Without comparing this guy’s claim to the claims of others there’s not much proof that the speaker witnessed anything. When I served on a jury in a shooting case - though no one actually got hit and all involved were white - the witnesses gave conflicting testimony, some of them definitely inflating their involvement in events while others were clearly repeating what witnesses had discussed together before the cops arrived, because from their positions not all of them could have seen all of the events as they described them ...yet all of them claimed they had, and may even have believed it, because in all the excitement and alcohol they just absorbed what they heard in the aftermath. We had to filter out the ones who had vehicles or trees in the way at different times.
You’re right —
But Sundance at the CTH posted the video and yet he selectively hears what he wants to hear while the guy in the foreground who is identifiable through this video speaks matter of factly — not angrily and not with wild accusations.
But Sundance ignores his words and evaluation of the scene in favor of some voice in the background that does not say what he claims he said.
Where are the evaluation skills that FR used to have???