RugbyRebels

BBC's live coverage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-36870986

Update: What we know so far
Posted at 19:47

A hunt is under way in the German city of Munch after at least one shooter opened fire at the Olympia shopping centre.

Several people are believed to have been killed, a Munich police spokeswoman said.
The city transit system has been shut down and people are asked to avoid public places.
"At the moment no culprit has been arrested" and "the search is taking place at high speed", Munich police said on social media.
Police said witnesses reported seeing three different people with guns near the Olympia Einkaufszentrum mall.
Police spokesman Thomas Baumann told German news agency dpa the attack started at a fast food restaurant in the mall shortly before 18:00 local time.
Public broadcaster Bayrischer Rundfunk reported that shops in the centre of Munich had closed with customers inside.


Anyone there - stay indoors, stay safe

I'm so tired of this

German police stating six killed. Multiple shooters still evading capture.

Sandydragon wrote:German police stating six killed. Multiple shooters still evading capture.

Nein.

At least 10 dead, apparently, including kids and the shooter. Allegedly, he was throwing a wobbly about foreigners. Sounds like a swell fellow.

Also, give it a fucking rest, Europe.

Gladio.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

3 of the victims were Turks. Apparently the guy hated Turks, so they probably won't pretend this one was "ISIS."

Meanwhile 61 people were killed in a terrorist attack in Afghanistan (not so newsworthy, it seems):


Suicide bombers hit a large demonstration by members of Afghanistan's Hazara minority in Kabul on Saturday, killing at least 61 people and wounding 207, officials said. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/10-dead- ... ls-1435170

German 5-0 has pretty much immediately poured water on any suggestion that the guy had anything to do with IS.

Have to say, the German handling seems to have been a lot more mature than the French; though whilst the French had a much higher body-count; the German's had an ongoing situation for quite a while.

French response "this was clear terrorism" now let's find/create some evidence to fit that narrative.
German response "we don't really know, so we'll call it terrorism to get resources in place just in case... turns out it wasn't terorism at all and 'just' some nut-job who seems to worship mass-murderers"

Which Tyler wrote:Have to say, the German handling seems to have been a lot more mature than the French; though whilst the French had a much higher body-count; the German's had an ongoing situation for quite a while.

French response "this was clear terrorism" now let's find/create some evidence to fit that narrative.
German response "we don't really know, so we'll call it terrorism to get resources in place just in case... turns out it wasn't terorism at all and 'just' some nut-job who seems to worship mass-murderers"

Is a lone nut job committing mass murder for a political aim not terrorism? I'm being a bit pedantic as I agree with you sentiment of how this was handled.

They say he was inspired by Anders Breivik, and it is no coincidence that this occurred exactly five years after that horrific terrorist attack in Norway.

rowan wrote:They say he was inspired by Anders Breivik, and it is no coincidence that this occurred exactly five years after that horrific terrorist attack in Norway.

On the anniversary of the King David Hotel massacre wasn't it?

Yes, also, though I doubt there was a connection...

Sandydragon wrote:Is a lone nut job committing mass murder for a political aim not terrorism? I'm being a bit pedantic as I agree with you sentiment of how this was handled.

I was under the impression that this guy was thought not to have a political aim, just a desire to kill people and maybe get some revenge on those who'd specifically bullied him in the past? I could easily have missed something though.

UGagain wrote:On the anniversary of the King David Hotel massacre wasn't it?

yes; though in this case it seems more likely that this guy chose Breivik's anniversary, and that Breivik chose the Hotel's anniversary; rather than this guy choosing the Hotel's anniversary. Again - mere speculation on my behalf.

Interesting that the initial eye witness reports said multiple shooters were involved but the (dead) accused is a single shooter with issues and a muslim.

Funny how that scenario keeps repeating.

I doubt Anders Breivik had any interest in the King David Hotel. No connection there. But the kid in Munich was apparently inspired by what happened in Norway. Of course, governments and the media are always trying to put a spin on these incidents that will divert attention away from their own domestic issues - ie regarding oppressed minorities.

Meanwhile . . .

UGagain wrote:Interesting that the initial eye witness reports said multiple shooters were involved but the (dead) accused is a single shooter with issues and a muslim.

Funny how that scenario keeps repeating.

In a stressful situation, it's not unusual for people on site to get things horrendously wrong. The Innocence Project has calculated that about 70% of wrongful convictions are largely in part to unreliable witness testimony, and the US Supreme Court has called witness testimony "notoriously unreliable" in the past. I don't know about you, but I would wager that "getting shot at when all you want is a Bic Mac" rates quite high on the stress scale.

rowan wrote:

Ah yes, the old "out of context" photo to add credence to #askquestions.

cashead wrote:

UGagain wrote:Interesting that the initial eye witness reports said multiple shooters were involved but the (dead) accused is a single shooter with issues and a muslim.

