Michael Brown shooting

[redkow97]

If you don't believe the police negatively profile black folks, especially young males, then you should talk to your black friends... pending you actually have any.

I said it before, probably in this thread, profiling is real, because it is effective. Blacks are 13% o the US population. Like it or not, the US is predominantly white neighborhoods. Police look for whatever it whoever appears out of place.

A nice car with a white kid driving it in a "black neighborhood" draws just as much attention as a black kid in a "white neighborhood." The crimes they may be assumed to be committing may be different, but the fact remains that both draw suspicion.

[Scruit]

http://eaglerising.com/7996/breaking-story-friend-missouri-cop-shot-teen-tells-officers-side-story/#ku4W8aAbdMYUS3FI.01

Here's a different side of the story.

 

That account differs from the eyewitness reports that shots were fired while Brown was running away and that he clearly reacted as if he'd been hit.  The story told by the "friend of the officer" was that the the officer chased Brown, but made no mention of shooting as Brown was running away.    The autopsy should reveal if Brown was shot in the back.  If so then that supports the eyewitness claims.  If no shots in the back then either the officer did not shoot, or shot and missed.

If the two of them rushed the officer then that would be grounds to shoot, however the only thing more unreliable than eyewitness testimony is testimony of the accused.  The officer will need some kind of proof that Brown was charging him.  That's a tall order.

[Scruit]

http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/

 

 

I listened to the two guys in the background talking.  They clearly stated that Brown "doubled back on" the officer.  That's interesting.

 

On one side you have witnesses claiming the officer shot Brown in the back, then shot him when he surrendered then stood over his and shot him while he was lying on the ground.  On the other hand you have witnesses (excluding radio show girl who was not a witness) discussing the fact Brown advanced on officer rather than indicated surrender.

 

See what I mean by these situations being in flux?  Nobody should have strong opinions on what actually transpired until the investigation is complete.

[Scruit]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/17/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Some details from the independent autopsy report released.  Brown was hit 6 times.  4 in right arm, 2 in head.  All from the front.  

 

This calls into question the claim he visibly reacted to being hit in the back as he was running away.  It does not refute the claim he was shot *at* while running away.  

 

Nor does it support or refute either side of the the competing claims that he was either surrendering or charging at the officer.

 

If any of the shots in the arm hit the underside of his arms then it would lean towards his right arm being up.  If they hit the tops of his arm then that hints at his arm being down.  If the bullet traversed up his arm wherein the entrance wound was relatively distal and the exit wound was relatively proximal then that would suggest his arm was reaching towards the officer. 

[cOoTeR]

That account differs from the eyewitness reports that shots were fired while Brown was running away and that he clearly reacted as if he'd been hit.  The story told by the "friend of the officer" was that the the officer chased Brown, but made no mention of shooting as Brown was running away.    The autopsy should reveal if Brown was shot in the back.  If so then that supports the eyewitness claims.  If no shots in the back then either the officer did not shoot, or shot and missed.

If the two of them rushed the officer then that would be grounds to shoot, however the only thing more unreliable than eyewitness testimony is testimony of the accused.  The officer will need some kind of proof that Brown was charging him.  That's a tall order.

The cop can't go to the media about what happened. So the "friend" is as close as your going to get to the cops side of the story until the investigation reports are released. Like you said he wasn't shot in the back which calls the "witness" credibility into question. Shots could have been fired at him from behind but the number of rounds fired has not been released yet. If every round that was fired hit him in the front then that will show none were fired while Brown was fleeing. It just sucks media puts speculation out as if it were facts and people jump to conclusions. Now it's becoming a far cry from the original picture painted that some innocent teen was murdered while crossing the street.

[C-bus]

The protesters.... Have at it. It's what makes America, America.

The looters..... Pieces of shit thugs. All colors of them.

[Tpoppa]

Keep in mind that police officers are well schooled on what need to be said to make a shooting sound justified.  In addition to the autopsy done by the state, there will also be on performed by a federal examiner.  I expect that will answer many questions.

 

 

On a different note, they are now brining in the National Guard to deal with rioters.   

[Scruit]

Keep in mind that police officers are well schooled on what need to be said to make a shooting sound justified.  In addition to the autopsy done by the state, there will also be on performed by a federal examiner.  I expect that will answer many questions.

 

 

On a different note, they are now brining in the National Guard to deal with rioters.   

 

Many people are well schooled on how to appear to be the good guy.  Police, CCW, criminals etc.  

