Michael Brown shooting II

[PhantomWolf]

A.) Where do you get the time between shots? B.) How do you explain the wounds?

A) There is an audio of the shooting
B) Brown was bent over head down in an attempted tackle position when struck.

 

[qayak]

A) There is an audio of the shooting
B) Brown was bent over head down in an attempted tackle position when struck.

35 feet away and no road rash from hitting the concrete at a full run as he was shot dead. . . riiiiight!

 

[qayak]

There isn't that much blood about the scene for him to be passing out from loss of blood, and he happily ran 170 odd feet without showing any effect from the trauma. That he was drugged up and likely on an adrenalin high, being shot in the arm would not be a debilitating injury.[/QUOTE]

Evidence for that statement?

Exactly right. A shot to the arm may very well make him double over which would explain the two shots to the chest and those would explain the shots to the head.

A headlong rush at the cop would fail to account for the upward trajectory of the arm wounds. They would be downward if that lie claim were true.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Okay time once and for all to kill this whole "He was falling Myth"

Time for a Physics lesson. All objects unaffected by air resistance fall at the same.

This rate is based on Earth's Gravity, which has an acceleration of 9.81m/s²
We know that the final 4 shots were fired in a time of 2 second based on the audio recording of the shooting.

The shortest time for the three hits is ~1.5 seconds.

Brown was 77 inches tall or 1.9558m tall

Assuming he was standing tall, so his head is at it's highest, we know that it must fall 1.95m to get to the ground, and the acceleration is 9.81m/s²
s = v₁t + 1/2 at²
Thus we can rearrange to

t = sqrt(2s/a)

Plugging in the values

t = dqrt(2 * 1.95 / 9.81)

thus t = 0.6315 seconds.

It is thus impossible for all three shots to have hit Brown while he was falling, especially since the first would have had to have hit him halfway down, not standing perfectly upright.

Can we never hear this myth again now?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Exactly right. A shot to the arm may very well make him double over which would explain the two shots to the chest and those would explain the shots to the head.

A headlong rush at the cop would fail to account for the upward trajectory of the arm wounds. They would be downward if that lie claim were true.

The lower arm had an upward track, it also had soot which means it was hit from between 6 and 9 inches.

The upper arm wound is not an upward track, and more distinctly, it is from the from to the back. When you raise your arms, the upper arm rotates so if hit would be back to front in direction.

The chest wounds both require him to already be bent over when hit, and when bent over, the hit to the fore head lines up perfectly with the second hit in the chest, a single bullet created all three wounds (entrance in forehead, exit at chin, and entrance into chest)

The thing is that no witnesses report seeing this happen. A number report him being hit in the first volley of 6, but they report that he appeared to look for the hit and keep walking and Wilson telling him to stop. No one has him folding after the first volley shots.

The problem you guys have is that instead of looking at the evidence and figuring out a scenario that fits, you dream up a scenario and then say, but what about this, when there is zero evidence to back up it's occurring, and plenty of evidence that something else occurred.

 

[Cylinder]

35 feet away and no road rash from hitting the concrete at a full run as he was shot dead. . . riiiiight!

Q: Okay. So the next. photo is?

A: This is Image 51. This is a close-up of that left hand and it; is just this little injury right. here. Technically it is an abrasion, this is what. I'm focusing an right here.

...

A: Image 56. So we're looking at Mr. Michael Brown's head is here, we are looking at the dorsal or the back side of the left hand and there's an injury right here.

Q: And for the record, or just so we go through this would you consider this an abrasion?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Okay.

A: As previously mentioned, this is just a closer, I'm sorry, image. This is a close-up view of that previous abrasion here on the dorsal aspect of the posterior of the back side of the left wrist and there's an abrasion there.

Same image again of that abrasion on the left wrist, back side posterior, just only thing different is the introduction of a ruler.

...

Q: This is 95?

A: This is 95. This is the right side of Mr. Michael Brown's face. I am wanting you to focus on this wound right here, which is a gunshot entrance wound. This stuff here, these are abrasions. I'll just describe them.

So up here on the right forehead, this kind of irregular area right here. This is an abrasion, as I said before, an abrasion is just where that superficial layer of the skin rubbed off and exposes that underlying soft tissue. That particular abrasion right there measures about 7 centimeters at its greatest dimension, kind of the longest point.

Then there is one over here on the lateral part of his face, it is kind of dried, meaning when I say dried, see how it is kind of discolored, this is more pink, this is dried.

