Michael Brown Shooting

[William Parcher]

For all of you that gave me crap for my earlier comments:

Here is what you were getting crap from me about...

He was shot in the head first. If he was dead when the officer fired the remaining shots, there would be no blood on his back.

The point is, he had no business firing his gun into Michael Brown when he was down on the ground, bleeding from his head.

Yes, you actually thought that Wilson killed Brown right away with head shots and then fired into his back when he was already dead.

 

[LTC8K6]

You know full well that's not how this works XD

Anyway, the thing I find strange is where the shots are clustered - namely, on Brown's right side, except for one at the top of his head. The only people trained to shoot for the head are people who play video games, everyone who handles a real firearm is trained to aim for the chest - it's the largest target, and will take out someone who is attacking you, thus it's by far the best place to aim for. And we do not know what hand Wilson favors, but we do know that most people favor their right hand. So why are the bullet wounds on *Brown's* right? The idea that Brown put his head down and charged at Wilson is absurd, obviously - he didn't have horns on his head, after all - but we don't know when that wound was made. he could have been shot, and then fallen over, or have been shot while surrendering on his knees.

I see nothing here that helps Wilson - but also nothing that damns him. And that's what I was expecting, and why I said that we really need to see Davis' account of the shooting.

Who is Davis?

Wilson may just be a poor shot. They are trained to aim for center mass and we have no shots anywhere near center mass. High stress tends to make people shoot poorly.

Wilson may have been punched in the eye/face, making his aim poor.

Many handgun sights are secured in a dovetail and are drift adjustable for windage. If the gun was banged around at the car, one of the sights could have moved.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I never offered any scenario, I said Michael Brown was shot in the head. I was laughed at and asked how I knew that. It was a slam dunk and now I offer proof. Go make up your own stories.

I suggest reviewing all the claims you posted, and going back and comparing it with reality. Then you maky gain insight into why you were laughed at.

As far as saying he was shot in the head - that was a guess. You didn't know until the report came out.

 

[KatieG]

I suggest reviewing all the claims you posted, and going back and comparing it with reality. Then you maky gain insight into why you were laughed at.

As far as saying he was shot in the head - that was a guess. You didn't know until the report came out.

Oh I dunno, the picture with blood running from his head was a big clue.

Say goodnight, Gracie...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why would that sting?

I don't see where this witness claimed Brown was shot in the back.

I see where she claimed she saw his body jerk, and compared that to being hit from behind.

But I don't see where she actually claimed he was shot in the back.

Yes, she's just claiming he reacted as if he was shot in the back. Totally different than claiming he was shot in the back.

Because to claim she knew he was shot in the back, she would have to see the bullet travel from the gun and enter his body, amiright ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Is there a reason why all of the wounds were not shown on the drawings?

Baden tells us about several more wounds from the bullets, but we don't see them drawn in.

All we are shown are what Baden thinks are the main entry and exit wounds.

 

[KatieG]

There was one thing in the autopsy that might make the EMTs feel better:

Baden told reporters Brown—who was not given medical attention—likely would not have survived the shooting.

The police kept the EMTs away from the body of Michael Brown for hours. I suspect that if the autopsy had found he did not die immediately from his wounds, things would have gotten a lot worse.

 

[KatieG]

Is there a reason why all of the wounds were not shown on the drawings?

Baden tells us about several more wounds from the bullets, but we don't see them drawn in.

All we are shown are what Baden thinks are the main entry and exit wounds.

He doesn't have the evidence he needs, as was stated in the NYTimes article.

 

[casebro]

What if Wilson only fired six times? Out the window would go all the stories about being shot at while fleeing.

And which of Wilsons eyes was injured? I don't think I could shoot well with my master eye bruised and watering. Maybe the farther shots were to the shooters left because he was using the wrong eye, then as the target rushed closer inaccuracy lessened.

So far as a head first charge, haven't you ever seen a foot ball tackle? Did Brown ever play? Big kids often do. Review the store footage, wasn't he leaning in?

I wonder if the next press conference will mention any sworn witness statements verifying the officer's story? Now that significant evidence has hit the news.

 

[Aepervius]

There was one thing in the autopsy that might make the EMTs feel better:

Baden told reporters Brown—who was not given medical attention—likely would not have survived the shooting.

The police kept the EMTs away from the body of Michael Brown for hours. I suspect that if the autopsy had found he did not die immediately from his wounds, things would have gotten a lot worse.

Why were the EMT kept away as there was no weapon ?

