What you need to know about the S.C. hotel massacre



Carolina is a state that has a reputation for its extreme weather, but the Charleston, S. C., Hilton hotel massacre has been a story of extreme weather and extreme planning.

On April 4, 2014, the South Carolina National Guard, the Department of Emergency Management, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) all arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, for a training exercise.

The training exercise was meant to be a day of drills that would be a little bit different from normal.

This was a drill where the South Carolinians would be allowed to carry guns.

But the drill was a disaster.

The drill ended up being a total disaster.

There were multiple casualties, and people died.

The first two victims of the massacre were police officers Michael Slager and Garrett Swasey.

Then there were several civilians, including the mother of the shooter, who was shot in the back and died the next day.

The gunman then shot and killed three police officers, a state trooper, and a firefighter before he himself was killed by an explosion.

The next day, the National Guard arrived, and they were able to clear the hotel, but they also failed to protect the city of Charleston from a second attack.

This massacre also brought to light some of the issues the state faces in terms of climate change.

On February 10, the Charleston City Council approved a bill that will raise taxes on the city’s residents.

This means that a city with a population of 20,000 will have to raise its property taxes by an additional $15,000, an increase of $10,000.

But that increase won’t take effect until the city is able to pay the entire amount back, which means that in the next year, the city will have an extra $35 million.

The bill also includes a provision that could make it harder for local governments to attract businesses to come into the state.

The Charleston City Attorney, James Thompson, told Ars that he was concerned that the increased property taxes could cause the city to go into a deficit.

The city already has a deficit of about $1.3 billion, and that is the result of a lot of different factors.

One of those factors is the fact that there is a property tax abatement program in place, which allows local governments in the state to lower their property taxes in order to attract new businesses and to provide tax relief for homeowners.

That has actually helped a lot for our city in the last year, and it’s one of the reasons that we have had such a good economic growth.

It’s also been the cause of some of our greatest economic success.

Thompson said that, while the city has been able to absorb the extra taxes, it is still facing a $1 billion deficit, and he said that the city needs to address this immediately.

“The fact is, we are facing a huge financial deficit,” Thompson said.

“We are in the red.

The state has already passed the $1,000 per year tax abaterment, which will be the final nail in the coffin, but we’re still looking at a $35 billion deficit.

So the next two years are going to be very difficult for the city.

It seems clear that there are two reasons why the city chose to do this. “

If we can’t address this now, we’re not going to fix this,” he said.

It seems clear that there are two reasons why the city chose to do this.

One is that the South Charleston mayor was the only one in the city council that was opposed to raising property taxes.

The mayor had already signed off on the ordinance, but he did not sign off on it before it was put into effect.

“I am the only member of the council that has not signed off,” Mayor Joe Riley told the Charleston Post and Courier.

“So I was the first one to get on the bandwagon to try to get the ordinance passed.

But I did not know that the ordinance would be passed.

I knew that it would be approved by the mayor, but I didn’t know that it was going to take effect on February 15.”

This means the city was already in a bad financial position when the ordinance was put in place.

But then the mayor made a public statement that suggested he was going ahead with the ordinance anyway.

Riley said that he believes that the governor and his administration were to blame for the delay in passing the tax abating legislation.

“In hindsight, I think that the people of South Carolina are right,” Riley told Ars.

“They’re wrong about a lot, but in hindsight, we should have been more aggressive in trying to get a property taxes increase through.”

He added that it is important to note that the tax increase was approved by a large majority of the voters.

“There is no doubt that the public’s opinion has changed,” Riley said.

This may be one of those situations where the blame is