• 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 II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fudbucker said:
No, one shot hit him on the SIDE of the arm. That is consistent with Brown facing Wilson or with his back to him.

No shots hit him in the back.
Click to expand...
:boggled:

That is consistent ... with his back to him.

No shots hit him in the back.


OoooKaaay. :rolleyes:
 
Fudbucker said:
So the claim is he was shot from behind? Where's the evidence? To make that fit the autopsy result, Brown would have to have been shot while running away, turn around, and then been gunned down by Wilson.

Based on Brown's prior aggressive behavior, Wilson's record, and the toxicology report, I don't find that a plausible scenario.
Click to expand...

But that's what the witnesses say happened. Four witnesses. At least now you're getting the gist of what people are saying.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
....
The whole point is, not being hit from behind is consistent with the autopsy
Click to expand...
Which is not the same as WAS NOT hit from behind.

As for your scenario, invisible pixies could have done it. Prove that scenario is inconsistent with the evidence. :rolleyes:


Your scenario is inconsistent with 4 eye witnesses. Let's start there.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Are Wilson's?

You know, I don't see how anybody's juvenile records have any bearing on whether or not they should be shot in the street, but if you're going to go that route, at least be consistent. If we're going to examine Brown's records, we should examine Wilson's, too.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the police probably wouldn't have hired Wilson, if he had a history of juvenile crimes.
 
Let's review. When the NYTs reporter misread the autopsy diagram Wilson supporters were ecstatic the autopsy showed no hits from behind. That supposedly discredited witnesses that said Brown jerked just before stopping and turning around.

No powder or stippling was seen around the wounds. Wilson supporters were ecstatic the autopsy showed no hits during the car tussle.

In fact, the autopsy did not confirm there were no hits from behind.

And Baden actually said (from the transcript):
so that the muzzle of the gun was at least one or two feet away
Click to expand...
which does not rule out a shot from the car hitting Brown as his arm could have easily been a foot or more away from the gun if the gun was inside the car and the arm outside the car.


The evidence did not disprove the shot when Wilson was in the car hitting Brown, nor did the evidence disprove one shot hit Brown from behind causing him to stop, turn around and try to surrender.

But that has not stopped the Wilson supporters from continuing to claim the autopsy disproved the witness accounts.
 
Unabogie said:
But that's what the witnesses say happened. Four witnesses. At least now you're getting the gist of what people are saying.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, and based on the animosity between the community and the police, I'd be vary about giving it too much credence.

Johnson said Brown was shot in the back. He wasn't.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uson-missouri-teen-shooting-witness/13992387/

He also said Wilson pulled up, reached out the window, and grabbed Brown by the neck.

Who is more believable, the guy who just committed a robbery with his buddy or the cop with no record of using excessive force?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Let's review. When the NYTs reporter misread the autopsy diagram Wilson supporters were ecstatic the autopsy showed no hits from behind. That supposedly discredited witnesses that said Brown jerked just before stopping and turning around.

No powder or stippling was seen around the wounds. Wilson supporters were ecstatic the autopsy showed no hits during the car tussle.

In fact, the autopsy did not confirm there were no hits from behind.

And Baden actually said (from the transcript): which does not rule out a shot from the car hitting Brown as his arm could have easily been a foot or more away from the gun if the gun was inside the car and the arm outside the car.


The evidence did not disprove the shot when Wilson was in the car hitting Brown, nor did the evidence disprove one shot hit Brown from behind causing him to stop, turn around and try to surrender.

But that has not stopped the Wilson supporters from continuing to claim the autopsy disproved the witness accounts.
Click to expand...

It does disprove the accounts. Johnson said Brown was shot "in the back". He wasn't shot in the back.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uson-missouri-teen-shooting-witness/13992387/
1:24 in the interview video
 
Kestrel said:
The mistake is assuming that live humans always hold thier limbs the way a pathologist lays them out on a mortuary table.
Click to expand...

That's one mistake, yes.

I'll agree, it's possible that we're wrong on 11 shots total. But there's no reasonable way that Brown took four shots while standing next to the squad car, before audio recording, assuming a standard issue gun. Their standard side issue is, as discussed before a 12 round mag, plus carried with 1 in chamber. 4+6 = 10, no need to reload there yet, and so no reason to stop firing. 4+6+4 = 14, impossible with that firearm.

