Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
steve s said:
Still trolling. What part of "could have" don't you understand?

Steve S
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I do think it was quite likely from behind and that it quite likely was the last of the first six shots. The unfortunate victim then turned to face his assailant and was gunned down.

I want to see the federal autopsy results before I make any of that definite.
 
BenBurch said:
Exactly.

I do think it was quite likely from behind and that it quite likely was the last of the first six shots. The unfortunate victim then turned to face his assailant and was gunned down.

I want to see the federal autopsy results before I make any of that definite.
Click to expand...

Baden said the last shots were to the head.

"Dr. Baden and Prof. Parcells said the two shots to the head were probably the last two shots fired."

http://www.newsweek.com/what-we-learned-michael-browns-autopsy-265247

So, do you care to revise your statement?

ETA: Sorry, I didn't read that correctly. My bad! You think it was the last of the FIRST six shots.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Exactly.

I do think it was quite likely from behind and that it quite likely was the last of the first six shots. The unfortunate victim then turned to face his assailant and was gunned down.

I want to see the federal autopsy results before I make any of that definite.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to read the report from the independent autopsy instead of just reading about the press conference. Is that report available?
 
TheL8Elvis said:




I can't say why the post didn't include it.

The information I have seen is from the times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/u...er-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=2
However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car.

As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials
Click to expand...

No other news outlet has included it, which makes me highly suspicious of it.

If we automatically believe everything the NYTimes reports is true, they also reported this:

"An autopsy conducted on behalf of Mr. Brown’s family also found that he had been shot at least six times — including once in the face and once in the top of his head — with all bullets striking him in the front."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html

So if people want to claim the police have admitted that Wilson shot Brown as he was running away because The NY Times is reporting it, are those same people OK with the fact that ALL bullets struck Brown from the front? After all, the Times reported it.
 
Last edited:
sgtbaker said:
This isn't a case cracking question, just something I am curious about. In Johnson's account, Brown was shot once during the confrontation in the car. I know he said that he was shot and saw blood from the shot in the car, in the interview on the street. I believe he said it on the second television interview as well but I am not sure. Is it possible that the graze occurred in the car which accounts for the discrepancy in grouping of wounds? I would imagine it is more difficult to determine distance with a graze, especially without the clothing to test for GSR. Is that possible?
Click to expand...

Well let me just start by saying that if we find out there were more than 11 shots fired (from shell casings) then this won't be correct, but the reason I'm assuming the shot to the arm came from behind is because without that being true, the math doesn't add up. So let's start with a big IF.

IF there are only 11 shots, then group B had to be the six shots fired. Group C only has 4 shots fired, so that cannot possibly account for all six hits. IF the autopsy is correct, and 5 shots are from the front with 1 shot being possible as being from behind, then logic says the shot by the car had to have hit.

Picture a math logic puzzle:

A total of eleven shots were fired. 5 hit from the front. A total of five were shot from the front. How many shots hit from behind?
Click to expand...

So that's why I think it went down the way I've been saying. Now, if there were more shots fired, again, this all changes. But since most people agree that the police issue gun would hold what, 12 shots max? Then where would there be time to reload in all this?

And one thing no one seems to have noted is that if there WERE something like 15 shots fired, then how does this even help Darren Wilson? Doesn't this make him seem even more dangerous? Firing even more bullets at an unarmed person, who at most was suspected of stealing cigars?
 
Fudbucker said:
Baden said the last shots were to the head.

"Dr. Baden and Prof. Parcells said the two shots to the head were probably the last two shots fired."

http://www.newsweek.com/what-we-learned-michael-browns-autopsy-265247

So, do you care to revise your statement?
Click to expand...

He was talking about the first volley of six shots. One of those, probably the last or second to last, may have hit Brown's arm and caused him to stop. Whether he surrendered or charged after that, I have no idea.

Steve S
 
Fudbucker said:
No other news outlet has included it, which makes me highly suspicious of it.

If we automatically believe everything the NYTimes reports is true, they also reported this:

"An autopsy conducted on behalf of Mr. Brown’s family also found that he had been shot at least six times — including once in the face and once in the top of his head — with all bullets striking him in the front."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html

So if people want to claim the police have admitted that Wilson shot Brown as he was running away because The NY Times is reporting it, are those same people OK with the fact that ALL bullets struck Brown from the front? After all, the Times reported it.
Click to expand...

Why? In one case we're dealing with an interpretation of medical findings, something that's been proven to be inaccurate based on subsequent statements by Dr. Baden. But in the other, you're simply dealing with a known fact. Wilson exited his vehicle and fired at Brown as he was running away.

Question for you: if this is true, were those shots justified? Let's say that instead of all of them missing, one of them had hit him in the back and he died. Would that have been a justified shooting?
 
steve s said:
He was talking about the first volley of six shots. One of those, probably the last or second to last, may have hit Brown's arm and caused him to stop. Whether he surrendered or charged after that, I have no idea.

Steve S
Click to expand...

Precisely, which is why the audio recording is so important. If the second and third volleys are so close together and the second volley was fired as Brown ran away, then this calls into question Wilson's claim that Brown turned and charged him and forced him to kill Brown.

