You must log in or # to comment.
NSFW tag. Mention it contains people dying. I have some choice words for you!
Maybe in the future, exercise some judgment before clicking on “Terrorist attack…”
Dude wat… That could mean many things. Fucking label your shit op. I don’t want to see people getting shot
Unfortunate incident, hears hoping we get the full story to this.
Seems the shooter was using a surplus SKS and was fiddling around with the stripper clips near the end.
Tap/click for image of firearm
I feel bad for the civilian, of course. But there’s no way I could blame the female cop if she was the one who shot him. He literally snuck up behind her in the middle of an active situation. My instinct would have been to immediately fire as well.
They are supposed to be highly trained. This is why police in many countries aren’t allowed to carry guns, but only have a highly trained armed unit.
Rest in peace to the cop who actually tried to help people unlike so many of his northern american peers. He should be a shining example.
3 killed including the cuck
Was gonna say, that first cop who goes down at the start of the video is probably dead. Looks like he was hit and tried to crawl to cover, then passed out. And if he passed out that quickly from blood loss or internal damage, he’s probably dead unless he got to a hospital ASAP. And judging by how long the standoff went, he probably didn’t make it.
Either that, or he’s great at playing possum, and was just hoping that someone else would kill the shooter. Because even if his vest ate the first bullet that took him down, he likely couldn’t draw and fire before the shooter (who was right next to him) would have time to get off a shot of his own.
I hope it was the latter, but it was likely the former.
He did in fact die, so did a civilian and the shooter.
Police are civilian. We really need to stop militarizing the police.
I was just quoting the news.
And I am calling the news bullshit in their misuse of terms.
They are. But they themselves talk like they aren’t citizens.
If they aren’t even citizens that is even a bigger problem. They are a foreign occupying military force!
Looks like he spooked the second cop and got shot when she flinched. And I think that set her up for a fatal second-guessing not 10 seconds later.
According to an article she was hit but is in stable condition. The first cop was killed though. Also in the article it states that it is rumored that the suspect was some incel shithead.
I’m glad at least someone survived.
I’m also not surprised the suspect was an incel from some flatlander province. Flatlander derangement is a real thing.
Alberta incel shithead.
Holy guac this is insane and insanely tragic …
The cop crawling to the front of that white car is definitely dead, looks like he had already been shot when the video started.
His female colleague then appears to shoot a civilian in the dark top who pops up behind the barricade/wall (but in that situation I don’t know what I would do, the other cop next to me just got shot dead).
And then the shooter in camouflage gear runs up, it looks like she spots him and actually is able to shoot at him while reportedly getting shot at & surviving herself. And then the shooter hides behind the white barricade, appears to reload or fiddle with his weapon, but maybe grasp at his wound? And just … keels over? At first it looked like he was trying to get on the ground to me, but the more I’m looking at it, the more it looks like he just died then and there.
It seems to me that the civilian was shot by the shooter off screen trying to shoot at the police officers. You can see the windows behind getting shot.
Yeah from this angle it definitely does look like the female officer shot the dark shirt bystander. But it is possible it was the perp. Also I guess possible it was an off screen sniper/cop that shot him. If it was actually the lady cop, it’s incredibly tragic because she would have realized in the moment that guy is not the perpetrator and she’ll have to deal with that along with the rest of the trauma like seeing her fellow cop shot down right in front of her and being shot herself (my assumption, haven’t read reports yet).
Look at the glass behind the shooter at the end, he’s being shot.
Terrorist attack or just an active shooter?
The guy really, really, really hated cops and just wanted to kill them from my understanding.
“Active shooter” is just an US euphimism for terrorist attack, invented in an attempt to obfuscate how often they occur in that country.
That’s not true. Active shooters appear all over the world, though in vastly smaller numbers outside the US. They have different motives and objectives from terrorists, so lumping the two together washes away important information.
Someone who shoots during a bank robbery is an “active shooter” too but they aren’t terrorists.
Found the American
Canada had a shooter storm parliament who wasn’t a terrorist.
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature
I’d say, anyone storming parliament has plenty political goals
As if what the US says matters at all.
Also it has to be part of a group.
Terrorism is a non-government organization using violence to achieve political goals.
