REVEALED: Female online gamer reported fellow player – now suspected to be Salvador Ramos – who threatened to ‘shoot up a school with an AR-15’ to the FBI just hours before Uvalde elementary school massacre

A female gamer reported a fellow online player to the FBI after he threatened to ‘shoot up a school’ when he lost their game – just hours before 18-year-old gunman Salvador Ramos killed 21 people in a Texas school massacre.

In the game, four players are assigned the role of ‘The Survivors’ who must hide and survive another player: ‘The killer’. If caught, the survivors are impaled on hooks and sacrificed.

But she became disturbed when she heard a male gamer playing the ‘killer’ launching a furious tirade when he lost and ‘started saying they were going to shoot up a school’.

Parents challenging school boards who teach their children gender confusion and let drag queens come in for on-campus pride events are run through the wringer as potential domestic terrorists.

A young man is reported for threatening to shoot up a school and the FBI can’t find its dick with both hands.

Clearly protecting children from mass shooters is a lower priority than protecting the people who want to provide chest binders and fake penis packers to your children from you



Spread the love

By J. Kb

13 thoughts on “The Federal Bureau of Ineptitude humps the dog once again”
  1. What was the FBI supposed to do? Idiots say stupid things during online games all the time. Google the “Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory” — and, sadly, the generally proposed solutions are what give censors power at Twitter and other tech companies. They start by saying they want to get truly abusive behavior under control, but then define “abusive” so broadly that disagreeing with a lunatic’s take on reality is a banning offense.

    Did she know where he lived? No? So the FBI has to get a search warrant and get the game company to look up who was playing the killer in the same game she was in. Then what? Assuming they still had time, the most they would have done is call the local police to talk to the kid.

    In reality, there’s nothing they could have done without a surveillance state already in-place.

    1. What you say is in fact true, a good point. However, this guy had already been looked at by federal agencies prior to this most recent event. He used to shoot people with a BB rifle in his town. He was “known” locally by law enforcement to be unstable and troubled. He had made terroristic threats in the past and had parents with lengthy rap-sheets. The FBI knew who this guy was and here’s the main point….no law enforcement agency, federal or local, ‘flagged his file’ which enabled him to legally buy a firearm. When the background check occurred, no flags popped up and the sale was finalized…twice.

      If the gun laws already on the books were enforced, then a simple check of his name and location would have raised enough concern and evidence to immediately enable a pause or a hold-up for the sale of the firearms he was attempting to legally buy. And I will further assert that the reason nothing was done to cause red flags to go up, was due to some far more sinister occurring within the federal agencies. Liberals need manufactured crisis in order to validate their attacks on the second amendment, and I believe they cause the laws already on the books to ‘not work’ by simply responding, ‘Oh we looked at this guy already, nothing to see here, stop being paranoid”.

      There’s a reason that law enforcement enabled this shooter to commit a mass killing, by standing down and allowing it to occur. What “Power” controls what law enforcement does in a gun free zone, such as a school? Is it just the local or state agencies? Is there a political factor in play here? Does it go all the way to the top?

      1. Is the FBI supposed to keep a list and check on everyone on it every time a brat over-reacts during an online game?
        There was NOTHING in her report connecting it to a specific person without a time-consuming investigation.

        Yes, the courts let him get away with too much too long. But how much do we want the FBI involved in local law enforcement? Heap anger on the local authorities, they had much more to do with him being free to murder.

  2. Why would the American Gestapo be interested in stopping one of their assets from succeeding in the mission they gave him?

    1. Succinctly stated TCK. Radical modern-day leftist liberals, which is exactly what Obama is, have done everything to enable the spawning of such societal evils. To destroy a constitutional republic of fifty state’s autonomous governance, one must first break the backbone of the nation as a whole—cancelling out the majority European White Demographic, then indoctrinate their children against their will, and finally energize societal conflict crisis through cultural norms, which results in horrific crimes against society, which lays the groundwork for disarming the citizenry. When the nation experiences an ever-increasing societal crisis of epic proportions, Internal racial and cultural uprising will validate the federal government’s tyrannical rule….in order to restore peace in a civil war that they in fact engineered from the beginning.

  3. Some folks seem to be veering off into conspiracy….before we go there we need all of the immediate questions answered. RC above is right – there wasn’t a way for the FBI to do anything about this ahead of time. Maybe the background check should have caught this, if his prior behavior would have been an input. I get as frustrated as anyone when I hear the guy was known to local LE, or known to the FBI. What I don’t want is some pervasive police state where LE knows everything about everyone all the time. That plays into all the laws (red flag etc) Dems want that make us less free. The questions we need answered:

    -Why was the school unlocked? (he walked right in)
    -Why no resource officer on site?
    -What happened when the cops first arrived?
    -Who made the decision to not go in and engage the shooter as is standard procedure everywhere? Getting shot at is not an excuse – that’s the fucking job.
    -Is it true some cops entered the building to save their own kids while the rest held parents back?

    1. @Jonesy

      All excellent points and I largely agree, I want to know to what extent he was “known”. As in had convictions or interactions that should have made it into NICs, should have been committed, etc. Or was it we talked to him a few times because he was a kid that screwed up.

      1. Do records of involuntary commitment get sealed when you turn 18?

        I’m cautious about red flag laws and making it easier to get someone committed, but I do think we need to reverse the ’70s “let them roam free” policies. “One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest” was fiction, but it got treated as a documentary.

        1. @Rob
          Excellent question, I do not know, but I would assume like most juvenile stuff they would be sealed.

          I’ve very cautious of red flag laws as well and I’m not talking about that. I’m just curious if it will be something like what happened in Parkland, where there was substantial cause to act without a red flag, and no one in any position of authority or knowledge did.

          Very similar in Sandy Hook as well; there were multiple points of intervention between school staff, his mother, and therapy and no one acted in a meaningful way to help a clearly unwell kid.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.