I'm guessing the guy who called 911 is a gamer

BALTIMORE — A security guard who called 911 after a gunman entered Discovery Channel's headquarters calmly told the operator: "You're probably going to need a sniper."

The call, released Friday, was one of several placed minutes after a gunman entered the lobby and took three hostages. Other callers described the propane tanks strapped to the gunman's body, and a blinking device in his left hand.

After hours of negotiating with James Lee, 43, police shot him to death as the hostages were preparing to make a break for it, police said.

Even in the first minutes after the siege began, Discovery security had an idea of who they were dealing with. A security employee told a 911 operator that they believed the man was in the lobby was Lee. He told the operator Lee appeared disoriented, had propane tanks strapped to his chest and at least one person on the ground.

"It looks like he's got an IED. He looks like he's setting up an explosive device in the lobby, you're probably going to need a sniper," he tells the operator. "You gotta move fast."

In police radio transmissions, an officer described the suspect as an "Asian male following the do-not-admit sign Discovery has."

Lee, who was periodically homeless, was charged with disorderly conduct in February 2008 after he staged a "Save the Planet" protest outside the Discovery building. He threw fistfuls of cash in the air and paid homeless people to carry signs condemning the network. Police found him with a duffel bag stuffed with more than $20,000, according to court records.

He was convicted and served two weeks in jail and was ordered to stay 500 feet away from Discovery headquarters as part of his probation, which ended two weeks ago.

Radio transmissions detail the urgent attempts to evacuate the building and clear traffic and people from the streets around the Silver Spring building in the heart of the bustling downtown during lunchtime. One officer describes Lee setting up a bullhorn with a remote microphone.

Later, one of the police snipers described the explosive device Lee had strapped to his body as coffee cans and propane canisters. The officer said Lee had a microphone and was "protesting verbally."

One Discovery employee told an operator that she was hiding in the kitchen of the building's cafeteria with other employees. She said the man came in the lobby.

"When I walked by him, he said 'Nobody move!' and he shot in the air and I ran," the employee said.

I've given up trying to care about the US's political implosion.  Now it's just completely hilarious.  BTW, he won the nomination.

Dvader said:

This is the year the Repbulicans strike back... with whatever they can find. If a dog ran as a republican it would win.

These are the nominations, i.e. Republicans vs. Republicans, to see who gets to run as the representative for the party in the actual election.  This is the guy voters chose for the Republican nominee.

Not a Republican, but this is ridiculous. This is a real commercial that aired on our TV sets...

I had to rewind my tivo a few times just to make sure I didn't dream that up. (he didn't win, second place out of a ton though)

"(he didn't win, second place out of a ton though)"


More proof that democracy doesn't work.

I don't believe the Pope exists.

Foolz said:

Yeah, that's as stupid as blaming previous or current conflicts on other religions.

While it goes nowhere to compare body counts, I hate this equivocation fallacy.  There's a distinct difference.  You cannot get from "I do not believe X" to "I'll take action Y".  You never do anything based on something you don't believe -- your actions are based on beliefs.  So trying to get from atheism to any action is absurd.  An atheist can be good or bad, like anyone else, but that is entirely dependent on their beliefs, not non-beliefs.  For example, if an atheist bombs a church, it's because of a belief that in some way that is a good idea.  Atheism is not a belief -- it does not account for any actions, good or bad.

However, religions have explicit instructions to take actions.  For example, " ... whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 31:15).  Very few would ever consider taking such an action or (expressly) supporting it, so those who do act in extremist ways are not representative of the followers of a religion, it sure as hell is representative of the religion itself.  If someone takes the Bible and goes off to kill witches, he's crazy, but he's supported by the religion.

Alternatively, if you hand out a pamphlet that says "Be generous and kind to all.  Also, stab puppies."  If someone follows the former and not the latter, they're no worse the person, and anyone who follows the latter is a psychotic dangerous nut who does not in any way reflect on the character of those who don't.  But I can still criticize the pamphlet.

Foolz said:

You can criticise it of course, but that doesn't mean in the context of the actual conflict that religion had any bearing on the actions involved without the manipulation of outer forces.

Religion is a set of beliefs.  Beliefs inform actions.  Therefore religion informs actions.  Without arguing for any particular conflict, suggesting that religion was not a significant factor in any conflict is naïve at best.

Foolz said:

The conflict is irrelevent, we are discussing irrefutible logic and human nature after all aren't we? (Why the hell don't we have an eye rolling smiley?)

No.  My contention is with your equivocation that attributing an atrocity to atheism is the same as attributing an atrocity to a religion.  Attributing any action, good or bad, to atheism is invalid.  Attributing an action, good or bad, to a religion, can be valid.  So they're not equal.

But maybe I'm being too broad, so let's take an example.  Israel and Palestine.  The ongoing conflict is over a piece of land that, outside of a religious context, is completely worthless.  It's not an economic battle.  It's not a political battle.  It's founded in religion.  That is a valid statement.  Theo van Gogh was murdered because of the religious beliefs of a fanatic.  That is a valid statement.

It's the same contention as with people who equate atheists to religious fundamentalists.  How can you be a "fundamentalist" about NOT believing something?  It's asinine, and a flagrant disregard for burden of proof and the definition of atheism.  It has nothing to do with whether an atheist can be just as stupid or just as irrational, just as the issue of atrocities has nothing to do with whether or not an atheist can do something as terrible as someone religious.  You cannot attribute it to atheism, but you can attribute it to religion.  Belief versus non-belief.