NV - 59 Dead, over 500 injured in Mandalay Bay shooting in Las Vegas, 1 Oct 2017 #8

[canadiangirl]

I am a cradle Catholic, and as far as I know, priests do not need permission to bless a place, people, or animals. This is just an everyday occurrence, frankly. Nothing out of the ordinary about it. They need permission to do actual exorcisms, and those are rare and extremely involved - nothing like this (but I get the feeling some in the thread were looking at it that way). I could call a priest today and ask him to bless my house, my chickens, my rosary, or whatever, and he'd be out here as soon as he had time. No red tape involved, no reason needed. It's just part of what they do.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I would assume a crime scene would be a different situation considering lawyers on behalf of the victims haven't been allowed access as of yet? Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 158085]

I was responding to your comment that said it would take man hours and wouldnt be crucial to the investigation. Regardless who sees it, I believe it's a very important element. MOO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

It would take man hours to blur the other faces and areas we should not see - that's what I meant. Of course I know that LE needs to (and surely already has) reviewed the tapes themselves. But I thought the discussion was about them being released to the public.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Spice]

And what is the reason you see footage like that all the time? I can think of various instances - to seek the publics assistance in identifying or locating a perp or to prove an indictment of criminal behaviour because the perp is facing charges.

This is different, the perp is dead.

What is the reason you think LE should release CCTV footage, aside from public curiosity?

I agree whole heartedly. And that footage would end up on conspiracy theory websites and youtube with red circles pointing to "crisis actors" and other ridoncoulous assertions. They would release it if they needed too. And I believe they will ultimately release it someday. Just like they released the cctv footage of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris shooting in the cafeteria , years later. I don't think they will, or should, release the footage to satisfy the public's need for instant gratification, and others who appear hell bent with the need to minimize this national tragedy into the realm of ridiculous conspiracy and accusations.

If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so on and so forth.


MOO. MOO. MOO.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

I would assume a crime scene would be a different situation considering lawyers on behalf of the victims haven't been allowed access as of yet? Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Why would it being a crime scene matter to the Church? Do you think that this would be a reason for them to withhold a blessing? That's not how blessings work. They are simply available when asked for.

It's very simple. You say, "Father, will you please bless me?" or "Father, would you please bless this house? (or room or rosary)" and it happens.

This would be such incredible micromanagement by the church and would involve thousands of requests a day all over the world to be processed. Trust me. The Church is not in the business of giving permission to priests to bless things, people, or animals.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

It would take man hours to blur the other faces and areas we should not see - that's what I meant. Of course I know that LE needs to (and surely already has) reviewed the tapes themselves. But I thought the discussion was about them being released to the public.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

With today's technology I respectfully disagree. It takes seconds to blur anything.
As far as being released to the public, why should his final steps be withheld? For what purpose? We see it all the time in other cases. Im not following why this is so different in this case? The public, especially the victims have a right to know and see IMO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 158085]

With today's technology I respectfully disagree. It takes seconds to blur anything.
As far as being released to the public, why should his final steps be withheld? For what purpose? We see it all the time in other cases. Im not following why this is so different in this case? Please public, especially the victims have a right to know and see IMO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

And hours of red tape in an approval process for something that's not necessary to the investigation.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

Why would it being a crime scene matter to the Church? Do you think that this would be a reason for them to withhold a blessing? That's not how blessings work. They are simply available when asked for.

It's very simple. You say, "Father, will you please bless me?" or "Father, would you please bless this house? (or room or rosary)" and it happens.

This would be such incredible micromanagement by the church and would involve thousands of requests a day all over the world to be processed. Trust me. The Church is not in the business of giving permission to priests to bless things, people, or animals.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

That's not what I'm saying. It wouldn't matter to the church. HOW is this allowed to take place when lawyers haven't been granted access for the victims as of yet?
Why would a blessing be allowed but lawyers access not allowed?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 158085]

That's not what I'm saying. It wouldn't matter to the church. HOW is this allowed to take place when lawyers haven't been granted access for the victims as of yet?
Why would a blessing be allowed but lawyers access not allowed?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

That's not what the discussion was about. Look at what I was replying to, please, before deciding to start an argument about something I was not even discussing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

I am a cradle Catholic, and as far as I know, priests do not need permission to bless a place, people, or animals. This is just an everyday occurrence, frankly. Nothing out of the ordinary about it. They need permission to do actual exorcisms, and those are rare and extremely involved - nothing like this (but I get the feeling some in the thread were looking at it that way). I could call a priest today and ask him to bless my house, my chickens, my rosary, or whatever, and he'd be out here as soon as he had time. No red tape involved, no reason needed. It's just part of what they do.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I was raised Catholic too. I'm not suggesting it's out of the ordinary or weird. Like I said I wanted to see if he was a Catholic priest (not all priests are Catholic), what kind of a priest he is (not all Catholic priests are the same), and then I became curious about his chain of command. All legitimate questions about who he is and what he did, but not questioning the validity of who he is or what he did.

 

[Spice]

With today's technology I respectfully disagree. It takes seconds to blur anything.
As far as being released to the public, why should his final steps be withheld? For what purpose? We see it all the time in other cases. Im not following why this is so different in this case? Please public, especially the victims have a right to know and see IMO






Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

To protect the integrity of the investigation.

t's really quite simple Canadian Girl.

Also every case is different and unique. Therefore, what is released and not released, and when, will differ according to each case.

BBM

 

[Deleted member 158085]

I was raised Catholic too. I'm not suggesting it's out of the ordinary or weird. Like I said I wanted to see if he was a Catholic priest (not all priests are Catholic), what kind of a priest he is (not all Catholic priests are the same), and then I became curious about his chain of command. All legitimate questions about who he is and what he did, but not questioning the validity of who he is or what he did.

That's why I put in parentheses that some folks in the thread seemed to not be understanding what it was - to clarify that I was not directing that part toward you.

Yes, you were right to check out what kind of priest he was. In the Sherin Mathews case, for instance, people jumped to the conclusion that the Anglican priest who inserted himself into the drama was Catholic. He was not. He would have had his arse handed to him by his Bishop if he had been.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

I am a cradle Catholic, and as far as I know, priests do not need permission to bless a place, people, or animals. This is just an everyday occurrence, frankly. Nothing out of the ordinary about it. They need permission to do actual exorcisms, and those are rare and extremely involved - nothing like this (but I get the feeling some in the thread were looking at it that way). I could call a priest today and ask him to bless my house, my chickens, my rosary, or whatever, and he'd be out here as soon as he had time. No red tape involved, no reason needed. It's just part of what they do.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I would assume a crime scene would be a different situation considering lawyers on behalf of the victims haven't been allowed access as of yet? Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Why would it being a crime scene matter to the Church? Do you think that this would be a reason for them to withhold a blessing? That's not how blessings work. They are simply available when asked for.

It's very simple. You say, "Father, will you please bless me?" or "Father, would you please bless this house? (or room or rosary)" and it happens.

This would be such incredible micromanagement by the church and would involve thousands of requests a day all over the world to be processed. Trust me. The Church is not in the business of giving permission to priests to bless things, people, or animals.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

That's not what I'm saying. It wouldn't matter to the church. HOW is this allowed to take place when lawyers haven't been granted access for the victims as of yet?
Why would a blessing be allowed but lawyers access not allowed?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

That's not what the discussion was about. Look at what I was replying to, please, before deciding to start an argument about something I was not even discussing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Apparently we are having two different discussions because that was what I was referring to? How is a priest allowed into a crime scene but the lawyers are not?
Maybe I confused the conversation but that was my original question. MOO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Gooddeeds]

Why would it being a crime scene matter to the Church? Do you think that this would be a reason for them to withhold a blessing? That's not how blessings work. They are simply available when asked for.

It's very simple. You say, "Father, will you please bless me?" or "Father, would you please bless this house? (or room or rosary)" and it happens.

This would be such incredible micromanagement by the church and would involve thousands of requests a day all over the world to be processed. Trust me. The Church is not in the business of giving permission to priests to bless things, people, or animals.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

-A crime scene doesn’t matter to the church, I agree. But I don’t think that is the point here. A crime scene matters period. To anyone and anywhere due to the nature of an ‘ongoing investigation’. As tight lipped as LE and friends have been because as they say “it’s an ongoing investigation, we have closed off everything surrounding the area”, it’s odd to let anyone near it. Doesn’t matter if it’s a priest, pope, prince or president.