 

Examples:

 - Gang members in a single area will wear identical clothing so that if the police are chasing one of them he or she can easily get lost in a crowd

 - "Stop resisting"   (Well, he must have been resisting otherwise they wouldn't have been shouting that, huh?)      (Stop resisting the beating I'm giving you!)

 - "Stop attacking me!"

 - "Hands-up" fighting stance 

 

 

Even when they make no attempt to appear to be the victim, it can make little or no difference.     Remember the Stillwagon shooting in Delaware?  Stillwagon was on his motorcycle and shot at the driver of a pickup?   I spoke with a direct eyewitness to that event who said "The guy on the bike was walking towards the unarmed pickup driver, shooting over and over, while shouting; 'You're gonna die'".   The case was ruled self-defense.  

 

NOTHING that an eyewitness says should EVER be taken as gospel.  EVER.

 

 

Oh, and yes - the National Guard is going to make that whole thing much more interesting.  The rioters did not respond well to the local 'miltarized' police, nor did they respond well to the kid-gloves approach for the State Police (looting that the police did not attempt to stop).  Now they're going to be dealing with the National Guard.

 

I wonder if the National Gaurd's rifles will be loaded...

Edited August 18, 2014 by Scruit

[Scruit]

Confused even more now.

 

The autopsy that the family performed is reported to have stated that Brown was shot 6 times, 2 head, 4 arm, all from the front.

The family's attorney just has a press conference stating that the two shots to the head were fired from the back.

 

 

Shot #1:

 - The autopsy reportedly said this shot was in a front/back & downwards trajectory into his the top of his head.

 - The family attorney stated this was "The kill shot" and it was in a back/front & downwards trajectory.

 

Shot #2: 

 - The autopsy reportedly said one shot hit his right eye socket, was redirected downwards behind his cheek, out the bottom of his jaw and into his shoulder.  

 - The attorney said this shot actually entered into the top of his head, emerged from his eye, went into his jaw (and presumably out again) then his hit shoulder, in a directly downwards trajectory.

 - The attorney also said that the two head shots prove that he was shot in the back as he was running away.

 

 

Shots #3-6: (Arm)

 - The autopsy reportedly said the shows were front to back and hit him in the bicep/shoulder, and inside his forearm.

 - The family attorney said this proves his hands were up when the shots while running away

 

 

 

Either the reports on the content of the autopsy are incorrect, or the family attorneys don't agree with their own pathologist's findings on the directionality of the bullets...?     I also don't agree that the downwards trajectory of the two headshots prove he was shot while running away, nor does a bullethole in the front of the bicep prove his hands were up.   It does not prove he was attacking either - just that he was facing the officer.    If his hands were up I'd expect the holes to be in the inside of the bicep upper (arms out horizontally with forearms up) , or even in the tricep (reaching for the sky)

 

The also stated that the shot in the top of the head would have killed him instantly.  However the attorneys say the two headshots went from back-to-front and are consistent with witness claims of being shot in the back as he was running - The witnesses say he was shot in the back and THEN he turned and put his hands up.    If the head shots were were fired while he was running away (as attorney claimed), and those headshots were the "kill shot" that  "killed him instantly" with "no suffering" (as attorney claimed), how could he have turned and put his hands up to surrender?

[Tpoppa]

It is getting more confusing.

 

He's 6'4," if the shot that hit him on the top of the head exited toward the front of his face, wouldn't that mean that he was facing the officer in a position like kneeling with his head bent forward?    

Edited August 18, 2014 by Tpoppa

[cOoTeR]

It is getting more confusing.

 

He's 6'4," if the shot that hit him on the top of the head exited toward the front of his face, wouldn't that mean that he was facing the officer in a position like kneeling with his head bent forward?

Or running at the officer in a manner consistent with tackling someone.

[Scruit]

It is getting more confusing.

 

He's 6'4," if the shot that hit him on the top of the head exited toward the front of his face, wouldn't that mean that he was facing the officer in a position like kneeling with his head bent forward?    

 

The one shot to the top of his head didn't exit, they say. 

 

The shot that went through his eye went directly downwards from his eye through his jaw and into his shoulder - but the pathologist and attorney appear to disagree on the direction of travel of the bullet prior to hitting the eye.  Pathologist says front to back and it ricocheted off the bone behind his eyebrow, turning downwards.  Attorney says there was another bullethole directly above his eye, just behind the hairline, (that the pathologist did not label as a bullethole), and the the bullet was already travelling downwards when it made contact with his head.

 

Hitting the top of his head could be any number of speculative things:

 - His head was bowed in surrender

 - His head was tucked in a charge / tackle

 - His entire body was falling forward in response to the earlier shots

Edited August 18, 2014 by Scruit

[Tpoppa]

I am having trouble picturing that kill shot occurred with Brown charging the officer. He was already shot 5 times, with one of those being to the eye socket.  

 

I won't speculate on what angles of shots mean.  I'm sure the forensic experts will address it further.  

[cOoTeR]

Rushed and panicked shots often go left for a right handed shooter from "slamming" the shot. Followup shots often climb up to the right for right handed shooters when fired in quick succession. If the cop was being charged and felt he had to fire in a hurry the shot placement seems to start in Browns right arm and climb up to the right. Possibly causing Brown to stumble causing the last shot to hit him in the top of the head. Or the shot hit him in the top of the head as he attempted to tackle the cop. That's the two most logical explanations I can think of with my limited knowledge and limited information we have. If the cop shot him while kneeling the witnesses would have pointed that out. A couple of things are for sure though the cop did not shoot him for simple j-walking and we can't say the cop was wrong without having all the details. It has gone from how evil police are to looking like the cop may have just finished fighting for his life and shot Brown because he felt Brown had the ability and intention to kill the cop.

[cOoTeR]

http://bearingarms.com/autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-front-consistent-claims-charged-officer/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

[cOoTeR]

I am having trouble picturing that kill shot occurred with Brown charging the officer. He was already shot 5 times, with one of those being to the eye socket.  

 

I won't speculate on what angles of shots mean.  I'm sure the forensic experts will address it further.

Life isn't like the movies people don't go flying backwards when shot and the don't stop dead just because they are shot. Especially when they are close to 300 pounds and full of adrenaline.

[Gump]

I'm surprised Obama ordered an autopsy and wants the Feds to supervise.. Is that normal? You'd think he'd have more important things to do.

[Tpoppa]

Life isn't like the movies people don't go flying backwards when shot and the don't stop dead just because they are shot. Especially when they are close to 300 pounds and full of adrenaline.

I was in the Marines and do know a tiny little bit about firearms, but thanks for clarifying.

[Tpoppa]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

The autopsy could support witnesses' suggestions that Brown was holding his hands up in the air, said Shawn Purcell, who assisted in the autopsy. But other scenarios are possible, said Dr. Michael Baden, who supervised the inquiry.

 

But nothing in the autopsy suggested that Brown had engaged in a struggle, Baden said. Police have said that Brown reached into Officer Darren Wilson's car in a tussle over his gun.

 

The experts said they will need to examine the original autopsy conducted by officials before they can make final conclusions

[InyaAzz]

^ This

 

 

It's all a hot mess right now.

[cOoTeR]

 

The experts said they will need to examine the original autopsy conducted by officials before they can make final conclusions

The world would be a much peaceful place right now if we all could do this. Especially the media and and other celebrities who have jumped to conclusions and put them out as being facts before knowing the whole story.

[baptizo]

This is a confusing mess.  I'm not inclined to believe the po-po's version (or official story) but the autopsy doesn't support the "eyewitness" accounts and leans more towards the officer defending himself.  Of course, the locals don't give a shit about waiting for the facts before destroying their community nor do the race baiter's since it's bad for business. 

[Scruit]

Family attorney:  "One of the bullets entered the back of his head and came out through his eye".   Yet autopsy diagram shows no bullet wounds to the back of his head...?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Scruit

[Tpoppa]

You have two unreliable sides. Cops are liars. Looters are almost as bad.

 

If this were to go to trail, this is what it will come down to.  The more confusion about facts, conflicting stories, and ability to reduce credibility of witnesses will ultimately favor the officer.  Juries overwhelmingly believe police officers, even though cops lying under oath has been well documented.  

 

There is going to be lingering tension in Ferguson regardless of what happens.  It's going to be difficult to live there or to be a police officer there.      

[Scruit]

If this were to go to trail, this is what it will come down to.  The more confusion about facts, conflicting stories, and ability to reduce credibility of witnesses will ultimately favor the officer.  Juries overwhelmingly believe police officers, even though cops lying under oath has been well documented.  

 

There is going to be lingering tension in Ferguson regardless of what happens.  It's going to be difficult to live there or to be a police officer there.      

 

Being fair, criminals and witnesses lie under oath too...