I am more interested in the motive of the shooter as well. His intent to commit the murders is self-evident and i hope the cops are not wasting investigative resources on his intent. As he is dead and there is no need for a trial, i hope the police are concentrating on his motive, whether we, the public, ever learn it.

What do you think is their main focus at the moment in this case? What should it be?

For Las Vegas police, the FBI, and any other authorities that may be investigating this case, it seems like determining his motive is the biggest question. Anything else that is uncertain would probably helped by figuring out his motive. The current timeline is likely to be close enough to what happened that nothing screams out to me as needing explaining or further investigation by LVMPD.

Security Guard ("hero"?) left the country a week after the shooting [don't know if investigators permitted it; not registered as guard with Nevada's licensing board] http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/25/tu...hooting-video/

You don't have to be registered with the state licensing board to work security in a casino.

And? This only matters to people interested in transferring blame to the brown man. Absolutely nothing noteworthy about this.

^^^
What is wrong with you that you see everything through the lens of race and try to ascribe your racism to everyone else?

Likely "noteworthy" because he was the primary and first witness to the largest mass-shooting murder in US history and he was, apparently, allowed to leave the country shortly thereafter (Issues around his licensing and the changing timeline add an element of uncertainty to the narrative that would make it even more "noteworthy" for someone in that position -- regardless of "skin" color -- to be allowed to leave the country in the middle of a huge investigation).

Why the hell wouldn't he be allowed to leave the country?

He's a free man and not under investigation, or probation, or charged with anything.

Lol at "my racism" from someone referencing the daily caller. The daily caller/breitbart/infowars crew is desperate to find a reason to believe this guy or ISIS is somehow involved in this. Comment sections are chalk full of talk about whether he's a legal citizen or not, how his beard looks like something a Muslim would wear, and worse, even though there is zero indication of his involvement.

As Victor said, he's a free man, not under arrest, who ****ing cares if he left the country? Maybe he has family down there and wanted to escape the media. Point being, nothing about it is suspicious.

Being suspicious of someone's motives when they reference trash rightwing news sites that are full of openly racist readers does not make me a racist.

Carlson knows who his audience is and what baits them.

exactly

restorativejustice has been desperate to find a conspiracy throughout this thread.

He's just a garbage poster who always goes against the grain. That's why he's been here for well over a year:

Their focus right now is spread out, I'm sure, but it's probably (1) preserve evidence for the emminent legal cases (2) study the event (e.g. how the room was breached) for tactical/operational use cases in the future.

Again, motive has ZERO legal bearing in anything that may come in the future. If they are devoting any resources to it, it's probably like 1% or less. You have to let go of that construct in your head, it was invented by television and has little place in the real world.

I'm suggesting that they are investigating neither motive or intent. If they are investigating anything (and they may very well not be at this point) it would be if he had help and where these other conspirators may be.

You have to let go of motive - it simply doesn't exist in the criminal world. Asking a cop to investigate motive is like saying, "hey you're a poker player, you should study the odds for dice!". Like why would you ever do that???

If they are devoting any resources towards motive (I hope not) then it would be for their own curiosity/media purposes but there's really very little need for it.

As an investigative matter, motive matters insofar as it does or does not suggest the involvement of others. From a trial conviction perspective, not relevant here, motive is irrelevant.

I am not involved in criminal investigation or whatever, so maybe I'm totally wrong . But isn't there a difference between "establishing motive" and "focusing on motive"? I can see why focusing on motive seems useless, but establishing basic understanding of motive seems important and key, does it not? How do you go from not establishing a basic overview regarding motive to running an investigation effectively? Seems like motive would help a great deal to focus the investigation on the key aspects that need investigation.

Motive does exist in criminal law and I wish GentlemanJack would just accept that, however small an area it might be. In 'hate crimes', during sentencing, as 'circumstantial' evidence in a case.

I think that probably the most important thing to focus on is whether or not people can be profiled to determine if they are a risk to commit similar behavior in the future. This will be difficult to do if a motive cannot be discerned.

I referenced your racism because your first point in reply to my link about the Security Guard was about his skin color. Your disparagements, for whatever reason, continue along that vein.

You have provided no argument to what I linked other than to note that the source (which has been copied by ever MSMedia source you choose to look at since last night) somehow does not meet your SJW-standards.

In short, you are the only "openly racist reader" I have encountered in this thread.

You linked pure garbage.

Dude at ~3:55 minute mark just needs to finish his drink.

It doesn't meet any rational person's standards. Carlson is a right-wing provocateur. Before having his own outlet he'd made a successful career out of being a troll pundit. Had you referenced a hard-left news source to support your insinuations that would equally deserve derision.

Again, look at the comment section in that very article. The second comment on the page raises his citizenship status as an issue, as if that has any bearing on the case. That discussion as well as the insane cover up theories make up the bulk of the comments. Readers are hoping he is illegal so they can say, "Aha! You see, another example of these no good Hispanics ruining our country!"

It is reasonable to assume that someone who references a news site such as this shares opinions similar to the rest of the user base, which I would contend is more likely to be racist and xenophobic than the general population. No, the site does not openly espouse racism. Dog-whistling works just as well and allows them to maintain a veneer of legitimacy. Much like Brietbart, they cherry pick the news that will incite their base. An illegal alien rapes or murders someone? That gets an article. The thousands of citizens that do the same? Not a mention (unless it's black on white crime or there's a liberal tie-in of course).

Also, again, lol at me being openly racist. Never did I say something negative about any race. Suggesting that a site courts racists or that a line of thought has racist undertones does not make you a racist. This is like (some of) the right's idea that protesting white supremacists (I feel I have to point out that I am not accusing you of being one...) somehow makes you an opponent of free speech... Not being tolerant of hate does make one hateful or close-minded.

In short, you know nothing of my politics or ideology other than I'm capable of inference and intolerant of trash. Feel free to get the last word in. I won't derail the thread further.

You sure about that? I studied criminal law and you sir, are incorrect. A motive can mean the difference between man slaughter and murder charges.

How? Murder and manslaughter have well defined meanings that do not incorporate motive, but premeditation and intent.

“Motive” is not the same as “mens rea.”

'I hope someone truly shoots you': online conspiracy theorists harass Vegas victims

You watch too much television and lack an education.

Again, I invite you to audit a law school criminal law course (usually in L1 studies) and write down the number of times "motive" is mentioned. I guarantee that you will end up with a blank piece of paper.