 

[LTC8K6]

IIRC, an ambulance was called and they did attend Brown. The report says the call was made at 12:04

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/16/article-2726609-20905EED00000578-692_634x428.jpg

 

[William Parcher]

Yes, she's just claiming he reacted as if he was shot in the back. Totally different than claiming he was shot in the back.

Because to claim she knew he was shot in the back, she would have to see the bullet travel from the gun and enter his body, amiright ?

More than that - there would need to be a coincidence of witnesses hearing gunshots at the same time that Brown is facing away from Wilson. In order to say how Brown reacted (moved his body as if receiving a bullet in the back) they had to be looking at Brown. But you can do that at the same time you hear the gunshots which should have perfectly coincided with his body movements. If you see him "jerk his body as if taking a bullet from behind" but hear no gunshot then you do not have a shot-to-the-back.

Keep in mind that any eyewitnesses who spoke of the number of shots fired had to do their counting from the gunshots they heard. Some (or all) witnesses may not have even looked at the action until they heard some shots already fired. In that case they don't even see what is going on until several shots have already been fired. If the shots came very rapidly they may not have seen anything before seeing Brown finally go down. It is therefore possible that the witnesses retroactively fabricated what went on before they saw Brown fall down.

This is my speculation.

 

[Distracted1]

Why were the EMT kept away as there was no weapon ?

Perhaps to avoid unnecessarily contaminating the crime scene evidence?

 

[Distracted1]

More than that - there would need to be a coincidence of witnesses hearing gunshots at the same time that Brown is facing away from Wilson. In order to say how Brown reacted (moved his body as if receiving a bullet in the back) they had to be looking at Brown. But you can do that at the same time you hear the gunshots which should have perfectly coincided with his body movements. If you see him "jerk his body as if taking a bullet from behind" but hear no gunshot then you do not have a shot-to-the-back.

Keep in mind that any eyewitnesses who spoke of the number of shots fired had to do their counting from the gunshots they heard. Some (or all) witnesses may not have even looked at the action until they heard some shots already fired. In that case they don't even see what is going on until several shots have already been fired. If the shots came very rapidly they may not have seen anything before seeing Brown finally go down. It is therefore possible that the witnesses retroactively fabricated what went on before they saw Brown fall down.

This is my speculation.

Are " warning shots " even a thing anymore?

Isn't it possible that the officer fired a shot or two hoping to cause Mr. Brown to take pause?

 

[William Parcher]

Are " warning shots " even a thing anymore?

Isn't it possible that the officer fired a shot or two hoping to cause Mr. Brown to take pause?

Others can answer better but I speculate that cops aren't supposed to do that. Where is the warning shot bullet going to go if it doesn't get lodged or stopped by the subject's body? Is that bullet going to kill somebody a block away?

 

[Cainkane1]

How is the cop justified in killing a person for an incident that the cop was not aware of?

You can make an appeal to karma that Brown's death was "justified" because of his previous actions, but that doesn't absolve the officer of murder/manslaughter. That's not how things work.

I don't think the officer murdered the thug. I think the officer was attacked because the thug thought he was going to be arrested. Thats what seems to have happened. I mean the punk was six foot four and weighed three hundred pounds and to the policeman who was being attacked his life was in danger which it probably was. The thug got shot and he died. Better him than the police officer.

 

[LTC8K6]

He doesn't have the evidence he needs, as was stated in the NYTimes article.

Does he mean internal wounds? That doesn't make sense.

External wounds don't need anything but your eyes to see.

The autopsy is labeled as to what it shows, so I think he left off other external wounds for some reason.

Well, we have a more reliable autopsy coming, from an ME who has everything he needs.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Are " warning shots " even a thing anymore?

Isn't it possible that the officer fired a shot or two hoping to cause Mr. Brown to take pause?

Who fires warning shots outside of the movies?

 

[GWCarver]

Who fires warning shots outside of the movies?

Here is a woman who fired a warning shot and got 20 years. Not surprisingly - at least to me - Angela Corey and mandatory sentencing were involved:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/

 

[johnny karate]

The eyewitness testimonies that supposedly corroborate each other actually don't?

No, they corroborate each other. However, upon the release of the preliminary autopsy reports, we have learned that one witness (Johnson) was mistaken or lying about at least one detail of his account.

Johnson's account - which was much more detailed than any of the independent witnesses - is definitely in question. However, his account of Brown being shot dead while in the act of surrendering is still corroborated by those two other witnesses, and those witness accounts still corroborate each other. Furthermore, the preliminary autopsy report does not refute this account.

I'm wondering if you know what "corroborate" means. Here's a hint: It doesn't mean "tell the exact same story". Sometime some witnesses report details that other witnesses do not. As long as the accounts do not contradict each other, they can still be considerd corroboration.