How is this legal? Why isn't there a 'Preservation of Evidence' law?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
There probably is, however they're not keeping the communications on public display.
Which is good policy. There may be motives behind it to obfuscate the identities and ideologies behind the attacks, but one thing that was repeated for years in regards to spree killers is 'don't make them famous'. The Christchurch killer's video went viral and it became standard for psychos to paint memes and slogans on their murder weapon, even if they held diametrically opposing viewpoints.
The correct solution isn't to hide everything about them. It's righteous that the motives should be known. The correct solution is to mock them as pathetic and embarrassing losers instead of portraying them as fearsome.
Yes, but if we want to prosecute him properly, keeping everything out there just makes it more difficult for them to do it. We are righteously fucking angry about him, but right now let the faggot get processed.
I just hope at the end Utah sends him to the firing squad and we get to see it.
The news invented this because they feel bad about collecting money on these broadcasts. There's no actual sense or study behind it at all.
They MURDERED people. Who gives a fuck they paint their guns? Is that the problem?
I know that would be the human interpretation, but actually think about what you're saying? The news has no trouble lying through their teeth and outright fabricating stories for a quick buck. There is zero chance they feel guilt.
More likely reasons are:
Whatever the reason is, I can assure you it's not because they "feel bad."
How long ago did they invent this line?
Where specifically did it come from?
Are you sure you understand the context here?
It's demonstrable copycat behaviour, from people who ought to hate each other. Which proves these psychos inspire other psychos.
It's demonstrable deepstate behavior.