• 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.
sgtbaker said:
I was trying to gain a little perspective on the case and found this article. It is an opinion piece but it is only intended to understand the process of information gathering and autopsies. I don't think it makes any real claims about the case but I think it is worth a read.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/opinion/melinek-michael-brown-autopsy/index.html
Click to expand...

She has Brown in the exact position I have Brown in.

To a forensic pathologist, the body diagram Brown's attorneys released tells a different story. The wound at the top of the head, the frontal wounds and angled right hand and arm wounds suggest that the victim was facing the officer, leaning forward with his right arm possibly extended in line with the gun's barrel, and not above his head.

The image of a person standing upright with his hands in the air when he was shot does not appear compatible with the wounds documented on that diagram. Whether a forward-leaning position is a posture of attack or of surrender, however, is a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

Judy Melinek, MD, is a forensic pathologist who served as a medical examiner at the Manhattan Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for two years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The problem is, realistically, we don't know too much about Michael Brown. All we have is pieces of his last day. Was the store incident out of character for him? Was the Michael Brown his family and friends knew a decent person? It seems at least possible. How can we reject that assertion on its face as being self-serving lies when we know so little about him? But not rejecting that doesn't mean we're accepting it, it means we're keeping an open mind.
Click to expand...

Decent people don't rob stores with such apparent disregard for other people.

I find the video of him in the story to be incompatible with the idea that he was generally a decent person.

I think it's clear (although not proven) the officer sustained some kind of facial injury from brown.

I find the idea that brown attacked or struck the officer to be incompatible with the idea that he was generally a decent person.

Do you consider my points above to be "closed-minded" ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Decent people don't rob stores with such apparent disregard for other people.

I find the video of him in the story to be incompatible with the idea that he was generally a decent person.

I think it's clear (although not proven) the officer sustained some kind of facial injury from brown.

I find the idea that brown attacked or struck the officer to be incompatible with the idea that he was generally a decent person.

Do you consider my points above to be "closed-minded" ?
Click to expand...

I ask myself if this was Brown's first theft, especially considering the company he was keeping. He certainly seemed comfortable using his size to threaten others with violence.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Maybe so. A few of us have already signed up for a ready admission that we were wrong. Precious few, but there are open minds to be found in this thread on this contentious issue.
Click to expand...

You know what's funny about that? I've watched people, a few times, attack other posters for back-peddling or trying to pretend they didn't say something, previously, why? Isn't changing your position in light of new information considered progress? Is someone not allowed to alter their position without falling on their knees, flogging themselves for having the audacity to be wrong when presented with limited information, and offering an animal sacrifice? I honestly believe that the snark and mockery sets up the environment for people to double down on their original sentiments because it makes it more about being right and winning as opposed to learning about the case. Worst of all is setting this up as camps; team Wilson and team Brown, as if everyone who doesn't feel absolutely positive about a particular aspect of the case can only possibly feel that way because they share some hive mind with other people whose opinions temporarily parallel. Let's try to drop the gloating, practice a little empathy, and perhaps create an environment where changing your mind doesn't feel so awful.

Sadly, I am pretty sure there is never going to be that defining CSI moment where the lead investigator finds that one piece of evidence that tells us all, without question, exactly what's happened. There is more likely going to be a compilation of evidence that will be open to interpretation.
 
sgtbaker said:
*respectful snip*
Sadly, I am pretty sure there is never going to be that defining CSI moment where the lead investigator finds that one piece of evidence that tells us all, without question, exactly what's happened. There is more likely going to be a compilation of evidence that will be open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're correct. If no charge pressed, upheaval. If it's clear Wilson is guilty of wrongdoing, upheaval. The most likely outcome however is that not much is definitively clear, and there will be upheaval. I really hope for the best, meaning peaceful protests.
 
sgtbaker said:
You know what's funny about that? I've watched people, a few times, attack other posters for back-peddling or trying to pretend they didn't say something, previously, why? Isn't changing your position in light of new information considered progress? Is someone not allowed to alter their position without falling on their knees, flogging themselves for having the audacity to be wrong when presented with limited information, and offering an animal sacrifice? I honestly believe that the snark and mockery sets up the environment for people to double down on their original sentiments because it makes it more about being right and winning as opposed to learning about the case. Worst of all is setting this up as camps; team Wilson and team Brown, as if everyone who doesn't feel absolutely positive about a particular aspect of the case can only possibly feel that way because they share some hive mind with other people whose opinions temporarily parallel. Let's try to drop the gloating, practice a little empathy, and perhaps create an environment where changing your mind doesn't feel so awful.

Sadly, I am pretty sure there is never going to be that defining CSI moment where the lead investigator finds that one piece of evidence that tells us all, without question, exactly what's happened. There is more likely going to be a compilation of evidence that will be open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Speaking only for myself, I think it's the way the claim is made as an indisputable "fact" and then later ignored completely when proven wrong. I, myself, have zero problem openly admitting mistakes, here or in the non-digital realm. I view it as part of the constant learning process. If one openly admits to a mistake, "Well that was stupid, don't want to do that again.", it's also an open acknowledgment of a willingness to self correct. Always a good quality!
If one ignores the mistake, as if pretending the claim or mistake never even happened, It then appears one hasn't learned from it, and is likely to continue making that same mistake again and again in the future. After all, if it wasn't a mistake, why change or learn from it?
Backpedaling comes off as trying to back shift the scenario to suit the original, now proven incorrect claim, as opposed to simply admitting they were wrong in the first place and picking up the narrative from there. Seems like it'd be so much easier, and spare the trouble of wiping egg from ones face.
Then again, there are those here who seem to wear their egg proudly too.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Why do so many people assume that Michael Brown held a static position while the shots were fired?
Click to expand...

It's not static, it's moving. That's the only way you get the angular hand wound in that scenario. The hand would have been hit while it was moving forward as he walked or ran.
The only way you get the angled head shots is if Brown is falling forward in the scenario.

Her scenario is of Brown moving forward at the time he was shot.

Can't say he was running, just moving.
 
Last edited:
sgtbaker said:
You know what's funny about that? I've watched people, a few times, attack other posters for back-peddling or trying to pretend they didn't say something, previously, why? Isn't changing your position in light of new information considered progress? Is someone not allowed to alter their position without falling on their knees, flogging themselves for having the audacity to be wrong when presented with limited information, and offering an animal sacrifice? I honestly believe that the snark and mockery sets up the environment for people to double down on their original sentiments because it makes it more about being right and winning as opposed to learning about the case. Worst of all is setting this up as camps; team Wilson and team Brown, as if everyone who doesn't feel absolutely positive about a particular aspect of the case can only possibly feel that way because they share some hive mind with other people whose opinions temporarily parallel. Let's try to drop the gloating, practice a little empathy, and perhaps create an environment where changing your mind doesn't feel so awful.

Sadly, I am pretty sure there is never going to be that defining CSI moment where the lead investigator finds that one piece of evidence that tells us all, without question, exactly what's happened. There is more likely going to be a compilation of evidence that will be open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

We often don't ever get the smoking gun, so to speak. Okay, bad pun.

So we're left with determining what is reasonable to believe based on all of the evidence we do have? Problem is, human beings are often not reasonable.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
The people who assume that would have to explain their reasoning..

It seems that the people who contend he was executed in cold blood assume he had stopped and was trying to surrender..
Click to expand...

When shots are fired, the automatic reaction of most people is to duck.

Brown is facing the officer when the first shots are fired, he starts to duck as the bullets tear into his body. In what way is this inconsistent with the autopsy results?
 
Is it possible that Wilson had X-rays that were negative, but later had a cat scan which revealed the injury?

IOW, Wilson had been hit in the face, so they took xray pics, but those didn't show any broken bones.

I have read that xray pics are not the best for spotting orbital floor fractures.

So perhaps Wilson goes home from the hospital, but it becomes clear that he has more of a problem than a swollen eye, and he goes back and gets a cat scan, and then they find the injury.

The problem I have with that scenario is that it seems to me they'd just go right to a cat scan if Wilson comes in with a swollen face. They wouldn't bother with trying to get a good xray image of his eye socket if they could do a cat scan, would they?
 
Kestrel said:
When shots are fired, the automatic reaction of most people is to duck.

Brown is facing the officer when the first shots are fired, he starts to duck as the bullets tear into his body. In what way is this inconsistent with the autopsy results?
Click to expand...

Running towards Wilson and falling is also consistent with the limited autopsy results that we have.

As are a few other scenarios that have been noted. :)
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Usually, if someone begins a counter argument with "So..." or "Are you saying that...", what follows is an absurd rewording of the argument being countered.
Click to expand...


I don't know about "usually". Maybe around here.

Out in RL re-framing what you think someone meant to say in your own words is a really useful tool for accurate communication. I prefer that someone do that as opposed to nodding their head as if they understand and then going off and doing something entirely different from what I thought we had discussed. (Note: I've found that this problem is more frequent between people who think they share a common language, oddly enough.)

I guess it depends a lot on whether communication is the actual goal as opposed to scoring debate points.

Even here, when I phrase a response of that character, most of the time ("usually" :)) my intent is really to make sure I understood what was being said.

Sometimes this might come out as snarky because whoever said it to start with doesn't like to hear what they are actually saying with the obfuscation and weasel words removed, or absurd because what had been said actually was absurd.

This can happen.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't know about "usually". Maybe around here.

Out in RL re-framing what you think someone meant to say in your own words is a really useful tool for accurate communication. I prefer that someone do that as opposed to nodding their head as if they understand and then going off and doing something entirely different from what I thought we had discussed. (Note: I've found that this problem is more frequent between people who think they share a common language, oddly enough.)

I guess it depends a lot on whether communication is the actual goal as opposed to scoring debate points.

Even here, when I phrase a response of that character, most of the time ("usually" :)) my intent is really to make sure I understood what was being said.

Sometimes this might come out as snarky because whoever said it to start with doesn't like to hear what they are actually saying with the obfuscation and weasel words removed, or absurd because what had been said actually was absurd.

This can happen.
Click to expand...

Well said. It is indeed true.
 
Lerxst said:
We often don't ever get the smoking gun, so to speak. Okay, bad pun.

So we're left with determining what is reasonable to believe based on all of the evidence we do have? Problem is, human beings are often not reasonable.
Click to expand...

That may very well be true in many or even most cases.

The part that irks me is what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with this case. We KNOW that much more evidence is forthcoming, yet some people are making all sorts of conclusions based on the very, very limited evidence we do have.

It is as if the prosecuting and defense attorneys have not yet finished their opening statements and some jury members are ready to have a vote.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Running towards Wilson and falling is also consistent with the limited autopsy results that we have.

As are a few other scenarios that have been noted. :)
Click to expand...

There may be evidence that indicates Brown was running toward Wilson when he was shot. Perhaps skin abbraisions or tears in clothing that would not have occurred if Brown simply fell forward or dove for the ground when the shooting started. If such evidence exists, it hasn't been released.
 
Kestrel said:
There may be evidence that indicates Brown was running toward Wilson when he was shot. Perhaps skin abbraisions or tears in clothing that would not have occurred if Brown simply fell forward or dove for the ground when the shooting started. If such evidence exists, it hasn't been released.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I don't expect much new evidence. If it goes to trial I think we're already seeing what will happen. The defense will claim Brown was charging Wilson. That Wilson fired on Brown because he was in fear of suffering serious injury. The witnesses will give a different version and the defense will attack them.

I think a jury will have little choice other than to find Not Guilty based on reasonable doubt. The only piece of evidence I could see is if a smartphone video surfaces that showed Brown standing stock still when the shots are fired. I think the Brown family will probably be able to win a civil suit, but given Wilson's presumption of innocence I don't expect him to be convicted of murdering Michael Brown.
 
Unabogie said:
I was responding to Bikewer, who DID give it credence. Then you countered that there was no need to demonize Brown since he was such a bad person anyway. To which I responded that the relevant part is that people are making things up and passing them as fact, and people are believing the lies. Witness the "orbital fracture" lie from Jim Hoft, and the phony picture lie from the Kansas cop.

So after all the lectures about what terrible skeptics we are, you're now admonishing me not to spend too much time pointing out lies?
Click to expand...

Nobody has established this as a lie yet. CNN has a source that says it's untrue; ABC News has one that says it's true. As I have pointed out before, there are reasons to be skeptical that it's true and reasons to be skeptical that it's untrue.
 
newyorkguy said:
I could be wrong but I don't expect much new evidence. If it goes to trial I think we're already seeing what will happen. The defense will claim Brown was charging Wilson. That Wilson fired on Brown because he was in fear of suffering serious injury. The witnesses will give a different version and the defense will attack them.

I think a jury will have little choice other than to find Not Guilty based on reasonable doubt. The only piece of evidence I could see is if a smartphone video surfaces that showed Brown standing stock still when the shots are fired. I think the Brown family will probably be able to win a civil suit, but given Wilson's presumption of innocence I don't expect him to be convicted of murdering Michael Brown.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will go to trial. I think the GJ will refuse to indict based on eye withness accounts backed by forensic evidence. I suspect the DA is only calling a GJ to exonerate the officer, because if the DA does nothing the DA will be roasted. And the Gov will send in a special prosecutor to roast Wilson. I'm thinking the GJ will be the end of the case. And another point to call the GJ is that it is a secret preliminary step, not the media circus that a public prelim would be. Six weeks will allow the crowd to simmer down.

And I will expect a few more leaks too. Things that hint at the shooting being justified. Say, tox reports of other street drugs, maybe a sworn witness that backs up the charging claim.

Meantime, how about somebody looking at his school record, GPA and disciplinary actions? Maybe class mates that say he WAS a bully? We hear of his plans, nothing of his history.

Somebody want to start a poll?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom