Read the arrest report on the Florida shooting suspect

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
The point of the video is the student's reactions to the shooting wanting more gun control. It's not meant as chronological documentation.

Oh...yes it was.

These were purported interviews that *chronologically* took place DURING the shooting and not AFTER. That's how David Hogg's video was advertised to the public.

Where does he claim it's in chronological order? Where does anyone claim it's in chronological order?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

That makes it even more clear. The background is totally different in the recording where he says it's 9:32. It's clearly not taken at the same time as the first 2 clips. The most logical conclusion is that it's later on that day, 9:32pm.

I honestly don't see how so many people are fooled by this. I guess when you just really want to believe there's some kind of conspiracy, you won't pay enough attention to notice these details.

Dude, if anyone is fooled it is because David Hogg OR SOMEONE ELSE edited the video to place the *later* interview in the middle of other footage from inside the closet and then packaged it for public consumption as 'interviews recorded during the shooting.'

Blame David Hogg for never clearing that up and anyone else involved in the effort to *fool* people.

I'm not blaming anyone. If someone edited the video to give that impression, I most certainly do blame them for trying to mislead people. However, for anyone to jump to the conclusion that the interview in question is at 9:32am, before the shooting took place, and it never even enters your mind that that's just another interview from 9:32pm when they would surely still be talking about it since it just happened to them 7 hours prior... I mean, honestly, how do you think people draw that conclusion?

I see windows with daylight streaming through them in the video!!! Sorry, I assumed 9:32 a.m. instead of p.m.

There's still no official word on it though. Maybe you are wrong.

Oh. My. God.

The images on the video are during the incident. The interview where he says it's 9:32 doesn't have accompanying visuals, it's overlayed over different video. In one video it's overlayed over news coverage, in another video it's overlayed over video he took during the shooting.

And isn't that very confusing? Intentionally misleading even.

They say the interview is taking place during the shooting, they show video of people in the closet during the shooting...but....

Oh. My. God.

How on earth could I possibly believe they are purporting the interview is taking place during the shooting???

Totes my fault.

Oh. My. God.

a reply to: face23785

The interviews were REPORTED to have taken place during the shooting while in that closet. I watched the CBS interview David Hogg and that is what they said.

You claim a later interview was dropped into the middle of a video that was supposedly taken during the shooting and you "wonder how anyone can be fooled."

Moving on.

You still have no official word and it's not worth discussing with you UNLESS you do.

For all I know...it really could have been 9:32 a.m. No reason to believe it was p.m. over a.m. or vice versa.

NONE. Just your guess.

When a news outlet questions David Hogg about it and we have an answer....then we can discuss further.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

That makes it even more clear. The background is totally different in the recording where he says it's 9:32. It's clearly not taken at the same time as the first 2 clips. The most logical conclusion is that it's later on that day, 9:32pm.

I honestly don't see how so many people are fooled by this. I guess when you just really want to believe there's some kind of conspiracy, you won't pay enough attention to notice these details.

Dude, if anyone is fooled it is because David Hogg OR SOMEONE ELSE edited the video to place the *later* interview in the middle of other footage from inside the closet and then packaged it for public consumption as 'interviews recorded during the shooting.'

Blame David Hogg for never clearing that up and anyone else involved in the effort to *fool* people.

I'm not blaming anyone. If someone edited the video to give that impression, I most certainly do blame them for trying to mislead people. However, for anyone to jump to the conclusion that the interview in question is at 9:32am, before the shooting took place, and it never even enters your mind that that's just another interview from 9:32pm when they would surely still be talking about it since it just happened to them 7 hours prior... I mean, honestly, how do you think people draw that conclusion?

I see windows with daylight streaming through them in the video!!! Sorry, I assumed 9:32 a.m. instead of p.m.

There's still no official word on it though. Maybe you are wrong.

Oh. My. God.

The images on the video are during the incident. The interview where he says it's 9:32 doesn't have accompanying visuals, it's overlayed over different video. In one video it's overlayed over news coverage, in another video it's overlayed over video he took during the shooting.

And isn't that very confusing? Intentionally misleading even.

They say the interview is taking place during the shooting, they show video of people in the closet during the shooting...but....

Oh. My. God.

How on earth could I possibly believe they are purporting the interview is taking place during the shooting???

Totes my fault.

Oh. My. God.

It's not confusing at all. When the video is in slow motion and the audio is at normal speed, it's obvious the audio is overlaid. And he never says that interview is during the shooting. Let's stick to what's actually in that interview.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: face23785

The interviews were REPORTED to have taken place during the shooting while in that closet. I watched the CBS interview David Hogg and that is what they said.

You claim a later interview was dropped into the middle of a video that was supposedly taken during the shooting and you "wonder how anyone can be fooled."

Moving on.

You still have no official word and it's not worth discussing with you UNLESS you do.

For all I know...it really could have been 9:32 a.m. No reason to believe it was p.m. over a.m. or vice versa.

NONE. Just your guess.

When a news outlet questions David Hogg about it and we have an answer....then we can discuss further.

The official word is that the shooting took place in the afternoon. If you're going to accept the official word then no guessing is needed. He says it's 9:32 on the day of the shooting, and there's only one 9:32 that occurred on that day after the shooting, that's 9:32pm.

originally posted by: face23785
It's not confusing at all. When the video is in slow motion and the audio is at normal speed, it's obvious the audio is overlaid.

Nope...not confusing at all. *wicked cackle*

I don't know why it never occurred to me to put news videos in slow motion while keeping the audio at normal speed to get the *real* story.

I'll tell my 78 year old in-laws so they know to get a computer, sign up for internet, and do this. They have their TV on the news, all day, every day, and have been doing it wrong for years.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
It's not confusing at all. When the video is in slow motion and the audio is at normal speed, it's obvious the audio is overlaid.

Nope...not confusing at all. *wicked cackle*

I don't know why it never occurred to me to put news videos in slow motion while keeping the audio at normal speed to get the *real* story.

I'll tell my 78 year old in-laws so they know to get a computer, sign up for internet, and do this. They have their TV on the news, all day, every day, and have been doing it wrong for years.

Whether it occurred to you or not it's a pretty obvious giveaway that the audio and video weren't taken at the same time, so pointing out "but there's light coming through the windows" has absolutely nothing to do with what time the 9:32 interview was done.

So can you admit there's no indication it was taken at 9:32am yet? There's plenty of other legitimate issues here, the 9:32 thing is a red herring.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Boadicea

There is no procedure/policy in place for anyone to come onto campus. There's nothing to stop movement. No one asks questions of any adult or student-looking person. The lobby is wide open and the office is behind a door. All entry doors at the school are unlocked from 6 am-6 pm.
At least at the elementary schools one must be buzzed in through the office and state your business and given a tag, show ID etc.

That just seems crazy -- especially these days! But even back in my day in the '70s, the front of the school was open but with security guards. But we also had undercover cops all over too! And even my kids' schools were always locked up except the administrative offices, which also had guards. I think they were armed, but I'm not really sure now. Their schools also had one or two police officers assigned as Police Liaison Officers as well.

In those days, I think folks were more concerned about things like non-custodial parents trying to take their kids, or perverts in general getting access to kids, stuff like that. And, of course, the trouble that kids get into all on their own!

Whereas at my school the gates were always open, the closest we had to a security guard was a nun who'd sometimes patrol the grounds smoking a cigarette

originally posted by: face23785
So can you admit there's no indication it was taken at 9:32am yet? There's plenty of other legitimate issues here, the 9:32 thing is a red herring.

It's disinformation...intentionally misleading. You cannot call it a red herring without mentioning that.

Those spreading disinformation and intentionally misleading information are demanding gun laws change without any scrutiny -- despite the fact that they are spreading disinformation and misleading information.

Sure, it's a mouthful...but 'red herring' just comes up so short.

My store is across the street from an elementary school. The only time a cop shows up is to direct traffic when the parents come to pick up their kids. And usually it's not even a cop, just a stoner crossing guard.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
So can you admit there's no indication it was taken at 9:32am yet? There's plenty of other legitimate issues here, the 9:32 thing is a red herring.

It's disinformation...intentionally misleading. You cannot call it a red herring without mentioning that.

Those spreading disinformation and intentionally misleading information are demanding gun laws change without any scrutiny -- despite the fact that they are spreading disinformation and misleading information.

Sure, it's a mouthful...but 'red herring' just comes up so short.

That's pretty much the definition of a red herring, something that's misleading/distracting. If the media is presenting that video as if it's chronological documentation of the incident, that's intentionally misleading. I haven't seen it presented that way. If you can shoot me a link, I'll be happy to condemn them for tricking you.

a reply to: face23785

So you reckon he has done an audio only interview at 9.32pm and mixed that audio over footage and audio taken during the lock down? That could be right.

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
a reply to: face23785

So you reckon he has done an audio only interview at 9.32pm and mixed that audio over footage and audio taken during the lock down? That could be right.

I think that's a lot more likely than he did an interview at 9:32am about a school shooting that hadn't happened yet.

A little off topic -- but not enough to derail the thread. Deputy Peterson has released a statement via his attorney:
I’m no coward, says deputy who didn’t go inside Parkland school during massacre

In a statement released by his lawyer, Peterson said he “heard gunshots but believed those gunshots were originating from outside of the buildings on the school campus,” according to the release. “BSO trains its officers that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes with other law enforcement.”

There is no requirement for the officer to enter/engage:

BSO’s policy states that an officer “may” – not “must” – enter a building when an active shooter is attacking, meaning Peterson might not have violated any technical rules. Still, police tactical experts say, most active-shooter training calls for cops to identify the location of a gunman, whether inside or outside.

This is new information:

Peterson claimed he took up a position outside Building 12 after rushing over to respond to a report of firecrackers. He and security specialist Kelvin Greenleaf ran out another building on the sprawling campus and ran “a couple hundred yards” north to Building 12.

This is where it gets curiouser... firecrackers? Does this remind anyone else of the Vegas shooting?

And the following is brand new information:

“Radio transmissions indicated that there were a gunshot victim in the area of the football field, which served to confirm Mr. Peterson’s belief that the shooter, or shooters, were outside,” according to the lawyer.

Another body outside?

And note the incorrect grammar/conjugation: "...there were a gunshot victim..." It should either be "there was a gunshot victim" or "there were gunshot victims." That strikes me as an odd mis-speak. More like "victims" was originally plural and changed to singular, but forgot to correct the conjugation.

a reply to: Boadicea

I find it a little odd that if you were responding to a report of firecrackers you'd draw your weapon and take cover outside waiting for backup.

Reports of firecrackers at the scene of a shooting are routine though. That sounds like nearly every news story about a shooting I've ever seen. Ever watch your local news? Just about every story about a shooting they'll interview some old lady that lives down the street that says she thought she heard firecrackers.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Boadicea

I find it a little odd that if you were responding to a report of firecrackers you'd draw your weapon and take cover outside waiting for backup.

We don't know that he did. At some point, he realized it was gunfire and not firecrackers. And at some point he was told that there was a victim on the football field. We don't know in what order he learned what. This is why I've said from the beginning that we need to know what the deputy knew and when he knew it. Releasing the radio transmissions involving Peterson would certainly tell us.

Reports of firecrackers at the scene of a shooting are routine though. That sounds like nearly every news story about a shooting I've ever seen. Ever watch your local news? Just about every story about a shooting they'll interview some old lady that lives down the street that says she thought she heard firecrackers.

Fair enough. It may also be that firecrackers were at first set off for distraction or mis-direction purposes or something else. For example, light off some fireworks as soon as you enter campus, ensuring that resources and authorities are sent to that location, then run for the building at the other end of the campus do do your dirty deed and buying a little extra time in the process.

a reply to: Taggart

Whereas at my school the gates were always open, the closest we had to a security guard was a nun who'd sometimes patrol the grounds smoking a cigarette

LOL! My hubby as well... and he'd tell you that those nuns were so darn mean and ornery that any gunman fool enough to come on their campus would rue the day...

a reply to: Boadicea

Fair enough.

a reply to: Boadicea


HA! there is something terrifying about a Nun smoking a cig, walking around looking for trouble makers. Just something about that image that seems BatMan like in terror level.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Boadicea
HA! there is something terrifying about a Nun smoking a cig, walking around looking for trouble makers. Just something about that image that seems BatMan like in terror level.

That must be why they're called "recovering" Catholic School students, eh? At least that's how I've heard some refer to themselves...