That's an abrasion right there on the right side of the face.

And then let's see. And then over here, you will see it later, out there on the lip he has got some abrasions here on the inside of this lip.​

I think I missed a couple there I'll have to fetch out later.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There isn't that much blood about the scene for him to be passing out from loss of blood, and he happily ran 170 odd feet without showing any effect from the trauma. That he was drugged up and likely on an adrenalin high, being shot in the arm would not be a debilitating injury.

Evidence for that statement?

None of the witnesses that reported seeing him hit in first the volley of 6 bullets have his doubling up at that point. That and it's well documented that people on drugs and adrenaline are able to carry on easily with such wounds, in fact even more severe wounds haven't stopped them. We've posted a video here of a guy that was shot in the heart and still managed to get back into his vehicle and drive for a mile before dying.

 

[Cylinder]

The lower arm had an upward track, it also had soot which means it was hit from between 6 and 9 inches.

Yup. It's fairly evident that the right palm injury was the first and was inflicted during the struggle in/near the patrol vehicle.

- It was the only time by any account the two were in that proximity.

- It coincides with the fine detail of Wilson's account of the struggle including the appearance of blood on his clothing.

- It is corroborated by the bloody handprints on Wilson's vehicle.

- It explains multiple witness accounts of Brown's right hand being balled up and drawn into his waistband.

Like you, I agree that the face and head wounds track so closely that they were in sequence.

I'll have to go back and look, Wilson claimed to have memory of at least one round finding its mark -- I can't remember if that was the facial wound or the chest wound.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'll have to go back and look, Wilson claimed to have memory of at least one round finding its mark -- I can't remember if that was the facial wound or the chest wound.

He thought that he hit Brown with the first volley, as did other witnesses. If he did, that had to be the hit to the upper arm. He also recalls the final hit to the centre of the head, stating that Brown dropped directly after it.

 

[Aber]

It is thus impossible for all three shots to have hit Brown while he was falling, especially since the first would have had to have hit him halfway down, not standing perfectly upright.

Can we never hear this myth again now?

You're assuming that he was falling straight down without resistance, why?

It seems more likely that he was toppling/stumbling, which would give a longer time before he hit the ground.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You're assuming that he was falling straight down without resistance, why?

It seems more likely that he was toppling/stumbling, which would give a longer time before he hit the ground.

It doesn't really matter, once he started falling, gravity takes over, there is no longer resistance, that is what falling is. If he's stumbling, he's not falling, if he's falling and his torso is parallel to the ground, he's going one way without delay

Note that the 0.63 seconds is from a full on standing position, if he's bent over, then it takes under half a second between fall and ground, and there is no indication that he used his hands to break his fall when he actually did fall, so there is nothing slowing him down. (Trust me on this one, I've actually done it, and it's not something you want to repeat too often, it goes stumble, splat.)

The bullet tracks show that his torso was pretty much in the same position for at least 1.5 seconds. This is simply impossible if he was falling.

As for toppling, once things topple, they accelerate at the same rate as if they were falling.

 

[RandFan]

It is thus impossible for all three shots to have hit Brown while he was falling, especially since the first would have had to have hit him halfway down, not standing perfectly upright.

Can we never hear this myth again now?

Is the evidence consistent with someone who is struggling and trying to remain on his feet? My understanding that Brown was struck twice in the head indicative that he was going down.

Who runs 35' with their head parallel to the ground?

 

[RandFan]

The bullet tracks show that his torso was pretty much in the same position for at least 1.5 seconds. This is simply impossible if he was falling.

What is the basis for your time of 1.5 seconds? Is it impossible that Brown was struggling to remain on his feet?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is the evidence consistent with someone who is struggling and trying to remain on his feet? My understanding that Brown was struck twice in the head indicative that he was going down.

If he was struggling to stay on his feet, he would have been moving about, his head and torso would not have remained in almost the exact same position for those three shots.

Who runs 35' with their head parallel to the ground?

A person who is not really thinking but acting on the chemicals washing their his brain and going into fight mode so decides to tackle the person 35 feet away. Also the head likely wouldn't be exactly parallel to the ground, but rather to the shooter's gun and arm so he was probably at about 60-75 degrees.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What is the basis for your time of 1.5 seconds? Is it impossible that Brown was struggling to remain on his feet?

The audio of the shots, the final four shots took 2 seconds. I guess you could say 0.66666 Seconds if you want, but 0.5 makes the math easier, and going to 2/3 is actually worse for you because then any fall would have been over between shots.