Funny how that scenario keeps repeating.

In a stressful situation, it's not unusual for people on site to get things horrendously wrong. The Innocence Project has calculated that about 70% of wrongful convictions are largely in part to unreliable witness testimony, and the US Supreme Court has called witness testimony "notoriously unreliable" in the past. I don't know about you, but I would wager that "getting shot at when all you want is a Bic Mac" rates quite high on the stress scale.

rowan wrote:

Ah yes, the old "out of context" photo to add credence to #askquestions.

Agreed. Even professionals make mistakes, especially when poor radio comms are added to the mix.

From a conviction perspective, eyewitness testimony is very badly rated. That's why most investigators prefer scientific evidence.

Don't imagine they'll dry to pin these on ISIS either, but it must be clear now that America's wars in the Middle East are impacting directly on Europe...

Syrian refugee, 21, hacks PREGNANT woman to death with machete and injures two others before hero BMW driver runs him over in yet another attack in Germany

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sage-field

A man who blew himself up and injured 12 people after being turned away from an open-air music festival was a 27-year-old Syrian who had been denied asylum, Bavaria's top security official said early Monday.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germ ... story.html

What the research actually shows is that witness' recollection deteriorates over time. The immediate eyewitness accounts are most likely to be accurate.

UGagain wrote:What the research actually shows is that witness' recollection deteriorates over time. The immediate eyewitness accounts are most likely to be accurate.

Eyewitness testimony taken immediately after an event is more likely to be accurate than it is 6 months later, but even immediate testimony is inaccurate and contradictory. Unless there is something to pin the memory, i.e. a very distinctive feature or event, a recollection is likely to be false.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Many trials have failed, or been successful appealed as a result of poor eyewitness testimony. And this is evidence given immediately after an event and formally recorded, so even if the witness is at a trial a year or so later, their immediate evidence has been taken and stored.

In addition news reports are prone to errors as a result of their rush to publish information. Interviewing one witness and then running with new information that is eventually disproven is not uncommon in major incidents.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:What the research actually shows is that witness' recollection deteriorates over time. The immediate eyewitness accounts are most likely to be accurate.

Eyewitness testimony taken immediately after an event is more likely to be accurate than it is 6 months later, but even immediate testimony is inaccurate and contradictory. Unless there is something to pin the memory, i.e. a very distinctive feature or event, a recollection is likely to be false.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Many trials have failed, or been successful appealed as a result of poor eyewitness testimony. And this is evidence given immediately after an event and formally recorded, so even if the witness is at a trial a year or so later, their immediate evidence has been taken and stored.

In addition news reports are prone to errors as a result of their rush to publish information. Interviewing one witness and then running with new information that is eventually disproven is not uncommon in major incidents.

Any time later. Especially after they've talked to the police and the police and press have established the narrative that suits them.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:What the research actually shows is that witness' recollection deteriorates over time. The immediate eyewitness accounts are most likely to be accurate.

Eyewitness testimony taken immediately after an event is more likely to be accurate than it is 6 months later, but even immediate testimony is inaccurate and contradictory. Unless there is something to pin the memory, i.e. a very distinctive feature or event, a recollection is likely to be false.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Many trials have failed, or been successful appealed as a result of poor eyewitness testimony. And this is evidence given immediately after an event and formally recorded, so even if the witness is at a trial a year or so later, their immediate evidence has been taken and stored.

In addition news reports are prone to errors as a result of their rush to publish information. Interviewing one witness and then running with new information that is eventually disproven is not uncommon in major incidents.

Any time later. Especially after they've talked to the police and the police and press have established the narrative that suits them.

So you are now suggesting that the eyewitness is being coerced by the police into making a false statement.

If that is your perception then its pointless arguing.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Eyewitness testimony taken immediately after an event is more likely to be accurate than it is 6 months later, but even immediate testimony is inaccurate and contradictory. Unless there is something to pin the memory, i.e. a very distinctive feature or event, a recollection is likely to be false.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Many trials have failed, or been successful appealed as a result of poor eyewitness testimony. And this is evidence given immediately after an event and formally recorded, so even if the witness is at a trial a year or so later, their immediate evidence has been taken and stored.

In addition news reports are prone to errors as a result of their rush to publish information. Interviewing one witness and then running with new information that is eventually disproven is not uncommon in major incidents.

Any time later. Especially after they've talked to the police and the police and press have established the narrative that suits them.

So you are now suggesting that the eyewitness is being coerced by the police into making a false statement.

If that is your perception then its pointless arguing.

What? What do you mean 'the eyewitness'?

You have an incredibly closed mind, dude. Try some yoga or something. Smoke a little ganja. Take a laxative.