Official autopsy shows Michael Brown had close-range wound to his hand, marijuana in system
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
ST. LOUIS COUNTY • The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case.
The accompanying toxicology report shows he had been using marijuana.
Those documents, prepared by the St. Louis County medical examiner and obtained by the Post-Dispatch, provide the most detailed description to date of the wounds Brown sustained in a confrontation Aug. 9 with Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson.
A source with knowledge of Wilson’s statements said the officer had told investigators that Brown had struggled for Wilson’s pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Later, Wilson fired additional shots that killed Brown and ignited a national controversy.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html
PDF of Autopsy here:
http://www.stltoday.com/online/pdf_ce018d0c-5998-11e4-b700-001a4bcf6878.html#.VEcpfDmSsBI.twitter
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sakabatou
(42,146 posts)Wilson killed Brown.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Why do they keep bringing this up in reports? One has nothing to do with the other.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
Travelman
(708 posts)People have been wondering/speculating about the tox screen from almost the very start of this whole misadventure, but they said it would be some weeks until it would get released.
In reality, this really sort of "exonerates" Brown from all of the speculation: he had a small amount of THC in his bloodstream. So we know that any speculation that he was on angel dust or meth or any of the other wild speculation from the last eight weeks or so was just that: wild speculation. No longer can anyone claim that Brown did five 8-balls after he left the store and was some sort of crazed, drug-addled wild-man.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Wonder what excuses they'll come up with now that the autopsy has blown their lies & speculations to smithereens?
Travelman
(708 posts)People get all sorts of mixed up with their own emotional BS that blinds them to the facts. God knows that happened here (and lots of other places) with Marissa Alexander: even though it is painfully obvious from the evidence that she clearly attempted to murder her sometimes-estranged boyfriend/live-in/whatever, people just howled that she was some victim of a tremendous injustice.
People who are caught up in that much emotional BS simply will not deal with or accept any actual facts.
What does this autopsy tell us? Not really a whole lot that we didn't already know. We knew long ago that Brown was shot in the front, not in the back, and that the evidence did not show Wilson "standing over Brown pumping lead into him as he lay in the street," so the people making those claims simply were not truthful in the least. We already had a pretty good idea that there was some sort of struggle in the police cruiser, both from the accounts of witnesses (and the third-hand accounts of what Wilson said had happened), and from the evidence that has been released (blood on the inside of the cruiser, etc.). We know that at some point, a distance opened up between Wilson and Brown, and that Brown was shot multiple times from that distance. During the course of those shots, the "kill shot" entered the top of Brown's skull, killing him instantly, though he was probably already on his way out anyway, since he had at least one round through a lung and another that had managed to go through his eye socket and bounce around in his skull.
None of this is new. None of this really changes anything. The nature of the confrontation in the cruiser and how it started is not really proven one way or another by this autopsy, though it does lend some credence to Wilson's purported version of events. Let's face facts here, people: the notion that a 5'8", 165-lb. cop is somehow going to manage to, or even try to, drag a 6'5", 300-lb. young man into the window of a car is pretty preposterous. But that does not automatically mean that Wilson did not somehow instigate the affair and the violence in that confrontation; it just means that the claim that Brown was being pulled into the cruiser is simply not credible, and frankly, it never was.
But regardless of all of that, what matters, what ACTUALLY MATTERS in this whole imbroglio is what happened between the moment that Michael Brown turned to flee after the second shot in the cruiser was fired and the moment that the "kill shot" went into his skull. That's a time span of probably five to seven seconds. It's what happened in those seconds that determine whether this was a justified shooting or not.
And this report does not tell us what happened in those seconds in the least. It tells us the result of what happened when the shots were fired, but it does not tell us what led up to those shots being fired.
I have said from the get-go on this that this appears to not be a "good" shooting. What's troubled me the most is the distance from the initial confrontation to where Brown fell. That was initially reported to be about 35 feet. That's a long way away for someone, even someone who is "charging" you, to be a threat. That's more than ten yards. Any running back in the NFL would be delighted if they could "charge" someone from more than ten yards away. Now, as more details have come out, I understand that the distance between them at the time of the shooting likely was considerably closer, probably more like ten to fifteen feet, but that's still a tough sell on me for this to be a justified shooting.
Now, of late, I've seen a few people around the internet claiming that the actual distance that Brown got from the cruiser was more like eighty feet. IF that's actually the case, if Brown truly got that far away, then that changes things quite a bit, because where he fell and died clearly was only about 30-35 feet from the police cruiser, and that is very clearly visible from the video taken at the scene immediately after the shooting. So IF Brown was actually 80 feet away, then that means that he, in fact, did run some distance away, then turned around, and ran back toward Wilson. And if that's the case, then I'm going to have to swallow it and accept that Wilson had a valid reason to fear for his safety when there's a guy who's already been in a physical confrontation with him now barreling at him at full steam.
BUT, I very strenuously caution that so far, I've seen no valid corroboration of this whole "eighty feet away" claim, so take all of that last paragraph not just with a grain of salt, but a whole can of Morton's.
jen63
(813 posts)I've heard numerous times over the months that he is 6'2" or 6'3" and have seen his wedding photos. He appears to be a tall and well built man. Nope, no link. If any one has one, could you post?
Travelman
(708 posts)I'm pretty sure that I saw somewhere that Wilson is 5'8" and about 165 lbs., but I suppose it's possible that I could be wrong. It was quite a while ago.
Really, though, it doesn't really make any difference in this case, because he's very clearly not anything like Brown's near 300 lbs. Height really isn't going to make any difference in the case of attempting to drag someone into a car through the window when there's that much of a weight difference. That's just never going to happen.
jen63
(813 posts)is Wilson feared for his life because "Brown turned and charged him." That means that they were pretty even in height and Brown had to have been weakening from being shot. I do not buy that cop's story for one hot second.
It's kind of like Zimmerman being in shape when he killed Trayvon Martin, but when we saw him in court, he'd been made to look as innocuous as possible by gaining 50 pounds.
Travelman
(708 posts)I was thinking much more about the inside the car part, not the final seconds.
BTW, I think what I had seen about the height before was the wrong Darren Wilson. I think I might have seen the Darren Wilson who is a Black guy in the St. Louis City police department, who was briefly mixed up with the white Darren Wilson in the Ferguson PD. Anyway, whether that's it or I just have a faulty memory, I retract the part about the height, because I certainly can't find anything to document now in all of the internet flotsam about this out there.
If there's a pretty sizable weight difference, even if the height is the same, then I think it's possible for someone to be in reasonable fear for their safety in a physical altercation. Possible, not probable. But one way or the other, there's still a pretty big problem with the distances involved here, which is why I remain pretty skeptical that this was a "good" shooting.
jen63
(813 posts)
Travelman
(708 posts)The problem there is that we have no idea what the other heights are relative to him. My ex-wife was less than five feet tall (well, technically, I guess she still is that height), which means that in our wedding pictures, I tower over her just like Wilson does in this picture (I'm assuming that's his now-ex-wife in the picture). At the time, I was just a hair under six feet tall, but from the picture makes me look like Goliath.
Given the average male height in the U.S. is about 5'7", I'd say it's likely that's he's fairly tall, but I don't think that we can affirmatively determine that from this picture.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)His torso is the same length as that of the two dudes to the left.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 22, 2014, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)
of Wilson's vehicle? That seems equally as preposterous if not more so than the alternate scenario you call preposterous.
Isn't it possible that Wilson told Brown to 'Come here, boy" (or some such) and Brown initially complied with Wilson's demand, found himself grabbed around the neck (Dorian Wilson's account) and pulled partway into Wilson's vehicle, upon wihich he sees Wilson has unholstered his weapon and is brandishing it in his face and tries to push it out of the way?
Aside from Wilson's allegation, I haven't seen one witness account that claims that Brown willingly stuck his head or hands inside Wilson's vehicle. Doing so might have made sense, non-Wilson witness accounts notwithstanding, had the tox screen showed crack, angel dust or meth. But it doesn't. So I am forced to conclude that Brown found himself trapped partly inside Wilson's vehicle with an entirely legitimate fear that Wilson was going to shoot him in the face.
And, by the way, how exactly did Wilson's firearm come to be unholstered?
Travelman
(708 posts)Here's what I actually said:
Let's face facts here, people: the notion that a 5'8", 165-lb. cop is somehow going to manage to, or even try to, drag a 6'5", 300-lb. young man into the window of a car is pretty preposterous. But that does not automatically mean that Wilson did not somehow instigate the affair and the violence in that confrontation; it just means that the claim that Brown was being pulled into the cruiser is simply not credible, and frankly, it never was.
Maybe Brown threw a punch through the window, maybe something else happened. [url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/source-darren-wilson-says-michael-brown-kept-charging-at-him/article_d2cf8b20-c517-592b-96ba-77d8a5f46fef.html]Wilson's claim[/url] is that he rolled up on them, told them to get out of the street, pulled away, and then heard the description of Brown on the radio, and backed up, at which point Brown threw a punch, and then leaned in.
Is that possible? Is it plausible? Sure. Brown knew that he had just pulled the robbery; it may well be that his hope was to punch out a cop and then run to avoid getting caught. That would hardly be unheard-of.
It could also be that Wilson got out of the cruiser, possibly with his gun drawn, and instigated a fight.
What is not even remotely plausible is that a cop would try to drag someone weighing at least 100 lbs. more than he did into a car through the driver's window. That's just absurd on its face.
As for how Wilson's sidearm became un-holstered, his account says that he drew it himself:
Wilson, trapped in the front seat, couldn’t use his pepper spray in the confined space because it would incapacitate him as well. His baton was at the back of his utility belt, where he was essentially sitting on it. He did not have a Taser. So he drew his gun.
Brown grabbed the pistol using his right hand, with his elbow against Wilson. Wilson described Brown as incredibly strong, the source said.
Honestly, I don't really get why people are so focused upon how the gun got out of the holster. It's really very inconsequential here. It does not matter whether Wilson drew the gun or whether Brown somehow pulled it out. The result is the same: the gun is out of the holster, and at least in Wilson's narrative, there is a struggle for the gun. If there was a struggle for the gun, then it doesn't matter how it got out of the holster; if there wasn't a struggle for the gun, then it doesn't matter whether the gun was in his holster, the glove compartment, or the Voyager spacecraft.
One way or another, we know from the evidence that there were two shots fired in the car. One of them, at least according to this autopsy report, managed to graze Brown's right thumb.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)the caption immediately below the photo that heads the story up. As such, I had not seen such a detailed accounting by a 'source' of Wilson's version of events before responding to you.
Thanks for linking to it here. Depending on my reading and analysis of it, I hope to respond to your post in more detail later.
ETA: You might consider fashioning a Late Breaking News article with that St. Louis Post Dispatch article from which you excerpt. It's important enough, I think.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Wilson "heard the report" on the radio? Even the chief said Wilson didn't know. No report was ever filed. They received one phone call from a customer and didn't investigate for 2 days.
Please link your information.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't think anybody's ever disputed that
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The police chief disagrees with you.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Not sure why you keep going back to that.
The first encounter between Wilson and Brown (ie, the one in which Wilson didn't shoot Brown) had nothing to do with the robbery. To my knowledge everyone involved agrees with that statement.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It doesn't exist. What you are speaking of is the words of that woman who claims to have spoke to wilson and gotten his side. And unnamed sources. I haven't heard wilson say anything of the sort. And his police chief did not say Wilson heard it on the radio and backed up. If it had happened he would have said something to help Wilson. Instead he said that the robbery report had nothing to do with it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)My understanding is he filed it within the 72-hour window required (just barely) and it's been kept sealed since then. Has it been released?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Wilson never said that he came back because of a robbery report. I see this as an urban legend sort of thing put out there after the fact to help him out. It started with that woman who claims to know him and went from there. Now people are accepting it as fact when it is not. The chief had to explain why he released the robbery video and whether there was ANY connection between the video and Wilson's shooting of Brown. He says there was not, but that the media requested the video. We cannot find anyone who claims to have requested any such video. The video was put out and then the robbery call claim came out. But the chief says there was not any connection. Now somebody says Wilson 'heard' the report immediately after yelling at brown. Coincidence that all of this happens in such a way? No. The robbery call thing will not be in Wilson's report because there is no report. They are still writing it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And it does fit in with that anonymously sourced timeline. Which may in fact just be the most convenient of coincidences for a dirtbag cop to ever happen, but it still happened. Just like the fact that Brown's arm being extended towards Wilson could mean a lot of different things, but at least one of those things is very convenient for Wilson.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)All of the info being released is super secret shit. We don't even know why or who is releasing any of this shit. By the way the department has behaved subsequent to the shooting, they have not earned the benefit of doubt. They have earned a critical eye. We don't even really know what happened with the grand jury. We do know that the cops seem to despise the citizens and have violated civil rights many times in the last few months, from the keep moving policy to tear gassing children.
The behavior of the police actually fit more in with the narrative of out of control police than of a black man trying to get into a police car to get a gun from a cop who just heard a report on the radio of a robbery backing up to stop the suspect who reaches into and suv gets shot runs away, keeps running, turns around and decides to commit suicide by cop for no reason on a summer day right before he starts college. It sound so dumb because it is bullshit. People just convince themselves so easily that black people are crazy and just prone to suicide by cop for absolutely no reason, rather that a cops lost control of himself and killed a kid for disrespecting him.
marym625
(17,997 posts)said that the reason Wilson stopped then reversed with tires squealing was due to his hearing the call. Didn't happen. Wasn't over dispatch
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ferguson-police-chief-officer-wilson-didnt-know-michael-brown-was-a-suspect/
It matters
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And at roughly the right time. This may all just be a distraction campaign from his lawyer, but it's also a very lucky one because that timing fits it perfectly.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Because according to the chief, he didn't know and it wasn't. I would really like to hear it and see the time stamp
marym625
(17,997 posts)I am too tired to sort it out.
I don't keep going back to it. I didn't bring it up. And I never said anything about it having anything to do with the initial stop.
I replied to someone who did bring it up. Anything at all I have said about it was in reply. To me, it is a non issue in that it didn't happen. It is an issue when people use it as an excuse to justify the murder.
If you weren't talking to me. Never mind 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Travelman
(708 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)so do we believe what came right out of the Chief's mouth or some anonymous source that is now leaking what Wilson is saying? And the fact it didn't go out over dispatch
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Wilson also says the initial stop was not about the robbery
Johnson says the robbery never came up in the initial stop
Nobody, and I literally mean nobody, is claiming that Wilson first rolled up on Brown and Johnson because of the robbery.
Wilson, at least, is saying (or at least people in the PD are saying Wilson is saying) that when he came back it was because of the call over the radio.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Or that I said it had anything to do with the initial stop?
It never even crossed my mind anyone was talking about the initial stop and I didn't bring it up. I replied.
And as far as that goes, do you honestly think Jackson is going to admit that Wilson didn't know at the time of the initial stop and not take the opportunity to then say but he did know when he went in reverse to get Michael brown? Or to say he went to arrest him? Or anything at all that would have explained it if it had been the case? He didn't say it because it didn't happen
marym625
(17,997 posts)First, there is no proof that the one shot in the arm didn't come from behind. That was stated in the initial report for from the coroner. They stated that the shot could have been from the front with his hands up or from the back with his arms down. Nothing found since refutes that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preliminary-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-six-times/
The wound on Michael Brown's hand is a defensive wound. It indicates a drawn weapon pointed at him he was trying to push away. Tell me how he was able to reach around Wilson, pull his weapon out of the holster, and the gun would have been pointed at Brown.
There has been no evidence leaked or otherwise that says Michael Brown's prints are on the gun or the holster.
For whatever reason, Darren Wilson decided to re-engage with Michael Brown and Dorian Jackson. He had the initial contact and drove away, only to stop and back up in such a manner that his tires squealed. That show anger to me. Whatever the reason. He went back pissed off.
I don't find it at all hard to believe that Wilson tried to pull him in the vehicle. More of a police attitude than anything else. The forensics back DJ's story.
It was not Brown that charged at Wilson that closed that 82 foot gap to 35 feet. It was Wilson chasing Brown. That's not disputed.
He was jaywalking. That gun should never have left the holster and even what we have been told so far doesn't put Michael Brown pulling it out. Nor does common sense.
By the way, the PD that Wilson worked for prior to Ferguson was completely disbanded because of rampant racism. All cops were allowed to reapply for the new force. One or two were rehired. Why wasn't Wilson?
Travelman
(708 posts)First, there is no proof that the one shot in the arm didn't come from behind. That was stated in the initial report for from the coroner. They stated that the shot could have been from the front with his hands up or from the back with his arms down. Nothing found since refutes that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preliminary-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-six-times/
First of all, just to be clear, this is not the initial autopsy, just the first one with findings reported. What was released today is actually the first, and I would argue most accurate, autopsy performed.
Why would I argue "most accurate?" Because this was the first crack at the evidence, and much, possibly even most of that evidence was gone by the time the second autopsy, referenced in the CBS report, was performed. By the time that autopsy was performed, Brown's body had, at the very least, already been embalmed, and there is a very significant likelihood that the body had already been washed in preparation for burial, too. As such, it is, as Dr. Baden himself admitted, incomplete and imperfect at best.
Now, with that out of the way, today's findings clearly show that the wound that allegedly showed Brown was fired upon from behind instead demonstratively shows that in fact Brown was not shot from behind nor did he have his hands up:
The trajectory of that bullet was from the back (dorsal) side of Brown's forearm to the front (ventral) side of Brown's forearm. The trajectory of the bullet was such that the bullet moved closer to the elbow on its track. Therefore, if you were to hold your arms down to your side with your palms facing backward, the wound would come from the part of your arm facing forward on your body and exit the part of your arm facing backward on your body, and would have an upward trajectory. This would not be possible from Wilson's shooting position. If Brown had had his hands up and was facing Wilson, then the wound would have moved from ventral to dorsal, not the other way around. If Brown had had his hands up while he was facing away from Wilson, then the wound would have gone from dorsal to ventral, as this one did, but the track would be away from the elbow, not towards it.
The wound on Michael Brown's hand is a defensive wound. It indicates a drawn weapon pointed at him he was trying to push away.
It might be a defensive wound, but what it definitively shows is that Brown's right hand, at the least, was in very, very close proximity to Wilson's gun when it fired. That could be a defensive wound, as in trying to push the gun away, or it could be a wound sustained while reaching for a gun.
Tell me how he was able to reach around Wilson, pull his weapon out of the holster, and the gun would have been pointed at Brown.
Well, personally, I've never said that was the case. Wilson's narrative says that he pulled the gun himself.
There has been no evidence leaked or otherwise that says Michael Brown's prints are on the gun or the holster.
Well, no, there hasn't been, but just because fingerprint evidence has not been released to the public does not constitute definitive proof that Brown didn't reach for or touch Wilson's sidearm. Now, if that evidence gets released and there are no Brown fingerprints on Wilson's gun, then that turns into a big problem for Wilson, since, at least according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Brown grabbed the pistol using his right hand."
I don't find it at all hard to believe that Wilson tried to pull him in the vehicle. More of a police attitude than anything else. The forensics back DJ's story.
Then you need to go and try that for yourself. Go find someone who weighs 300 lbs. and try to pull them through the driver's window on a car and see how well that works out.
The forensics do not back DJ's story. They positively prove that he lied. Johnson has a long history of lying, and he's been proven to have lied repeatedly in this incident.
It was not Brown that charged at Wilson that closed that 82 foot gap to 35 feet. It was Wilson chasing Brown. That's not disputed.
So Wilson dragged a 300-lb. dead body fifty feet back toward his cruiser after shooting Brown? And NOBODY noticed? And NO evidence of a blood trail from a dragged body that had two head wounds?
How does that happen?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 22, 2014, 10:42 PM - Edit history (2)
behind. The article you linked to has conjecture from people that are not officially part of the investigation and did not conduct an autopsy. The autopsy report does not say from front or back. I read the official autopsy and there is nothing that says the shot could only come from the front. I am not saying you are incorrect but your link does not say that. Melinek did not perform an autopsy but read the report, and it is conjecture. The only statement from anyone about if it could come from the front or back was Dr Baden, during his initial report, and he said it could have been from the back
Sorry, not out of the way.
On your theory and the paid consultants who are giving their diatribe, I completely disagree with the assessment. Additionally, there are seven witnesses that all say his arms were up. One says that his arms were not "up above his head" more out to the side. Those accounts do match with the autopsy. What you said makes no sense to me. Who runs like that or holds their arms like that? I honestly can't really tell what you're trying to explain there.
Not going to address the part of defensive wound since you admit it could be. Why the hell was his gun drawn? I will address the fact I have not seen anything that emphatically states Wilson said he drew his own gun. Glad to hear that. Please link that if you have it handy.
I guess it wasn't obvious but I thought it would be. I did not mean Wilson tried to pull Michael Brown's entire body into the SUV through the window. I meant I believe, as witnesses have stated, Wilson grabbed Brown through the window and pulled him in. Pulled his head in. Not all 300 lbs of him
Yeah, that's what I meant. 
I didn't mean that Wilson was closer to Brown because Wilson ran toward Brown, chased him after him. I meant he dragged his dead body. more Seriously? Can't believe you even said that.
Please show me where it says the SUV was 35 feet from the body. Frankly, as far as I have read, Michael Brown's body was 108 feet from the SUV and his shoe was 20 feet from it. I find nothing that says his body was only 35 feet. I thought you meant how far apart Brown and Wilson were.
Please, again, show me a link that states Michael Brown's body was only 35 feet from the SUV
The autopsy report does not say from front or back. I read the official autopsy and there is nothing that says the shot could only come from the front.
Actually, it does, albeit in an oblique way. From the autopsy report:
[....]
This wound pairs with the wound of the medial ventral right forearm described immediately below which is an exit wound. The path of this wound is slightly upward, forward, and leftward.
[....]
#9. There is a gunshot exit wound of the medial ventral right forearm. This wound is located 15.0 cm below the level of the elbow and 5.0 cm to the left of the anterior midline of the right forearm
If someone has their hands up in a "surrender" posture (as in hands over one's head, palms foreward), then if shot from the front, the wound would have been an entrance wound on the ventral forearm and the exit wound on the dorsal. If someone has their hands up in a "surrender" posture and was shot from behind, then the shot would indeed have a dorsal-to-ventral track, but it would be "downward," meaning that the exit wound would have been farther from the elbow, not closer to it. It also would be pretty unlikely to track from right to left on someone's right arm; that would position the trajectory as being both behind and to the right of the of the shootee. So unless Brown kneeled down in the street, with his back to Wilson, and turned at a 45-degree angle to Wilson, and then, AFTER GETTING SHOT IN THE ARM, BREAKING HIS ARM, he stood up and turned to face Wilson, that wound is not explained by a shot from behind.
But, if Brown threw his arm up in a defensive posture, as if to shield himself from shots being fired at him, then the wound is readily explained as having come from the front.
Additiaonlly, there are seven witnesses that all say his arms were up.
Those same people also claimed that he was shot in the back, which is demonstrably untrue. "Eye-witnesses" are notoriously unreliable. This has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again. There's an entire field of legal study dedicated to this very phenomena. They didn't see what happened. They weren't actually witnesses. They were witnesses to rumors, not the actual event. Sorry.
Not going to address the part of defensive wound since you admit it could be. Why the hell was his gun drawn? I will address the fact I have not seen anything that emphatically states Wilson said he drew his own gun. Glad to hear that. Please link that if you have it handy.
I keep giving the same link over and over and over again and yet nobody seems to be willing to actually read it.
I guess it wasn't obvious but I thought it would be. I did not mean Wilson tried to pull Michael Brown's entire body into the SUV through the window. I meant I believe, as witnesses have stated, Wilson grabbed Brown through the window and pulled him in. Pulled his head in. Not all 300 lbs of him
And what possible purpose could that possibly serve? That's just silly. After he pulls Brown's head into the car, then what? He's at a very distinct tactical disadvantage if he does that: he can't open the door, he can't pull Brown in, he can't apprehend Brown in that position without letting him go. What's he supposed to do? Yell at him?
Yeah, that's what I meant. I didn't mean that Wilson was closer to Brown because Wilson ran toward Brown, chased him. Please show me where it says the SUV was 35 feet from the body. Frankly, as far as I have read, Michael Brown's body was 108 feet from the SUV and his show was 20 feet. I find nothing that says his body was only 35 feet. I read that was Wilson
Please, again, show me a link that states Michael Brown's body was only 35 feet from the SUV
That was based upon multiple initial reports:
Looking at the video:
I might be convinced that it's more than 35 feet from Wilson's cruiser (on the left) to Brown's body, but I'm not buying anything remotely like 108 feet.
marym625
(17,997 posts)and you are buying things we don't know to be true.
People are reading. Just not reading it the same way you are.
As I said, I disagree with your assessments. I think your logic is well, not logical in most of what you're saying. As my grandmother always said, "convince a man against his will, the same opinion he'll have still."
We'll have to agree to disagree.
thanks for the information.
marym625
(17,997 posts)What she actually said and not what the papers have passed as her quotes
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/paper-obtains-official-michael-brown-autopsy-346549827897
Travelman
(708 posts)That's pretty unsurprising. Lawrence O'Donnell tried over and over to get her to claim that they had somehow mis-quoted her, and she said "no."
Well, that's that.
marym625
(17,997 posts)What color is the sky in your world. She did not say no.
That's that because you're living in some alternate universe where the chicken hunt the fox.
Travelman
(708 posts)Try listening to her, and not to Lawrence.
The sky on my world is usually blue, though it was slightly green this afternoon due to the partial eclipse.
marym625
(17,997 posts)In a vacuum. Her words were said without any other evidence but the cops story and the autopsy. Hardly using her words. You are twisting just like the St Louis Post Dispatch
And she does say she wasn't quoted and the Washington Post never even spoke to her
She said, "They're going to take things out of context and I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don't have the scene information. We don't have the police investigation. We don't have all the witness statements. You can't interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum. You need to take them in the scene investigation. "
That was said in her agreement that not one word of her written statement was used.
You are not listening.
If the sky is blue in your world, it must be a blue no one else has ever seen
Done
onecaliberal
(32,812 posts)Will charge toward a person firing a gun at them after they've been shot in the lung and eye socket. For fucks sake use common sense.
Travelman
(708 posts)Certainly not me.
onecaliberal
(32,812 posts)Travelman
(708 posts)I'd sure like to see where Wilson claimed that Brown came at him after he was shot in the lung and eye socket.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Ent, UNARMED, child
Travelman
(708 posts)A 6'4", 300-pound "child" who was eligible to vote?
Puhleeze.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Kind of looks like a big slug. Sorry - but in that wedding picture floating around - he looks like a sasquatch.
Big, dumb, animal. Even his eyes have a sort of flatness to them. Dull.
Travelman
(708 posts)So, the fact that Michael Brown was not a child means that the response should be to attack someone else's appearance.
Socrates would be so proud. 
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)I gave an apt description of what he looks like.
He's a big lug. A Sasquatch. He's huuuuuge! He's gotta weigh three hundred himslf. And he has cold, flat eyes - even in his wedding photo.
How is that an attack?
Charlize Theron is tall, elegant, and regal. Is that an attack? Or an honest assessment.
Why are people so touchy? Is this guy your kid or something?
ETA - I'm sorry - if he is your child.
samsingh
(17,594 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 22, 2014, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
this poor kid was murdered
MontBlanc
(1 post)samsingh
(17,594 posts)the point is that the police murdered an innocent boy
Scairp
(2,749 posts)I'm sure I'm going to get lit up here for this, but it sounds like Brown was a thug who for whatever reason decided he wasn't going to listen to a lawful order from a police officer and just went after the cop. He got shot. I'm not sure what other action the cop was supposed to take given that Brown attacked him and tried to take his gun. The protesters and others who have jumped on the murder bandwagon have been wrong. IMO, the shooting was justified.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)not.
samsingh
(17,594 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
samsingh
(17,594 posts)does not justify 10 shots into an unarmed boy.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)If a huge person was charging you and had already been shot a couple of times and kept coming then more shots would be justified. Just don't hold your breathe this cop will be indicted for the shooting.
samsingh
(17,594 posts)it was murder and interestingly i don't see any evidence that he was rushing. there are eye witnesses that say they saw his hands up.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)At this time I am not buying anything any of the witnesses claim they saw that day. Their accounts don't ring true to me when they tell it.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)And even the White ones are full of shit??
