Michael Brown shooting II

[Newtons Bit]

Which they can, no doubt. Do you not think certain circumstances or instances might cause that to be a problem?

I can think of a few. One is when they know that they won't find fingerprints and are trying to come up with an excuse to not test for them. Why don't you add some others.

 

[dudalb]

THis whole thread reminds me that one of the reasons I no longer consider myself a Liberal is so many of them have a basic dislike of the police,a hangover from the 1960's.
And I don't consider myself a conservative either because of all the stupidity on the right. I don;t know what the hell I am politically anymore.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

THis whole thread reminds me that one of the reasons I no longer consider myself a Liberal is so many of them have a basic dislike of the police,a hangover from the 1960's.
And I don't consider myself a conservative either because of all the stupidity on the right. I don;t know what the hell I am politically anymore.

I'm alternately accused of being too liberal and too conservative. That tells me I'm doing something right.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don;t know what the hell I am politically anymore.

Why do you need to be anything?

 

[plague311]

I can think of a few. One is when they know that they won't find fingerprints and are trying to come up with an excuse to not test for them. Why don't you add some others.

They're listed in the article and they aren't as "conspiracy theorist" as your weak combination of poisoning the well mixed with a false dichotomy. The surface of the gun didn't allow Brown to grip it well. He could have grabbed it with his whole hand and didn't get fingerprints on a section of the gun. Brown's DNA confirmed that he grabbed the gun. There could be a ton of reasons, not everything results in the police covering something up.

This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do, they never look at the whole picture. For 9/11 it's building 7, for JFK it's "the magic bullet", and so on and so on. Instead of taking all of the physical evidence, adding it together to paint the entire picture, they pick apart one or two little things and then say, "See, since those two things aren't what I, personally, think they should be, then it's all a lie."

Lame.

 

[Kestrel]

To believe that DNA tests confirm that Brown grabbed Wilson's gun requires excluding Brown's blood as a source of DNA.

 

[plague311]

To believe that DNA tests confirm that Brown grabbed Wilson's gun requires excluding Brown's blood as a source of DNA.

No, it would include looking at where the blood landed in comparison to where the gun was, and forensic science helps proves that. Are you unfamiliar with blood splatter analysis? GSR tests? Bullet trajectory in comparison to physical wounds?

May I ask what your job is that provides you with insight as to evidence gathering\analysis? Like I said, taking one aspect that isn't understood in it's entirety and insinuating that the rest is a house of cards depending entirely on that one aspect.

 

[theprestige]

Why would it matter? I mean, if Wilson says Brown was inside the car, but all the witnesses put Brown nowhere near the car, so they check for fingerprints and DNA... That would be one thing.

But if Wilson says Brown was inside the car, and that's corroborated by witnesses, as a member of the Grand Jury, why should I care where exactly inside the car the DNA and fingerprints are? As far as I'm concerned, at that point all Wilson needs is a reasonable belief that Brown is going after his gun.

It's not like, as this big guy is coming in through the window, punching him in the face, reaching for him, Wilson is going to stop, pull out a micrometer and a forensic camera, and carefully document exactly where Brown's hand ended up. Maybe it ended up on the gun, maybe it didn't. Maybe Brown grabbed his belt buckle, or the E-brake lever.

Wilson says Brown leaned in the window and attacked him. This much is corroborated by witnesses. From that point forward, does it really matter whether Brown managed to get his prints or DNA on the gun during his violent assault?

 

[Kestrel]

No, it would include looking at where the blood landed in comparison to where the gun was, and forensic science helps proves that. Are you unfamiliar with blood splatter analysis? GSR tests? Bullet trajectory in comparison to physical wounds?

May I ask what your job is that provides you with insight as to evidence gathering\analysis? Like I said, taking one aspect that isn't understood in it's entirety and insinuating that the rest is a house of cards depending entirely on that one aspect.

When a person is shot the impact of the bullet sprays blood and other material. If the shooter is in close proximity to the victim, some of that splatter normally ends up on the shooter and the weapon. Finding victim DNA on the weapon is an expected result.

Anyone with a scientific background should understand this problem. If result X can be caused by either A or B, we need to exclude B in order to conclude that X was caused by A.

