I mean as far as I know it had no long term effects. Shootings aren't exactly rare in the USA, what's the take here?

  • emizeko [they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    you heard of the 2020 Nova Scotia shootings and Gabriel Wortman being an RCMP informant? I think there's something similar here, like maybe he was involved in running guns for the feds and they covered up their relationship with him. maybe he got burned by the feds somehow like Wortman and raged out

      • DigimonOtis [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        That might have actually been his own money because he owned a dentistry business (still could be his informant payouts though), but the way we know he was a fed is:

        • the police response to obviously cover it up at every point, including immediately during his attack
        • he was pulled over without charge a week or two earlier, a common way to contact informants
        • he's legally not supposed to have any guns and his neighbours (and others) reported that they thought he had guns but this was never investigated and the reports/calls were mysteriously scrubbed or never kept at the police HQ
        • was allowed to build multiple replica cop cars
    • Coca_Cola_but_Commie [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      maybe he got burned by the feds somehow like Wortman and raged out

      This is always the explanation I liked the best. People talk about the supposed multiple shooters and imply that the feds did the attack as a false flag, then killed Paddock to stage the crime scene. But that seems complicated, convoluted, and hard to coverup. It makes way more sense to me that instead he had some kind of relationship with the feds (who knows what sort of relationship) he snaps and does the shooting (police being incompetent is no news, and how hard would it be for Paddock to carry a few dufflebags full of weapons up to his hotel room?) then feds deliberately don't investigate to avoid embarrassing themselves in the media.