Why was it claimed (loudly! ) that MB was shot in the back?
I read hundreds of passionate posts, denigrating the officer for shooting in the back. I'm sorry to bring this up again but I'm eager to find out WHY.
Was the lie created to bolster the claims of murder? If it was really an unprovoked shooting...
I can't believe the staunch supporters of the "shot in the back" are ignoring the autopsy. They've just eliminated that line from their rhetoric. Now it's simply "Shot in cold blood while he was surrendering."
Sounded better with the "shot in back" and that's what perturbs me. It's a crafted story, imo, with very little basis in reality.
Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie
your opinion can be that you disagree, but nothing about the autopsy ruled out that he was shot at from behind, or that the injury to the forearm was received while he had his back turned and was fleeing, or just standing there. im really lost as to why people keep claiming this when it is so demonstrably false.
look at the autopsy diagram, it couldnt be any simpler.