Active Shooter With Hostages in Amarillo, TX Walmart

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Walmart shooter was a Somalian refugee islamist.

Police scanner: 12:21 “Shots fired”.

Police scanner: 12:27 “suspect has a colored shirt on top of his Walmart shirt is identified to be male, black”.

Police scanner: 12:31 “shooter down”

Police scanner 12:33: Arabic writing and some notes found on shooter who is down and contained.

Police scanner 12:39 Police confirm Arabic language found in shooters vehicle, Toyota Avalon (green) with stolen tags parked in the disabled spot.

Police scanner 12:45 Shooter’s name is Mohammed Khalid (keep in mind the spelling in English could have varieties)

Police scanner 12:48 Suspect have been shot by SWAT team and is DEAD per Randall County Sheriff’s Office

NOW THE B.S: ITS CATEGORIZED AS “WORKPLACE VIOLENCE”
**** UPDATE FROM RANDALL COUNTY SHERRIF’S DEPT ****

It has been confirmed that there is one person armed with a gun inside Walmart and at least one hostage.

We do consider this a work-place violence situation at this point.

All agencies are on scene, including Amarillo SWAT, APD, RCSO, PCSO and DPS. The SWAT robot is currently being utilized.

Although there were reports of shots fired when officers arrived on scene, there have been no confirmed injuries.

Police scanner 1:07 Female witness questioned by police

Conclusion: a Muslim Somali takes hostages, is gunned down, leaves a note in Arabic and they concluded quickly minutes after saying it was “workplace violence” before even getting an interpreter or even obtaining more data.

 

[PredFan]

Gee another white christian gun nut

wonder if you said that about the muslim that committed the biggest mass shooting in history of the US?

Yeah, the stupid racist did.

 

[Iceweasel]

And.................no....................it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was some employee who was upset that he didn't get the promotion he thought he was due. It was simply a case of workplace violence.

.....by a member of the religion of peace.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And.................no....................it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was some employee who was upset that he didn't get the promotion he thought he was due. It was simply a case of workplace violence.

.....by a member of the religion of peace.

No mention of his religion in any of the local news reports here in Amarillo.

 

[Divine Wind]

And.................no....................it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was some employee who was upset that he didn't get the promotion he thought he was due. It was simply a case of workplace violence.

.....by a member of the religion of peace.

No mention of his religion in any of the local news reports here in Amarillo.

"Mohammad Moghaddam, 54". $20 says I can name his religion.

OTOH, this doesn't appear to be about religion, but about culture. Specifically, in my best Strother Martin "Cool Hand Luke" voice, what we got here is failure to assimilate.

 

[Iceweasel]

And.................no....................it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was some employee who was upset that he didn't get the promotion he thought he was due. It was simply a case of workplace violence.

.....by a member of the religion of peace.

No mention of his religion in any of the local news reports here in Amarillo.

LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

OTOH, this doesn't appear to be about religion, but about culture. ]

Islam isn't just a religion, it IS their culture. And law.

 

[Divine Wind]

OTOH, this doesn't appear to be about religion, but about culture. ]

Islam isn't just a religion, it IS their culture. And law.

True for some. Others have secular law. The fact remains many of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims live in Third World shitholes or are controlled by less-than-democratic dictators, monarchs or clergy. It's a problem that will mostly be resolved by them moving into the 21st Century. The problem is many of those controlling the nations don't want to do so.

 

[JQPublic1]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

 

[Divine Wind]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

While true, I think C65's point was that, overall, the statistics show more blacks are on welfare than whites in proportion to their population. Same goes for murders. This isn't a race thing, it's a cultural thing which had it's beginnings with racism prior to 1964.

 

[Conservative65]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

While true, I think C65's point was that, overall, the statistics show more blacks are on welfare than whites in proportion to their population. Same goes for murders. This isn't a race thing, it's a cultural thing which had it's beginnings with racism prior to 1964.

That's exactly the point. To say that more whites are on food stamps that blacks as a raw number is true. However, since whites make up a proportion of the population that is 5 1/2 greater than that of blacks, unless the number of whites on food stamps is 5 1/2 times more when it comes to the raw data, as a proportion to their population blacks are almost 4x more like to be on food stamps than whites. That isn't racist. It's a statically proven fact.

 

[Divine Wind]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

While true, I think C65's point was that, overall, the statistics show more blacks are on welfare than whites in proportion to their population. Same goes for murders. This isn't a race thing, it's a cultural thing which had it's beginnings with racism prior to 1964.

That's exactly the point. To say that more whites are on food stamps that blacks as a raw number is true. However, since whites make up a proportion of the population that is 5 1/2 greater than that of blacks, unless the number of whites on food stamps is 5 1/2 times more when it comes to the raw data, as a proportion to their population blacks are almost 4x more like to be on food stamps than whites. That isn't racist. It's a statically proven fact.

Agreed. A sad fact, but still a fact. Now, why do you think we have this disparity?

 

[Conservative65]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

Since I took the entire black population and white population to get my numbers, they are valid. Cherry picking certain areas proves nothing. When it applies to ALL blacks vs. ALL whites, my statement stands as the only valid one between the two of us.

Trying not do what you did doesn't change the real world one bit.

 

[JQPublic1]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

While true, I think C65's point was that, overall, the statistics show more blacks are on welfare than whites in proportion to their population. Same goes for murders. This isn't a race thing, it's a cultural thing which had it's beginnings with racism prior to 1964.

As I have long maintained, proportional statistics mean nothing to the victims of murder. And welfare, when controlled for poverty, has proportional equity with Whites in the same socio-economic level mirroring Blacks on welfare in the same SE level.

