Michael Brown Autopsy Notes

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/2...ortedly-reveals-teen-was-shot-at-close-range/

Brown was shot on his thumb at close range. Baden missed it or didn't report it.

 

[Que]

I can't think of a lot of situations where I would find myself with my thumb on the end of an officer's gun.

 

[about_average]

[St. Louis County medical examiner's office said] Brown's right thumb appeared to have been fired at very close range due to the lack of stippling, or powder burns around the wound.

Dr. Baden said that the lack of stippling indicated that none of Brown's wounds appeared to have been the result of close-range gunshots.

Huh?

 

[toubab]

Huh?

Stippling does not occur from extremely short range or from very long range.

 

[Busybody]

Stippling does not occur from extremely short range or from very long range.

the reason was made clear in the report.....100% clear,
poster BELOW AVERAGE has the overwhelming NEED to suppress facts and go with

WHITE RACIST COP SHOT TEENAGE BLACK YOUTH

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

the reason was made clear in the report.....100% clear,
poster BELOW AVERAGE has the overwhelming NEED to suppress facts and go with

WHITE RACIST COP SHOT TEENAGE BLACK YOUTH

Hater! Brown was trying to shake hands with Officer Wilson.

 

[Que]

Hater! Brown was trying to shake hands with Officer Wilson.

...and when wilson shot him, he started to flee, then thought it his civic duty to return and was shot down in cold blood as he rushed wilson to apologize and give him a big hug.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

...and when wilson shot him, he started to flee, then thought it his civic duty to return and was shot down in cold blood as he rushed wilson to apologize and give him a big hug.

You get it! Allah bless you.

 

[Busybody]

Hater! Brown was trying to shake hands with Officer Wilson.

maybe to share the cigar with him

 

[about_average]

Stippling does not occur from extremely short range or from very long range.

Ok, I guess they are implying "very close range" and "close range" are different, even though both (according to the ME's) don't cause stippling.

Though I'm not sure why the article is even news, since it's been pretty well established that one or more shots where fired while parts of Brown's body were in the car. If Brown was hit, as he apparently was, it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see.

 

[Que]

You get it! Allah bless you.

Allah has already blessed me beyond measure by making sure that all humans honor my white privileged. It's good to be bulletproof.

 

[Busybody]

Ok, I guess they are implying "very close range" and "close range" are different, even though both (according to the ME's) don't cause stippling.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/112009/1257946416_banana_man.gif

 

[Que]

Ok, I guess they are implying "very close range" and "close range" are different, even though both (according to the ME's) don't cause stippling.

Close range does cause stippling. Unburned, expelled gunpowder is igniting for a short time outside of the barrel. Direct contact doesn't cause it there is no space for the powder to burn in before the bullet tears a hole.

 

[about_average]

Close range does cause stippling. Unburned, expelled gunpowder is igniting for a short time outside of the barrel. Direct contact doesn't cause it there is no space for the powder to burn in before the bullet tears a hole.

Only the article, as far as I can tell, doesn't say it was a contact shot. Also, contact shots often get bodily fluid blow back in to the barrel.
I hope they didn't clean his gun.

 

[toubab]

Only the article, as far as I can tell, doesn't say it was a contact shot. Also, contact shots often get bodily fluid blow back in to the barrel.
I hope they didn't clean his gun.

The NYT reported Brown's blood was on the pistol.

 

[about_average]

The NYT reported Brown's blood was on the pistol.

Ok, I hadn't seen that article, or missed the part of blood on the gun thinking it not that critical since that's not where the critical fork in the chain of events comes in to play.
I found an article much better than the Fox one.

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

Although one of the forensic pathologists draws a possibly faulty conclusion based on the information presented.
At least I don't know how they know the shot to the forearm was the 6th shot, when the 3rd+ shots occurred in quick succession..

 

[Que]

Ok, I hadn't seen that article, or missed the part of blood on the gun thinking it not that critical since that's not where the critical fork in the chain of events comes in to play.
I found an article much better than the Fox one.

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

Although one of the forensic pathologists draws a possibly faulty conclusion based on the information presented.
At least I don't know how they know the shot to the forearm was the 6th shot, when the 3rd+ shots occurred in quick succession..

Well, hopefully we can figure it all out here without the benefit of computer modeling, blood spatter experts, ballistics and trajectory experts.

If Eric Holder's Justice Department cannot MAKE Wilson guilty, it is just POSSIBLE that the shooting was self defense.

If there was a single theory supported by the evidence that shows this as anything but corroborating Wilson's version of events you can bet it would be leaking.

Does anyone who doesn't NEED this to be racism actually think a cop went and shot a guy in broad daylight in front of witnesses for no reason?

 

[about_average]

If there was a single theory supported by the evidence that shows this as anything but corroborating Wilson's version of events you can bet it would be leaking.

Here's one (which I've posted before), supported by the lack reported evidence.

Brown is fleeing, Wilson starts firing, Brown, thinking "Oh Shit!" raises his arms, stops running and turns around.
Between the time he raises his arms and stops running and turns (which no one can do instantaneously) a bullet enters the back of his forearm and exits the front. Have you seen evidence saying that's not possible?

Then two things could have happened
1. Wilson, in his adrenalin rush keeps firing and kills Brown.
2. Wilson sees Brown surrendering and relaxes some, Brown thinking he has an opportunity decides to charge him, Wilson justifiably shoots.

The third one you mention, while certainly possible, isn't very likely IMO.

