Michael Brown shooting II

[WildCat]

You might be interested in this:

Apparently we've decided that we won't tolerate broken windows any more. But we haven't found the fortitude to do something about broken people. To put it plainly: just as neighborhood thugs could once break windows with impunity, police officers can generally kill with impunity. They can shoot unarmed men and lie about it. They can roll up and execute a child with a toy as casually as one might in Grand Theft Auto. They can bumble around opening doors with their gun hand and kill bystanders, like a character in a dark farce, with little fear of serious consequences. They can choke you to death for getting a little mouthy about selling loose cigarettes. They can shoot you because they aren't clear on who the bad guy is, and they can shoot you because they're terrible shots, and they can shoot you because they saw something that might be a weapon in your hand — something that can be, frankly, any *********** thing at all, including nothing.

http://www.popehat.com/

Is hyperbole an argument now?

 

[Giz]

You might be interested in this:

Apparently we've decided that we won't tolerate broken windows any more. But we haven't found the fortitude to do something about broken people. To put it plainly: just as neighborhood thugs could once break windows with impunity, police officers can generally kill with impunity. They can shoot unarmed men and lie about it. They can roll up and execute a child with a toy as casually as one might in Grand Theft Auto. They can bumble around opening doors with their gun hand and kill bystanders, like a character in a dark farce, with little fear of serious consequences. They can choke you to death for getting a little mouthy about selling loose cigarettes. They can shoot you because they aren't clear on who the bad guy is, and they can shoot you because they're terrible shots, and they can shoot you because they saw something that might be a weapon in your hand — something that can be, frankly, any *********** thing at all, including nothing.

http://www.popehat.com/

You might be interested in this:

Apparently, we've decided that strong emotions and moral indignation should negate evidence and logic on a skeptics board. We won't tolerate people getting bad outcomes even when it was their decisions that led to the bad outcomes. We will demand unreasonable and impractical burdens and procedures for irrational but emotionally cathartic reasons.

 

[davefoc]

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?

A different take courtesy of SketchyPhysics:

 

[Cylinder]

Vol III; pp 164-172

[St. Louis County Assistant ME discussing the autopsy photo of Wound 1 to the top of Brown's head]

STLCO ME: All right. so this particular one I think is probably Number 1. We are going to be looking at Wound Number 1 on the autopsy report. This is the gunshot entrance wound to the vertex of the scalp.

So positioning as I always do, it is 20 centimeters above the level of the ear, we are also going up from here. And it's, and it's near the actual midline of the head. Sn if you look, it is pretty much in the center, kind of dead on.

The hole measures 10 millimeters by 8 millimeters. It's roughly round and it has pretty level edges.

Now. when you loo at the edges as I always do. you can kind of see this little bit of pink tissue around there. that's that abrasion collar that is going to let you know theoretically this is an entrance wound.

Now I have to caveat with gunshot entrance wounds to the head. You should never just purely go by the classical thing that we talked about - arasion rings and contusions. The problem with it is the head is a skull that's underneath and that bone creates a different type of resistant path for the bullet to pass through.

The best way to determine if there is an entrance or an exit wound of the skull is on my examination, when I reflect the scalp, which is a normal part of the procedure and remove tne skull cap. when you look at the actual hole, and I think there will be some pictures eventually, we'll get to that.

When you actually look at the hole, there is a concept called beveling. Beveling is uhere you will see an outpouching of the bone. Since the outpouching of the bone is to the inner table of the gunshot wound, that's an entrance wound. If the beveling or cutpouching is on the outside of the outer table of the skull, that's called external beveling that's an exit wound.

So when I get to it, this particular wound had internal beveling, an that lets me know for sure that this is an entrance wound to the head. It is pretty much every time, I just want to make sure you understand that.

MS. WHIRLEY: Sheila Whirley. I know you can't tell exactly what posistion Michael Brown have been in to have the shot to the top of his head? STLCO ME: The shot fired has to be above the head. So in theory, if I'm sitting here and somebody's up there and shoots down, you have to be above, the shot has to be fired above his head in order for this to happen.
MS. ALIZADEH: Kathi Alizadeh. When you say above. you're talking the anatomical diagram?

STLCO ME: Right.

MS. ALIZADEH:: I'm just theorizing here, just theorizing So if someone in this position, in other words is bent over at the waist and the top of my head is facing the wall, that could account for a bullet that would enter the top of the head. correct? STLCO ME: That is correct. . MS. ALIZADEH:: In this case you have no way of knowing where. what position his body was in when he sustained that gunshot wound? STCO ME: No, I do not know specifically. correct. MS. WHIRLEY: But it would he inconceivable for him to be standing at 6'4" straight up and have that shot to the top of his head from someone not as tall as him? STLCO ME: Correct.MS. WHIRLEY: Okay.

STLCO ME: So as we always do, we want to see if there is any stippling or soot. That's not soot.- that's just his hair. That wasn't scraped all the way off with s scapple. There is no soot. there is no stippling. So in terms of range. that is a wound. that is greater than 3 feet away again.

An x-ray, full body x-ray on this particular situation. there is a bullet associated with this wound that I ultimately recovered within the soft tissue on the right side of his face that's associated with this wound, there is a projectile.

All right. There is internal beveling of this bons of the skull. which I was telling you about before that lets me know that this is an entrance wound.

The path or trajectory on this one based on the anatomical posistion is going downward it is going from the top of the head towards the feet and it is going right. Meaning that when it passes through the head and goes through the brain, you got your outer part of your skull here. it is goinq that way and burying itself. You can see it is down and to the right. So that is how you know that part. In tems of the actual tissue that it is passing through, going through the scalp, the skin surface of the head. soft tissue, the parietal bone of your skull, that's the particular location of the skull cap specific for me, but just layman's terms just your skull. Once it went through the skull, it hit the brain and your brain is separated in hemispheres. So you have a parietal. bone, you have a parietal lobe. So it went through the parietal lobe of the brain, then it went through the temporal lobe of the brain. This is all on the right side. Then it passed through the right temporal bone of the skull, which is out here and punched through there and buried itself right here in the skin, the soft tissue beneath the akin on the right side of his head. So that‘: the path of the bullet.
So when it goes through there. it is going to create injuries to the btain. There are small little tears or contusions that are happening to the brain as this bullet is punching its way through the white matter of the brain. You have gray matter on the outside and white matter on the inside.

The white matter is responsible for your, the nervous impulses that are going to go through your brain. So those tracks. there ia little small oontusions there, that's just from the pathway of the bullet going through the brain.

There is also hemorrhage associated with the wound. You have multiple spaces in your brain. You have an epidural space, which is, you know, you have your skull, beneath your skull there's a space and then you have your dura. Your dura is kind of like, for lack better of a better word, the skin of the brain. In between that imaginary space is called the dural space. There's a space there.

You can get the dural. then you start getting to another space and then you get to the brain. So beneath that dural space is the subdural space.

There is blood there and there ia actual blond ch the surface of the brain, which is the suharachnoid space. There is two areas where there is blood, you have defects of where the bullet is entering and then kind of exiting out of the brain and staying in the soft tissue.

So those are the main injuries that you have associated with this wound that's passing through the skull and burying itself right there in the soft tissue.

MS. ALIZADEH: Now. Dr. [redacted] if someone who sustained that type of injury to his brain. would that immediately incapacitate him? STLCO ME: Yes. it would. MS. ALIZADEH: So thia person would not be able to stand or walk or he mobile in any way? STLCO ME: No, they would not. MS. ALIZADEH:: Would they be conscious? MS. ALIZADEH: No, they would not. MS. ALIZADEH: And is this a fatal injury? STLCO ME: Yes. it is. MS. ALIZADEH:: And is there any amount of medical intervention that would. could possibly save the life of some-one sustaining that injury? STLCO ME: Highly unlikely.
MS. ALIZADEH: All right.

Does anybody have any questions about this injury?

GRAND JUROR: You said that you had to remove some of the hair from that area. Is it possible to get any kind of soot or anything. any kind at sampling of that or was anything sent in to be examined or is it even possible to get any type of evidence out of that?


STLCO ME: It is always possible. but nothing was sent off with regard to the hair.​

 

[pharphis]

Maybe I've got this backwards... but if anything, I would think that the pivot fall (like a pendulum) as shown in the video would make the shot that went through someone's head at ~45+ degrees even more spread out

 

[Aber]

But for the main, the fact that evidence is not inconsistent with wilson is still pretty huge, considering what a different tale some of the witnesses had.

Another hair to split.

Not all the 'witnesses' who spoke to the media actually saw all the events that they claimed to see. Therefore claiming Wilson was more accurate than them, and deducing that therefore he was truthful in his account is a stretch.

 

[davefoc]

Maybe I've got this backwards... but if anything, I would think that the pivot fall (like a pendulum) as shown in the video would make the shot that went through someone's head at ~45+ degrees even more spread out

Phantomwolf said:

...The shortest time for the three hits is ~1.5 seconds...
...thus t = 0.6315 seconds. [based on calculations that assume the head dropped like an unattached falling object]...

...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. ...

From that, I understood him to be saying that if Brown was falling then his head would have fallen too quickly for the three bullets to have hit it so that Brown must have been holding his head in a down position as if he was charging Wilson.

I think there might be a problem with his assumption that Brown's head would fall like an unattached object if Brown was falling. Brown's body would have provided an upward force on his head as he fell thereby slowing the rate that the head fell at. The upward force would have declined as the body rotated until the body could not longer provide an upward force on the head and at that point the head would accelerate at the same rate as Galileo's balls.

 

[KatieG]

You might be interested in this:

Apparently we've decided that we won't tolerate broken windows any more. But we haven't found the fortitude to do something about broken people. To put it plainly: just as neighborhood thugs could once break windows with impunity, police officers can generally kill with impunity. They can shoot unarmed men and lie about it. They can roll up and execute a child with a toy as casually as one might in Grand Theft Auto. They can bumble around opening doors with their gun hand and kill bystanders, like a character in a dark farce, with little fear of serious consequences. They can choke you to death for getting a little mouthy about selling loose cigarettes. They can shoot you because they aren't clear on who the bad guy is, and they can shoot you because they're terrible shots, and they can shoot you because they saw something that might be a weapon in your hand — something that can be, frankly, any *********** thing at all, including nothing.

http://www.popehat.com/

I this so much! Thanks for posting it, tsig

 

[Freddy]

Is hyperbole an argument now?

The legal system gives police a great deal of deference, to the point that it is difficult to punish even legitimate instances of misconduct. This is not a controversial statement to any lawyer with relevant experience. The argument is simply that the "broken windows" theory, if valid, applies to police misconduct no less than any other undesirable behavior. Each of the instances of hyperbole is a link to a different (arguable) example. The hyperbole is not the argument.

 

[WildCat]

The legal system gives police a great deal of deference, to the point that it is difficult to punish even legitimate instances of misconduct. This is not a controversial statement to any lawyer with relevant experience. The argument is simply that the "broken windows" theory, if valid, applies to police misconduct no less than any other undesirable behavior. Each of the instances of hyperbole is a link to a different (arguable) example. The hyperbole is not the argument.

So why isn't the blame being placed on the politicians in NYC who passed the sky-high cigarette taxes which created the black market for loosies, which resulted in those same politicians passing stronger penalties for selling untaxed cigarettes earlier this year, which lead to police brass telling the street cops to crack down on people selling loosies?

People in NYC demand a nanny-state government then get upset when the police have to enforce the rules?

 

[WildCat]

Earlier in this thread I said how unlikely it was for an officer to shoot someone with a pistol from 50 yards away. Well it turns out that the Austin cop who shot the nut who was on a shooting spree took him out with a pistol at a range of over 100 yards. And he did it one-handed because he was holding the reins of 2 horses while he took the shot! He's either incredibly good, incredibly lucky, or both.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman/

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1. I've explained this at length.
2. I provided a source that demonstrates that you can preserve the crime scene before CSI arrives and after and still preserve the dignity of the victim. If you bother to check the link I provided you will see for yourself that is the case. In fact, they eventually did as the source suggests and erected a barrier. So, your point is moot.

I've reviewed the last few pages and I'm not sure what you are referring to, can you please link to where you have explained this at length ? Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

I've reviewed the last few pages and I'm not sure what you are referring to, can you please link to where you have explained this at length ? Thanks.

In all honesty I've no idea what it is that you want. I'm here simply to express my concerns and have a discussion. I've done that. You have even quoted me and others have engaged me and Davefoc even referenced me (twice) in a quote that you praised.

If you sincerely have no idea as to my position and the reasons for that position then a fruitful discussion is not likely.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In all honesty I've no idea what it is that you want.

I thought it was straightforward- can you please link to where you have explained this at length ?

I'm here simply to express my concerns and have a discussion. I've done that. .

And it seems you are no longer interested in doing that, and that's fine.

You have even quoted me and others have engaged me and Davefoc even referenced me (twice) in a quote that you praised.

That's true. I don't understand what you are implying it means though.

If you sincerely have no idea as to my position and the reasons for that position then a fruitful discussion is not likely.

Beyond having "concerns", I understood you to problems with inconsistencies between the police report and the actual evidence. If you think there are inconsistencies, and I don't - then it's fruitful to have a discussion on what those inconsistencies are, and see if inconsistencies truly exist. Of the things you listed, they have been addresses, and don't appear to be actual inconsistencies. At that point, I'm curious to continue a discussion to see what concerns you still have.

Perhaps we are simply talking at cross purposes - I am interested in discussing the things we can reasonably determine - was brown moving towards wilson, how long between shots fired, etc, and you are more interested in tings we cannot know like was wilson acting with malice when he shot brown and then lying about, or something along those lines.

Either way, it doesn't appear you are interested in a discussion. I'll stop engaging with you then.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Michael Brown was:
High
Stupid
Entitled

What was he entitled to?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

What was he entitled to?

Here we're using this definition:

"en·ti·tled
inˈtīdld,enˈtīdld/
adjective
believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment."

Rather than saying he literally WAS entitled to something legitimately.

I'm saying he clearly seems to have felt he was entitled to take what he wanted from that store in broad daylight and not be opposed in acting on taking what he desired.

He seems to have also (probably) felt he was entitled to end a police officer's life in order to avoid the consequences of his earlier actions, or at the very least attack said police officer to that end.

 

[Wolrab]

What was he entitled to?

Blunt wraps. Can't wake and bake without 'em!

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps we are simply talking at cross purposes - I am interested in discussing the things we can reasonably determine - was brown moving towards wilson, how long between shots fired, etc, and you are more interested in tings we cannot know like was wilson acting with malice when he shot brown and then lying about, or something along those lines.

Either way, it doesn't appear you are interested in a discussion. I'll stop engaging with you then.

I'm most interested in a discussion. What I'm not interested in is brow beating.

Of the things you listed, they have been addresses, and don't appear to be actual inconsistencies.

You are most certainly entitled to an opinion. I have said that I accept that a reasonable person could find that the evidence comports with Wilson's testimony and tends to support his statement.

I have concerns about this case and I've made them clear.

1. Poor relations and questions of racism between law enforcement and citizens before Michael Brown was slain.
2. The Ferguson police chief admitted that the body was in the street too long.
3. Even when the body was covered it was not properly covered leaving the feet and a pool of blood exposed. Eventually the police errected a barrier to shield Browns body. A bit late since his father had to see his son lying in the street.
4. The way the robbery video was released, the bungling and sputtering of the chief when he did release it.
5. The 35' statement.
6. The reaction to citizen's protests.

Now, you can say that these are not truly inconsistent, that there is nothing in my list that warrants discussion and cause for concern. That's your prerogative. I disagree with you. You can either dismiss me as being unreasonable, agree that reasonable people can disagree or we can discuss the merits some more.


I'm not likely to suddenly say, oh yeah, the case is all wrapped up nice and tight with no room for disagreement or concern. I don't want to be accused of a straw man so, if there is something else that you want from me then tell me what it is.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Here we're using this definition:



Rather than saying he literally WAS entitled to something legitimately.

When somebody confers entitlement on themselves, that's called "self-entitlement". Legitimate entitlement is just called "entitlement".

 

[Skeptic Tank]

When somebody confers entitlement on themselves, that's called "self-entitlement". Legitimate entitlement is just called "entitlement".

Is there a point you're actually making or...?

I used the term in the way it is commonly used today, and in a way that agrees with the definition I linked.

If you were actually confused about my meaning before (I doubt it) you no longer are. So, did you have something else about my saying that you wished to say or ask?

Do you feel it's an unfair characterization of his behavior on that video?