Just come out and say one White cops word trumps that of a bunch of unrelated niggas
samsingh
(17,594 posts)BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)But given how this case is going, it feels good to call a racist out. Many of the eyewitnesses were believable to me and if there is any confusion, it's probably due to perspective or the speed of the action.
But we didn't all get together and make this shit up. LOL
branford
(4,462 posts)in the grand jury proceedings support Wilson's account of the incident, although these witnesses have not spoken publicly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
The simple fact is that we have not heard from all the witnesses, no less been able to competently evaluate their credibility. Moreover, all forensic evidence has not been released, but what is in the public domain appears to support Wilsons alleged account.
I do not know what happened, and the more I hear, the more doubts I have about the purported "facts" from all sides. This is beginning to remind me of the Zimmerman trial. Listening to many press accounts and Ben Crump certainly gave one impression, but after actually watching the trial, I readily realized the folly of letting preconceived notions replace actual evidence.
Regardless of whether the grand jury indicts, I hope McCulloch keeps his promise to release all the grand jury transcripts so we can see a full account of the available forensic evidence and witness testimony.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)and if he had posted that, I probably would have had no response. But he didn't say that. He said that he doesn't buy anything ANY of the witnesses have to say.
He seems to dismiss all of the witnesses out of hand and given that the overwhelming majority of them are Black, I take offense to that. I don't really need an explanation about the grand jury procedures to comment on what I think is a racist point of view.
branford
(4,462 posts)or seen all the evidence, and the testimony from a number of African-American witnesses in the grand jury even appear to support Wilson.
I was not commenting on the perspective of the other poster and his lack of trust concerning all the witnesses.
In fact, I personally do not know enough about any of the witnesses to properly and comfortably evaluate their credibility, and do not like or trust the current piecemeal leaks of information.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)but you responded to my post in where I was calling out bullshit on what they said. Like I said I would have not posted in response if that person had said that. Dismissing a whole group of witnesses, many who are believable and most of them Black, without explanation led me to believe that the poster was demeaning their experience versus that of the White officer. Your post did not touch on that and came across as supportive of that poster.
branford
(4,462 posts)As I read your posts, I thought that you might be implying that the testimony of all African-American witnesses incriminated Wilson in criminal conduct, particularly when you replied to the other poster by stating, "Just come out and say one White cops word trumps that of a bunch of unrelated niggas."
I believed it pertinent to the discussion to cite the Washington Post report that indicated that seven or eight African-American witnesses appear to support Wilson's account in order to demonstrate that there might not be such a stark racial divide among the relevant witnesses, despite the press narrative.
As before, I know nothing about these alleged witnesses, and little more about those who have chosen to speak to the press. However, no witness, whether for or against Wilson, is any more or less credible simply due to the color of their skin.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)I was responding to another poster and its interesting that your are offering up more of a defense for her comments than she is.
I'll leave it at that.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)You are out of line entirely.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)I think implying that, all of the witnesses who have come forward publicly, some of them pretty believable and just about all of them Black are straight up liars, without positing any reason why you think this has any bearing in reality leads me to believe that you discount the word of Black witnesses when presented against that of a single White cop.
We can argue about Darren Wilson all we want but it seems to me that he would have a greater reason to twist the facts that some person who was just getting ready for work and minding their own damn business when this happened.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)It has nothing to do with me, I live thousands of miles from St. Louis. I thought people were here to express opinions on latest breaking news so that's what I did.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)on your opinion. And I didn't stop you from making an opinion. I just pointed out how incredibly racist it seemed that you are willing to discount the testimony of Black witnesses in fell swoop without giving one damn reason for what you posit. And because you didn't give an explanation, you leave it to the readers to wonder why you would make such an astonishingly stupid statement
I haven't even seen people who think Officer Wilson may have been right make as stupid and racist a statement as yours. Don't want to be called on your shit??? Don't shovel it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And that only the cop was telling the truth. The same cop who never filed a report. The same cop that would be saved by discounting all of the witnesses excepting himself. The same cop that chased a man down and shot him from many feet away. The witnesses say he was surrendering, the cop says he was lunging at him. But, the evidence shows that the cops shot him from 80 feet away.... Too far away to have been in danger from a wounded man with his hands up.
The only witness you believe is the white cop. There were many other witnesses there, but they were all black with one white guy. They all say pretty much the same thing. But you call them all liars. Even though their narrative ALSO matches the forensics on scene. Were all of these people under the same delusion? Of course not. The cop never released a statement so that he could craft one to fit the forensics. Hmmm.
samsingh
(17,594 posts)to kill an unarmed kid.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)So IF I wanted to do the same, how is that any different from you? BTW, I only want to see the truth come out, whatever it is. I am not as emotionally overwrought as so many others are about this case. After about a week it seemed not so clear it was a bad shoot by the cop and that maybe Brown did attack him after all. The autopsy seems to give weight to the cop's account.
FYI, I am a woman, so you can now insult me using the appropriate pronoun.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)
You've jumped to the conclusion that Brown was a thug.
Even if the official autopsy turns out to be true, how does this autopsy make Brown a thug?
One point to consider: what set Brown off? What did Wilson really say and/or do? There are only two witnesses to that, and one is dead.
Marijuana is not a drug that makes people aggressive, either.
Travelman
(708 posts)Only moments before his death, Brown had engaged in a strong-arm robbery, and both the St. Louis courts and Benjamin Crump have effectively admitted that Brown had a juvenile criminal record involving "lesser" felonies.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)That is evidence too, along with everything else. A teenager is dead and an entire community is on the edge of exploding, but truth will out. That is all anyone should ever want, not wholesale validation of their committed narrative that Brown got killed for no good reason.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Certainly fulfills the image of a scary thug.
Travelman
(708 posts)You do understand that people usually get felony records for thuggish behavior, right?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You seem to have developed quite a prejudice against Michael Brown.
read this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/19/1323077/-Debunking-Right-Wing-Lies-re-Michael-Brown-Alleged-Rap-Sheet-False#
felonies attributed to him were for other individuals named Michael Brown. The St. Louis County Prosecutor said that this Michael Brown has no arrest record.
and here is another source:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ferguson-shooting-victim-michael-brown-felony-rap-sheet-article-1.1926639
Michael Brown never had a felony rap sheet.
The unarmed 18-year-old who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., last month never had an adult criminal record, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
A lawyer for St. Louis County family court argued against releasing the records, which were requested by the Post-Dispatch.
But she admitted that Brown had no active cases or convictions for serious Class A felonies like second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, or Class B felonies including voluntary manslaughter, second-degree robbery and first-degree burglary. Michael Brown never had a felony rap sheet.
The unarmed 18-year-old who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., last month never had an adult criminal record, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
A lawyer for St. Louis County family court argued against releasing the records, which were requested by the Post-Dispatch.
But she admitted that Brown had no active cases or convictions for serious Class A felonies like second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, or Class B felonies including voluntary manslaughter, second-degree robbery and first-degree burglary.
Travelman
(708 posts)The state effectively admitted that Brown did have class C and D felonies. They admitted that he had no class A or B felonies, and the court said it would review whether to release the remainder of Brown's record. That is a tacit admission that there are other felonies on his record. If there were no felonies on his record, then they simply would have stated that, but they knew that they couldn't because that would be perjury.
Benjamin Crump admitted the same. He refuses to discuss whether Brown had any juvenile record, and instead keeps insisting that there was no "serious" felonies in Brown's juvenile record.
The ONLY possible conclusion is that Michael Brown did indeed have "lower" felonies on his record.
Does that fact somehow justify the shooting? No. Absolutely not. Not just no, but hell no. No more than the theft of the cigarillos a few minutes before justified the shooting. But it does show that Michael Brown was not even remotely the "gentle giant" that he was made out to be.
If people are genuinely interested in justice, then ALL of the facts have to come out, warts and all. Reasonable people can understand and agree that even if Michael Brown had a juvenile record for felonious behavior, even if he had just committed a strong-arm robbery, even if he actually had a history of rather thuggish behavior, that still does not justify a shooting. Only empirical evidence showing that Brown was a threat to Wilson after the incident in the car will definitively show that Wilson was justified, and to date, I haven't seen such evidence.
It's sort of like the First Amendment: the biggest test is whether one can defend someone's rights for speech that you absolutely abhor. In the case of Michael Brown (and indeed anyone else who may get killed in some unjustified fashion), the real test is whether you can stand up for Brown even though he was not exactly an ideal character. In my case, I'll do exactly that: Brown was NOT exactly the perfect person, but he STILL had the right to not be killed by the state, at least not without due process or some other DAMN good reason, and SO FAR, I haven't seen such a damn good reason.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and that qualifies as a prejudice, not a warts-and-all assessment of who he is.
And you didn't distinguish between felony types in your original statement, either, but gave the impression of serious felonies in his record.
Also this:
The state effectively admitted that Brown did have class C and D felonies. They admitted that he had no class A or B felonies, and the court said it would review whether to release the remainder of Brown's record. That is a tacit admission that there are other felonies on his record. If there were no felonies on his record, then they simply would have stated that, but they knew that they couldn't because that would be perjury.
Benjamin Crump admitted the same. He refuses to discuss whether Brown had any juvenile record, and instead keeps insisting that there was no "serious" felonies in Brown's juvenile record.
This is complete bullshit. This is not a tacit admission; this once more reveals your personal prejudice against Brown. A lack of information is not admission of anything.
Travelman
(708 posts)It's not a lack of information at all. It's an admission that they have the information but they're not going to release it.
Michael Brown was indeed a thug. Anyone who uses his own size and bulk to push around smaller people in order to take things from them is, by any reasonable definition, a thug.
Does that fact alone mean that he deserved to die? No, it does not. Even thugs have rights. But it's a huge disservice to everyone involved to not be honest and admit the truth about Michael Brown.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You are making things up, a flag to your bias.
and you have a very peculiar definition of thug, with a very low bar for admission to this group. You use the word differently than it's popular meaning, that is for sure.
Like I said, your prejudice against Brown is duly noted.
Travelman
(708 posts)someone who uses his size to intimidate, bully, and steal from other people? What word would you use to describe such a person that would fit within your delicate sensibilities?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)He doesn't become a thug until he is a habitual violent criminal, often with gang involvement.
Judi Lynn
(160,515 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 23, 2014, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)
Scairp
(2,749 posts)Neither am I. Just because I don't have a knee jerk reaction and assume this shooting was not legal by this cop, thereby attacking and wigging out on anyone who even mildly suggests Brown might be responsible for his own death hardly means I am any of those things. I am taking the tact of a criminalist, I follow the evidence wherever it might lead. I've heard things that sound like this was indeed an illegal shooting, and now I read possible evidence it was legal and Brown was at fault. I have no idea what happened, I wasn't there. And neither was anyone here so why open minds are suddenly closed on DU is a goddamned mystery to me, and very troubling too.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)And his initial report? I'd like to see what he said at the time of the killing. He shot from to far a distance to have been in imminent danger when he fired all those shot at the young man. 80 feet away is pretty far, if i shoot everyone I was scared of from 80 feet away there would be piles of dead folks. Running away indicates fear, not aggression. Everyone says he stopped, turned around, put his hands up, and got six more shots for his trouble. And black people don't get INTO police cars. They run from crazy police. And what the hell does weed have to do with it? Weed makes you less aggressive not MORE aggressive. Some people need to stop watching 'wacky reefer' anti marajuana specials from the fifties.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)marijuana reference allows the Post Dispatch to tap into age-old stereotypes of blacks as drug-crazed animals who, by extension, can't be reasoned with and so must be put down like rabid dogs when they get out of control.
To say I am angry is a major understatement.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It seems they are trying to find an angle to make cop murder seem palatable. Make it seem like black people are just violent drug maniacs... They need an excuse to harass the citizens that pay their salaries. I say they need top, each and every resident, sue the police department and each officer that has violated them directly. They need to be kept in court, explaining themselves on a regular basis. If they constantly had to explain their actions and spend money doing it, they would feel a sense of pressure and realize that this type f shit needs to be over. Now. Forever. It cannot go on forever without both sides getting out of control. Unless they like riots? This feels just like it felt during the Rodney king shit. They thought that if they stretched it out, everything would be just fine, with no change in policy. Cops began behaving worse and worse, jacking up kids, literally STEALING lunch money, from children. And much much more! Just like in Ferguson. Now, years later, all of those old buildings are gone, train stations were built, better grocery stores, my old neighborhood actually looks better and there is less violence. And cops don't come by often anymore. Once the cops left, crime went down as did the gang violence. The riot made us recognize that we all had a common enemy. The system.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Gov. Nixon had to fire him when the reality is exactly the opposite - McCulloch had to step down first BEFORE Nixon could replace him) and that there won't be consequences for this shit.
The Rodney King riots cost at least $1 billion.
And McCulloch's hubris if it leads to no indictment will make Rodney King look like a Sunday School picnic.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They seem to be so smug and sure of getting their way. They seem surprised and angry about the level of resistance they are receiving. It would definitely cost more than a billion dollars today. And I would assume the government buildings would be in danger of being vandalized. I have always wondered if one day people would start busting the prisons open during riots and such. I might have to write a dystopian about that.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)raid that tried to bust Black Panther George Jackson (of Soledad Brothers fame) out. Also France's Bastille Day celebrates the liberation of a French prison in 1789 and the release of its detainees by ordinary Parisians. So you would have a couple great historical analogues from which to work.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I did read a book about the French Revolution once and it really drew me in. I think I may find something for my kindle about Angela Davis to remember more of that story. I had completely forgotten. I must be losing it.
I think I may nanowrimo a short novel set in the near future. It might be good after a few rewrites. Never know.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Remember this
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No one on scene agreed with his statement that he was attacked. He did the attacking.
marym625
(17,997 posts)That did the attacking I mean.
That is a screen shot of a tweet from last night that screen caps a tweet from right after Michael Brown was murdered. You may recall, there was also a woman who supposedly witnessed everything immediately after, that turned out to be lying and is a relative of Wilson's.
What is funny, sad and disgusting is they tried to plant a witness and they failed because they had no way to claim a white person was in the area at the time. So much is wrong with that I can't even begin to wrap my head around it. It's actually a good thing they weren't immediately aware of the white construction worker.
I am sorry I somehow missed your reply about the book. Not sure if it was to me but I will go back and look right after I post this
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I remember that woman. I have notice that all of the witnesses that agree with Wilson were not actually present at the time of the shooting. The was they are trying so hard to manipulate evidence makes me wonder if they ever arrest the actual person who commits crimes. How man innocen people do we have rotting in jails based on statements made by false witnesses. Every day the lies are getting more blatant, I am thinking that pretty soon they will just say that Darren Wilson was never there and that it was a gang related shooting. That's where i'm at right now. I think they will move the grand jury decision back to January or somethng too. Keep pushing it back until they think people have forgottent and moved on.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Taped the officers. The kid (I think around 18) had been charged with a gun offense prior to this and was cleaning up his act. The cops started picking him up and threatening him. They drove him around in cuffs and told him if he didn't give them a name they were going to plant a gun on him and he would do hard time.
He recorded all of it. When they picked him up after his 24 hours were up he was able to talk them into giving him a few more hours. He then gave everything to his attorney. They are now under investigation. Video is included in link below. There are other publications that are more "mainstream" but this one is a bit more detailed
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/st-louis-police-framing-gun-charges/
Here's a link to just the local news story
This article shows how horrible the "legal" system is in STLC.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/16/why-we-need-to-fix-st-louis/
Stuff in that article will make you think they can't be talking about the USA.
Last night one of the chiefs of police agreed to meet with the protesters if there was no press. For whatever reason, they allowed the streamers to stay. Although it was supposed to be no yelling and one person at a time, one of the protesters, the first to ask a question, wouldn't really allow the Chief to respond. He wasn't really giving straight answers but she was definitely not following his agreed rules. But he came in with a major attitude and said within the first couple minutes, "I don't have to do this" and "I will just leave if you're going to. .." This woman started saying to others she didn't want to talk to him anyway and kept telling him to please take his hand off his gun. He refused to remove it (resting on gun in holster) and he just stormed out. Whole thing couldn't have been 5 minutes.
It caused a great deal of friction between protesters as some wanted some serious dialog. But from what I saw, he was going to use the first excuse he could to high tail it out of there.
There are so many stories like the above out there it is mind blowing. There is zero transparency into law enforcement. There is no doubt in my mind that VonDerritt Myers was murdered.
Finally, on their lovely little local cop watch blog, they have this. That's the streamer who doesn't protest but a cop called her employer trying to get her fired.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This was actually pretty shocking. It is much worse than I had thought. Much worse.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I wish I could go show all this, and more, to anyone that thinks these cops are plainly, obviously, racist pigs.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Finally got my stepdad realizing that cops are criminals. One down, millions to go.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I even received a death threat. It wasn't aimed at me. It said "all your leaders will be assassinated"
Sick fucking people.
Good for you. One person at a time is better than none. Be proud
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I get all the racist trolls. Every-time something like this happens i get the nastiest trolls that sign up multiple times to say ignorant shit. Not in the last week or so though. I am surprised. I really think people like that live small little pathetic lives lacking in love and beauty. Poor souls.
I'll find another person to flip soon. The cops are making it easy to show the public what they really are.
marym625
(17,997 posts)information as truth. They are not even noticing, or caring, that the bulk of it is not from anyone actually involved in the crime itself or the study of it
I am amazed at your not getting many trolls lately. I am getting more than ever before. Seriously, like 10 a day.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I mean, you have been killing it lately... They usually look for something bright and wonderful to try to smash and demolish.
Every-time we get one if these leaks we have people that treat it like manna from heaven. It's like they just have to believe that the cops are always in the right. They like living with their heads in the sand and do not appreciate anyone trying to tell them the truth.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And thanks 
I am being retweeted a great deal. Sometimes by some big names.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)People need to use their brains and stop believing official narratives. Thanks for getting the word out and dissecting this story. I am glad to find people who are just as skeptical as me.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And back at you. I know not everyone feels that, especially on this thread. 
PorridgeGun
(80 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)I would like your reply
marym625
(17,997 posts)For this complete and utter bullshit.
I am so angry I am beside myself. I cannot fathom what the people of St Louis County are feeling.
When hell hits the streets it is the government that will be to blame
Red State Rebel
(2,903 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)white, racist constabulary for nothing more than walking in the street?
Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #83)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Red State Rebel
(2,903 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)in the street, not in racist cops who think their badge and gun give them carte blanche to kill.
sheshe2
(83,711 posts)Michael Brown shooting scene. Witnesses describing what they saw.
Michael Brown shooting scene witness ‘The first shot, he fired out of the car’
From the comments:
View image on Twitter
3ChicsPolitico @3ChicsPolitico
Follow
BAM! Keeping it REAL-->Liza: Recipe for Obstruction of Justice for Protecting Killer Cops from Prosecution: #Ferguson
4:35 PM - 22 Oct 2014
Here is another, you will need to scroll down the comment is long and a damn good read...here is part of it.
Liza says:
October 22, 2014 at 12:13 pm
From Leatherman’s blog:
Who is selectively leaking information to help Officer Darren Wilson
October 22, 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Good morning:
We are witnessing a massive coordinated effort by unnamed officials to unlawfully influence public opinion and the members of a grand jury regarding the Michael Brown shooting by selectively leaking and spinning information in the police investigation file. The purpose of this massive propaganda effort is to discredit eyewitness accounts of the shooting, persuade the public that Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown in self-defense and condition the public to accept a decision by the grand jury next month to not charge the officer with a crime.
http://3chicspolitico.com/2014/10/22/michaelbrown-shooting-scene-he-held-that-boy-and-fired-out-of-the-car-he-held-his-arm-and-fired/
I am pissed off too bravenak.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They seems to be seeing things just like I do. Glad they are there breaking this thing down. I feel like my sanity is at risk with this whole situation. Too many anonymous sources and fake facts.
sheshe2
(83,711 posts)And articles I have posted from there, have pissed off more than one poster here.
Stay calm bravenak, yes I know the false crap is coming to the front. Effing lies! The big bad policeman was so scared! He feared for his damn life! Ef! How about Michael? He may have been a big guy, yet how about his fear when faced with a gun and an ugly white racist cop. It scares me that they are trying to sweep it all under the rug.
I hope for justice, I just don't know if we will see it!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Maybe i'll spend some time making fun of Chuck Todd. That always makes me smile. Allison Grimes mentioned him in a speech. I loved it.
sheshe2
(83,711 posts)Your words speak volumes!
Alison is going to do it. Damn I wish I could vote there!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I will be voting here on election day. I love going on the day of the election, and trying to change one mind in line. I will be right here to watch the results come in. I feel hopeful no matter what the polls say. I remember the president being down in many polls the day he won. Let's do it again.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Scairp
(2,749 posts)They published the report. Should the paper redact the report so as not to offend anyone nor inflict any further suffering on his parents? I am sure the parents knew their son smoked dope and I personally don't think it's a big deal, or even a deal at all, but criticizing the messenger does not get to the truth.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)propagate age-old stereotypes about drug-crazed black males? The tactic is rightly called 'sensationalism' and it's highly irresponsible for the city's paper of record to engage in it.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)But it was in the autopsy report so I'm not sure what people expect them to do with that information. Should they have redacted that portion of the report? And then everyone would start screaming once again about how there is a massive cover-up because the autopsy report was altered for public consumption. It's a no-win situation.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The reason they don't tell you what those are is because there were none...everything was crafted much later to fit the predetermined narrative.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The lack of explanation from the officer as to why he made no statement and why the witnesses say different from the version put out by the departments. And why he shot a man from 80 feet away? The man was already shot, scared, running, then turned and put his hands up. Why shoot him? I think it is so Mike could not tell us what really happened in the car. He had to shut him up.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I wouldn't be surprised if some pea brained troll on DU labeled this a conspiracy theory and tries to have the comment banned. Some fool actually suggested that on another thread when people thought Warren would be risking her life if she got nominated.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I just see no other reason to shoot him that does not involve blatant racism. If they ban my comment I will laugh and laugh. Police conspire all the time. There are men getting out of jail all the time that were innocent and put into jail by crooked cops and a shady system. They are receiving millions of dollars.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)house. Burge had been convicted and sentenced for his role overseeing the torture of over 200 inmates in the Chicago jail system OVER MANY YEARS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/jon-burge-released_n_5923784.html
You simply cannot make this shit up!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The number of cop related crimes is extreme. Imagine if they actually arrested each other? We would find that the cops are an actual gang of thugs and criminals. People want to hid from the facts of life as long as it doesn't affect them. And boy do they commit much domestic violence. The stories I have heard from wives... They stay because they are scared to death. We had one. http://www.adn.com/article/20131108/convicted-rapist-and-former-anchorage-police-officer-moved-arizona
He is not the only one. I live in a prostitute area (yay!) and I have had a cop ask me for a DATE! He pulled off so fast when I got mad and told him I am not a whore, how are you a cop?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)police households have some degree of domestic violence going on inside them. My wife actually thinks that if more attention were paid to the spousal victims of police domestic violence, that attention might focus as a tripwire to head off other types of sociopathic behavior by the cops. From what I've heard, spousal victims of police domestic violence have it the worst, b/c the cops know the addresses of all the local shelters so spouses cannot get anonymous safety there the way other victims might. Also, cops won't arrest their brother cops for domestic violence absent death of the spouse or serious injury or disfigurement.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I dealt with a couple of girlfriends that they had on the side. They do the same thing to them, and they have no recourse. I know one who moved out of state to get away and he had cops in that town harassing her. They need to be exposed just like the criminals they are.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)grabbed Brown's hand with a misguided idea that he could put a cuff on him or something (for the grievous crime of jaywalking), and when Brown did what anyone would do when someone grabs their hand through a car window, he pulled back--the cop opens car door with force, hitting Brown, Brown shoves it back, cop grabs gun and shoots him through his hand, and Brown runs like hell realizing this dude is crazy (running out of a shoe) while getting gunned down in the road.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The way this whole thing is playing out makes me susect they have done this too many times to count. Might makes right.
brush
(53,761 posts)And the cop, once out of the cruiser, had to keep shooting Brown until he was dead so he couldn't tell what really happened.
Same thing that zimmerman did, kill the victim so he can't dispute your story.
But this cop and all the rest of them took three months to concoct a story they hope will get through a complicit grand jury, even though all the eye witnesses tell a completely different version of what happened.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)if the current-official-explanation were true, there's no reason for them not to have said so from the very beginning.
murielm99
(30,730 posts)where the witnesses were in relation to the dead young man when he was being fired at. I am more inclined to accept the credibility of the witnesses at this point. And my reaction to the marijuana is, "So what?"
bravenak
(34,648 posts)There is just not much evidence released that doesn't match the witnesses. And there seemed to be a witness from many different angles , including the person he was walking with. They say the cop tried to pull him into a headlock from the car. He pushed away. The autopsy also says he pushed away and ran. It never explains how the gun got unholstered. Like it was magic. I also hear nothing of the victims prints on the gun. Maybe he never touched it. Sound like he didn't. Sound like he swatted it away and ran.
Response to bravenak (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)No drug test, no report, releasing biased information to the media, no arrest, no interrogation.... The police are doing everything in their power to be wilson's defense team.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)Toxicology reports are only for dead, unarmed Black people. Cops don't need know stinking toxicology reports.
I could crash land a commercial airliner or jackknife a truck on an interstate and chances are I would probably be drug tested as soon as the authorities showed up. But a cop gunning down an unarmed Black person......not really necessary, the cop will tell us all we need to know
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They are the good guys with guns.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)How true.....And they need 48 hour rules to make sure the "right" truth gets told.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But the department would be very unusual if they didn't.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)In any controversial shooting of an unarmed Black man, in all of my years on this planet, I have NEVER seen a release of an officers tox screen. Never. And if they do performs screens shouldn't they be made public just like Brown's.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Who said the results got released? They go to the unit that investigates the shooting internally.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)Funny how we always hear about the victims tox screen and never the officers
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Police unions negotiate some pretty good workplace benefits for their members, like never having tox screens released to the public.
BronxBoy
(2,286 posts)All over the world. What a racket
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)as easily have been Mike Brown putting his hands up when Wilson pointed the gun at him. IOW a DEFENSIVE wound.
FFS.
I am really starting to hate the St. Louis Post Dispatch. What a PoS newspaper.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)But we need more information on where the bullet entered the hand and the angle to the exit wound.
My guess is that Brown "disrespected" Wilson, and Wilson got belligerent. Wilson drew his weapon and Brown moved his hands towards the gun to get it pointed away from him. Wilson used that to concoct the "struggle for the gun" scenario. Brown, most likely, was simply trying to defend himself.
The right wing, the press, the cops, and the prosecutor will try to use the bogus struggle for the gun to justify the death of Brown. Given the state of the country, they'll probably get away with it.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)conduct presenting the case to the Grand Jury:
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/17/6986137/darren-wilson-grand-jury-indictment-michael-brown-shooting
If 'they' get away with 'it,' St. Louis will have indelibly inscribed its character as thoroughly and irredeemably racist down through the ages. It is a stain that will live in infamy, a stain that St. Louis will never be able to to remove.
logosoco
(3,208 posts)stories were lies, half truths and a tiny bit of the story.
It seems like "the powers that be" are really pushing here. My main take on the story is that if wilson had not harassed these young men for walking in the street there would have been no issue. It was not a busy street. I see people walking in the street many times in St. Louis county and 99.9% of the time, it is not an issue for the police.
