Doc listed on Omar Mateen Psych-Evaluation for G4S Clearance Asserts She Never Saw Him

9 Responses to Doc listed on Omar Mateen Psych-Evaluation for G4S Clearance Asserts She Never Saw Him

1. Libby says:

   Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 3:21 pm

   So where’d you get this Tina? Some right-wing stirrer of the s!?t, I think.

   I mean, right away it should have dawned in you … a document on file in Florida. If he was evaluated, there are results in his personnel file with the evaluator’s name on them. Are they the same, or are they different? Or, maybe he never was evaluated.

   Whichever, your source should have made an effort to find out before they went to press, don’t you think? Cause as it is, they kinda got nothing, except some s?!t to stir, if they are so inclined.

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 3:43 pm

     “Are they the same, or are they different? Or, maybe he never was evaluated.”

     Libby the so-called “s!?t” stirrer is asking the same thing…are you right wing too?

     The file prompted the interview with Dr Carol Nudelman, who, if you read the rest of the article, is somewhat suspicious herself.

     Are you so quick to try to discredit that you stumble all over yourself or are you just tired of being on defense?

     Reply
     • Libby says:

       Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm

       Good God, Tina. I mean, silly me for thinking you’d posted all the pertinent bits. You’re getting all worked up cause somebody put the wrong name on a form?!?

       Reply
2. Chris says:

   Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 3:26 pm

   Didn’t this blog just argue that names of terrorists and mass shooters shouldn’t be published?

   Reply
3. Tina says:

   Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 3:45 pm

   This blog suggested it might be a good idea.

   Your Hall Monitor’s report is duly noted, now go back to class and try to learn something for a change!

   Reply
4. Pie Guevara says:

   Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 6:54 pm

   Did I miss something? Did this blog suggest that the psychological evaluators who actually did no psychological evaluation of the shooter not be named?

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 5:25 pm

     If we did, we didn’t intend it.

     Reply
5. dewster says:

   Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 4:36 am

   There is an underlying story here for sure I knew it right away. But all this crap does not help.

   Tina stop being mean. Also realize you do follow propaganda too much. Most info is fed to these news agencies. It is very hard to find the truth.

   That said Why is it that the FBI had multiple contact with the 2 mass shooters who were Home Grown Extremists on their own Jihad of sorts?

   WHy is it that after these types of incidents they go for more surveillance that has nothing to do with finding these people? They already knew of them!

   They collect so much data they can not even deal with it. It is all a farce. Listen to the Men who were there when they started abusing our rights. There is no control over what they do anyone can flip the switch some day. We have created a Super Stazzi.

   The truth will eventually come out in the mean time be careful Tina we have to vet every single story. Some are plants. They use a fact to steer us down the wrong road.

   Also be careful of Hypocrisy it reaks round here.

   A Free Press is detrimental to a democracy and freedom.That said one has to vet every story. One has to be responsible not an attack dog.

   Reply
6. Tina says:

   Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 6:08 pm

   Dewey we do not do news. We talk about things in the news, anything in the news…get it.

   I am not “being mean.”

   I am returning nasty demeaning words for nasty demeaning words because I will not allow you to come to this blog and criticize without returning the favor.

   I will treat you with respect when you do the same.

   If you have an opinion express it, but knock off the air of superiority. You are no better informed than anyone else here and your comments are a testament to the fact:

   “all this crap does not help.” – “…you do follow propaganda too much” – “be careful of Hypocrisy it reaks round here. –

   “A Free Press is detrimental to a democracy and freedom.”

   ARE you sure this is what you wanted to say?

   Detrimental: tending to cause harm

   Or are you that incredibly deeply ignorant about the nation’s founding principles and ideals?

   “Criticism of government finds sanctuary in several portions of the 1st Amendment. It is part of the right of free speech. It embraces freedom of the press.” – Hugo Black

   “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” – Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

   “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” – Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.

   “I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” – Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.

   WashingtonsBlog:

   the United States Supreme Court has consistently refused to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers:

   In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court described freedom of the press as “a fundamental personal right” that is not confined to newspapers and periodicals

   In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), the Chief Justice of the Supreme court defined “press” as “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”

   First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) rejected the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by” non-institutional-press businesses

   In Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the court could “draw no distinction between the media respondents and” a non-institutional respondent

   Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. The Court held:

   The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist.

   And the First Circuit agrees. As Gigaom reported in 2011:

   One recent appeals court decision specifically referred to the fact that the ability to take photos, video and audio recordings with mobile devices has effectively made everyone a journalist — in practice, if not in name — and therefore deserving of protection.

   In the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, released just a few weeks ago, the judges pointed out that the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of the press “encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information,” and that citizens have the right to investigate government affairs and share what they learn with others. Judge Kermit Lipez also specifically noted that these protections don’t just apply to professional journalists. He said in his decision:

   [C]hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders [and] and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

   The First Amendment Center correctly notes:

   The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption.

   Supreme Court justices Black and Douglas explained in their concurring opinion in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971):

   In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

   Indeed, the Founding Fathers made this clear even before the Revolutionary war started. Specifically, the Continental Congress – the legislative body of the Founding Fathers – wrote in 1774:

   The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.

   These are the invaluable rights that form a considerable part of our mild system of government; that, sending its equitable energy through all ranks and classes of men, defends the poor from the rich, the weak from the powerful, the industrious from the rapacious, the peaceable from the violent, the tenants from the lords, and all from their superiors.

   These are the rights without which a people cannot be free and happy, and under the protecting and encouraging influence of which these colonies have hitherto so amazingly flourished and increased. These are the rights a profligate Ministry are now striving by force of arms to ravish from us, and which we are with one mind resolved never to resign but with our lives.

   In other words, the Founding Fathers understood that people who stand up to “oppressive” government officials are to be zealously protected … because “shaming” corrupt, powerful people “into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs” is the only way to preserve liberty, justice and prosperity, and to remain “free and happy”. Emphasis in the original)

   We at Post /scripts do not pretend to know the truth about everything. We are dedicated to discovery and look for others who are too. We do wish to expose those who lie and deceive in government, the law, education and the press.

   Reply