Part 1 of the ATA amended the Criminal Code to create a new chapter dealing specifically with terrorism. A core provision in this chapter is the definition of “terrorist activity”, which has two components and applies to activities inside or outside Canada. Satisfying either component constitutes a “terrorist activity”.
The first component of the definition is defined in part as an act or omission committed in or outside Canada that would be an offence under the major international treaties that apply to terrorist activities, like hijacking and terrorist bombing.
The second part defines “terrorist activity” as an act or omission undertaken, inside or outside Canada, for a political, religious or ideological purpose that is intended to intimidate the public with respect to its security, including its economic security, or to compel a person, government or organization (whether inside or outside Canada) from doing or refraining to do any act, and that intentionally causes one of a number of specified forms of serious harm.
Found the American
Fbi definition:
Pick a lane dude
They’re using a definition an American should accept. If you want an American to agree with you, you don’t provide the KGB’s definition.
Who needs the American to agree to anything? This happened in Montreal
😆
Not an American. Just asking, because there’s a clear difference. Active shooters and terrorists are fundamentally different people, guided by different motives.
“Just” implies that one is worse than the other - as if people didn’t die either way
One is worse than the other. Terrorists are trying to effect political change through the use of terror. The attack is designed to affect a population.
This is an armed bank robbery. He’s trying to steal money. The only people involved are those on site.
Tell that to those on-site - they are dead either way
An active shooter absolutely can be a terrorist (and usually are). It just means they are shooting indiscriminately in an attack, meaning not only at police/rival gangs/military etc. Terrorist just means they commit their attacks for idealogical reasons. The cross section between the two are enormous. I think the only time an active shooter is not a terrorist is if they have had a break from reality and think regular people are some kind of enemy or they simply want to take others out sadistically for nihilism or infamy or something. I would guess that well over 90% of “active shooters” have some idealogical reason for their attacks (incels, nationalists, religious or racist, etc). Active shooter is really a tactical term used by responders to indicate it is not a targeted event and the term is only relevant during the shooting/response. Afterwards you refer to them as a “mass shooter”. I know it’s pedantic but these terms all have real meanings and are important for criminologists for classification purposes.
This is vastly incorrect. Only a small portion (12%) of active or mass shooters were found to have been motivated by ‘hate or ideology’. Of which almost none were charged with terrorism, and fewer still convicted for it.
Source: https://www.theviolenceproject.org/databases/key-findings
You’re mixing up two entirely separate phenomena. As you can plainly see at the linked source (and many others), the overlap of active shooters and terrorists is practically non-existent, contrary to your claim of it being ‘enormous’.
Nope. You are now conflating mass shooter with active shooter. A mass shooting is not always an event where the shooter(s) is targeting random individuals. A gang related shooting is considered a mass shooting, but the perpetrators aren’t just shooting at random people. These are the most common forms of mass shootings. Although in those events it is sadly very common for bystanders to be shot as well (but that is not the purpose or primary motivation for the shooters).
The website I linked tracks mass shootings, but does not include gang-related shootings. It takes like under 3 minutes of reading to know that.
Cool story, but again you miss the point of my correction: active shooter is a tactical term and does not equate to classification terms like terrorist or mass shooter. Active shooter has no actual meaning once the shooting event ends. It does not address their motive, it only classifies their actions as targeting random (or seemingly random) victims. It exists so police and other responders know that anyone in the area is likely at risk if they are seen. As opposed to only police or only specific targeted victims.
It’s okay, we all get words mixed up sometimes.
At first I thought the cop was looking under the car, I was expecting it to explode.
And then the rest happened and he didn’t move 🙁
He died unfortunately.
RIP
Praise the cameraman
It goes down exactly how I’d imagine this shit. A bunch of flappy humans struggling their way into a fight, then dying stupidly.
I was wondering if I was being unrealistic there.
I can see the attempts at tactical maneuvering, trying to shoot mr terrorist without exposing himself.
Sabaton made a song about this called 3 decades of war.
Shooter is Seth Hatfield, a white incel. Que the “mental issues” and sad violin about how this is a tragedy and now is not the time for politics.
Why are you telling us their name? How are we benefited by knowing their name?
You justify their actions when you give them international name recognition.
