Active shooter San Bernardino, CA

[ChumpDumper]

If it's a textbook example of workplace violence, why didn't the FBI say so today?

Why can't you answer that question?

There was no uncertainty it was workplace violence. There was previously uncertainty it was an act of terrorism.

Pretty simple.

[ChumpDumper]

What does that mean?

There was no uncertainty it was workplace violence. There was previously uncertainty it was an act of terrorism.

Pretty simple.

[vy65]

There was no uncertainty it was workplace violence. There was previously uncertainty it was an act of terrorism.

Pretty simple.

And you're getting that from which FBI spokesman? Or did you just make that up?

[ChumpDumper]

And you're getting that from which FBI spokesman? Or did you just make that up?

No, all along they were saying they were trying to figure out if this was just a case of workplace violence or if it was also terrorism.

Pretty simple.

I don't know why you all are getting so worked up over really clear definitions.

Are you having trouble understanding the definitions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Any report of a motive beyond the woman pledging to ISIS on facebook yet? I get labels are important for posterity and why you guys jockey over it but any word on something real?

[ChumpDumper]

Any report of a motive beyond the woman pledging to ISIS on facebook yet? I get labels are important for posterity and why you guys jockey over it but any word on something real?

From what I've seen there is no indication they got marching orders from anyone, but since they screwed up most of their computers, etc., who knows how long recovering everything could take?

[vy65]

No, all along they were saying they were trying to figure out if this was just a case of workplace violence or if it was also terrorism.

Pretty simple.

I don't know why you all are getting so worked up over really clear definitions.

Are you having trouble understanding the definitions?

Not worked up. Just wondering why OSHA or the FBI or any legal expert hasn't agreed with you or why the FBI classified this as terrorism. But hey, you looked something up in a pamphlet so you must be right.

[DarrinS]

From what I've seen there is no indication they got marching orders from anyone, but since they screwed up most of their computers, etc., who knows how long recovering everything could take?

Is that a requirement for terrorism, marching orders?

[ChumpDumper]

Not worked up. Just wondering why OSHA or the FBI or any legal expert hasn't agreed with you or why the FBI classified this as terrorism. But hey, you looked something up in a pamphlet so you must be right.

All I said was it meets the FBI definition of workplace violence.

You have never refuted that.

You haven't even denied it.

You went out of your way to avoid a direct question about it.

None of that means it isn't an act of terrorism. I have repeatedly called it an act of terrorism.

So what is your problem?

[ChumpDumper]

Is that a requirement for terrorism, marching orders?

Who said it was, Darrin?

And you didn't answer the question, Darrin.

Who said this wasn't an act of terrorism, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Must have been a horrible workplace to motivate the IED factory in the garage.

[ChumpDumper]

Must have been a horrible workplace to motivate the IED factory in the garage.

You didn't answer the question, Darrin.

Who said this wasn't an act of terrorism, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Who said it was, Darrin?

And you didn't answer the question, Darrin.

Who said this wasn't an act of terrorism, Darrin?

If we all agree that it was terrorism, then why are you still pushing workplace violence?

[ChumpDumper]

If we all agree that it was terrorism, then why are you still pushing workplace violence?

And you didn't answer the question, Darrin.

Who said this wasn't an act of terrorism, Darrin?

[vy65]

All I said was it meets the FBI definition of workplace violence.

You have never refuted that.

You haven't even denied it.

You went out of your way to avoid a direct question about it.

None of that means it isn't an act of terrorism. I have repeatedly called it an act of terrorism.

So what is your problem?

No one from the FBI, OSHA, or the DOJ has called this workplace violence. Not a single occupational or legal scholar has called it workplace violence. When given the opportunity to announce this as workplace violence, the FBI called this terrorism instead.

Superficially meeting the definition is only half the battle. There are statutes, administrative provisions, and agency advisory opinions construing the OSHA definition -- which lol, is the applicable agency, not the FBI -- which you haven't mentioned, ostensibly because you have no clue.

We're all very impressed that you can google . But your googles don't make you an expert no matter how much you'd like to think othersise

[DarrinS]

And you didn't answer the question, Darrin.

Who said this wasn't an act of terrorism, Darrin?

I know that wash, rinse, and repeat is your "thing", but it's boring, tbh. There are enough dots to connect to drop the workplace violence bs.

[ChumpDumper]

No one from the FBI, OSHA, or the DOJ has called this workplace violence. Not a single occupational or legal scholar has called it workplace violence. When given the opportunity to announce this as workplace violence, the FBI called this terrorism instead.

Superficially meeting the definition is only half the battle. There are statutes, administrative provisions, and agency advisory opinions construing the OSHA definition -- which lol, is the applicable agency, not the FBI -- which you haven't mentioned, ostensibly because you have no clue.

We're all very impressed that you can google . But your googles don't make you an expert no matter how much you'd like to think othersise

I never said was an expert.

I merely stated it fits the definition.

You still can't refute that.

At all.

If you want to refute it, you go right ahead.

I'll wait.

[ChumpDumper]

I know that wash, rinse, and repeat is your "thing", but it's boring, tbh. There are enough dots to connect to drop the workplace violence bs.

Darrin, I know avoiding direct questions is your "thing", but it's boring tbh.

Just answer the question, Darrin.

Who said this wasn't an act of terrorism, Darrin?

[vy65]

I never said was an expert.

Exactly, so keep your ty amateurish takes to yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly, so keep your ty amateurish takes to yourself.

Are you in the FBI?

Give me your expert take on how this doesn't meet the definition of workplace violence.

[vy65]

Are you in the FBI?

Give me your expert take on how this doesn't meet the definition of workplace violence.

Nope, but the NYT sure did a good job quoting them, didn't they?

We can carry on this conversation when you get the applicable federal agency right.

[DarrinS]

If one of the 9/11 hijackers had worked at the WTC, would 9/11 also fall under the definition of workplace violence?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope.

Exactly, so keep your ty amateurish takes to yourself.

[vy65]

Exactly, so keep your ty amateurish takes to yourself.

Ok buddy you win

[ChumpDumper]

If one of the 9/11 hijackers had worked at the WTC, would 9/11 also fall under the definition of workplace violence?

You tell me, Darrin.

While agreeing on that broader definition of the
problem, specialists have also come to a consensus that workplace violence falls into
four broad categories. They are:

TYPE 1: Violent acts by criminals who have no other connection with the workplace,
but enter to commit robbery or another crime.

TYPE 2: Violence directed at employees by customers, clients, patients, students,
inmates, or any others for whom an organization provides services.

TYPE 3: Violence against coworkers, supervisors, or managers by a present or former
employee.

TYPE 4: Violence committed in the workplace by someone who doesn’t work there, but
has a personal relationship with an employee—an abusive spouse or domestic partner.

I know you won't answer, Darrin, just like you won't answer this question:

Who said this wasn't an act of terrorism, Darrin?