Does anyone recall how we came up with 11 shots? At this point, it evades me.

I think at this point, we can say that Brown was running while Wilson was shooting at him. It also seems to me that shooting *and* running is just bad shooting, although I admit I'm no gun expert. In that case, the simplest explanation, it seems to me, would be that Wilson stopped firing in order to run after Brown Once he gets in range, he fires four more times.

And yes, not having a report on Wilson's gun does harm us here.
 
Still with the [something other than justification] caused Brown to be shot in the street meme.

If Wilson shot Brown for having a juvenile record, he should be convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Missouri seems unconcerned about the cocktail.

I don't know if anything particularly relevant is in Brown's past, frankly I don't care at this point. I think the events of that hour will give rational people sufficient resolution into the dynamic to come to an informed opinion.

There may be things about Brown's past that help inform us to the why of the thing, but that's not the question in law.
 
Fudbucker said:
It does disprove the accounts. Johnson said Brown was shot "in the back". He wasn't shot in the back.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uson-missouri-teen-shooting-witness/13992387/
1:24 in the interview video
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you say this, the simple fact is that arms can rotate. It's not really possible to say for sure where someone was shot from if they're hit in their arm, unless you know how their arms are held - a very difficult thing to say for a person who is running.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
It might disprove one part of the accounts. Does this mean we should just ignore everything else the witnesses said and believe the killer?
Click to expand...

And honestly, if you put him on the stand and asked Johnson if he knew Brown was shot in the back, specifically, as opposed to just hit from behind, he'd certainly say "well, no."
 
Axiom_Blade said:
It might disprove one part of the accounts. Does this mean we should just ignore everything else the witnesses said and believe the killer?
Click to expand...

No, but it should be taken in context of the situation. It doesn't appear the police are highly thought of in Ferguson, and the racial disparity is extreme. Already one witness (Johnson) was either lying or mistaken.
 
Unabogie said:
I have a friend who was convicted of an assault and later applied and was accepted to the LAPD police academy.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who was turned down for the very same thing.

And Wilson's record with the Ferguson PD show's no complaints against him.
 
Fudbucker said:
I have a friend who was turned down for the very same thing.

And Wilson's record with the Ferguson PD show's no complaints against him.
Click to expand...

You just shifted the goal posts. You said if he had a juvie record they wouldn't have let him on the force. I have a friend who has an adult record of assault and was let on a force (although he never completed the academy).

The issue with Wilson's "clean record" has been discussed already. The Ferguson PD was cooking the books so that a search for bad behavior would come up empty. In other words, we just don't know if this is true. The FPD has taken actions that call this alleged clean record into question.

And as the True Skeptics keep telling me, if you're not 100% certain of something, you're not allowed to say it on a message board or else bad things happen.
 
Mumbles said:
And honestly, if you put him on the stand and asked Johnson if he knew Brown was shot in the back, specifically, as opposed to just hit from behind, he'd certainly say "well, no."
Click to expand...

I don't know what he would say, and neither do you. This will never get to trial, so it won't matter anyway.

What it boils down to is this: you have an officer with a clean record versus a thug with weed in his system who just committed a robbery. The star eyewitness also happens to have been with Brown during the robbery, and claims Brown was "shot in the back", which he wasn't. The autopsy report is, at best, inconclusive.

No prosecutor in the world would touch a case like that, no jury would convict him, and if Wilson was injured by Brown, the chances of him being tried drop from about 2% to 0%.
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't know what he would say, and neither do you. This will never get to trial, so it won't matter anyway.

What it boils down to is this: you have an officer with a clean record versus a thug with weed in his system who just committed a robbery. The star eyewitness also happens to have been with Brown during the robbery, and claims Brown was "shot in the back", which he wasn't. The autopsy report is, at best, inconclusive.

No prosecutor in the world would touch a case like that, no jury would convict him, and if Wilson was injured by Brown, the chances of him being tried drop from about 2% to 0%.
Click to expand...

"Thug"

There's that word again.

ETA: Anyone want to state that Officer Wilson never smoked weed?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom