• 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.
Skeptic Ginger said:
In case it hasn't been pointed out already, the examiner has just clarified, one of the shots could have been from the back. It was the reporter from the NYTs that mistakenly said all the shots were from the front because they were confused about the diagram which is in anatomical position, not the position a person stands/runs/walks in.

In addition, the wound in the face was from the eyebrow down, came out of the eye, went back into the jaw. The trajectory is top down.

The chest wound is a reentry wound but it is not clear from this autopsy which arm wound was the initial entry.

The clothing and initial X-rays are needed to further define the position of the body when the bullets struck. But both head wounds are consistent with Brown's head being down.

From the medical examiner 'expert' on CNN, both head wounds in a 6'4'' man were top down. So unless you believe his head was down like a charging bull, (which he noted was far fetched in his opinion), Brown was either getting down or falling.

None of the arm wounds look like they would have made Brown collapse.
Click to expand...

The New York Times was quoting Baden, not interpreting the results on the chart:

"Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/u...hows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?ref=us
 
Another big problem here is the local prosecutor Bob McCulloch. Already the St. Louis County Executive has asked that a special prosecutor be appointed, that already McCulloch has indicated he is taking sides.

In addition he has a history that shows he has not been effective at prosecuting police misconduct. Already mentioned was the case involving the man who was arrested by mistake, beaten in the Ferguson police station and then arrested for destroying government property after the two officers who beat him up discovered his blood on their uniforms. There was a case where two unarmed men were shot to death by police in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant in a St. Louis suburb. The officers claimed they fired because the men tried to run them over. At the time there was evidence their car had not moved forward. A county grand jury declined to indict the officers and McCulloch said publicly he agreed with the decision.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
All I am saying is that you appear to be dismissing what amounts to a de fcato claim that Mitchell appeared to see Brown was shot from behind:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/st-louis-official-reporters-arrested-ferguson-michael-brown
“The officer gets out of his vehicle,” Mitchell said, “and he pursues him,” continuing to shoot at Brown. “Michael’s body jerks as if he was hit,” Mitchell explained, “and then he put his hands up,” and the officer continued to shoot at Brown until the teenager collapsed “all the way down to the ground.”
Click to expand...

Of course I’m dismissing it because it’s only being presented as some lame “gotcha” as opposed to an actual and honest discussion of the facts.

I don't see anything contradictory in her statements, or similar that might impeach her claims. But ...

1) this is an internet forum, not a courtroom
Click to expand...

I’m not sure how that makes a difference. Other than the fact that this is an environment in which people are more interested in breaking out the laughing dog gif as opposed to addressing the argument. Which is why I dismiss the claims of such people.

2) we have not seen what she actually claimed in her statement(s) to the police
Click to expand...

You’re right. And if she made that claim in her statement to the police, then she is wrong just like Dorian Johnson is wrong. But all we have to go on is the statements she made to the media, so I don’t find much utility in imagining what she might have said to someone else in some other circumstance.

So, as far as I can tell, for all intents and purposes she claimed he was shot in the back.
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes? I’m sure you’re just using the term idiomatically, but no, she most certainly did not claim that “for all intents in purposes”. The only claim she made was that she saw his body jerk, and then she merely compared that to being shot.

If anything, the way she described it, it obvious she’s not sure what she saw, and worded her account accordingly. I don’t see why a witness should be penalized for being unclear on a detail, and admitting as much in their account.

What else did she misinterpret ?
Click to expand...

What other interpretations did she make?
 
Ammonitida said:
<snip> Some people are killed with just one punch to the head. If the officer's medical report substantiates a physical assault perpetrated by Brown (and we have every reason to believe that it will), then Brown can not be called "unarmed".
Click to expand...

​
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In addition, the wound in the face was from the eyebrow down, came out of the eye, went back into the jaw. The trajectory is top down.
Click to expand...

I thought it was into the eye, downward, out the jaw, and back into the collarbone.

I'll check some other sources.
 
Ammonitida said:
Yeah, stop with your "unarmed black boy" nonsense. Brown was "armed" with his ARMS when he attacked the store clerk, with his ARMS.

A person's arms can be deadly weapons, and it's quite likely that Brown possessed the mentality to use them as such, as evidenced by his assault and intimidation on that store clerk.
Click to expand...


Brilliant. This must be the real meaning of the 2nd amendment. Might as well ban guns in that case, everyone's armed! Except the armless. They can have guns to compensate.
 
Ammonitida said:
Yeah, stop with your "unarmed black boy" nonsense. Brown was "armed" with his ARMS when he attacked the store clerk, with his ARMS.

A person's arms can be deadly weapons, and it's quite likely that Brown possessed the mentality to use them as such, as evidenced by his assault and intimidation on that store clerk.
Click to expand...


Words have agreed upon meanings. It defeats the purpose of language to redefine your terms on the fly. "Unarmed" has an unambiguous meaning, and can accurately be used to describe Brown. It does not mean that he didn't pose a threat to Wilson, just that he did not have a weapon (like a gun or a knife).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In case it hasn't been pointed out already, the examiner has just clarified, one of the shots could have been from the back. It was the reporter from the NYTs that mistakenly said all the shots were from the front because they were confused about the diagram which is in anatomical position, not the position a person stands/runs/walks in.

In addition, the wound in the face was from the eyebrow down, came out of the eye, went back into the jaw. The trajectory is top down.

The chest wound is a reentry wound but it is not clear from this autopsy which arm wound was the initial entry.

The clothing and initial X-rays are needed to further define the position of the body when the bullets struck. But both head wounds are consistent with Brown's head being down.

From the medical examiner 'expert' on CNN, both head wounds in a 6'4'' man were top down. So unless you believe his head was down like a charging bull, (which he noted was far fetched in his opinion), Brown was either getting down or falling.

None of the arm wounds look like they would have made Brown collapse.
Click to expand...

That was Shawn Parcells:

Shawn Parcells, a pathologist hired by Brown’s family, said a bullet wound to the teen’s arm may have happened when he put his hands up, “but we don’t know.”

Parcells said a graze wound on Brown’s right arm could have occurred in several ways. He says the teen may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position.
Click to expand...

What I'm getting overall, is a lot of reasonable doubt for a jury.
 
Again, I am reserving judgment until more evidence is available. It is clear that Ferguson is a city fraught with race-based tension between the citizens and the police force. It is also clear that its citizens will lie to discredit police officers (as Johnson did, at the very least lying by omission when he carefully avoided mentioning the robbery Brown committed) and it is not unreasonable to suppose, given past history, that the police might lie to protect their own.

In this case, there are well-founded doubts about both stories. Sometimes "I just don't know" is the only truly skeptical thing to say.
 
Parcells said a graze wound on Brown’s right arm could have occurred in several ways. He says the teen may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position.
Click to expand...

So it is conceivable he was shot from behind while running away. That's interesting.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Again, I am reserving judgment until more evidence is available. It is clear that Ferguson is a city fraught with race-based tension between the citizens and the police force. It is also clear that its citizens will lie to discredit police officers (as Johnson did, at the very least lying by omission when he carefully avoided mentioning the robbery Brown committed) and it is not unreasonable to suppose, given past history, that the police might lie to protect their own.

In this case, there are well-founded doubts about both stories. Sometimes "I just don't know" is the only truly skeptical thing to say.
Click to expand...


Very good points.
 
newyorkguy said:
That's always been the problem. People will admit, "Yes, sure blacks have suffered police brutality." But when confronted with an example of it, many people always find a way to rationalize, "Just not in this case." Some people always want that perfect case. As a result nothing changes.
Click to expand...
That's because it clouds the issue. You forget what a two edged sword the antagonism is. A rational person might realize that the historical antagonism is equally as likely to play a part in Mr.Brown attacking the policeman, as it is to suggest that the officer " executed" Mr. Brown.

" Mr. Brown attacked the officer because he is African American, and they typically hate and distrust LEO's "
is just as supported by historical context as
"the officer murdered Mr. Brown in cold blood because cops hate African Americans "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom