Michael Brown shooting II

[KatieG]

I suspect Michael Brown might have been going into shock. He'd already been shot in the hand/arm, so the chances are good his body was beginning to react to the pain.

No one, not even the self proclaimed experts here, know what was happening in the final moments of this tragedy.

 

[Cylinder]

Simply turning back does not make him a threat, even charging head down does not make him a significant threat - my memory is that it is easy to avoid a tackler who is more than a couple of yards away.

That's a detail that bothers me. If Brown was running forward while looking straight down at the ground, honestly, how difficult would it have been to just... move out of his way? You could play matador all day with a person who doesn't know if you're actually still in front of them as they're blindly running forward.

In the context of the previous assault and retention struggle, though, the reasonableness of the threat tends to gain an extra order of magnitude. Those are fairly hard to dispute.

 

[Cylinder]

No one, not even the self proclaimed experts here, know what was happening in the final moments of this tragedy.

That seems to kind of raise the issue of what exactly is the probable cause, then. That doesn't require expert qualifications. What's the scenario that inculpates Wilson and is supported by evidence?

 

[Cylinder]

After lying for months about the irregularity of sending this charge to a grand jury, the New York Times features another case similar in circumstance and awaiting a grand jury decision.

You've been fooled.

 

[KatieG]

After lying for months about the irregularity of sending this charge to a grand jury, the New York Times features another case similar in circumstance and awaiting a grand jury decision.

You've been fooled.

Who's been fooled? And by what?

 

[Cylinder]

Who's been fooled? And by what?

Anyone that's argued that sending this case to a grand jury was somehow irregular, illegal or dodgy. Uncritical thinking.

 

[stanfr]

Anyone that's argued that sending this case to a grand jury was somehow irregular, illegal or dodgy. Uncritical thinking.

The act of sending it to the GJ certainly wasn't irregular (aside from the fact that a less public case may never have even gotten that far) What was irregular was the way the prosecutor basically acted as Wilson's defense counsel in the proceedings. Makes one take pause....
This case on the other hand has the huge advantage of having video of the incident, no avoiding that.

 

[stanfr]

There were two shots fired at the police vehicle, almost certainly where the graze to his hand was inflicted (they found residue from a tiny part of his thumb in the vehicle to go with the soot in the wound). Then Michael Brown takes off running and the tape that Wildcat posted starts. That's when six shots were fired, a pause I counted as two seconds and you counted as three, then four more shots. There's a total of eight wounds, six entry and two grazes. The one to his hand is from before, so we can narrow it down to seven wounds that must be accounted for, from four bullets. If you try to claim the graze to the inside of the arm was made by a bullet that made another entry wound then you've eliminated the possibility it was made from the rear as all the other entry wounds had to come from the front or top.

Now perhaps I misunderstood, but I got the impression you were saying that Michael Brown was shot at while fleeing and the pause logically indicated that Michael Brown had stopped and turned around due to this line of your post:



My point is that doesn't match the evidence, even though I do agree (and originally assumed on more limited information) that it would make sense (and matches some witness testimony) that the reason Michael Brown stopped was he'd been hit and then he turned and the final altercation took place. The math doesn't add up though, and while it's possible Wilson fired at a fleeing Brown there's scant evidence that it occurred, and in no way is it possible that the six shots were fired at a fleeing Michael Brown.

You need to look at all the autopsy reports, and compare to the diagrams. There were six wounds, additional re-entry and grazes. Clearly the fatal ones came from the final four shots. Conceivably, one of the arm wounds could have been while fleeing, or immediately after he turned.

 

[Nihilianth]

Without any knowledge of your age, memory, physical build etc this doesn't really add anything. Neither does all the discussion about football tackles without evidence that Michael Brown had any experience of making tackles (there seems to be an unspoken assumption that because he was large and black he must have football experience at school).

The 'charging head down to make a tackle' position is an unstable one which requires a large amount of acceleration from a standing start like a sprinter, and which is only sustainable for a few yards. Michael Brown wasn't built like a sprinter, had probably just run faster and further than he had anytime recently ( without shoes), and didn't have cleats.

I've not seen any evidence on how far apart the two were when Michael Brown turned around, how long after he'd turned around and started moving back before the shooting started and what was said in that time.

Simply turning back does not make him a threat, even charging head down does not make him a significant threat - my memory is that it is easy to avoid a tackler who is more than a couple of yards away.

Actually, it takes training and skill to NOT put your head down when you are about to make a tackle in football. (Putting your head down, causes a lot more severe head injuries than otherwise. It also causes you to miss tackles more often. And it is the natural position a newb football player assumes when they want to smother someone. Football teams at all levels work VERY hard to breaking that bad habit.)

But you are right: You don;t charge head-down like that for more than a few yards.

What I THINK may have happened, is that he started charging Wilson with his head down, then Wilson fired 10 shots at him, hitting him 6 times in rapid succession. Brown's momentum kept him going forward a few more paces, before his body hits the pavement.

When you think about it, 20 feet actually is not all that far to travel in a very short period of time.

That's a detail that bothers me. If Brown was running forward while looking straight down at the ground, honestly, how difficult would it have been to just... move out of his way? You could play matador all day with a person who doesn't know if you're actually still in front of them as they're blindly running forward.

I think, in the heat of the moment, you are not going to be thinking that logically. However, IMO, a trained officer of the law should be able to make decisions like that fairly quickly.

 

[stanfr]

Yeah, the audio, combined with how far away from the first blood splatters the body was....is pretty damning. The audio is what convinced me. The gun was fired in pretty rapid succession. For a person to move 20 feet in that short a time after being first shot, means he must have been moving.

It's unclear where the blood was coming from, some have argued it was from the original hand wound. In any case the final 21-25 feet likely came from the final 5 seconds of the audio of the shots. 5 ft/s is 3.4 mph, NOT a charge. Conceivably the 25 foot forward movement could have started during the initial 6 shot flurry, which would mean that Brown was moving even slower overall.
I haven't done an exhaustive read of all the forensics, does anyone know if they did an analysis on the blood splatters? Would be partly dependent on the flow rate of course, but I would think you could at least come up with a rough idea of forward movement based on the patterns and spread.

 

[stanfr]

All snark aside, it's possible that at times Michael Brown was an amazing human being. He could have been caring, loving, and a complete angel....at times. We all can be. The only point is that he certainly wasn't on that specific day. That isn't decided by one specific action, it is decided by a chain of events.

I get a kick out of people saying "why would Brown do x" or "why would Brown do y, I certainly wouldn't have and it's not sensible."

Answer me, how many of Browns other actions are sensible to you? Would you steal from a store if you wanted something? Would you intimidate the owner to get what you want? Would you walk down the middle of the road for no other reason than you wanted too? Despite Mumbles...analysis of the sidewalk condition, they were in perfect shape. You can see it from all the pictures.

Would you refuse to get out of the road when told to by a police officer? Would you, despite davefoc weird insinuation that it's understandable, attack a police officer? I know I certainly wouldn't, and my parents never EVER taught me to do anything remotely close. I also have never even thought of teaching my children the same. To imply something like that is madness to me.

Think of all the things Michael Brown did that day, not as individual events, but as a series of events that led to the conclusion. At the end of that, sit back and ask, "Were any, or even most, of his decisions that he made that day the decisions of a rational or clear thinking man?"

I have openly stated that it is tragic that this man lost his life. I don't know what caused him to reach this level of indecency. It has nothing to do with his skin color, that much I do know. I wish he were alive so we could ask him questions, and find out what was going on in his head. Sometimes it's just not that easy.

It was the pot, man. Wilson noticed it right away on his socks, and concluded correctly that Brown was Satan incarnate. He must have been, haven't you seen Reefer madness?

 

[stanfr]

This has been answered a few times, so my answer is likely to be similar.

I suspect, and I can't prove because no one actually knows what was in his head, that after being shot at the car he was at first planning to run and get away. By the time he got to the extend of the run, he realised that injured and likely not as fit as the officer, he wasn't going to lose him. With a combination of adrenalin, endorphins, and the THC in his system, his flight or fight reaction switched back to fight and he decided that he had a chance to tackle Wilson. At that point I don't think he was thinking right, he quite likely believed that surrendering wasn't an option, either because he believed his actions would result in a lengthy jail sentence, or perhaps he believed that since this cop has already shot him once, he'd do it again regardless of what he did. That might bot be so far fetched with several people claiming that Wilson executed Brown on his knees basis purely on "That's what cops do." So this may have been a factor.

So while I don't think we can entirely understand the why, it does seem that he thought that he had a chance of tackling Wilson and taking his gun, likely using it to get away, maybe by pointing it and telling Wilson not to follow, or perhaps to use it to inflict and injury of some kind.

In the end though, we just don't really know.

Interesting speculation...thanks for the response! Of course, we actually have witnesses who claim Brown said "I give up" (not too credible) and "OK, OK..." (credible IMO, and indicating likely concession). The tricky part if you take the position (as I do) that Brown was probably giving up, is that the obvious way to do that would have been to drop to the ground (not even 'hands up') Indeed, even some of the witnesses favorable to Brown said they were bewildered why he kept advancing ("why did the boy keep moving...?). Your response indicates one possibility, maybe he thought that he had had an even greater chance of being shot if he dropped to the ground, knowing that he had already angered Wilson. In that case, he might have thought a safer alternative was to plea for his life. The only way to do that would be to move forward to make the plea, while making conciliatory gestures (hands raised, verbal statements).

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of course, we actually have witnesses who claim Brown said "I give up" (not too credible) and "OK, OK..." (credible IMO, and indicating likely concession). .

If your witness for the "Ok, Ok" is #14, I suggest you reread his testimony.

 

[Kaosium]

You need to look at all the autopsy reports, and compare to the diagrams. There were six wounds, additional re-entry and grazes. Clearly the fatal ones came from the final four shots. Conceivably, one of the arm wounds could have been while fleeing, or immediately after he turned.

This is the summary sheet from the OME that I posted, it indicates six entry wounds and two grazes. The graze to the thumb (III D) is almost certainly the one inflicted during the struggle in/at the car due to the soot in the wound indicating it was fired from 6"-9"and the recovery of a tiny portion of Michael Brown's thumb from the vehicle. I have seen no evidence outside speculation that the other graze also caused an entry wound. The official autopsy also indicates six entrance wounds and two grazes, as well as three exit wounds. Three bullets were found in the body and the three exit wounds mean those wouldn't be recovered, which accounts for all the major trauma of being hit solidly by six bullets. However he was also grazed by two bullets, one on the hand (thumb) and the other on the right bicep.

My point was that the evidence suggests Michael Brown was hit by eight bullets, one having come from the altercation at the vehicle which leaves seven that were inflicted from the following 6+4 shots fired after he fled. As only one of those might have been inflicted from the rear and the rest definitely from the front, any scenario must take that into account, especially considering the rapid fire of both volleys--meaning Michael Brown couldn't have turned around between bullets--and the final four bullets are not enough to account for all the wounds that definitely hit from the front. Thus logically Michael Brown was facing, charging or falling forward towards Officer Wilson when he was hit by the bullets in the last two volleys of six and then four.

 

[Mike!]

This is the summary sheet from the OME that I posted, it indicates six entry wounds and two grazes. The graze to the thumb (III D) is almost certainly the one inflicted during the struggle in/at the car due to the soot in the wound indicating it was fired from 6"-9"and the recovery of a tiny portion of Michael Brown's thumb from the vehicle. I have seen no evidence outside speculation that the other graze also caused an entry wound. The official autopsy also indicates six entrance wounds and two grazes, as well as three exit wounds. Three bullets were found in the body and the three exit wounds mean those wouldn't be recovered, which accounts for all the major trauma of being hit solidly by six bullets. However he was also grazed by two bullets, one on the hand (thumb) and the other on the right bicep.

My point was that the evidence suggests Michael Brown was hit by eight bullets, one having come from the altercation at the vehicle which leaves seven that were inflicted from the following 6+4 shots fired after he fled. As only one of those might have been inflicted from the rear and the rest definitely from the front, any scenario must take that into account, especially considering the rapid fire of both volleys--meaning Michael Brown couldn't have turned around between bullets--and the final four bullets are not enough to account for all the wounds that definitely hit from the front. Thus logically Michael Brown was facing, charging or falling forward towards Officer Wilson when he was hit by the bullets in the last two volleys of six and then four.

Well thought out discussion and facts have no place at this table.

 

[Aber]

This is the summary sheet from the OME that I posted, it indicates six entry wounds and two grazes. The graze to the thumb (III D) is almost certainly the one inflicted during the struggle in/at the car due to the soot in the wound indicating it was fired from 6"-9"and the recovery of a tiny portion of Michael Brown's thumb from the vehicle. I have seen no evidence outside speculation that the other graze also caused an entry wound. The official autopsy also indicates six entrance wounds and two grazes, as well as three exit wounds. Three bullets were found in the body and the three exit wounds mean those wouldn't be recovered, which accounts for all the major trauma of being hit solidly by six bullets. However he was also grazed by two bullets, one on the hand (thumb) and the other on the right bicep.

Thus logically Michael Brown was facing, charging or falling forward towards Officer Wilson when he was hit by the bullets in the last two volleys of six and then four.

Does this not point to a couple of hits in the first volley, and then Michael Brown stumbling/ falling forward during the second volley, given the angle of the last shots?

A couple of other questions:
What distance were the various witnesses fromm the scene, and what implications does that have been the timing of what they saw, against what they heard?
What impact would the shots at the SUV have on the hearing of both?

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is the summary sheet from the OME that I posted, it indicates six entry wounds and two grazes. The graze to the thumb (III D) is almost certainly the one inflicted during the struggle in/at the car due to the soot in the wound indicating it was fired from 6"-9"and the recovery of a tiny portion of Michael Brown's thumb from the vehicle. I have seen no evidence outside speculation that the other graze also caused an entry wound. The official autopsy also indicates six entrance wounds and two grazes, as well as three exit wounds. Three bullets were found in the body and the three exit wounds mean those wouldn't be recovered, which accounts for all the major trauma of being hit solidly by six bullets. However he was also grazed by two bullets, one on the hand (thumb) and the other on the right bicep.

My point was that the evidence suggests Michael Brown was hit by eight bullets, one having come from the altercation at the vehicle which leaves seven that were inflicted from the following 6+4 shots fired after he fled. As only one of those might have been inflicted from the rear and the rest definitely from the front, any scenario must take that into account, especially considering the rapid fire of both volleys--meaning Michael Brown couldn't have turned around between bullets--and the final four bullets are not enough to account for all the wounds that definitely hit from the front. Thus logically Michael Brown was facing, charging or falling forward towards Officer Wilson when he was hit by the bullets in the last two volleys of six and then four.

I think you are miscounting. Are you remembering to take into consideration that the bullet that struck the forehead and exited the lower face is the same one that then penetrated the chest and ended up at the 3rd rib?

He has two through and through hits to the arm, one to the top of the head which remained in the head. One to the forehead, that exited and re-entered the torso, Once that hit the torso and ended up at the 8th rib, and two grazes, however, and I might have to recheck, I get the feeling that the one that grazed the thumb was also the one that went through the lower arm. So by that count it'd either be only 6 or at most 7.

 

[Kaosium]

Well thought out discussion and facts have no place at this table.

Heh, I revel in my deviancy!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe that the Autopsy results indicate that it was a lot more then 45 degrees. The Private autopsy says parallel to the ground, which would put him at near enough to 90 degrees

I believe 90 degrees is parallel to the ground in many jurisdictions..


I was responding to RandFan's comments about 45 degrees.


90 Degrees does not rule out the ' falling forward ' scenario, but it would rule out a shot after he was down on the ground..

 

[Kaosium]

I think you are miscounting. Are you remembering to take into consideration that the bullet that struck the forehead and exited the lower face is the same one that then penetrated the chest and ended up at the 3rd rib?

No, I recall hearing something about that a while back from the private autopsy but couldn't find it anywhere in the official documents. I recall reading that the person who did much of the work on that autopsy was in hot water for something so I decided to stick to the official documents.

Of course that's perfectly possible and makes sense, depending on what the position of the body was at that juncture.

He has two through and through hits to the arm, one to the top of the head which remained in the head. One to the forehead, that exited and re-entered the torso, Once that hit the torso and ended up at the 8th rib, and two grazes, however, and I might have to recheck, I get the feeling that the one that grazed the thumb was also the one that went through the lower arm. So by that count it'd either be only 6 or at most 7.

If the bullet that grazed the thumb also hit the arm I have to wonder why there's not any blood of Michael Brown between the vehicle and where he ran to. A graze might not bleed, (much) but that entrance wound ought to have.


ETA: Regarding the possibility of bullets exiting and re-entering or a graze also being caused by a bullet that caused an entry wound, here's the reference from the Grand Jury testimony of the forensic pathologist, it starts on the bottom of P. 145. I'd paste it but I don't know how to get those kinds of files to copy. They ask and the answer is that it's possible but they have no way of telling with any of these wounds.