118 votes

Ben Swann Reality Check: Unanswered Questions About Colorado Theater Massacre

http://youtu.be/1jeW_-Kq7vA

http://www.fox19.com/stor...

The emergency crews hadn't yet left the scene of the Colorado theater shooting before some lawmakers, politicians and members of the media were already asking questions about how gun laws must change.

But instead of playing politics, what questions about the shooting are the media not asking? Ben has the Reality Check you won't see anywhere else.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes. Federal grants kill

Yes. Federal grants kill people...not guns.

Agreed. Guns don't kill

Agreed. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And obviously grants don't kill people either. My comment was meant to get those who actually think guns are responsible for the shooting to think about the slippery slope they are supporting.

I was Poking a joke at the

I was Poking a joke at the pro gun ban people.

Gotcha...thanks!

Gotcha...thanks!

"A $21,600 grant from the

"A $21,600 grant from the National Institutes of Health, a research agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to agency records. The grant lasted from July 2011 through June. He also received a $5,000 stipend from the University of Colorado-Denver, where he was a first-year Ph.D. student in its neuroscience program."

Definitely raises some questions as to how grant money that is given to students is used and dispersed!

NIH grants are not deposited in your personal bank

When someone receives an NIH training grant (or similar federal grants for graduate study from other departments), the money is never deposited in a personal bank account. It is deposited in an account at the university that you are studying at. Expenditures are approved and monitored by the university. Stipends for living expenses are paid at a set rate, and typically monthly or bi-weekly. If he had a $26k stipend, that means he was probably being given $2167 (before tax) per month through his university for living expenses while completing his degree.

The idea that the NIH deposited $26,000 into his checking account and he blew it all on assault rifles and smoke bombs is absurd.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

I find this article

I find this article interesting. It sounds like his grant was actually way bigger but the portion of the 20 some thousand was for the personal expenses.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dark-knight-shootin...

The article confirms what I said

To quote the article: "...the $21,600 stipend doled out in 12 monthly installments."

The likely reason the total grant size is much larger (I am assuming, because I don't know all the facts) is because such grants pay for tuition and some research expenditures. In addition, the University is allowed to take out some overhead costs from the grant to pay for administration of the grant and providing laboratory facilities to the student.

Again, I will say that there is no way the NIH handed a student a big wad of cash to spend as he pleases. The guy obviously paid for guns and ammo somehow, but I don't think it is from a grant.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

The article also says-

The article also says- recipient of a prestigious federal grant to attend graduate school — including a stipend for up to $26,000 for “personal expenses,”

I will also add that during

I will also add that during college I had a few friends that recieved government grants in the form of a check, direct deposit, or a Sally Mae debit card. As I do admit though I do not know anything about his personal grant that he was given or its terms, as none of do yet.

Was that you who was trashing

Was that you who was trashing Swans journalism for speculating? Would that make you a hypocrit?

Oh I was not aware that I was

Oh I was not aware that I was compliling a report to be broadcast on tonights news... and if I was then I have already done more investigating than this guy did. Sad isn't it? The point is as a journalist yes speculation is vital, but to report speculation is always a slipperly slope.

You should watch the video

You should watch the video again. I don't believe he was speculating. I believe the point of this report was to raise some questions and turn the focus away from the pro gun bs that is being touted.

Thats fair I respect your

Thats fair I respect your opinion. My professors in college would have never let me go live with this material and maybe thats why I feel so stongly about it. Having flashbacks to college(which makes me sound old, but that was only 2 years ago) and being sent back to the investigation stage so many times or told if you do not have strong enough leads then don't go live with it.

And I respect yours. Although

And I respect yours. Although there is far worse journalism out there that should be made a point about. Ben Swan by far has been a maverick when it comes to reporting the truth.

Agreed! Yet this clown thinks

Agreed! Yet this clown thinks the idea that someone else was involved is obserd!

Well, he got the money from somewhere...

All I was saying is that he didn't get a $26,000 check from the federal government to spend as he pleases. He got the money to buy the guns and ammo from somewhere, though. Maybe we should call for a federal ban on Visa cards.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Matt, I was agreeing with you

Matt, I was agreeing with you and disputing the other guy. Simmer down son.

I'm agreeing with you too

sorry, I don't have a great way with words sometimes....

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Haha! That's how it works

Haha! That's how it works here in the cyber world!

I am just going off the

I am just going off the people I have personally talked to that were in the theater. None of which recall the posibilty of a second suspect. It was a very crazy situation and I am sure peoples memories of the incident are fuzzy, so really it could go either way. My point is for these three stories of a possible second suspect there are just as many people if not more saying only one person.

Were they saying so only

Were they saying so only after the one suspect was caught? As you stated...people's memories could be fuzzy and after knowing that a suspect was caught they could only state what was known.

Wasn't the grant used for

Wasn't the grant used for school? Idk? Just a question.

Are YOU serious?

Bad journalism, really? To ask necessary questions that most people don't know the answer to?

The grant information broke less than 24 hours before Ben Swann made his news segment. And he wasn't "speculating" ANYTHING, maybe you should go look up the definition of speculation again. He was simply asking questions, real questions.

Get off your high horse.

Grants are just money given,

Grants are just money given, not like a school loan which is required to apply directly to the school. As a journalism major, speculation is exactly what you are supposed to do, and is a very important step in the process, but speculation should never become part of your report. Once the question is raised then you investigate, a step that seems to have been not fully practiced in this in this report by this reporter. If in the reporting process your information isnt solid then you need to present both sides of the possibilty. In the case of the multiple canisters of gas he could have easily said here are these three people saying they saw two canisters of gas but here are interviews with 3 other people who are reporting only one canister. You ALWAYS present both sides of the story, and site your sources for that information. Its just laughable that this report is being called journalism.

Grants are not just handed out as cash

Federal grants are awarded through a competetive peer review process. The money is handled by the university, not the student. Even portable grants always go to the university, not the student or employee. The university oversees the grant and monitors expenditures. In the case of stipends for living expenses, the money is not handed over all at once. The student typically gets biweekly or monthly paychecks, and taxes are taken out.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Ben wasn't speculating

Ben wasn't speculating anything. He was simply raising some good questions and turning the focus on more important issues rather than the political gun ban bs that is being talked about otherwise.

Thanks Benn

Of course Ben is doing what he does best. Being a real journalist and Investigative reporter..

As far the money goes and how did he buy all this stuff..Well we all have heard of people being on unemployment and still making money on the side. Plus who knows what else he could have been doing to make a little extra cash..Also we know that the guns he bought can be purchased everyday..The big question I have had is where does someone buy Tear gas Grenades? That is something that I don't think is sold at your local gun store. Plus Ben asked another good question. Where did he get the training to build bombs so intricate that it took the FBI 2 days to disarm and how much or where do you buy the components for bombs like that?

I for sure believe that there is already enough known to really suggest that this guy was not working alone.

That all being said, below is a video of Adam Kokesh's latest topic. I really think he did a great job on this one and brings in a valuable perspective that most of us can appreciate..Cheers

((Only an insane society criminalizes mental illness))
http://youtu.be/7dUazDPqiQM

"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"

To Some, This Whole thing is quite "Convenient"

To certain elements within our government and world government, this tragic loss of life is both timely and constructive to their cause. An effort by the current administration is being made in the very same time frame, to take away citizen gun rights; this event could not be more convenient to their cause. A fortunate coincidence for them? Without a doubt, for those pushing such a large scale law change, there would be motive to want an event like this to bestow fear and pressure on the population. The national news, which we all know is owned and used to direct the population's beliefs, is most certainly focusing on the gun law aspect of it prior to any real investigation.

With regards to investigation, much like other "terrorist" type events, the whole story seems so ready rolled, released and set in stone within an hour of the event. And as with nearly all other "terrorist" type events, simple things such as the video surveillance from the theater, the phone records of the alleged shooter, investigation of where he acquired military grade equipment, etc; things which would unravel what really happened and show absolute proofs, are disregarded and instead we get the same stories in concert from all the national media outlets....odd.

I think everyone who has found their way to this site and have seen hard evidence that elements within our own government have in the past been involved in pushing a "terrorist" threat, are skeptical and rightfully so. These are simple questions that need to be answered. The fact is that they will not be answered.

We live in interesting times. Some believe that our great nation's leadership has been taken over by nothing short of organized criminals. It would sure appear that way. I mean why hide evidence? Doesn't hiding evidence indicate guilty demeanor? The media's agenda to hide things such as the surveillance tapes would make them complicit in the crime. But hey, look at the role the media played in the election process. I would have to say that the national broadcast stations are complicit in crimes against the American people and therefore shall be prosecuted and sentenced in accordance with the laws of this land. Make it so good people, defend this nation.

wow

Didn't take long for the conspiracy crowd to start patching the holes with their garbage

I don't think Ben is suggesting some government conspiracy rather pointing out the media's lack of journalism...

As for all your unanswered questions, the investigation is just starting and the Police and DA wont release info until they have it confirmed and it wont hurt the justice process.