There are many claims suggesting that Ahmed Merhabet, the policeman allegedly shot and killed by the Charlie Hebdo gunmen, was not actually killed in the way media outlets portrayed.

Several supporting arguments brought forth by this article are:

  • The shot fired from an AK47 visibly did not hit his head
  • There was no blood
  • There was no recoil from the gun
  • There was no head movement from the impact
  • The guy filming it didn't even flinch

Later on, the gunmen were caught because one of them left his passport in the getaway car. Regardless of the whole event sounding questionable, can anyone explain the claims brought forth by the article and the footage of the policeman being shot?

  • 1
    This conspiracy theory was originally covered at a fake BBC website, as described here. While this does not imply the theory is false, it should be viewed with an abundance of suspicion and skepticism. – March Ho Jul 8 '15 at 1:40
  • 7
    The problem with debunking conspiracy theories is that any opposing evidence may be rejected by the theorists as more lies cooked up by the conspiracy. Thus, to avoid us wasting time chasing moving targets, can you give some idea of what kind of evidence would satisfy you that the mainstream story is accurate and/or that the objections are unfounded? – Nate Eldredge Jul 8 '15 at 4:10
  • @Nate Eldredge Indisputable justification that the way the policeman was shot was physically possible given the points noted in the question and the footage that was in fact released by major news stations. Perhaps by someone experienced in ballistics. – tqrecords Jul 8 '15 at 17:38
  • 3
    "Indisputable" is an extremely high standard... – Nate Eldredge Jul 8 '15 at 19:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .