Michael Brown shooting II

[WildCat]

Dupe, forum having issues!

 

[Kestrel]

Wildcat, I am not disputing that the weapon was discharged inside the vehicle and hit Brown. I am disputing that the presence of Brown's DNA on the weapon is proof that Brown grabbed Wilson's firearm.

A bullet hitting a victim at close range is likely to contaminate anything in the area with blood and the victims DNA. Therefore, finding Brown's DNA on the weapon isn't proof that Brown grabbed the weapon at any time.

In most TV crime dramas, finding DNA or a fingerprint is taken as proof of guilt. Script writers seem to believe that fingerprints are only left by criminals and DNA is only shed by victims and criminals. The real world is more complicated. There are often many possible explanations of why a persons DNA was found in a specific spot.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat, I am not disputing that the weapon was discharged inside the vehicle and hit Brown. I am disputing that the presence of Brown's DNA on the weapon is proof that Brown grabbed Wilson's firearm.

A bullet hitting a victim at close range is likely to contaminate anything in the area with blood and the victims DNA. Therefore, finding Brown's DNA on the weapon isn't proof that Brown grabbed the weapon at any time.

In most TV crime dramas, finding DNA or a fingerprint is taken as proof of guilt. Script writers seem to believe that fingerprints are only left by criminals and DNA is only shed by victims and criminals. The real world is more complicated. There are often many possible explanations of why a persons DNA was found in a specific spot.

In this case we know Brown's thumb was so close to the muzzle that residue from the shot penetrated his flesh. His thumb was at most 1 inch from the muzzle.


This wasn't from some microscopic splatter from 15 feet away.

You and Newtons Bit are looking at only one specific thing instead of the whole picture, that's how conspiracy theorists work not skeptics.

 

[Mike!]

In this case we know Brown's thumb was so close to the muzzle that residue from the shot penetrated his flesh. His thumb was at most 1 inch from the muzzle.


This wasn't from some microscopic splatter from 15 feet away.

You and Newtons Bit are looking at only one specific thing instead of the whole picture, that's how conspiracy theorists work not skeptics.

Plus they're really late to the party. Very unfashionable.

 

[Kestrel]

In this case we know Brown's thumb was so close to the muzzle that residue from the shot penetrated his flesh. His thumb was at most 1 inch from the muzzle.


This wasn't from some microscopic splatter from 15 feet away.

You and Newtons Bit are looking at only one specific thing instead of the whole picture, that's how conspiracy theorists work not skeptics.

Actually I was just pointing out a flaw in plague311's reasoning. When challenged, he resorted to name calling insults and derision.

 

[plague311]

Actually I was just pointing out a flaw in plague311's reasoning. When challenged, he resorted to name calling insults and derision.

What? No, I didn't. In fact, you didn't even address the post above that displayed the reasoning behind my statements. Also, Wildcat just said the same thing that I did. Your reasoning is inline with conspiracy theorists. If you would like to point out the difference between the post you agreed with (wildcats) and the post you disagree with (mine) then by all means, go right ahead. Your reasoning is perplexing to say the least. I'll also await your explanation behind what my flaw was, as I can't find any. Don't worry, I'm studying for Cisco Networking so I have time.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ferguson, Mo., police begin testing new ‘less-lethal’ attachment for guns

 

[Newtons Bit]

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

No it's not. The detective explicitly stated that he could test for DNA evidence OR fingerprint evidence but not both. This is not true.

DETECTIVE: Once that decision is made and you swab, then you're going to have to swab those areas that were described earlier. If there was fingerprint evidence, you are going to be swabbing through them, so that's why you need to make a decision whether you want to process this for fingerprints or do you went to process this for DNA.

Labs can test the same area for both. i didn't make a false dichotomy, however the detective did offer a false dilemma.

The detective:

You just quoted Assistant District Attorney Kathi Alizadeh. She's not the detective who was being questioned, she was asking the questions.

 

[Newtons Bit]

In this case we know Brown's thumb was so close to the muzzle that residue from the shot penetrated his flesh. His thumb was at most 1 inch from the muzzle.


This wasn't from some microscopic splatter from 15 feet away.

You and Newtons Bit are looking at only one specific thing instead of the whole picture, that's how conspiracy theorists work not skeptics.

Err?

The autopsy noted the absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound which indicate that a shot was fired at a relatively short range. Dr. Michael Graham, the St. Louis medical examiner, notes that gunshot wounds within an inch of the body do not always cause stippling.

Stippling occurs from gunshots that are relatively close range. It could be that Brown's hand was so close to the barrel that the wound was just as large at the stippling. Maybe. However, when officer Wilson pulled Brown's hands out from under his body, gunshot residue would have been transferred, as Wilson's hands had gun shot residue on them.

 

[Cylinder]

Stippling occurs from gunshots that are relatively close range. It could be that Brown's hand was so close to the barrel that the wound was just as large at the stippling. Maybe. However, when officer Wilson pulled Brown's hands out from under his body, gunshot residue would have been transferred, as Wilson's hands had gun shot residue on them.

The diagnostic feature in determining range was the lack of stippling present along with the presence of particles of gunshot residue within the wound track. Wilson claims he never touched Brown's body after the shooting [8/10 interview, p. 10] and this type of diagnostic wouldn't be prone to transfer in that manner.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The diagnostic feature in determining range was the lack of stippling present along with the presence of particles of gunshot residue within the wound track. Wilson claims he never touched Brown's body after the shooting [8/10 interview, p. 10] and this type of diagnostic wouldn't be prone to transfer in that manner.

I thought there was information that Wilson pulled Brown's hands from out and under his body. Was that early and erroneous information, or am I confusing this with another case?

 

[Cylinder]

I thought there was information that Wilson pulled Brown's hands from out and under his body. Was that early and erroneous information, or am I confusing this with another case?

I've never seen that claim before today, so you may be conflating it with another case where that was an issue. At any rate, it was the particles of GSR embedded inside the wound track that diagnose the very close range nature of this gunshot wound and presumably allow it to be sequenced as the first injury -- since there is really no dispute that this was the only time the two were in that proximity.

 

[plague311]

No it's not. The detective explicitly stated that he could test for DNA evidence OR fingerprint evidence but not both. This is not true.

Because the surface where Brown grabbed wasn't going to give him a good fingerprint. Just like the information from your link. If you want to deny it, fine, but that makes it no less true.

Labs can test the same area for both. i didn't make a false dichotomy, however the detective did offer a false dilemma.

Yes, they can, but that doesn't always mean that it's the best practice. I can skip, but it's not in my best interest to do so. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's the best option.

You just quoted Assistant District Attorney Kathi Alizadeh. She's not the detective who was being questioned, she was asking the questions.

No, I didn't. It's a misprint on the notes from the Grand Jury, it happens frequently. He refers to himself in the first person, and speaks about his conversation with the other detective. It's not that tough to figure out.

 

[Wolrab]

IMO when all is said and done, Wilson had every right to shoot Brown because Brown was attacking him in the vehicle. It really doesn't matter if he was going for the gun or not.

 

[WildCat]

Ferguson, Mo., police begin testing new ‘less-lethal’ attachment for guns

That seems like disaster waiting to happen, with that device you take a real gun loaded with real bullets, point it at a subject that does not pose an immediate lethal threat and pull the trigger?

If this is ever adopted we'll soon have a thread started by the SJWs about how someone was killed by this.

 

[WildCat]

Err?



Stippling occurs from gunshots that are relatively close range. It could be that Brown's hand was so close to the barrel that the wound was just as large at the stippling. Maybe. However, when officer Wilson pulled Brown's hands out from under his body, gunshot residue would have been transferred, as Wilson's hands had gun shot residue on them.

You left out the last sentence, was this done deliberately so you could pretend you didn't read it?

 

[theprestige]

No it's not. The detective explicitly stated that he could test for DNA evidence OR fingerprint evidence but not both. This is not true.

Why is it important to test for either, in this case?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

IMO when all is said and done, Wilson had every right to shoot Brown because Brown was attacking him in the vehicle. It really doesn't matter if he was going for the gun or not.

Obviously you haven't read The Gospel Of St. Michael. Please try to educate yourself before posting.

 

[Wolrab]

Obviously you haven't read The Gospel Of St. Michael. Please try to educate yourself before posting.

Oops. I'll do better this time.
IMO when all is said and done, Brown had every right to proactively defend himself by attacking Wilson because Wilson Backed up aggressively. Brown was totally within his rights to deposit his DNA on Wilson's gun, it is the public's gun. Why didn't Wilson just fire a warning shot? At any time Wilson could have curled up into a fetal position and just taken his well deserved beating like the evil white cop he is.

Better?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oops. I'll do better this time.
IMO when all is said and done, Brown had every right to proactively defend himself by attacking Wilson because Wilson Backed up aggressively. Brown was totally within his rights to deposit his DNA on Wilson's gun, it is the public's gun. Why didn't Wilson just fire a warning shot? At any time Wilson could have curled up into a fetal position and just taken his well deserved beating like the evil white cop he is.

Better?

Yes. Much more in line with The Trvth^(tm)