It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Orlando Survivor Describes Shotguns

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Sig Sauer not AR-15 .

Line 2




posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
My dad carried a Remington 7188 in the Vietnam conflict, as point man for macvsog , The Childers, Dahlgren S.A.W, or S.O.W. was about the closest it comes to a belt fed shotgun during that time period. As to what the fellow said in the interview about shotguns, maybe he was upset and mixed up his lines ,or that's probably how they wrote it on the teleprompter by mistake, the word shotguns instead of gunshots, and the fellow just didn't know any better, .a reply to: Gothmog


edit on 14-6-2016 by chopperswolf because: just because I can.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: chopperswolf
Yes . They are. But that is still (if I remember correct) the drum fed.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

That and I sort of doubt the demographics that hang out at gay dance clubs are all that versed in firearms. Shotgun = big gun to a lot of people.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mikell

Which variant? I’m beginning to wonder now...



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: IllegalName

MCX



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Oh, for a moment I imagined SWAT turning up with exactly the same rifles. That would make for some awkward forensics, but I guess they were different guns and calibre. The MCX might be similar to what the Metropolitan Police use, not sure.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I saw this interview and this guy was just an idiot referring to gunshots as 'shotguns' it wasn't trauma, a language thing or any kind of genuine mis-identification of the weapons being used. The guy just didn't have a sufficient vocabulary to avoid the resulting confusion over his 'shotgun' descriptions.

That really is all there is to this from what I can see.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: chopperswolf As to what the fellow said in the interview about shotguns, maybe he was upset and mixed up his lines ,or that's probably how they wrote it on the teleprompter by mistake, the word shotguns instead of gunshots, and the fellow just didn't know any better, .a reply to: Gothmog



ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

That's the only plausible explanation.

There was no teleprompter for the guy, I'd be fairly certain to 100% certain. Press conferences in such situations are not done with them for such witnesses.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: angus1745

AMEN! Thanks. I said that early on but folks just weren't being sensible about what they were hearing.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Yeah, the shotgun thing is nothing. He had a gun, he used it... we know the rest.

But... why did he say he was shot in the hand, even though it looks totally fine?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: IllegalName

I think that's obviously an anxiety error or a language error.

He obviously meant

GUNSHOTS.


If as you suggest witnesses are anxious to the point that they cannot be relied upon to the truth (get things straight due to anxiety, then the media should know this not not interview people within this time frame because of the RISK, they that what they say MAY be inaccurate.

In other words, if its that there is risk that interviewing people too soon after a traumatic event may result in unrelaiable statements being made then they should, extend the period of time before interviewing them in order to protect their own professionalism, reputation and public image and in order to ensure the statements made by eyewitnesses is accurage. Im not in any way suggesting you are wrong. On the contrary, you've raised an important issue.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
There could be a point, although I’m not specifically saying that here, where a live interview with a witness could be tantamount to Perverting the Course of Justice.

A good example of this was when Tracie Andrews (link) was interviewed live on national news about her partner’s murder - she was clearly in a terrible state, allegedly under the heavy influence of antipsychotics because she attempted suicide, and was a crucial witness in the case. She was ultimately jailed and that news interview I believe was used as evidence against her. Screams of a set-up, but that’s another story.

So yes, it is irresponsible to interview a witness to a tragedy so soon after it occurred, especially if they sustained an injury.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

There will be errors as with this--depending. Some folks are coached well and they limit their statements to a few hard facts. Others don't.

The truth will still largely get out--but there will be bits and pieces that are slightly mis-stated or inaccurate, at first--until corrected, clarified.

I think there's a high priority in getting the info out ASAP . . . toward constructive actions being taken ASAP.

But yeah, it's a bit of an issue to expect someone in a high stress situation who has not been used to handling such to be absolutely perfect in everything they say in that context.

Thanks for your kind words.


edit on 15/6/2016 by BO XIAN because: added




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join