Wilson did not have the wits, the physical capabilities or the emotional stability to be a cop, based on this story. But there he was, out driving around with power and a gun. And now the county is defending him. It is beginning to look like they are saying it is okay for cops to execute people on the streets and they won't get a trial. Just where do they think that is going to lead?
Makes me really sick and I am feeling a little hopeless about this society we have.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The standard for a conviction is reasonable doubt.... In the defendant's favor.
I think Wilson is culpable, but I haven't seen any evidence proving it yet.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)probable cause exists to indict Wilson for murder (or some lesser charge), not to satisfy the demand for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that comes into play after a trial has concluded and the jury has begun deliberations.
Do you think there is enough probable cause to indict Wilson? That's the only question that matters right now.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The hand wound doesn't tip me either way. It could be consistent with both findings. I think the key will be the credibility of the witnesses. If the witnesses are reasonably credible and consistent, then if I were the prosecutor, I'd present to the Grand Jury. But I don't see any point in filing charges if there isn't a good chance of conviction. If the DO get a conviction, I hope they do a better job than the pathetic prosecutors in the Zimmerman case. I'm not a lawyer, and I think I could have done a better job than those knuckleheads.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)simply putting it all out there and letting the Grand Jury decide.
IOW, McCulloch is NOT doing what prosecutors are supposed to do before a GJ, as this former federal prosecutor makes clear:
Your hope that prosecutors "do a better job than the pathetic prosecutors in the Zimmerman case" thus is of but the fond variety. But I share it with you.
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/17/6986137/darren-wilson-grand-jury-indictment-michael-brown-shooting
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)not supported by the evidence. The prosecutor should be genuinely pursing justice. That does not mean looking to satisfy a desire for revenge.
Having said that, the cop's story has a distinct odor to it. I suspect the truth is most likely in the middle. That is, I DON'T think the cop just chased down the kid, guns blazing with no provocation, but neither do I think the cop acted responsibly. I think the cop likely over-reacted to a perceived threat (no doubt exacerbated the color of the victim's skin) and drew his weapon, precipitating an attempt by the victim to disarm the cop, and the cop committing second-degree murder. That's what I think probably happened, but we'll see what can be proven.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If I'm reading this right, the round entered the palm of Brown's hand at close range. That is what you would see if he were raising his hands to surrender or reaching for the gun.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Looks like the gun is at fault. It had a mind of it's own. Guns DO kill people, it seems.
What a Whitewash. I posted this out of disgust - not a single witness statement. Totally written from the testimonials of unnanmed sources.
And WTF does it matter that Mike had boo in his system? If anything, that would make him more passive.
I'll say it again - this article and the report is WHITEWASH!
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)your assessment but I think we need to move to Lenin's seminal question.
3rdwaydem
(277 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
delta17
(283 posts)From Lenin himself:
"Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must be crushed without pity ... You must make example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers. (2) Publish their names. (3) Seize all their grain. (4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram. Do all this so that for miles around people see it all, understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so ... Yours, Lenin. P.S. Find tougher people."
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)From no less than Mark Twain:
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
marym625
(17,997 posts)Finger prints on the gun? Just his blood from being shot at close range
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)so that's a wash in my opinion.
I'm of the opinion that I believe the story that the cop and Michael fought over the gun, and I believe that Michael was running away.
Michael was quite aware of his own behavior in the shop and the pot in his system - he had reason to try to get away from the cop.
And I think he was running away at some point, which, imo, did not call for killing him!
But once a cop draws a gun, they shoot to kill. It's that procedure that is the issue, and the cop's following that procedure. Unless he knew he was dealing with a murderer or sex offender, he should have stood down once Michael ran away.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)kill. They are to shoot to stop the threat.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Stop the threat usually means shooting until he is down. One can still do a lot of damage after being hit by a couple of bullets.
scarystuffyo
(733 posts)have reached for the gun but not when it still was holstered .
Am I the only one that thinks this here?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I know my instincts would tell me to push it away and run. I believe he was a normal person and would respond as I would. Since he did run, instead of staying to strong arm the gun from the cop, it shows me that his state of mind was in a flight response, not a fight response.
scarystuffyo
(733 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)winstars
(4,219 posts)Travelman
(708 posts)Which would indicate that he at least shoots with his right hand.
BUT, lots of left-handed people actually shoot right-handed because virtually all semi-automatic weapons discharge the spent brass to the right. If one were to fire that same weapon with the left hand, it would likely result in spent brass ejecting into one's face.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I find it hard to believe that he would even consider trying to get the weapon while it was holstered. I think the weapon was likely drawn, if Brown made any move for it.
Same with Trayvon Martin... I suspect he did try to get the gun.... When Zimmerman had drawn it already.
I mean, if you're unarmed, and someone draws on you, disarming them may be the only way to survive. Didn't work for either of these young men.
2naSalit
(86,508 posts)the operative term here is "official" autopsy, and what of the second and tertiary autopsies... do they concur with this assessment by the white-wash contingent?
I suspect that they don't/won't.
a thin blue line indeed.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)scarystuffyo
(733 posts)If your being held and fighting in through the window and then
you see the cop just drew his gun out of his holster
It's a natural reaction to try and either grab his gun hand or the gun.
After those two shots it should have been over.
If Wilson is right handed the gun was on the far side and MR Brown didn't try
and reach that low to pull it out of the holster.
He saw that that Wilson was going to kill him and he tried to stop him by trying to grab his hand or the gun.
I would do the same thing
After he was shot in the hand he ran away and was shot 20 to25 feet away
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Not that the hand stops it. It's not like someone is shooting a rubber band. If the bullet went in from the palm side that's even more damning for the cop's version of events.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think Travelman upthread has a point; all this does is rule out some scenarios that nobody was seriously claiming to begin with.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Traces of that can be found a MONTH after a party.
Hell, they could have tested his HAIR for traces. It feeds into the "reefer addicts" nonsense.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)-1 wound inside (palm) of right hand near thumb and forefinger -that's a defensive wound , like he held his hand up in a defensive posture
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)At least regarding the thumb shot. Dr. Baden reported no powder burns though he said that could change depending on a check of Brown's clothing. The thumb, however, would not have any clothing to cover it so this is an important difference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0
Does anybody recall any witnesses reporting Brown was inside the police SUV? What did the guy say that was with Brown when they were stopped for walking in the street. My recollection is that Brown was described as standing outside the police SUV while grappling with/punching Wilson through the window.
Why was no police report made if things started out with Brown and Wilson fighting inside the police SUV where Brown was shot in the hand at close range. Why would Wilson not want to report that at the time because it clearly would have given him justification for use of deadly force.
Some important things are not passing the smell test. It's all too pat.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)so there was some kind of struggle in the care. So the cops would have us believe Brown reached into the suv and lunged across Wilson and tried to get the gun off Wilsons hip? I can't even picture that. I can picture the gun already pointed at Brown.
But back to the multiple shots. There is no justification for that. When you listen to the audio you here the pause before the fatal shots. The eyewitnesses said he had his hands up. The 2 workers stated he had his hands up. And he was already wounded. He wasn't running anymore. He was surrendering.
The weed is irrelevant.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Once any alleged threat was neutralized. It's one thing to shoot in self defense, but if the adrenaline flows, it's pretty easy to keep pulling the trigger. And cops are often trained to keep shooting until the "threat" is down and stays down. Any chance of a conviction lies along this line of reasoning, IMO. But honestly, I do not expect charges, much less a conviction in this case.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If he was coming back after a report of a robbery why wouldn't he unholster his gun in the SUV before he got out?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)So what do you mean? He stopped them for jaywalking. He didn't like the answer he got to yelling 'Get the fuck out if the street!' He was not on a robbery call, as confirmed by the police chief.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)saw Brown and his friend matched the descriptions, and came back. AFAIK dispatch confirmed the timing of that works. AFAIK eyewitnesses have said Wilson did show up, bark out a "get out of the street", leave, and come back.
Is there a witness who said the entire thing happened in one confrontation instead?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The police chief says wilson did not stop brown for robbery.http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/
Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn't stop him because he was suspected in a convenience-store robbery, but because he was "walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic," the city's police chief said Friday.
Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson -- hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the "primary suspect" in the store theft -- told reporters the "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."
So why did Ferguson police opt to release surveillance video of the convenience-store incident Friday -- the same day they named, six days after the shooting, the white police officer who fatally shot the African-American teenager -- if the two situations aren't related?
Jackson said he distributed the store videotape "because the press asked for it," noting he couldn't withhold it indefinitely.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Again, Wilson's claim is that he told them to get out of the street, left, heard the radio call about the robbery, and came back. Impossible to prove, but also not particularly implausible, and since we know when dispatch sent the radio notice out, we can even see if the timing is possible, which AFAICT it is.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The report from the day if the event. If he just came up with this story now, why do you believe him?
What if his initial report doesn't exist? Why believe someone who has had time to look through the evidence before telling his side? You make no sense believing hearsay from unnamed sources rather than believing what is already there back up by the video evidence of the police Chief saying quite clearly that the stop had NOTHING TO DO WITH A ROBBERY. Nothing means nothing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He's got a legal and PR shitstorm coming his way so I take whatever he says with a grain of salt.
the police Chief saying quite clearly that the stop had NOTHING TO DO WITH A ROBBERY
Yes, as we both keep saying, nobody in this whole situation has ever claimed that the initial stop had to do with a robbery. Wilson (well, actually Ferguson PD) has claimed that Wilson came back a few minutes later. I'm not sure why you keep pointing out that the first stop had nothing to do with the robbery, since literally everybody agrees with that statement.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The chief certainly never said it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)However his lawyer seems to be good at getting a narrative out there regardless.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)These words come from his defense attorney. Why believe his lawyer when it is his job to keep his client out of jail for something everybody knows he did. We have nothing concrete from him, no reports, nothing at all. Wilson has said nothing. His lawyer can say whatever he wants to say and that doesn't matter to me. Zimmerman's lawyer said Trayvon attacked Zimmerman with the sidewalk. Until Wilson releases a report, nothing people say he says matters.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I personally have been assuming that Wilson's lawyer is lying, but he seems to be doing a good job of it and constructing a lie that is compatible with the physical evidence.
