MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #11

[bettybaby00]

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds.

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

two people familiar with the official county autopsy of Michael Brown said Monday.
The autopsy by St. Louis County chief medical examiner Mary Case, released to state prosecutors late Friday, found that Brown, 18, had six gunshot wounds to the head and chest and was shot from the front, the people said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...016ef8-26f4-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html


One bullet entered and exited Brown several times. That shot struck the teen above the right eyeball, went through his face, left through his jaw and re-entered his collarbone.


It is believed that five of the shots hit Brown on the front of his body.


However Parcells said that the gunshot wound to Brown's forearm appeared to be consistent with someone walking away or putting their arms up in a surrender or defensive manner before adding, 'but we don't know'.


Following the family's press conference on Monday, St Louis County medical examiner Mary Case said Brown had suffered between six and eight gunshot wounds and was shot from the front.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727568/Autopsy-reveals-Michael-Brown-shot-SIX-times-confrontation-police-

Six bullets struck Brown, Dr. Baden said in a press conference earlier today. Two may have exited and re-entered Brown’s body, he said, resulting in multiple wounds.

SNIP


Prof. Parcells said a wound on Brown’s right arm was “consistent with a witness statement” that Brown was first shot while facing away from Wilson, but he stressed that he and Dr. Baden could not determine conclusively the trajectories of the bullets that hit Brown—or which direction he was moving—when he was shot. The wounds “could be consistent with going forward or going backward,” Dr. Baden said.

http://www.newsweek.com/what-we-learned-michael-browns-autopsy-265247

MOO, Dr. Case, original state autopsy says FROM the front not into but FROM. Dr. Baden and Parcell who performed an autopsy without all the evidence the state had and after the body had been embalmed state possibly maybe but we cant say for sure one MAY have come from behind and struck his forearm.

I will stick with the orignal autposy results when Dr. Baden himself admits that the first autopsy would likely be more accurate based on his lack of the same evidence being available to him and having to perform it second after the first one. But that's just me.

I found it interesting that in the Daily Mail article the statement, "It is believed that five of the shots hit Brown on the front of his body." Is not in quotes, nor are they stating who made it. I'm pretty sure Baden didn't utter those words.

Any statement with Fraud-essor needs to be chucked...he is not certified by any entity governing the ME field, he is not a Doctor, his level of education consists of a BS in "living Sciences". He has shamelessly pushed the "the arms are very movable" theory to anyone who would listen. Where is he now? After misrepresenting himself as an expert, an assistant ME, he is now probably hiding out, afraid of being brought up in charges.

And Baden is likely pretty pissed he was associated with such a clown

IMO

 

[jggordo]

I have a couple questions about the GJ that maybe someone could help with. If the GJ normally just meets each Wednesday, and then is deciding a case such as this do they (or could they) meet daily (M-F) until a conclusion is made? IIRC the GJ was empanelled in May and service to conclude at the end of Sept.. If that be the case, can they (will they) hold over the GJ until the conclusion of the case. And finally since the GJ was put together back in May why would they now release the racial and gender make-up of the GJ in this case?

Just wondering.

 

[Lovejac]

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds.

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

two people familiar with the official county autopsy of Michael Brown said Monday.
The autopsy by St. Louis County chief medical examiner Mary Case, released to state prosecutors late Friday, found that Brown, 18, had six gunshot wounds to the head and chest and was shot from the front, the people said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...016ef8-26f4-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html


One bullet entered and exited Brown several times. That shot struck the teen above the right eyeball, went through his face, left through his jaw and re-entered his collarbone.


It is believed that five of the shots hit Brown on the front of his body.


However Parcells said that the gunshot wound to Brown's forearm appeared to be consistent with someone walking away or putting their arms up in a surrender or defensive manner before adding, 'but we don't know'.


Following the family's press conference on Monday, St Louis County medical examiner Mary Case said Brown had suffered between six and eight gunshot wounds and was shot from the front.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727568/Autopsy-reveals-Michael-Brown-shot-SIX-times-confrontation-police-

Six bullets struck Brown, Dr. Baden said in a press conference earlier today. Two may have exited and re-entered Brown’s body, he said, resulting in multiple wounds.

SNIP


Prof. Parcells said a wound on Brown’s right arm was “consistent with a witness statement” that Brown was first shot while facing away from Wilson, but he stressed that he and Dr. Baden could not determine conclusively the trajectories of the bullets that hit Brown—or which direction he was moving—when he was shot. The wounds “could be consistent with going forward or going backward,” Dr. Baden said.

http://www.newsweek.com/what-we-learned-michael-browns-autopsy-265247

MOO, Dr. Case, original state autopsy says FROM the front not into but FROM. Dr. Baden and Parcell who performed an autopsy without all the evidence the state had and after the body had been embalmed state possibly maybe but we cant say for sure one MAY have come from behind and struck his forearm.

I will stick with the orignal autposy results when Dr. Baden himself admits that the first autopsy would likely be more accurate based on his lack of the same evidence being available to him and having to perform it second after the first one. But that's just me.

You, my friend, have the patience of Job :wink:

Time to scroll and roll

 

[aa9511]

One thing which will be extremely important if this goes to trial is whether OW took out his gun first and aimed it at MB in a threatening manner, and then the struggle ensued. Or whether the gun was in his holster when the struggle ensued.

 

[CARIIS]

Thisis why I do not understand why media is so shocked by more shots than on the body. "All shells found at the scene were from Wilson's gun


another one "initial contact was unrelated to the robbery," IMO that phrasing supports that it was not for a few sceonds until he realized they matched the description etc .

Jackson later told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that after the initial stop, Wilson realized Brown could be the suspect of the robbery when he spotted the potentially stolen cigars in Brown's hand.)

did not know how many
August 16, Johnson, of the Highway Patrol, announced that 40 FBI agents were on the ground in Ferguson and would be canvassing door-to-door in the neighborhood where the shooting took place in the hope of finding eyewitnesses to testify about what had happened. The FBI also handed out cards requesting information from local residents.


http://www.vox.com/2014/8/18/602901...-happening-in-ferguson-missouri-michael-brown

 

[bettybaby00]

Kelly file to discuss the "new clue" coming up

 

[katydid23]

IDK. I highly doubt someone would go through all the trouble of staging the audio tape to make it sound like gunshots are on there, and then allow the FBI to take a look at it. Isn't that just asking to be locked up?

I agree. But why is Darryl Parks doubting its authenticity on NG, when just this morning this audio was labeled 'the smoking gun' and the 'gamechanger' for MB. Why the sudden reversal on it's authenticity?

 

[al66pine]

MB's State of Mind re Attacking Ppl

Protect them from what, exactly? A robbery suspect armed with stolen cigars? There would be no reason for MB to hurt the civilians around him. He had already gotten what he wanted. He wanted to go home, he didn't want to attack the folks around him. And he was unarmed.

BBM

Respectfully disagreeing.
If MB did not want to attack ppl around him, then after successfully getting hold of SwisherSweets & walking to sidewalk,
why, oh, why, did MB step back inside, to confront and shove store clerk(?) into the shelving/rack, shaking it?

IOW, he committed a crime & at least for the moment, got away with it, but for whatever reason,
seems to have wanted to add insult to injury/pour salt on the wound.
BTW, I read somewhere (no link) the man he shoved was store owner. If so, MB was esp bold to do that to him, not 'just' a clerk.

He stepped up the SS stealing w a totally unnecessary physical attack on store clerk, to upgrade to strong-arm robbery.

As I see it. JMO MOO IMO

 

[CoolJ]

Thanks for the discussion all. I am out for the night. Just would like to say I do understand LE have a tough job and most of them are passionate about what they do. But when a LEO shoots an unarmed person, we need to find out his reasoning for believing he was in immediate danger. We cannot have police running around think that they will always be given the benefit of the doubt in these cases, there have been too many documented cases of police brutality over the years to give that to them. They must prove that they had no other option and when they prove that, then they should be commended for having to be the one who pulled the trigger on another human being who was obviously suicidal. I just don't see that here yet... Not saying I won't,just saying not yet.

Going forward IMO, the only answer to put a stop to these incidents is for each LEO EVERYWHERE to have a quality bodycam with audio. That is what this has come to. Dash cams won't cut it. The question though becomes are the unions going to fight this? Do they really want us to see what happens day in and day out. Do they want us to see how there members interact with the public? The answer to that question will be extremely revealing.

 

[katydid23]

One thing which will be extremely important if this goes to trial is whether OW took out his gun first and aimed it at MB in a threatening manner, and then the struggle ensued. Or whether the gun was in his holster when the struggle ensued.

There was a comment from the original statement from Josie, saying the gun was being struggled over and at one point it was aiming towards the cops hip. If so, that says to me the struggle was down near the holster, and not outside the window.

 

[Lovejac]

Huh? Then why did run?

I think DJ ran when he witnessed MB assault Officer Wilson.

 

[popsicle]

David Carson ‏@PDPJ 17m
“@stevegiegerich: @SaintLouCo Council advances bill authorizing $2 million for county police overtime. #Ferguson”

 

[reedus23]

Not sure who you are referring too as they, Reedus23, but I can assure you that OW had instinctively put 2 & 2 together immediately due to his reaction to the incident, imo.. Imo, MB knew that OW had put 2 + 2 together when he slammed the door and assaulted OW...

MB thinking DW put 2 and 2 together I can understand. What leads you to believe DW instinctively put 2 and 2 together?

And by "they" I mean the FPD.

If DW or anyone else put 2 and 2 together or even suggested it, it would have been plastered all over those reports from the day of the shooting, not an entry saying they still find no one matching that description. It is little surprise, and rightfully so, that the following day or a day later, MB's name is plastered throughout the report once they did put 2 and 2 together. Until a reasonable explanation can be given for that entry, we can simply agree to disagree because I see no way that anyone within the FPD connected the dots as of 7:00 that night.

 

[bettybaby00]

One thing which will be extremely important if this goes to trial is whether OW took out his gun first and aimed it at MB in a threatening manner, and then the struggle ensued. Or whether the gun was in his holster when the struggle ensued.

I think if that little tidbit were part of DJs official statement, that's what Parks would be saying during interviews. Instead he's talking about a serious interaction, an altercation between MB and OW

 

[Apollo]

One thing which will be extremely important if this goes to trial is whether OW took out his gun first and aimed it at MB in a threatening manner, and then the struggle ensued. Or whether the gun was in his holster when the struggle ensued.

Just curious as to why that's important at all?? Either way, MB had no buisness even touching OW's gun.

 

[tlcya]

Question for ya. If I walk up to a cop and blindside him and punch him upside his head and immediately lay face first on the ground with my arms completely outstretched with nothing in them, surrendering myself to the cop, would he be justified in shooting me?

No. because you are not attempting evade arrest and capture for that felony and you are not a possible danger to the public because there is no threat you will get away and possibly harm or kill another.

Question, if you do that, then proceed to wrestle the officer's gun away from him and he allows you to just run off, evade capture and ten minutes later you kill a person with it or your bare hands what are the odds that person's family will file a civil suit for millions against the city for failure of that officer to do his duty? Or alternatively, he allows you to run off figuring he will catch up to you after backup arrives and you in the meantime have taken a small child hostage in a nearby playground. In the ensuing standoff the child is killed either by you or by police attempting to take you out. Flash forward to million dollar civil suit against city and PD for failure to protect.

My point - we could what if til those :moo: s come home. None of the above happened in this case.

 

[reedus23]

Imo, reedus23 the statement in the report is a "red herring"...and much-a-do-about nothing...

And I am certainly willing to listen to any reasonable explanation for it beyond it was a mistake.

 

[katydid23]

I have a couple questions about the GJ that maybe someone could help with. If the GJ normally just meets each Wednesday, and then is deciding a case such as this do they (or could they) meet daily (M-F) until a conclusion is made? IIRC the GJ was empanelled in May and service to conclude at the end of Sept.. If that be the case, can they (will they) hold over the GJ until the conclusion of the case. And finally since the GJ was put together back in May why would they now release the racial and gender make-up of the GJ in this case?

Just wondering.

I don't think they can change it up and meet every day because these people have other obligations. When they agreed to take on the assignment of GJ they agreed to one day a week. Many have other jobs, responsibilities on the remaining days.

 

[popsicle]

Retweeted by Shimon Prokupecz
​

​

​

CNN Video ‏@CNNVideo 24m
A shouting match ensued between a #Ferguson business owner and #DarrenWilson supporters: http://cnn.it/YWG1Gf
​

​

​

 

[reedus23]

But not if one believes as I do that he assaulted the officer while the officer was still seated in his squad car and then proceeded to "tussle" with him over the officer's firearm. IF that happened as I believe it did, then "in the commission of a felony" has just plopped right back onto the table. And then we end up right back to justified. Not being argumentative, but that is how I am viewing it at the moment.

Not taking it as argumentative. Fair point in fact.