Michael Brown Shooting

[marplots]

Maybe because of the videotape showing him threatening someone?

Who? Did we watch the same video, the .gif posted earlier? The one where the guy gets scared and leaves the store, fearing the storekeeper might escalate things with a weapon?

I found another one where a large black man intimidates a smaller Asian after a violent confrontation. Plenty of witnesses, video with audio, no charges filed.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

Autopsy

 

[Mike!]

Local news (St. Louis News Channel 5) just reported that someone, "got ahold of the autopsy and Michael Brown had been hit 6 times, twice in the head". No mention of direction. Link when available.

ETA: See above.

None from behind.

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

How did he get to be 18 without something already in the books?

Since he wasn't an adult before being 18, that would be in a juvi record and probably sealed - to us at least.

And....he still would not have had a record after the videotaped incident unless a customer had not reported it. I'd be rather surprised if it were the first such incident. Perhaps Brown had visited that store before. I doubt it was his first time picking up cigars.

 

[LTC8K6]

Seems to fit the officer's story. Kept firing at a charging suspect. The last shot hitting the top of the head as he fell forward.

 

[Unabogie]

All shots from the front, likely from far away, and the last shot was into the top of his head which was bent down.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

Autopsy

Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.

But....but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...

Numerous witnesses swore he was shot in the back! Therefore it was true.

How can this be? My faith has been shaken.

 

[marplots]

Now that he was shot only in the front side, how will the narrative change? What's the new story to incorporate this information? I leave it to my betters to write.

 

[Cylinder]

OK - now we can rule out "shot in the back." Those shots were very likely fired in close sequence, since they all have the same windage.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

All shots from the front, likely from far away, and the last shot was into the top of his head which was bent down.

You forgot all the witnesses who swore he was shot in the back.

Have you already thrown them under the bus?

 

[Cylinder]

But....but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...but....but...

Numerous witnesses swore he was shot in the back! Therefore it was true.

How can this be? My faith has been shaken.

Should have went to church. They saw a dead guy chilling with his homies.

 

[LTC8K6]

OK - now we can rule out "shot in the back." Those shots were very likely fired in close sequence, since they all have the same windage.

I think the best fit is firing at a charging suspect.

 

[GWCarver]

I suppose. If the prosecutor really doesn't want to prosecute this case, I suppose he could purposefully present an unconvincing case. But the GJ could ignore his presentation and vote to indict. Neither is likely.



The defendant can be present, and can even testify. Counsel cannot be present, but can be outside if the defendant wishes to consult with them.

Thanks for pointing that out - I forgot about it. My bad.

 

[marplots]

Since he wasn't an adult before being 18, that would be in a juvi record and probably sealed - to us at least.

And....he still would not have had a record after the videotaped incident unless a customer had not reported it. I'd be rather surprised if it were the first such incident. Perhaps Brown had visited that store before. I doubt it was his first time picking up cigars.

I had the idea that the info could be accessed postmortem. But I don't know how it works.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ooops, you got me! I was making up a beating, I thought no one would notice since that recording is so hard to access, and I would be able to slip that into the general discussion undetected, drats!
He assaulted the clerk, and made it clear further protest would result in further assault. Better?

So now you see "a beating"? It's a shove and a threatening advance on the store clerk. How do you see "a beating" there?

 

[Cylinder]

If the nipple injury and the bicep injury are associated, then we know his arms were down.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Seems to fit the officer's story. Kept firing at a charging suspect. The last shot hitting the top of the head as he fell forward.

Now that he was shot only in the front side, how will the narrative change? What's the new story to incorporate this information? I leave it to my betters to write.

OK - now we can rule out "shot in the back." Those shots were very likely fired in close sequence, since they all have the same windage.

NO!!!!

Stop it!!! All of you!!! He was shot in the back. Every witness who went on Oprah swore to it. And if that many people witnessed something, it must be true. Unless you believe that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, and they're all lying.

 

[LTC8K6]

The narrative would then be that the officer didn't have to shoot just because the suspect was charging him.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't know much about guns, but how close do you have to be to the gun to have powder burns on your body or clothes?

 

[LTC8K6]

If the nipple injury and the bicep injury are associated, then we know his arms were down.

Yes.