 

[plague311]

When a person is shot the impact of the bullet sprays blood and other material. If the shooter is in close proximity to the victim, some of that splatter normally ends up on the shooter and the weapon. Finding victim DNA on the weapon is an expected result.

Ok....so what are we saying here? That Brown was close enough where his blood got on the gun, and gun residue got on his hand, but that means nothing? Those two things combined don't draw a conclusion for you? It means he was pretty close to the weapon itself, and considering that the blood came from the hand, and the GSR was found on Brown's hand, then it should logically follow that his hand was close to the gun, right? I mean, this isn't rocket surgery. Just follow the evidence.

Anyone with a scientific background should understand this problem. If result X can be caused by either A or B, we need to exclude B in order to conclude that X was caused by A.

Anyone with a scientific background should be able to understand is what you're saying? Do you think people with relative scientific backgrounds analyzed the evidence? Did you read their conclusions? Have you read any of the forensic reports that have been out for over a month now? Again, conspiracy theory style thinking. "I don't have an education in the field, but instead of listening to the experts I'm going to draw my own conclusions based on what I think should have been done, and what should have happened. If it doesn't come out the way that I expect it too, then it was obviously a conspiracy."

 

[3point14]

THis whole thread reminds me that one of the reasons I no longer consider myself a Liberal is so many of them have a basic dislike of the police,a hangover from the 1960's.
And I don't consider myself a conservative either because of all the stupidity on the right. I don;t know what the hell I am politically anymore.

Do what I do. rail agains the left/right labelling and demand to be defined as a human being with a depth of intellectual, political and social thoughts far too complex to be defined as merely a point on a line.

 

[3point14]

Ok....so what are we saying here? That Brown was close enough where his blood got on the gun, and gun residue got on his hand, but that means nothing? Those two things combined don't draw a conclusion for you? It means he was pretty close to the weapon itself, and considering that the blood came from the hand, and the GSR was found on Brown's hand, then it should logically follow that his hand was close to the gun, right? I mean, this isn't rocket surgery. Just follow the evidence.



Anyone with a scientific background should be able to understand is what you're saying? Do you think people with relative scientific backgrounds analyzed the evidence? Did you read their conclusions? Have you read any of the forensic reports that have been out for over a month now? Again, conspiracy theory style thinking. "I don't have an education in the field, but instead of listening to the experts I'm going to draw my own conclusions based on what I think should have been done, and what should have happened. If it doesn't come out the way that I expect it too, then it was obviously a conspiracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[Newtons Bit]

When a detective states that he can do only test X or test Y, while other industry experts say doing test X and test Y is completely doable (and is standard procedure) we should either:

A) Assume the detective is telling the truth and the other industry experts who run laboratories are lying.
B) Assume the detective is not stating a factually correct statement and using him as part of a appeal to authority is flawed.

 

[dudalb]

Do what I do. rail agains the left/right labelling and demand to be defined as a human being with a depth of intellectual, political and social thoughts far too complex to be defined as merely a point on a line.

It's not just a matter of labelling. I am appaled by the number of people here who like to call themsleves "rational thinkers" but who blindly follow a party line, making up their minds on issues without any real thought based on poltical ideology.

IMHO they are no better then religious beleivers who do the same thing.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When a detective states that he can do only test X or test Y, while other industry experts say doing test X and test Y is completely doable (and is standard procedure) we should either:

A) Assume the detective is telling the truth and the other industry experts who run laboratories are lying.
B) Assume the detective is not stating a factually correct statement and using him as part of a appeal to authority is flawed.

C) Assume it's a disagreement amongst professionals

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's not just a matter of labelling. I am appaled by the number of people here who like to call themsleves "rational thinkers" but who blindly follow a party line, making up their minds on issues without any real thought based on poltical ideology.

IMHO they are no better then religious beleivers who do the same thing.

Which is why they earned the moniker "The Apostles of St. Michael" among critical thinkers.

 

[Newtons Bit]

C) Assume it's a disagreement amongst professionals

In the aforementioned case of Christopher Torres, APD investigators tested Hilger's gun for both DNA and fingerprinting. Which according to the detective in Ferguson isn't possible. Maybe APD employs sorcerers and wizards who use magic to do impossible things. Or maybe, like many other officers, that Ferguson PD detective is full of .

 

[Kestrel]

Ok....so what are we saying here? That Brown was close enough where his blood got on the gun, and gun residue got on his hand, but that means nothing? Those two things combined don't draw a conclusion for you? It means he was pretty close to the weapon itself, and considering that the blood came from the hand, and the GSR was found on Brown's hand, then it should logically follow that his hand was close to the gun, right? I mean, this isn't rocket surgery. Just follow the evidence.



Anyone with a scientific background should be able to understand is what you're saying? Do you think people with relative scientific backgrounds analyzed the evidence? Did you read their conclusions? Have you read any of the forensic reports that have been out for over a month now? Again, conspiracy theory style thinking. "I don't have an education in the field, but instead of listening to the experts I'm going to draw my own conclusions based on what I think should have been done, and what should have happened. If it doesn't come out the way that I expect it too, then it was obviously a conspiracy."

Near to the gun isn't the same as having grabbed the gun. So why don't you explain what evidence proved that Brown actually grabbed Wilson's gun?

Claiming that I am some kind of conspiracy theories is simply an ad hominem attack. One that gets used all to frequently on this forum by people who don't understand the difference between being a skeptic and simply being a supporter of the status quo or an authority figure.

 

[plague311]

When a detective states that he can do only test X or test Y, while other industry experts say doing test X and test Y is completely doable (and is standard procedure) we should either:

A) Assume the detective is telling the truth and the other industry experts who run laboratories are lying.
B) Assume the detective is not stating a factually correct statement and using him as part of a appeal to authority is flawed.

Pretty flashy false dichotomy there. Take a look at what your link says, and what the detective says. Your link:

Oddly enough, surfaces that are good for fingerprints (smooth and flat) are bad for DNA (textured), and vice versa. Consider a gun: The smooth and flat surfaces of the gun are the ideal areas with which to obtain comparable fingerprints, while the textured areas are the ideal areas with which to trap cells that can be analyzed for DNA.

The detective:

Based on training and experience, and also based on the information that I was given, you're not going to have fine ridge detail during a violent encounter. It would be different if this gun was like this and someone just came up, other than the officer, and touched it..

So it actually appears that your link and the detective agree. They used the best method available to acquire the most accurate information considering the surface that they were dealing with. Critical thinking being what it is I would have a harder time imagining that a perfect finger print would be placed on a weapon during a violent encounter. It would likely be smudged as the weapon was pulled in and out of the hand. The officers on the scene made the decision to go with the sound method. Basically, your article doesn't mean what you think it means. It supports the detective.

Which according to the detective in Ferguson isn't possible. Maybe APD employs sorcerers and wizards who use magic to do impossible things. Or maybe, like many other officers, that Ferguson PD detective is full of .

********, he never said it was a lie. He said, considering the circumstances, they went with the better of the two methods. It's called logic.

Near to the gun isn't the same as having grabbed the gun. So why don't you explain what evidence proved that Brown actually grabbed Wilson's gun?

The DNA was found in the ridges of the gun where they swabbed. Notice they didn't say it was blood that they found in the ridges, it was DNA.

Claiming that I am some kind of conspiracy theories is simply an ad hominem attack. One that gets used all to frequently on this forum by people who don't understand the difference between being a skeptic and simply being a supporter of the status quo or an authority figure.

Words. You didn't read the article, you didn't compare it against the Detectives commentary, or you would have caught what I did. A true skeptic would have questioned his own thoughts first.

I wasn't simply supporting the status quo or an authority figure. I was using logic to come to an explanation that fit both Newton's links and the detectives commentary. I feel that has been accomplished.

 

[WildCat]

And for the record, Brown's blood was found inside the cop car. And that his hand gunshot wound was from very close range - within 1 inch.

The St. Louis medical examiner, Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report for the newspaper. He said Tuesday that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car.”

Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at relatively short range.

But Graham said, “Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke.”

The report on a supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html

But who to listen to, the St. Louis medical examiner and his fancy degrees and experience or our internet experts in all things Dr. Newtons Bit and Dr. Kestrel?

It's a real dilemma!