Mark Conditt, the suspect in the Austin Texas Bombing Spree, blew himself up yesterday as the cops closed in.
Manley said there appeared to be no specific reasons why Conditt targeted the people who were killed or injured in the attacks. The recording, which officials won’t release while the investigation is underway, does not clearly illustrate a motive for the bombings or explain how he chose his victims.
“He does not at all mention anything about terrorism nor does he mention anything about hate,” Manley said, “but instead, it is the outcry of a very challenged young man, talking about challenges in his personal life that led him to this point.”
Berg’s 18th Law is still in effect, of course.
But if I had to hazard a guess?
- He’s in Austin
- He’s 24
- He’s smart enough to build a couple different types of bomb
- He’s depraved enough to use all that intelligence to kill random innocent people
- He left a rambling video explaining what he did
If I had to guess, he’s a Bernie Bro.
The longer the Austin cops hang on to the video, the more sure of that I”ll be.
So far, picture had been painted of a stereotypical snowflake. The kind that is a direct result of liberal progressive groupthink and indoctrination in k-grad liberal institutions of learning.
It was reported that Alt-right media was beside itself when he was identified as “white” and they did their best to keep repeating that he wasn’t a terrorist.
I would be surprised if he’s a Bernie bro. He was homeschooled and his parents have an Amway business–this is generally shorthand for someone on the fringes of the conservative movement. My first guess is that he’s a little more like Dylan Roof, seeing the benefits given to minorities as a threat to his own.
The major place where I’d hedge on that guess is because he was living on his own. As a rule, the demographic I’m thinking of lives at home or at school until they get married, and the parents and other family are saying they had no clue that things were like this. That might indicate he’d gone from where his parents were, politically and theologically, to who knows where.
I think you’re right, BB. It’s interesting that there was a surveillance photo of him at the Federal Express store released almost immediately. Would not happen if he were of a certain Religion of Peace or down with a certain political cause. Makes it all the more interesting that surveillance photos of the Las Vegas killer aren’t out. After all, almost every square inch of a casino has a security camera pointed at it.
Here are videos of Paddock’s movements in and out of the Mandalay Bay for the week leading up to the attack. Bellmen with carts helped him move a few cases at a time over several days, all looking pretty normal. He made additional trips himself, pulling smaller travel bags.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock.html
Yeah, Paddock’s a mystery. He would have passed any background check you might have devised. Upstanding citizen, independently wealthy, no troubles with the law . . . If you could deny Paddock the right to buy an AR 15, you could deny anyone the right to buy an AR 15. On the other hand, he was f*ckin’ nutty as a shithouse mouse, though he hid it well. If he was denied a firearm, he probably would’ve loaded a truck with diesel & cellulose, or propane tanks, and made an equally bloody end of himself.
Paddock, along with the Parkland gunman, the Austin bomber, and the myriad other American massacre shooters all have one thing in common that gives the lie to a central argumentative fallacy of the NRA. They were all law-abiding citizens, exercising their “2nd Amendment right to bear arms,” until they no longer were—law abiding, that is.
Pingback: On The One Hand… | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: In Cold, Alcohol-Thinned, Probably Mentally Ill Blood | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Straws | Shot in the Dark