I think everyone realizes this, which is why they are attempting to create a fourth volley of shots that happened prior to the recording. There's no evidence of this, but if this fourth volley doesn't exist, then Wilson is in trouble.
 
Old man said:
Most people are WRONG. The Sig P229 holds 13.
Click to expand...

Well if that's true, then we need to know how many shell casings were found. If 10 shots are accounted for on the audio, and 1 is accounted for at the car, then there are two other shots that could have possibly been fired. Weren't there three casings found by the SUV?
 
And how do we know how many shots are fired? Are we going by the recording that has yet to be authenticated? Let's not forget:

"Chaim Haas confirms that, even though the service has verified the creation of the tape, that doesn’t mean that the sounds in the background are conclusively those of the Brown shooting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dio-recording/

All we have is a recording that took place during the incident. It could be real, or the sounds of gunshots could have been added later.

The fact that the person talking in the recording doesn't react in any way at all to a volley of gunshots doesn't exactly inspire confidence that it's authentic. Let's be a little skeptical here.
 
Unabogie said:
Why? In one case we're dealing with an interpretation of medical findings, something that's been proven to be inaccurate based on subsequent statements by Dr. Baden. But in the other, you're simply dealing with a known fact. Wilson exited his vehicle and fired at Brown as he was running away.

Question for you: if this is true, were those shots justified? Let's say that instead of all of them missing, one of them had hit him in the back and he died. Would that have been a justified shooting?
Click to expand...

If ALL the shots hit him in the back it could have been justified. The police can use deadly force even if someone is running away from them. If Brown attacked Wilson, tried to go for his gun, injured him, then Wilson could be justified in shooting Brown from behind. A person like that is a danger to innocent people.
 
Hey I have an idea. Let's compromise. Brown was not a thug and anyone who thinks it's possible that Wilson was justified in shooting him is not a racist.

Sound fair?
 
Fudbucker said:
And how do we know how many shots are fired? Are we going by the recording that has yet to be authenticated? Let's not forget:

"Chaim Haas confirms that, even though the service has verified the creation of the tape, that doesn’t mean that the sounds in the background are conclusively those of the Brown shooting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dio-recording/

All we have is a recording that took place during the incident. It could be real, or the sounds of gunshots could have been added later.

The fact that the person talking in the recording doesn't react in any way at all to a volley of gunshots doesn't exactly inspire confidence that it's authentic. Let's be a little skeptical here.
Click to expand...

NO, NO, NO, the sounds could not have been added later. Please take a moment to understand how this tech works.

Glide is a streaming media app. You stream video in real time, like you do with Skype. But's it's using something like Adobe's Media Server (previously FlashCom) to record the video on their servers. It's then saved out to an .H264 encoded file that lives on their servers (not your own phone), and then is available to be shared this way. The file the FBI got was timestamped from Glide's servers and was retrieved from Glide's servers. In other words, although it's possible this recording is of another shooting that happened precisely at the time Brown was being killed, there's no way this audio was created after the fact. Unless you think Glide.com is in on a conspiracy.

Understand now?
 
We don't know that officer Wilson emptied his firearm, or if he routinely kept a round in the chamber.

Keeping a round in the chamber increases the likelihood of an accidental discharge.
 
Fudbucker said:
If ALL the shots hit him in the back it could have been justified. The police can use deadly force even if someone is running away from them. If Brown attacked Wilson, tried to go for his gun, injured him, then Wilson could be justified in shooting Brown from behind. A person like that is a danger to innocent people.
Click to expand...

Well then we're likely to never agree on this subject, since I think that would have been outrageous. A trained police officer should be able to take a punch without resorting to his gun, but even if he's hit and then the suspect tries to run away, there's no reason to kill a person over that. The punishment for resisting arrest in a free society is not the death penalty.
 
Unabogie said:
Well let me just start by saying that if we find out there were more than 11 shots fired (from shell casings) then this won't be correct, but the reason I'm assuming the shot to the arm came from behind is because without that being true, the math doesn't add up. So let's start with a big IF.

IF there are only 11 shots, then group B had to be the six shots fired. Group C only has 4 shots fired, so that cannot possibly account for all six hits. IF the autopsy is correct, and 5 shots are from the front with 1 shot being possible as being from behind, then logic says the shot by the car had to have hit.

Picture a math logic puzzle:



So that's why I think it went down the way I've been saying. Now, if there were more shots fired, again, this all changes. But since most people agree that the police issue gun would hold what, 12 shots max? Then where would there be time to reload in all this?
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I have been getting most of my information from the discussions in this thread. I followed the news a little bit, in the beginning but stopped checking every breaking news alert when it started to get tedious, "breaking news: a source close to the investigation reveals that Michael Brown preferred Crest Pro mouthwash..."

It's not something I intend to argue, nor is it something that pushes me in either direction. I just know that Johnson seems pretty convinced that Brown received one bullet wound from the scuffle in the car and we have one bullet wound that does not match up with the rest. Like I said, it's not the case cracker, I just want to know if that's possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom