Does someone have the video showing the backpack being dropped?

[Cap]

What about the guy in the doorway with ear piece?

Things that make you go hmmm.

 

[randfan7]

I asked for a particular piece of evidence.

I'm no expert on copyrights or evidenciary procedure; but would the person who took the claimed video be the copyright holder? Would such a person have the right to stipulate that the feds not release the video to the public until it was part of a trial? If I was the person that took the video I'd be shopping it around to the highest bidder. Is that a possibility?

 

[LibertyEagle]

There's a picture of the kid with the white hat running without his backpack after the explosion.

How can you tell that? He was carrying it over his right shoulder and we cannot see that from this picture.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Angela is right, even without the FBI's alleged video of a bag being dropped, there is a lot of damning evidence against white hat guy.

Plus, how does anyone explain away them shooting at cops and throwing bombs at them?

How would the media fake that?

Of course there could still be all kinds of government involvement, but clearly these guys are AWOL.

Were the cops shooting at them?

I don't know guys. To me, all there is now is circumstantial evidence. It's not up to us, the media, or the cops, to be judge, jury and executioner. They have the right to a fair trial.

 

[KingNothing]

Were the cops shooting at them?

I don't know guys. To me, all there is now is circumstantial evidence. It's not up to us, the media, or the cops, to be judge, jury and executioner. They have the right to a fair trial.

They have a right to a fair trial, but I think that right may be voided if they're actively shooting at people and trying to detonate bombs.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm no expert on copyrights or evidenciary procedure; but would the person who took the claimed video be the copyright holder? Would such a person have the right to stipulate that the feds not release the video to the public until it was part of a trial? If I was the person that took the video I'd be shopping it around to the highest bidder. Is that a possibility?

A video being released by the feds would not violate someone's copyright. You can assert copyright even over public performances. For example, the famous MLK "I have a dream" speech became copyrighted after the fact. Copyright isn't like patents. With a patent, if it's been publicly released before being patented it's no good.

 

[RickyJ]

They have a right to a fair trial, but I think that right may be voided if they're actively shooting at people and trying to detonate bombs.

This is true, but if all you have to go one that they were shooting people is the police, and if they are the ones trying to frame them, then you have no real evidence of their guilt.

 

[jmdrake]

Angela is right, even without the FBI's alleged video of a bag being dropped, there is a lot of damning evidence against white hat guy.

Plus, how does anyone explain away them shooting at cops and throwing bombs at them?

How would the media fake that?

Of course there could still be all kinds of government involvement, but clearly these guys are AWOL.

If we can convict someone based on media reports of police reports then America is already gone and it's time for me to stock my bunker. The media report of the 1993 WTC bombing was all neatly tied up....until one of the suspects released an audio tape of him talking to his handler.

 

[jmdrake]

They have a right to a fair trial, but I think that right may be voided if they're actively shooting at people and trying to detonate bombs.

So if you don't want someone to have a fair trial, just claim they were resisting arrest?

 

[liveandletlive]

they want the 19 year old ALIVE, i dont get people here being outraged at the possibility they want to Dorner the guy.

 

[itshappening]

He could have dropped his bag in panic.

Absolutely no evidence of him carrying a bomb or planting it.

Just the FBI assurance... and we'll never see it once they Dorner the kid.

 

[itshappening]

they want the 19 year old ALIVE, i dont get people here being outraged at the possibility they want to Dorner the guy.

They will Dorner him because they dont want another LHO on their hands: 'im innocent'

 

[randfan7]

A video being released by the feds would not violate someone's copyright. You can assert copyright even over public performances. For example, the famous MLK "I have a dream" speech became copyrighted after the fact. Copyright isn't like patents. With a patent, if it's been publicly released before being patented it's no good.

So the feds can distribute copyrighted material? Isn't that what they would be doing by releasing the video? I understand if it goes into the public record at trial; but before hand I can't see how they have that right without permission from the copyrightholder.

 

[RickyJ]

So the feds can distribute copyrighted material? Isn't that what they would be doing by releasing the video? I understand if it goes into the public record at trial; but before hand I can't see how they have that right without permission from the copyrightholder.

In a police investigation they can confiscate it as evidence, copyright means nothing when their is a criminal case going on. You are making one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard.

 

[kathy88]

Appears he puts it in his ear just as they (suspects) had passed by.

This is how it appears. This just gets weirder and weirder. And there's no need for you to comment here, King Nothing, no need at all.

 

[jmdrake]

So the feds can distribute copyrighted material? Isn't that what they would be doing by releasing the video? I understand if it goes into the public record at trial; but before hand I can't see how they have that right without permission from the copyrightholder.

Fair use. Come on. If there is ever a time when the fair use doctrine applies it's when you're trying to catch a terrorism suspect. No. A copyright holder would not be able to prevent the FBI from releasing a video under these circumstances.

 

[affa]

Do you have an eyewitness indicating this man isn't holding his backpack in front of him, and in fact, set it down where the eyewitnesses legs used to be?

maybe i'm wrong, but i think that was the point jmdrake was making -- that people find photos to back up whatever theory they currently hold (or allow photos to cloud their judgement). that is, his point was those two photos of innocents used to be 'suspicious', just like the picture of this new guy turning the corner possibly w/o a bag is now 'suspicious'.

i happen to agree the evidence against the two brothers is pretty damning at this point, but i also think you missed what jmdrake was getting at. and heck, it wasn't many hours ago everyone thought it was the missing student... also based on 'damning' photos.

 

[LibertyEagle]

They have a right to a fair trial, but I think that right may be voided if they're actively shooting at people and trying to detonate bombs.

I am not there. Are you? I have no idea what the police have done/are doing. I also remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. Do you?

 

[randfan7]

In a police investigation they can confiscate it as evidence, copyright means nothing when their is a criminal case going on. You are making one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard.

I was just asking a question about what rights the owner of the supposed evidence has and if they can restrict it release. There is no need to be an asshole. If I had that evidence and I couldn't restrict its release then it seems like a good reason to shop it around before giving it to the feds.

 

[pcosmar]

They will Dorner him because they dont want another LHO on their hands: 'im innocent'

Or have it come out that the FBI was "handling" him. It is very possible that they were recruited like several others.

Maybe even thinking that they were just "testing Security".

until the things went off.. and they knew they were screwed.