 

[Divine Wind]

As I have long maintained, proportional statistics mean nothing to the victims of murder. And welfare, when controlled for poverty, has proportional equity with Whites in the same socio-economic level mirroring Blacks on welfare in the same SE level.

Disagreed on the murder statistics. This is fact: Leading Causes of Death in Males - Men's Health - CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/2013/blackmales2013.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/2013/whitemen2013.pdf


Tell me there isn't something very wrong with those numbers.


As for poverty, that's obvious; the more people in poverty, the more likely they are on welfare or other public assistance.

 

[JQPublic1]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

Since I took the entire black population and white population to get my numbers, they are valid. Cherry picking certain areas proves nothing. When it applies to ALL blacks vs. ALL whites, my statement stands as the only valid one between the two of us.

Trying not do what you did doesn't change the real world one bit.

Your premise doesn't make sense ini the real world because if you arbitrarily line 100 Blacks and 100 Whites up in 10 different random locations you will get different numbers every time; and, in some cases, there will be more Whites on welfare in some lines.

 

[JQPublic1]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

While true, I think C65's point was that, overall, the statistics show more blacks are on welfare than whites in proportion to their population. Same goes for murders. This isn't a race thing, it's a cultural thing which had it's beginnings with racism prior to 1964.

That's exactly the point. To say that more whites are on food stamps that blacks as a raw number is true. However, since whites make up a proportion of the population that is 5 1/2 greater than that of blacks, unless the number of whites on food stamps is 5 1/2 times more when it comes to the raw data, as a proportion to their population blacks are almost 4x more like to be on food stamps than whites. That isn't racist. It's a statically proven fact.

The trouble with statistics: The numbers can be manipulated to tell us what we want to see. Often they don't reflect the real world and cause prejudiced people to misjudge whole races.

 

[Conservative65]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

While true, I think C65's point was that, overall, the statistics show more blacks are on welfare than whites in proportion to their population. Same goes for murders. This isn't a race thing, it's a cultural thing which had it's beginnings with racism prior to 1964.

That's exactly the point. To say that more whites are on food stamps that blacks as a raw number is true. However, since whites make up a proportion of the population that is 5 1/2 greater than that of blacks, unless the number of whites on food stamps is 5 1/2 times more when it comes to the raw data, as a proportion to their population blacks are almost 4x more like to be on food stamps than whites. That isn't racist. It's a statically proven fact.

Agreed. A sad fact, but still a fact. Now, why do you think we have this disparity?

Lots of things.

When it comes to high school graduation on a nationwide basis, while it varies from state to state, blacks graduate at a rate of 69% while whites graduate at a rate of 85%. When it comes to college education and using the census numbers from 2010, there is an almost 7% difference between whites and blacks with a Bachelor's degree (18.5% to 11.6%). When it comes to a graduate or professional degree, there is a 4.7% difference between whites and blacks (10.8% to 6.1%). When it comes to income, the higher the level of education, the higher the pay as a statistic.

When it comes to income, the median annual income for a full time worker is in the $25,000 range for less than high school and just shy of $70,000 for a Master's degree. The difference between each educational category (i.e. - dropout vs. diploma, diploma and Bachelor's degree and son on) gets larger the higher the level of education. For example, the difference between a dropout and hs diploma is $9500 but the difference between a hs diploma and Bachelor's degree is almost $21,000.

The illegitimate birth rate for whites compared to blacks is over 72% with a rate of just shy of 29% for whites. Single parents are more likely to use social welfare than married parents.

The unemployment rate for blacks vs. whites is almost double. Thought first quarter of 2016, for blacks it's 9% and for whites it's 4.6%.

 

[Conservative65]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

Since I took the entire black population and white population to get my numbers, they are valid. Cherry picking certain areas proves nothing. When it applies to ALL blacks vs. ALL whites, my statement stands as the only valid one between the two of us.

Trying not do what you did doesn't change the real world one bit.

Your premise doesn't make sense ini the real world because if you arbitrarily line 100 Blacks and 100 Whites up in 10 different random locations you will get different numbers every time; and, in some cases, there will be more Whites on welfare in some lines.

If you arbitrarily line blacks and whites up 100 at a time and do so until you've included all 41 million blacks and over 200 million whites, the ratios I gave will be the total. One can make a cherry picked selection say a lot of things that are, when taken as a whole, are incorrect. My premise is that on an OVERALL basis 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks is on food stamps and only 1 in every 12 1/2 whites it. It's a statistically proven fact.

 

[Conservative65]

ou could line up 100 blacks and 100 whites and start counting. Before you got to 1 white, you would already have statistically counted 3 blacks on food stamps.

That would depend on the blacks and whites you line up. Line up 100 Black sports figures and none will be on welfare. Line up 100 Appalachian Whites and probably all of them would be on welfare.

While true, I think C65's point was that, overall, the statistics show more blacks are on welfare than whites in proportion to their population. Same goes for murders. This isn't a race thing, it's a cultural thing which had it's beginnings with racism prior to 1964.

That's exactly the point. To say that more whites are on food stamps that blacks as a raw number is true. However, since whites make up a proportion of the population that is 5 1/2 greater than that of blacks, unless the number of whites on food stamps is 5 1/2 times more when it comes to the raw data, as a proportion to their population blacks are almost 4x more like to be on food stamps than whites. That isn't racist. It's a statically proven fact.

The trouble with statistics: The numbers can be manipulated to tell us what we want to see. Often they don't reflect the real world and cause prejudiced people to misjudge whole races.

You're the one manipulating them buy cherry picking situations. When every black and every white is included in the calculation, you can't manipulate the numbers. You can only show what the calculations say. What's wrong with my math in your opinion? In included every black and every white.