Eyewitness Saw First Suspect Get Hit By A Police SUV And Then Shot Multiple Times

We already know that the police lied about having a gunfight with the second suspect, who was unarmed when he was captured.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Eyewitness Saw First Suspect Get Hit By A Police SUV And Then Shot Multiple Times

    • slimething says:

      Well if you notice, the conspiracy world doesn’t present evidence conflicting with their narrative.
      Head over to Infowars and read the nut job posts.

  1. slimething says:

    This witness said he watched the brother run over the brother right in front of his house and describes it in detail.

    The sweet cuddly bundles of love brothers are innocent…..yeah ok. According to Alex Jones, terrorists are just government patsy’s.

  2. Scott says:

    So he got hit by an SUV. How could anyone tell who was driving the SUV? It was night. Does it really make any difference?

  3. Brian D says:

    Here’s the video for Glenn Beck’s breaking news on the Saudi.

  4. alsodedicatedtorealscience says:

    I’m a behavioral scientist who trains the criminal justice system on eyewitness testimony. Decades of research has proven that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable because human memory for detail is highly prone to error. If you are dedicated to exposing the truth, you lose creditability when you stray from enlightening us with research based climate science. This particular post has slipped into ignorance based rumor mongering. Rumors which turn out to not be true is typical after any high profile event but we should resist the temptation to join in spreading them. A free press is essential to any democracy but, being human, they also participate in the rumor mongering based on inaccurate speculation and error prone eyewitness testimony so the details they report should be taken with a grain of salt. I enjoy your climate postings; I hope you will stick with your area of expertise.

    • Right. And the police also told us they had a shootout with an unarmed guy in the boat.

      • alsodedicatedtorealscience says:

        The police have the legal right to shoot unarmed suspects if they have good reason to believe that the suspect is in fact armed, dangerous, and engages in uncooperative behavior that leads police to believe he (or she) intends to shoot them or someone else. Depending on the circumstances, they don’t actually have to see the gun at the moment of the shooting. The Supreme Court ruled on this years ago and it’s referred to as “the totality of the circumstances.” If you google that term in can lead you to many websites that can bring you up to speed on the complex legal and tactical factors involved in police use of force decision making. Unfortunately years of entertaining but misleading depictions by Hollywood have led people to have unrealistic ideas and expectations so it’s understandable that many people are confused and alarmed when “unarmed” suspects wind up being shot. We should not rush to judgment, but allow the criminal justice system to sort out the “totality of the circumstances”.

        • The word “shootout” implies that bullets are being fired both directions.

          Obama believes that climate skeptics, gun owners, and everyone else who agrees with him are an imminent threat to public safety.

          On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Real Science

      • Ben says:

        RE: alsodedicated… “the totality of the circumstances.”

        I guess all that immunity is why the Weavers were paid several million dollars after an FBI sniper killed an unarmed women holding an unarmed baby.

        Your perspective is flawed and abhorrent

  5. alsodedicatedtorealscience says:

    The Supreme Court decisions long predate Obama. I have no interest in blogging on political opinions although I respect your right to have yours and to write about them, and to define terms however you want to. I hope any who read this will have their intellectual curiosity aroused and will do their own research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the laws regarding use of force decisions by police and citizens.

  6. Chewer says:

    Regardless of what sequence of events occurred, it is quite apparent that law enforcement in this and so many other recent events are untrained and undisciplined. Firing your weapon while wasting so many rounds shows they are unfit to hold or use their weapons.
    I believe law enforcement who are not mentally fit to engage in a fire fight should be armed with pepper spray and tasers and left to patrol the beaches.

  7. alsodedicatedtorealscience says:

    I’m disappointed in the disrespectful replies so I will not be participating in any future discussions and will block future communications from this website. Wishing everyone well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s