 

[Que]

Here's one (which I've posted before), supported by the lack reported evidence.

Brown is fleeing, Wilson starts firing, Brown, thinking "Oh Shit!" raises his arms, stops running and turns around.
Between the time he raises his arms and stops running and turns (which no one can do instantaneously) a bullet enters the back of his forearm and exits the front. Have you seen evidence saying that's not possible?

Then two things could have happened
1. Wilson, in his adrenalin rush keeps firing and kills Brown.
2. Wilson sees Brown surrendering and relaxes some, Brown thinking he has an opportunity decides to charge him, Wilson justifiably shoots.

The third one you mention, while certainly possible, isn't very likely IMO.

A lack of evidence is never going to crucify the officer.

I am not suggesting: can some armchair detective form a theory. I mean is there any way to present the evidence that is actually available in a way that an expert could suggest malice on Wilsons part.

There isn't.

It makes no difference, the same people that have to have this be a racist cop and an innocent youth would be unconvinced if there were video completley corroborating Wilsons version.

After it is found that this was a justified shooting it will still be brought up as an example of how cops get away with murder. It will be brought up with Martin when they talk about the next youth to think he is tougher than an armed citizen or cop.

I don't think any cops go to work hoping to be involved in a shooting. They get in lots of them. Most of them are justified, which tells you that there are an awful lot of cowboys that think they can and should take on a cop.

I don't know why you are so dead set on having your novella validated. None of that is known, or supposed.

But I will play:

Option 1, Doesnt matter. As soon as Brown gave Wilson reason to fear for his safety or the safety of others he was justified in shooting to kill. Once the first shot was fired, emptying the magazine is reasonable. Cops usually do and hit about 15% of the time. The ONLY unjustified shot once a shooting is in progress is maybe a coup de grâce after the subject is prone and un-moving.

Number two: justified

 

[about_average]

I am not suggesting: can some armchair detective form a theory. I mean is there any way to present the evidence that is actually available in a way that an expert could suggest malice on Wilsons part.

I don't think I have ever suggested it was due to malice on the part of Wilson.

I truly hope it is eventually shown without a shadow of a doubt it was either a justified shoot or not justified.
Although I have my doubts firing at a fleeing Brown was entirely justified based on the letter of the law, there is certainly a good argument that it was since it comes down to the adjective "reasonable".

 

[Que]

I don't think I have ever suggested it was due to malice on the part of Wilson.

I truly hope it is eventually shown without a shadow of a doubt it was either a justified shoot or not justified.
Although I have my doubts firing at a fleeing Brown was entirely justified based on the letter of the law, there is certainly a good argument that it was since it comes down to the adjective "reasonable".

You absolutely CAN shoot at a fleeing felon. He assaulted a cop tried to get the gun. That much is now backed up by the autopsy.

That was a felony. Him fleeing is a danger to the community. If he will attack a cop he will attack ANYONE in the way of him and freedom. Wilson was duty-bound to bring him to a halt. Rassling him was already not an option. He also had a sidekick for Wilson to consider as well.

Besides too many shots hit him. And not in the back. So he was clearly advancing.

 

[toubab]

You absolutely CAN shoot at a fleeing felon. He assaulted a cop tried to get the gun. That much is now backed up by the autopsy.

That was a felony. Him fleeing is a danger to the community. If he will attack a cop he will attack ANYONE in the way of him and freedom. Wilson was duty-bound to bring him to a halt. Rassling him was already not an option. He also had a sidekick for Wilson to consider as well.

Besides too many shots hit him. And not in the back. So he was clearly advancing.

It's called the Fleeing Felon Rule, and it's my understanding the citizens of Missouri are particularly generous in allowing police officers to use deadly force under this rule. Another reason I now think it's unlikely there will be an indictment of Wilson, much less a trial.

 

[Ishmael]

Brown was not shot for robbery or J walking, he was shot for violently assaulting a police officer.

The federal investigators are leaking details of the shooting for a reason. Especially considering that the information leaked, and now released by the coroner, substantially support the officer's account of the shooting.

There is but on remaining question, "Was Brown actively, and definitively, in the act of surrender when the fatal shots were fired?" One witness says yes, another says no. Witness nullification on that count. And in that instance the law dictates that the benefit of the doubt goes to the officer. (The Grand Jury can choose to ignore and indict anyway.)

Me? I think the activists are being prepped for a big let down.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

Brown was not shot for robbery or J walking, he was shot for violently assaulting a police officer.

The federal investigators are leaking details of the shooting for a reason. Especially considering that the information leaked, and now released by the coroner, substantially support the officer's account of the shooting.

There is but on remaining question, "Was Brown actively, and definitively, in the act of surrender when the fatal shots were fired?" One witness says yes, another says no. Witness nullification on that count. And in that instance the law dictates that the benefit of the doubt goes to the officer. (The Grand Jury can choose to ignore and indict anyway.)

Me? I think the activists are being prepped for a big let down.

Ishmael

Other than one witness claiming he was surrendering, there was never a reason for the activists to get behind this one. They did so because it was the only one on the horizon in time to inflame the masses of the right sort of voters to the polls.

Until the coroners report showing that there definitely was a struggle for the gun I withheld a definitive guess, but the idea that an officer shot a guy with his hands up in broad daylight in a black neighborhood didn't hold any water.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

maybe to share the cigar with him

You prolly knew it all along. Donuts work better with cops, tho. No cop would ever mistake the purpose of a donut gift.