• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many shots did Owens fire?

He still might have shot at Brown from the back, but missed. The witnesses might still be accurately telling what they saw. On the other hand, if all the bullets are accounted for (in the car or producing wounds), then that argues for front-only shooting.

Does anyone know how the count matches up?
 
newyorkguy said:
Come on now, don't get all excited, remember, you're a skeptic. Keep your critical thinking cap on?

Shot six times because he was charging the police officer. Is that what the police said? He was charging their guy? Was this a cop or a bull fighter. Six times? An unarmed man? I'm still not getting this.
Click to expand...

Six times but only the last two would have stopped him rapidly. And shooting multiple times is reasonable, since the officer would have shot until the threat (i.e. charge) stopped, which only happened with the last two rounds.

Sounds like Wilson was a decent shot, compared to the norm:
"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time."
http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I'll let Unaboogie take that one. It's his area of expertise.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I would have figured such an esteemed and dedicated skeptic as yourself would have actually researched these claims before adopting them as your own. I guess I was wrong.

Allow me to enlighten you.

Dorian Johnson claimed Brown was shot in the back.

But neither Piaget Crenshaw nor Tiffany Mitchell made that claim. They both said Brown was running away, stopped and turned around, and was in the act of surrendering when he was shot dead.

And as the forensic pathologist who actually conducted this autopsy will tell you, these results do not disprove that claim, and could in fact corroborate them.

Sorry to have spoiled your gleeful celebration.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
The police haven't said much of anything, which is as it should be while the investigation is going on...
Click to expand...

Cylinder said:
Remember that Wilson's story seems to be that the shooting happened after a close-in struggle. In his narrative, Brown was re-engaging the fight.
Click to expand...

The police haven't said much but in Wilson's narrative Brown was re-engaging the fight.

Wilson provided a narrative? :confused:
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
But....but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...

Numerous witnesses swore he was shot in the back! Therefore it was true.

How can this be? My faith has been shaken.
Click to expand...

The simplest answer is that he was shot at while he was running, but the shots missed. @TheePharoah, for instance, didn't claim that he was actually shot in the back, he just claimed that two shots were fired when his back was turned. As for Johnson thinking he was hit, that's an easy mistake to make.
 
marplots said:
How many shots did Owens fire?
He still might have shot at Brown from the back, but missed. The witnesses might still be accurately telling what they saw. On the other hand, if all the bullets are accounted for (in the car or producing wounds), then that argues for front-only shooting...Does anyone know how the count matches up?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. He might've fired at Brown as he was running away and missed. Who knows. How does the count match up, that's another problem. The police are still refusing to say how many shots Wilson fired.

You know in a democracy the police aren't supposed to do this. Kill someone and eight days later they still haven't released any details about how many shots were fired, where the person was hit or how many times.

Is Missouri still part of the USA? :confused:
 
Lots of excited speculation from self-proclaimed "skeptics".

People need to go back to that New York Times article linked earlier, and actually read the words in it. Maybe pay particular attention to things Dr. Baden says about the autopsy being incomplete and the determinations that can be made from it (Spoiler alert: Not many).
 
johnny karate said:
My apologies. I would have figured such an esteemed and dedicated skeptic as yourself would have actually researched these claims before adopting them as your own. I guess I was wrong.

Allow me to enlighten you.

Dorian Johnson claimed Brown was shot in the back.

But neither Piaget Crenshaw nor Tiffany Mitchell made that claim. They both said Brown was running away, stopped and turned around, and was in the act of surrendering when he was shot dead.

And as the forensic pathologist who actually conducted this autopsy will tell you, these results do not disprove that claim, and could in fact corroborate them.

Sorry to have spoiled your gleeful celebration.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof will not be on the officer, though.

The prosecutor will have to prove the officer shot Brown while he was surrendering.

It seems like that will be difficult.
 
johnny karate said:
My apologies. I would have figured such an esteemed and dedicated skeptic as yourself would have actually researched these claims before adopting them as your own. I guess I was wrong.

