My goal in analyzing any event like this is to address the things that can be verified either visually, by common-sense, or by generally-accepted scientific/medical facts. I'm not saying everything about this video is false or fishy (apart from the editor's motives of self-promotion and/or distracting from facts by making wildly uninformed claims based on nothing more than his need for attention and unicorn farts.)

Example: Another issue I forgot to address: the video-maker obviously knows little about the artistic concept of "perspective," as he illustrates when he mis-interprets the angle of trajectory/the shooter's aim. (And he should probably take a look at this, while he's at it. Moar fun with that here.) He's also not considering that he doesn't understand how wide-angle lenses work, and how that could be distorting the perspective. This is why I'm very interested to see the official ballistics and autopsy reports, the shooter sweeps across the group and targets others trying to decide who to shoot.

As far as the backpack, lots of people had backpacks that day (for provisions etc.) It would be no surprise for someone to have a pillow or sleeping-bag in there, because under those conditions one might have to sleep in a spot of opportunity. (That day was full of unknowns, going in. As a military veteran, she would be well-trained in the ways of outdoor survival skills.) Even so, the padding effect of landing on that wouldn't protect her head (unless it got pulled upward) and could have worsened the stress on her neck upon impact. I'm still on the fence about whether she hit her head on the handrail fixture or the floor (some videos show them moving her slightly to a flatter position.) That's something I'm still trying to put together, so far due to the crowded conditions it's difficult to find an unobstructed video that shows her full path from the window to the floor.

The behavior of the police and SWAT though, I don't need video commentary to tell me that is some very fishy stuff. Cops (especially in a high-profile position like that) tend to be arrogant and demanding when on-duty. Under the circumstances, almost every cop we saw that day was being abnormally calm and non-confrontational. I don't get that at all- if they were that concerned about the doors being breached, they didn't show any sign of it until the shot. None of the officers' behavior makes sense, and is often completely counter to normal tactics/safety practices/common sense- especially in failing to detain and question every person in that group. Normally, everyone in view of the shooting would be immediately against the wall or on the floor getting cuffed: those people were eyewitnesses to an officer-related shooting, I'm pretty sure that sending them away is not normal police procedure. That is a very serious breach of conduct and I have no explanation for that beyond dirty cops gonna dirty.

I have no explanation (beyond overconfidence) as to why the officers would just push through a group of un-frisked trespassers. That is either unbelievably careless, or utterly incompetent. As I said in another post, any accessories like ammo magazines/flash-bangs/pepper-spray not secured by some form of "retention holster"-style device (with a trick required to deploy) could easily be taken and used against them, were it merely held by a snap or velcro. (My SWAT-veteran associate tells me there are "retention" devices available for those accessories, but due to the "need for speed" these are not SOP except for possibly handcuffs. He also says it would be highly unusual for them to proceed into a group of "active protestors" in that manner without strong intelligence that they would be not likely to be armed or potentially violent. Additionally, he says SWAT officers place high confidence in their backup and are thus not very concerned with the possibility of having accessories snatched from their uniform.)

The video-editing is just messy, and difficult to tell if it is being chopped-up for time/pacing or if he's trying to hide/imply things. The audio is obviously even messier, I have not even started on that aspect (comparing ripped-from-video audio clips to see if certain "transients" line up, and to see if any fake/overdubbed elements are present in one video's audiotrack that are not in an otherwise similar one.)

tl;dr Defense attorneys love me, I'm their nightmare jury-duty candidate : )

My goal in analyzing any event like this is to address the things that can be verified either visually, by common-sense, or by generally-accepted scientific/medical facts. I'm not saying everything about this video is false or fishy (apart from the editor's motives of self-promotion and/or distracting from facts by making wildly uninformed claims based on nothing more than his need for attention and unicorn farts.)

Example: Another issue I forgot to address: the video-maker obviously knows little about the artistic concept of "perspective," as he illustrates when he mis-interprets the angle of trajectory/the shooter's aim. (And he should probably take a look at this, while he's at it. Moar fun with that here.) He's also not considering that he doesn't understand how wide-angle lenses work, and how that could be distorting the perspective. This is why I'm very interested to see the official ballistics and autopsy reports, the shooter sweeps across the group and targets others trying to decide who to shoot.

As far as the backpack, lots of people had backpacks that day (for provisions etc.) It would be no surprise for someone to have a pillow or sleeping-bag in there, because under those conditions one might have to sleep in a spot of opportunity. (That day was full of unknowns, going in. As a military veteran, she would be well-trained in the ways of outdoor survival skills.) Even so, the padding effect of landing on that wouldn't protect her head (unless it got pulled upward) and could have worsened the stress on her neck upon impact. I'm still on the fence about whether she hit her head on the handrail fixture or the floor (some videos show them moving her slightly to a flatter position.) That's something I'm still trying to put together, so far due to the crowded conditions it's difficult to find an unobstructed video that shows her full path from the window to the floor.

The behavior of the police and SWAT though, I don't need video commentary to tell me that is some very fishy stuff. Cops (especially in a high-profile position like that) tend to be arrogant and demanding when on-duty. Under the circumstances, almost every cop we saw that day was being abnormally calm and non-confrontational. I don't get that at all- if they were that concerned about the doors being breached, they didn't show any sign of it until the shot.

None of the officers' behavior makes sense, and is often completely counter to normal tactics/safety practices/common sense- especially in failing to detain and question every person in that group. Normally, everyone in view of the shooting would be immediately against the wall or on the floor getting cuffed: those people were eyewitnesses to an officer-related shooting, I'm pretty sure that sending them away is not normal police procedure. That is a very serious breach of conduct and I have no explanation for that beyond dirty cops gonna dirty.

I have no explanation (beyond overconfidence) as to why the officers would just push through a group of un-frisked trespassers. That is either unbelievably careless, or utterly incompetent. As I said in another post, any accessories like ammo magazines/flash-bangs/pepper-spray not secured by some form of "retention holster"-style device (with a trick required to deploy) could easily be taken and used against them, were it merely held by a snap or velcro. (My SWAT-veteran associate tells me there are "retention" devices available for those accessories, but due to the "need for speed" these are not SOP except for possibly handcuffs. He also says it would be highly unusual for them to proceed into a group of "active protestors" in that manner without strong intelligence that they would be not likely to be armed or potentially violent. Additionally, he say SWAT officers place high confidence in their backup and are thus not very concerned with the possibility of having accessories snatched from their uniform.)

The video-editing is just messy, and difficult to tell if it is being chopped-up for time/pacing or if he's trying to hide/imply things. The audio is obviously even messier, I have not even started on that aspect (comparing ripped-from-video audio clips to see if certain "transients" line up, and to see if any fake/overdubbed elements are present in one video's audiotrack that are not in an otherwise similar one.)

tl;dr Defense attorneys love me, I'm their nightmare jury-duty candidate : )

My goal in analyzing any event like this is to address the things that can be verified either visually, by common-sense, or by generally-accepted scientific/medical facts. I'm not saying everything about this video is false or fishy (apart from the editor's motives of self-promotion and/or distracting from facts by making wildly uninformed claims based on nothing more than his need for attention and unicorn farts.)

Example: Another issue I forgot to address: the video-maker obviously knows little about the artistic concept of "perspective," as he illustrates when he mis-interprets the angle of trajectory/the shooter's aim. (And he should probably take a look at this, while he's at it. Moar fun with that here.) He's also not considering that he doesn't understand how wide-angle lenses work, and how that could be distorting the perspective. This is why I'm very interested to see the official ballistics and autopsy reports, the shooter sweeps across the group and targets others trying to decide who to shoot.

As far as the backpack, lots of people had backpacks that day (for provisions etc.) It would be no surprise for someone to have a pillow or sleeping-bag in there, because under those conditions one might have to sleep in a spot of opportunity. (That day was full of unknowns, going in. As a military veteran, she would be well-trained in the ways of outdoor survival skills.) Even so, the padding effect of landing on that wouldn't protect her head (unless it got pulled upward) and could have worsened the stress on her neck upon impact. I'm still on the fence about whether she hit her head on the handrail fixture or the floor (some videos show them moving her slightly to a flatter position.) That's something I'm still trying to put together, so far due to the crowded conditions it's difficult to find an unobstructed video that shows her full path from the window to the floor.

The behavior of the police and SWAT though, I don't need video commentary to tell me that is some very fishy stuff. Cops (especially in a high-profile position like that) tend to be arrogant and demanding when on-duty. Under the circumstances, almost every cop we saw that day was being abnormally calm and non-confrontational. I don't get that at all- if they were that concerned about the doors being breached, they didn't show any sign of it until the shot.

None of the officers' behavior makes sense, and is often completely counter to normal tactics/safety practices/common sense- especially in failing to detain and question every person in that group. Normally, everyone in view of the shooting would be immediately against the wall or on the floor getting cuffed: those people were eyewitnesses to an officer-related shooting, I'm pretty sure that sending them away is not normal police procedure. That is a very serious breach of conduct and I have no explanation for that beyond dirty cops gonna dirty.

I have no explanation (beyond overconfidence) as to why the officers would just push through a group of un-frisked trespassers. That is either unbelievably careless, or utterly incompetent. As I said in another post, any accessories like ammo magazines/flash-bangs/pepper-spray not secured by some form of "retention holster"-style device (with a trick required to deploy) could easily be taken and used against them, were it merely held by a snap or velcro. (My SWAT-veteran associate tells me there are "retention" devices available for those accessories, but due to the "need for speed" these are not SOP except for possibly handcuffs. He also says it would be highly unusual for them to proceed into a group of "active protestors" in that manner without strong intelligence that they would be not likely to be armed or potentially violent. Additionally, he say SWAT officers place high confidence in their backup and are thus not very concerned with the possibility of having accessories snatched from their uniform.)

The video-editing is just messy, and difficult to tell if it is being chopped-up for time/pacing or if he's trying to hide/imply things. The audio is obviously even messier, I have not even started on that aspect (comparing ripped-from-video audio clips to see if certain ["transients"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_(acoustics)) line up, and to see if any fake/overdubbed elements are present in one video's audiotrack that are not in an otherwise similar one.)

tl;dr Defense attorneys love me, I'm their nightmare jury-duty candidate : )