective on your part, and a premise based merely on conspiracy would lead many people to avoidance and subject-changes, i.e., to "this is a conversation I want to have with you right now..." It's convenient, and it allows one to maintain dogma without inconvenient questions.

[jberryhill]

70. Well this is quite remarkable

You have in your possession, facts which demonstrate it not to be "remotely possible" that Adam Lanza committed this act by himself, and you would not like to share these facts with the DU community, because you were piqued by one person here?

I am sure that the many members of DU, who no doubt are under the impression that Adam Lanza acted alone, would greatly desire to have access to these facts which render their belief not to be "remotely possible."

Please, this is an important story, and you should certainly straighten everyone out.

[Spazito]

18. According to this article, the bullets fired in the classroom went through the outer wall...

and hit the car. Here are snippets from the article about the teacher and why the car was hit:

"Connecticut school shooting victim had Quebec roots

snip

She was in her classroom with her students when the gunfire started down the hallway. As a substitute, she didn't have keys to the doors, which her father said locked from the inside only with a key.

It's through that unlocked door that the gunman entered her classroom after finding the first classroom locked, Gilles Rousseau said.

The bullets from the rifle fire were so powerful, they passed through the school walls and left three holes in his daughter's car, parked in the lot."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/12/18/quebec-lauren-rousseau-conn.html

[Barack_America]

22. If only she had been given a key to her classroom.

What a tragic oversight, particularly as she had been made a "permanent" substitute teacher at the school.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. At my school, there is only one key for every classroom.

Duplicates are not available and not provided. Too expensive.

[Spazito]

26. If a sub is assigned, they would not have a key then?

If so, I can only hope that will change after this devastating horror.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. No key for the sub

We used to leave our keys at school in the office when we went home every day. Then they told us we should keep them.

[Spazito]

39. I really hope that will change...

preferably a 2nd key kept at the office for subs to use at the very least. It is a small expense relative to what can happen without one as we have seen with this horrific tragedy.

[Jennicut]

50. I'm a regular sub for paras (teacher assistants) and the teachers themselves in CT.

I have been given keys to open classrooms in the morning. If I come in later on, there are usually no keys given. This was in Torrington and Plymouth, CT. Most schools have more then one key. All the teachers in my daughters' school have their own this week. Some teachers are now carrying walkie talkies.

[Spazito]

55. I am glad to hear all have keys now in your daughter's school...

it is clear, sadly, that having a key is an essential safety issue now.

[Spazito]

25. Yes, I thought the same...

when I read the article, all teachers, subs included, should have had keys to lock their classrooms. It was her classroom where 16 of the 20 children were when they were murdered as was she.

Words are so inadequate in this horrific tragedy, I can only hope, with every fiber of my being, change will happen so horrors like this will be much less likely to occur.

[yellowcanine]

38. Three bullet holes is "riddled with bullets"? Ya gotta love reporters.

Any cub reporter knows it takes at least a dozen bullet holes before the term "riddled with bullets" can be used.

[Spazito]

41. The point is the gun used, the bullets used, were powerful enough to...

blow through the outer wall and hit the vehicle/s parked outside. Whether it is three bullet holes or many more is beside the point and not the question posed by the OP.

[yellowcanine]

43. Making fun of the reporter, not the OP. The term came from the reporter.

You may get down off your high horse now.

[Spazito]

51. No high horse here...

just recognition of attempted red herrings being used.

[yellowcanine]

56. if you say so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. No, any cub reporter worth his or her salt

Knows these photos drive the point home, because delicate flowers would faint if real graphic photos of the damage to human bodies, that were riddled by bullets, were shown.

[farminator3000]

27. newspapers shouldn't be allowed to just remove stuff when they make such ridiculous mistakes

they should be forced to print something like

"we erroneously reported the car was full of bullet holes because we wanted to sell more newspapers

thank you for falling for it"

[csziggy]

34. Because the gun used sent bullets through the walls

And into cars in the parking lot.

"Five days after the shootings investigators still are collecting bullets from inside and outside the school. Lanza fired so many rounds that many bullets pierced cars in the school parking lot."
http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-19/news/hc-lanza-ghost-20121219_1_home-computer-investigators-video-games

[retread]

40. There you go again! Using logic and facts.

[csziggy]

44. Sorry, I'm cursed that way

[applegrove]

52. I saw somewhere that those shots Adam

Lanza shot at the classroom windows hit cars outside. They made huge dented holes in the cars. Makes you want to weap for what those high caliber bullets did to the kids. WHY ANYONE COULD EVER JUSTIFY HAVING SUCH DAMAGING BULLETS FOR CIVILIAN USE IS BEYOND ME.