Allow me to enlighten you.

Dorian Johnson claimed Brown was shot in the back.

But neither Piaget Crenshaw nor Tiffany Mitchell made that claim. They both said Brown was running away, stopped and turned around, and was in the act of surrendering when he was shot dead.

And as the forensic pathologist who actually conducted this autopsy will tell you, these results do not disprove that claim, and could in fact corroborate them.

Sorry to have spoiled your gleeful celebration.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-5-things/index.html

“the kid finally gets away, and he starts running. As he runs, the police gets out of his vehicle and he follows behind him shooting, and…umm…the kid body jerked, as if he was hit from behind…and he turns around and he puts his hands up…” - Tiffany Mitchell (who never said Brown was shot from behind)

Ouch!!! That's gotta sting.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
When you run, your arms tend to alternately go in front of your body. The bicep being about nipple level.
Click to expand...

Outstretched arms would have appeared to the officer as him charging him to grapple again, while a witness might call it 'hands up' in surrender. Either could be true or false based on selective observation, although looking at that drawing and doing some possible movement/poses I know which I think is more likely.

There will be more evidence.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The burden of proof will not be on the officer, though.

The prosecutor will have to prove the officer shot Brown while he was surrendering.

It seems like that will be difficult.
Click to expand...

That burden was alway there. And so far, the prosecution would have two eye witnesses.

I'm not sure how much more regarding Brown's body position can be determined from further autopsy results, but I do know nothing to either prove or disprove he was surrendering has been established so far.

Those pretending otherwise are demonstrating very bad form for members of a skeptic's forum.
 
johnny karate said:
I think more to the point, the standard for evidence that is mocked, dismissed, or otherwise hand-waved into irrelevance is very one-sided.

People arguing that the shooting was justified have attempted to introduce hearsay and unidentified people in a Youtube video as evidence.

And this elicited nary a peep from our resident Crusaders for Skeptical Thought.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen a peep from you regarding nonsense posts such as this:

KatieG said:
Not bloody likely! From what I've seen, every eyewitness is lying and whatever the police did is A-OK!
Click to expand...

I guess everyone picks and chooses sides, even when they are busy pretending they don't....
 
newyorkguy said:
That's a good point. He might've fired at Brown as he was running away and missed. Who knows. How does the count match up, that's another problem. The police are still refusing to say how many shots Wilson fired.

You know in a democracy the police aren't supposed to do this. Kill someone and eight days later they still haven't released any details about how many shots were fired, where the person was hit or how many times.

Is Missouri still part of the USA? :confused:
Click to expand...


Of all the criticisms I have of that department and it's handling of the case, that is not one of them. Not releasing some information where there is an ongoing investigation with a ton of media coverage and rioting/looting has some basis. Not wanting to taint possible witness accounts is one. Not wanting to fan flames is another.
 
I have to question the competency of this so-called "autopsy" report. The figure looks nothing like Michael Brown.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-5-things/index.html

“the kid finally gets away, and he starts running. As he runs, the police gets out of his vehicle and he follows behind him shooting, and…umm…the kid body jerked, as if he was hit from behind…and he turns around and he puts his hands up…” - Tiffany Mitchell (who never said Brown was shot from behind)

Ouch!!! That's gotta sting.
Click to expand...

Why would that sting?

I don't see where this witness claimed Brown was shot in the back.

I see where she claimed she saw his body jerk, and compared that to being hit from behind.

But I don't see where she actually claimed he was shot in the back.
 
johnny karate said:
That burden was alway there. And so far, the prosecution would have two eye witnesses.

I'm not sure how much more regarding Brown's body position can be determined from further autopsy results, but I do know nothing to either prove or disprove he was surrendering has been established so far.

Those pretending otherwise are demonstrating very bad form for members of a skeptic's forum.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems like the GJ has only this autopsy to go with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom