[deleted]

I am confused here. I see reports that Duke Energy purchased the company that day, and I can't find any connection between J.P Morgan and Duke Energy.

The link you submitted, related to JP Morgan, is from 2002. The circumstances of the death are suspicious, but I cannot find the connection you are portraying. Also, the article speaks about J.P Morgan buying 600 million dollars in stock, which is more of an investment then a buyout. Especially when you consider the buyout price of 13.7 Billion from Duke Energy that actually did occur that day.

Any shareholder information on Duke Energy to suggest they are controlled by J.P. Morgan? I cannot find anything.

This is why I hate that http://theyrule.net/ hasn't been updated since 2004. According to the 2004 version thought Duke Energy is connected to JP Morgan through shared directors on theirs and the boards of Wachovia and Verizon.

Apparently the Safeway cameras caught the whole thing, but I doubt anyone will be seeing that anytime soon. Hell, we still haven't seen a plane hitting the Pentagon 10 years after 9/11.

What? You can't clearly make out a plane in those 5 frames of video? /s

edit: /s = sarcasm

Indeed there is video from the safeway showing everything. As far as I know, the FBI took possession of that video. According to them they will not release it because of fears that it will 'prejudice the jury'. If the video has not been released after the trial has started or even finished, then I am going to think something is fishy about that. Until then I am on the fence about any possible conspiracies.

According to them they will not release it because of fears that it will 'prejudice the jury'.

This is pretty standard. They're going to have a hell of a time finding a non-prejudiced jury as it is with all the media coverage.

Why would it prejudice a jury to see what actually happened, as caught on camera?

I think you misunderstand the term. To prejudice a jury is to cause them to prejudge; that is, to cause the jury to have decided the defendant's guilt or innocence before the trial. A prejudiced jury is grounds for appeal.

Once the trial has started, the jury is supposed to be judging. Showing them evidence that makes them decide guilt or innocence is the point.

Which is of course ridiculous - they tackled the guy and pried the gun, still smoking, from his hand. And he pleads innocent? Anyone who doesn't know the guy is guilty at this point has to be a complete moron - just who we want on a jury!!

When almost anything happens in a crowd of even a few people, chances are someone's going to pull out their iPhone or whatever and start filming it.

The explanation is pretty simple. The shooting lasted about a minute, and most of the would-be cameramen were being shot at. There were less than thirty people in the crowd, and nineteen were shot. Anyone in a position to record the shooting itself was better off trying to dodge bullets.

The police arrived after only 5 minutes, and would have shut any aftermath recording down. I also expect that nearly everyone else at the Safeway that morning was either attempting to help or hiding.

There are a large number of surveillance videos of the incident, but they are in the hands of the FBI. While this opens doors to certain questions, it is not itself strange. A competent clean investigation would be expected to do the same to establish a chain of custody on important evidence.

BUT when we NEVER see those videos (similar to a certain other high profile event) then there will be questions that need to be answered.

We'll see the "video" in about 5 months. It will be 4 still frames looped over and over on the news.

I agree. Politicians often have their own photographers for public events.

what i find weird, is that no one pulled a gun and shot that guy dead..... they were in arizona for god sakes.

You didn't hear about Joseph Zamudio?

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter.

No, that's seems pretty stupid. If someone starts shooting wildly into a crowd that you're standing in, are you going to pull out your fucking cell phone? Even someone was recording, I guarantee that the camera would cease to be focused on the action after the first shot as the user tried to get out of the way.

I know it's weird. In a crowd like that at a political event, there were certainly half a dozen people taking pictures and videoing when the shooting started. Had to be. The video exists, but for some reason we aren't seeing it. Why do we see it in other shooting incidents, but not this one?

Agreed. Someone would've been filming it, even if they ducked and ran when the shooting started. The pretty faced white girl born on 9/11 that was plastered on the news shortly after made me doubt the official story.

They need to let others know the sacrifice was successful. Symbolism is very big with these types.

If you have like 20+ people pointing at the creepy Mr. Clean lookin dude saying he was the shooter, I don't see how much a tape can help. Other than just piling on the stress for those involved & their families.

[deleted]

GO BACK TO SLEEP SHEEPLE!!!!

If there were, we'd all have seen it 20- 50 times already.

No Zapruders so far.

Maybe because showing video of a bunch of innocent people being shot isn't going to help anyone in any way, shape, or form?

Well you know, except for the fact that it would either corroborate or falsify the official story. But hey, who needs truth?

NOT ME NOW WHAT SOVEREIGN NATION CAN WE OCCUPY SO I CAN FEEL BETTER IMMEDIATELY?

Just like the collateral murder?

There might be other important info a video can shed light on, if any. It's not just so people can see others get shot. That's not the point.

Nothing on the news helps anybody. But it's news and it is shown because it is news.