If Brown was struggling to stay on his feet them his body and head would have been moving around. They wouldn't have been in a consistent position for the 3 shots.

 

[RandFan]

If he was struggling to stay on his feet, he would have been moving about, his head and torso would not have remained in almost the exact same position for those three shots.

Had he been charging his head would have been moving about and not have been in almost the exact same position.

A person who is not really thinking but acting on the chemicals washing their his brain and going into fight mode so decides to tackle the person 35 feet away. Also the head likely wouldn't be exactly parallel to the ground, but rather to the shooter's gun and arm so he was probably at about 60-75 degrees.

I've been a football fan since about the age of 3. I've never seen anyone run 35 yards with their head parallel to the ground. Try it some time. 5' yeah, I can believe that. 10' not likely >20' there is a good reason to doubt. Not impossible but doesn't make much sense.

 

[RandFan]

If he was struggling to stay on his feet, he would have been moving about, his head and torso would not have remained in almost the exact same position for those three shots.

There problem here, is that you seem to suggest that the evidence is conclusive. I'm not saying that it is impossible for Wilson's story to be correct, I'm saying there is good reason to be skeptical. IMO: The facts match far better to a person who has been shot and is struggling on his way down.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1. An argument is either valid or it isn't. Wecht makes a very compelling argument.
2. Do you even bother to read my posts? How many times must I explain why this case bothers me? If you find my language or terms objectionable then that's fine. My concerns are the same as Dave's.
3. He didn't resolve why Brown was shot in the top of the head.
4. I don't know why Wilson pursued Brown. I don't know why Brown would flee Wilson and then turn and charge Wilson. That doesn't make any sense.

1. AFAIK, Wecht makes an argument that relies on an examination of the body and the physical evidence. Yet he didn't examine the body. The people who did are not making the argument he is making. So his argument may or may not be valid, but before we even get there ... is it sound ?

2. Yes, I've read all your posts. Let's start here:

I've not vilified Wilson. I've stated categorically that I don't know.

In any event, weighing of the evidence does not at all work that way. Most importantly, the police report does not jive with the evidence. There are important inconsistencies that don't square the official story.
An honest person will say "I don't know" when the evidence is far from conclusive. In this case it is far, far, from conclusive.

The only inconsistency I have seen you reference is this:

I did not see your post. I sincerely apologize. However, I provided the video of Cyril Wecht. Brown could have only been shot in the top of the head with the bullet exiting out of his chin if he were falling. His wounds are consistent with someone who was shot while incapacitated.

And there is no real inconsistency there.

Here are your posts after that:

Thanks everyone.
I hate to be a downer but It's been a long day for me. I'll be back.

I've already said I accept the decision. I accepted the OJ verdict also. I'm bothered by aspects of this case that's all.

There was an altercation (this often angers cops). Brown fled. Is it possible that Wilson was angry? Why would Brown charge an armed officer after fleeing him?
None of this demonstrates anything conclusively. It's reason for us to have some humility and admit that we honestly cannot know what happened.

Thanks Mike!

Thanks Phantom, I'll re-read the testimony and give the case a fresh look. One small thing, there are cases of good cops going their entire career and then doing something stupid. That's not outside of the realm of possibility.
Now, I will say that those who feel the weight of the evidence makes it more likely than not that the incident transpired the way Wilson says are reasonable.
What I don't accept are those who act as if they know. Things are not always as they appear. We have video evidence of other incidents that likely would have turned out very differently had there been no video.

I can think of 3 off the top of my head where the video does not at all match what eyewitnesses said and/or what the police have said.

Don't be so certain you know what happened when you were not there. If you want to draw a conclusion then that's fine. That's your right. The system came to a conclusion and I accept that justice is a system and not an outcome. Sometimes we need to discuss and improve that system.

Brown actions directly resulted in his death. His actions might very well be solely responsible for his death. The problem is this, to what extent if any does "us vs them" play a role in these incidents? Is there some degree of bias and contempt that results in more people unnecessarily dying? Not every incident in which an armed suspect is confronted by police ends in multiple shots fired while the suspect/perpetrator is falling to the ground.

Officers can and do try to save the lives of armed citizens who are a known threat. Is it fair for citizens like me to question whether or not there are larger underlying considerations and that we might consider more training and different policies along with improved community relations? Or is the risk to hard working and decent officers simply too great and so long as it's plausible that an officer is in danger he or she has every right to use deadly force?

