Interesting dispute. My take? The video shows a flash inside the car. Whether or not this is an actual flash or a reflection is impossible to tell. The first video notes the two individuals on the right suddenly looking in the direction of the car. This could have been because of a flash explosion in the car, the same sound coming from another location (echo?), or some other voice/stimulus. If, in fact, it is a flash grenade (which it looks and sounds like), it doesnt explain why it may have been done, whether it would have been to set the vehicle on fire, or indicate that this is how the other cars eventually burned (possibly from the heat of the building burning?). Finally, the fact that they were stationed there then doesnt mean that they were then when the building fire started or, if they were, that the fire couldnt have been set in the rear of the building? (forensics may be able to tell, but basic forensic evidence (measurements, pictures, etc) wasnt even gathered at the site of the original shooting*) That being said, the second video, claiming to rebut the claims of the first, fails to do so in a number of ways. Whether these are National Guard or SWAT doesnt matter (although Id trust the Guard more not to do something like this, be it intentional or careless) and the first video doesnt claim to know. And cars leak oil under their engines, not in the four spots where their tires would have been (also meaningless - cars burned). And thats just the start... The assumption that the fire reflected in the front window of Advance Auto Parts is the same explosion as we see flash inside the car is just that - an assumption. The sound was more of a popping noise, so if it came from a detonation of some sort it certainly wasnt consistent with the size of the flames (without any flash, but also seconds later) from across the street. And the other officers do not, as claimed, turn to look across that street. The inclusion of video showing thuggery by rioters proves only one thing about his conclusions as to the specific incident: that they are based on bias rather than observation. This isnt an either/or issue - nothing about there being bad actors among civilians on the street precludes there being bad actors (and incompetence) among law enforcement as well. In fact, its been shown to be the case in a number of other ways throughout the last number of months. Anyway, these are just some observations on my part. You may have a few to share of your own - but if theyre founded on bias one way or the other, please dont subject us to them here. Im sharing these because theyre interesting both in terms of trying to determine the nature of actual events and the effects of bias on that process. The goal is to see past the latter to get to the former... (based on personal experience, a good prosecutor would have demanded that it be gathered immediately, at the scene, where he and/or members of his office, including at least one inspector, would have been asap after the shooting) https://youtube/watch?v=VzfyB15tl3I (second video)
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:07:15 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015