 

[canadiangirl]

-A crime scene doesn’t matter to the church, I agree. But I don’t think that is the point here. A crime scene matters period. To anyone and anywhere due to the nature of an ‘ongoing investigation’. As tight lipped as LE and friends have been because as they say “it’s an ongoing investigation, we have closed off everything surrounding the area”, it’s odd to let anyone near it. Doesn’t matter if it’s a priest, pope, prince or president.

Thank you, this was exactly my point!! You said it much better than I butchered lol

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Spice]

Apparently we are having two different discussions because that was what I was referring to? How is a priest allowed into a crime scene but the lawyers are not?
Maybe I confused the conversation but that was my original question. MOO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

I think the original article stated that the 32 floor of the hotel had been "released back to the hotel".

Therefore, I would imagine, that would mean that it is no longer an active crime scene. That part of the forensic investigation is over. The hotel can do what it wants with it. Including having a blessing conducted. The whole point of the blessing is that employees felt jittery going up to that floor.

Just curious, what lawyers are you speaking of that have not been allowed onto the 32nd floor? Who do they represent. And how do we know they have been denied access? I have been following along. I missed that I guess?

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Apparently we are having two different discussions because that was what I was referring to? How is a priest allowed into a crime scene but the lawyers are not?
Maybe I confused the conversation but that was my original question. MOO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

We are having two different discussions. You replied to a discussion about whether or not he got permission or needed it from the church. You also replied to another of my posts where I was responding to the discussion about the need for the video to be blurred if it was released to the public and I stated it would take man hours. Your reply was not actually about the blurring, which led to another confused discussion. You weren't replying to me regarding the original discussion I was having in either case.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 158085]

-A crime scene doesn’t matter to the church, I agree. But I don’t think that is the point here. A crime scene matters period. To anyone and anywhere due to the nature of an ‘ongoing investigation’. As tight lipped as LE and friends have been because as they say “it’s an ongoing investigation, we have closed off everything surrounding the area”, it’s odd to let anyone near it. Doesn’t matter if it’s a priest, pope, prince or president.

But that WAS the point I was discussing when she decided to reply about a completely different aspect with no segue. No one reads minds here. If you want to change the topic, then say that. Don't just start arguing another point and then tell us we're missing the point.

Do you not see this?

By all means, have that other discussion, but do not tell me I'm missing the point - a point I was not discussing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

I would assume a crime scene would be a different situation considering lawyers on behalf of the victims haven't been allowed access as of yet? Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Link to lawyers being denied access? TIA

 

[canadiangirl]

I think the original article stated that the 32 floor of the hotel had been "released back to the hotel".

Therefore, I would imagine, that would mean that it is no longer an active crime scene. That part of the forensic investigation is over. The hotel can do what it wants with it. Including having a blessing conducted. The whole point of the blessing is that employees felt jittery going up to that floor.

Just curious, what lawyers are you speaking of that have not been allowed onto the 32nd floor? Who do they represent. And how do we know they have been denied access? I have been following along. I missed that I guess?

I'll link it for you when I find it. It was posted on this thread

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

Transparency, for one.

Video footage has been released for many tragedies over the years. It's not like it's new for the public to want to know what happened.

There's footage of JFK's brains literally being blown out of his head.

Why do you think it's not important? Throughout these threads your stance seems to be that we should accept whatever LE says without question. I can't do that.

My opinion, it's not about us. The last of the victims are gradually being released from the hospital.

Maybe it's in consideration to them to allow time to pass before they're bombarded with images of the lunatic while alive, at the time obviously had lurid thoughts of massacre on his brain - meanwhile they were only looking forward to a night of innocent fun, laughter and dancing.

ETA - As for agreeing with LE or otherwise, just my opinion but the tendency for anonymous internet critics to act as if they're speaking for the entire universe is absolutely bizarre. Although it would be interesting to see a photo of SP's face, hours of CCTV footage retracing all his movements in LV does nothing except reinforce the reality that nobodies in real life often rise to fame after committing serious crimes. That's one known motive, seeking eternal notoriety, by narcissist types.