If I were the office I damn well would have been angry. I don't know if the officer acted professionally or treated Brown with contempt. Regardless, given that Brown had committed a robbery I'm less likely to by sympathetic to Brown.

It's my fault for failing to adequately explain my position. So let me try again.

1. It's possible that Wilson acted out of anger and shot Brown unnecessarily.
2. It's possible that Wilson was not in fear of his life the moment he fired multiple shots at Brown.

I have tried to be as clear as can be and I have said over and over, "I don't know". The case bothers me. Having honestly tried to see this case from every possible perspective I only get back cognitive dissonance. I'm not at all confident that this wasn't someone who lost it, had the opportunity, and took another life.
That said, I accept the GJ decision. I accept our justice system. I simply think that right or wrong, there is a perception that law enforcement has moved away from protecting and serving and see citizens more as enemy combatants than fellow Americans.
I have no definitive data or statistics to justify my perceptions or intuition. I have searched and found data on both sides of the proposition. At this time I simply think we need to have a national dialog and consider the direction that law enforcement is headed. I don't think we should be silent when people are dying and citizens are telling us that there are real problems between the police and the community.

Because I don't think it is at all clear that Wilson acted appropriately. Because Brown was shot in the arm consistent with his arms being raised. Because Brown was shot multiple times as he was falling.

Great post Dave. Thank you.

Are you being intentionally gratuitous and vulgar? What is this supposed to mean?

It's really not.

Loss of blood. Trauma from being shot.

1. There is much to cause me to think he did. Obviously you discount everything I've said so there's no more I can do.
2. I provided the video of forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht who disagrees with you.
3. Be honest with me, is there anything I could say and do that would have any bearing on your perspective? From where I'm sitting it seems you have your fingers in your ears and you are humming loudly. I can't make you consider the arguments I've made.

I don't get it. How does the claim:

"Evidence makes it more likely than not that the incident transpired the way Wilson says."

Comport with:

"the police report does not jive with the evidence. There are important inconsistencies that don't square the official story."

3. I think Cylinder and PhantomWolf have gone above and beyond patiently rehashing the details of how the physical evidence fits the scenario

4. You may never know, but you've been given Wilsons testimony of what he was thinking and his explanation of why he did what he did.


What I get out of your recent posts is that you would really like to be inside Wilsons and Browns head to know what they were thinking:

I have tried to be as clear as can be and I have said over and over, "I don't know". The case bothers me. Having honestly tried to see this case from every possible perspective I only get back cognitive dissonance. I'm not at all confident that this wasn't someone who lost it, had the opportunity, and took another life.

That's not an argument, it's a position. And you seem to be offended or upset that others are comfortable with the conclusions they have come to about what happened in this case.

I'm sorry if you think I am singling you out, or if you think I didn't read your posts. I hope this response cleared things up.

 

[Bikewer]

I'm reading all of the above posts with some degree of bemusement..... Unless someone can provide high-quality video of the entire incident with the exact position and movement of all the actors and the trajectories of all the projectiles fired......This is an exercise in futility.

You have the body, you have the results of the (Three!) autopsies..... That's it. The medical examiners made their determination. The Grand Jury made it's determination.

Trying to make a second-by-second analysis of the incident without further evidence is futile.

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry if you think I am singling you out, or if you think I didn't read your posts. I hope this response cleared things up.

I'm a big boy, I can take it. Your response is, IMO, an attempt to ad hoc rationalize your position. I have provided what I think are inconsistencies between what Wilson has said and what the evidence show.

It is most certainly possible that the events transpired as the report indicates and that there is anomalous data. Those things are not remotely mutually exclusive.

I have problems with the official findings. Those problems are an honest and sincere expression of my feelings about this case. You might think my issues are misplaced. That's fine, but I've made my position quite clear. IMO: Your responses to me have not at all been an attempt to grant me the principle of charity but instead looking to semantics trying to find a "gotcha".

1. The initial report was that Brown was within 35' of the police vehicle. That is not true.
2. It has been said that Brown was charging Wilson while being struck on the inside of his arm/wrist.
3. It has been stated that it is unlikely that Brown was charging Wilson with his head parallel to the ground. Had Wilson been 3-5 feet of Wilson this would have made sense. I walked outside, paced off 35 feet, bent my body so it was parallel to the ground and attempted to charge. Now, you try it, how far did you get?

I would contend that these claims are not consistent with the evidence.