Orlando Survivor Describes Shotguns

Sig Sauer not AR-15 .

Line 2

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

a reply to: chopperswolf
Yes . They are. But that is still (if I remember correct) the drum fed.

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.

a reply to: mikell

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

a reply to: IllegalName

MCX

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.

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.

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.

a reply to: angus1745

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

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?

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.

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.

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.