This autopsy from the OP also challenges what some eyewitnesses said (Wilson could not have been standing over a prone Brown or shooting at him while he ran away, for instance). Still doesn't mean Wilson is telling the truth.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)In an earlier comment on another thread, I spoke these prophetic words: "Darrell Wilson will walk."
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)She's a lawyer here in NY and she thinks he's going to get indicted - she can't imagine he wont be in front of a jury but I knew from the beginning that DA would never present evidence that would make the cop look guilty - in fact, it seems his entire job here is to only present evidence that Mr. Brown was the aggressor. That someone with such close ties to the police department is allowed to only present the evidence he wants is itself a crime in my eyes. I'm going to hate collecting on that bet.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)claims he and his staff are putting every shred of evidence before the GJ and letting it make up its own mind.
Very interesting article here:
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/17/6986137/darren-wilson-grand-jury-indictment-michael-brown-shooting
Buried within the article is this telling quote (that supports our misgivings while in some measure giving McCulloch his due):
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If he wanted an indictment, he'd get one. There really is truth to the adage a DA can indict a ham sandwich.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)an insult he represents to the concept of elected officials avoiding conflict of interest or even the apperance thereof.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)But that whole police department and its pals in the DA office are so incredibly corrupt, I can't say I'm surprised at all the leaks (all of which support the killer cop). It's been nauseating to watch and I really fear for all the citizens there as anger over this case is going to explode.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)amazing watching all the tone-deafness and seeing all the white supremacy and racism bubble to the surface.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts) 
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)In fact, I think he should be resurrected, so the brave protector of public order can execute him again.
I think we all know by now how the Post Dispatch feels about this incident. I think anything that comes from that source now must be considered suspect. What's going on in the Grand Jury will remain a mystery (which is actually as it should be).
-- Mal
Retrograde
(10,132 posts)Whether Mr. Brown was stoned, drunk, sober, or whatever is irrelevant. There was still no reason for him to get shot.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)Along with probably 30% of the rest of youth at his age. So what? Might make a difference if "he was drunk", or high on cocaine or meth. Having marijuana in your system is like having orange juice in your bladder. BFD.
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)
So the people who put this out there have no clue about how chill and laid back weed makes people?
Reefer madness I tell ya!
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)Wilson says Brown reached in and pinned him his with right arm while reaching for gun, at the same time hands off cigars to friend with left arm, then hits Wilson on right side of face with same left arm. This sounds impossible. Try it.
Why is there a "downward tract" of the final shots? Brown was 6'4" he would HAVE to be on his knees and not "running". How can the head and chest wounds have a downward tract?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Wilson had probably had a fight with a family member, lover etc earlier that day or the night before prompting him to project his misplaced anger onto MB.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)was done on the killer cop Wilson, AFAIK.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)Were found in Wilson's patrol vehicle (reported by my local TV station on the ME report), thus indicating a struggle/altercation took place starting there. Wilson claims he feared for his life. Brown is dead, so we don't have his version of the initial start. Did Brown try to get Wilson's gun? Did Brown get accidentally shot trying to pull AWAY from Wilson as Wilson tried to stop and detain him? Whatever happened at the start does not excuse Wilson's execution style shooting of Brown that ended his life. I hope the Grand Jury will take the whole incident under consideration and not just accept Wilson's excuse.
madville
(7,408 posts)Not charge Wilson. The article also says his hands were not in the air when he was hit by the bullets, he was facing Wilson and that the fatal shot landed while he was in a head down "lunging" position.
With the information that he was facing Wilson when shot, that automatically discards and discredits any eye witness accounts that would say he was running away or had his back to Wilson when shot.
I could still see him being indicted but if a jury gets expert autopsy testimony like this there is no way they won't have reasonable doubt and be able to convict. Not guilty or hung jury would be inevitable.
That police chief's article yesterday could be right in that Wilson will not be charged and everyone, including the Feds, are likely in on these daily "leaks" or revelations, he was saying that is standard operating procedure to cushion the outrage when he isn't charged.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)When could we expect to hear about an indictment?
madville
(7,408 posts)Is what the word has been lately.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Can't have a bunch of "those people" taking their anger out at the polls, now, can we? 
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)I am not advocating violence - but IMO there will be large angry nonviolent protests across the land - the anger lends itself to supplying the fuse for a powder keg if unsavory or unethical elements on either side wish to try and light it.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Sort of like the reverse of this one. 
bluesbassman
(19,369 posts)
This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Calista241
(5,586 posts)How much blood? Were there any bullet impacts inside the car? If there are, where were they? How many spent casings were inside the car? How many times was Michael Brown shot while inside the car?
This information is more critical to the potential prosecution than anything about marijuana, witness statements or anything else.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Any claim of aggression from Brown suspect. Of course the media and police will try to claim otherwise as if getting high implies guilt.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)which means that where he would have had his gun. Seated in a vehicle means the gun would be furthermost position from the door. I'm just saying..
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If it was a shoulder holster, it would be on his left shoulder (beat cops normally don't wear those, though). If Ferguson PD uses a weak side pistol holster and a strong side tazer holster, it would be on his left side. I have no idea.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)using the (selectively released autpsy report) presence of blood in the car, on the gun and on the officer's shirt to announce that this supports the officer's story.
No one has disputed that there was a scuffle at the vehicle or that a shot was fired in the vehicle ... In fact, that goes along exactly with what the first witness said happened.
The point in controversy is whether Michael reached into the vehicle, pummeling the officer, while reaching for the officer's gun ... AND THE AUTOPSY (from what I've read) IS COMPLETELY SILENT ON THAT.
So isn't it AS likely, that the autopsy report supports the first witnesses comment, that the officer grabbed Michael by the neck, a shot (or two) was fired and Michael pulled away and ran? It makes perfect sense that someone, when being dragged towards a gun, would reach out in an effort to control the gun.
And what does having weed in ones system have to do with anything?
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Had we not seen the video of Michael acting aggressively in the shop, we'd all be saying that weed would have likely made his more laid-back.
Instead, knowing about his own behavior in the shop and knowing that he had pot in his system might point to his state of mind in how he reacted when the cop stopped him.
NO, I am not saying it was a justifiable shooting.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)how someone reacts to a store clerk a head and a half shorter than you, is vastly different from how one reacts to a police officer ... sober or stoned.
About state of mind ... Who reaches into a vehicle, across the person in the vehicle's body, to attempt and get the person in the vehicle's gun?
That just defies all life experience and there is not that much weed on Earth for that move.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)From the "leaks" I've read, the officer most likely reached for his own gun. He said he wasn't carrying a taser, and his stick was wedged between his back and the car seat. I believe the officer likely did reach for the gun. What I don't know is "why?"
ETA - By that question, I am asking how aggressively did Michael respond to the officer's summons? It does seem that he was behaving aggressively; but was it aggressive "enough" for the officer to reach for his gun?
I am trying to think logically through each step, and, until the officer shoots at a person running away from him, I could likely believe and support the officer's version.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)he reached for his gun BECAUSE Michael was trying to get it.
What is acting "aggressively"? The witness stated they were walking in the middle of the street ... Mr. Officer pulled up and told them to "get the f@#% out the street" and proceeded on. Michael (or the witness, or both) swore back, saying they were almost to where they were going ... Mr. Officer put the vehicle in reverse (almost hitting them) and reached out and grabbed Michael by the neck, then as Michael pulled away, by the shirt, then the arm.
So is swearing acting "aggressively"?
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)And something we need to hold all Wilson supporters to . . . his words.
He stated he reached for his gun.
And good point on the swearing. If Michael swearing was aggressive - then Wilson started it by not behaving appropriately to his employer's child. I mean - Michael's parents/grandparents do pay the guys salary.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)If he was high on pot, the only reason he'd reach into a cop car is because he thought he saw a bag of chips.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)IE - can they prove that the shot happened before the fatal shots?
He was left laying in the street for 4 hours ....
branford
(4,462 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Smoking marijuana isn't going to make you think it's a good idea to grab for a cop's gun.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)In Ferguson MO.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is fabricating quotes and mis-quoting those it interviews
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025707503
Daily Kos Article
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does
A reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week, saying she had Michael Brown's official autopsy report as prepared by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine and analyze it from the perspective of a forensic pathologist with no official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death.
I bring this up because earlier this afternoon, MSNBC's Joy Reid referred to Dr. Melinek as the doctor who performed the autopsy. Now, Reid is usually pretty on-point with the facts in her reporting, but this was a big oops. And if she's making it, you can be sure that others are definitely making the same mistake.
It's not the first time that Dr. Melinek has opined on an autopsy performed on Michael Brown, either. Back in August after the family released the results of the second autopsy, performed by Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Melinek wrote this about the tweaked autopsy sketch that went viral:
Lawrence O'Donnell Video -
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/10/sliming-mike-brown-official-autopsy-leaked
