AlterNet reports:
"Six bullets struck, and two may have re-entered" the 18-year-old's body, said forensic pathologist Michael Baden, tasked by Brown's family and lawyers to conduct an independent examination.
One of the bullets hit the top of Brown's head, another hit his eye, while others were located on his right arm, Baden told a press conference in the St Louis suburb of Ferguson.
"All of the gunshot wounds could have been survivable, except the one at the top of the head," he said, amid growing local demands that the police officer involved, Darren Wilson, be arrested.
Baden said he had found no evidence of an alleged struggle between Brown and the officer, who is said to have been hurt in the incident, but added that he had not examined Wilson.
The absence of gunpowder on Brown's body indicated that the muzzle of the gun was probably at least a foot or two -- or as much as 30 feet -- away, Baden added.
The respected former New York City chief medical examiner stressed his findings were preliminary and that he need to see X-rays taken by local coroners just before the bullets were removed.
Related Stories
Common Dreams reports
A new video that appears to show the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown's shooting death in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9 corroborates earlier witness statements that the unarmed black teenager was surrendering to Officer Darren Wilson when he was killed.
The footage, released by CNN on Thursday, shows two construction workers reacting to the shooting with shock and yelling out, "He had his fucking hands in the air!"
The men told CNN they were about 50 feet away from Wilson when he opened fire. "The cop didn't say get on the ground. He just kept shooting," one said, adding that he saw Brown "staggering" and putting his hands in the air, saying, "OK, OK, OK."
[...]
The video and the accounts from the men match earlier descriptions of the incident from other witnesses, as well as an audio recording of the gunshots, recently verified by the messaging service that captured it, that indicated Wilson fired much more than six times, as was initially reported.
Related:
Audio Reveals Pause in Gunfire When Michael Brown Was Shot
Family's Pathologists Have Examined Michael Brown's Corpse
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 19 2014, @08:51PM
It's probably worth noting that he was shot from the front. Both the summary and the article on alternet.org fail to mention this very important fact.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Buck Feta on Tuesday August 19 2014, @08:59PM
Of course he was shot from the front; who the hell shoot backwards?
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:01PM
Lefty McGee?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:09PM
Too soon.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by pbnjoe on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:07PM
Michael being shot in the eye does heavily imply that (unless the shooter's nickname was "Ricochet") but it's definitely best to have all the facts written down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:40AM
The absence of gunpowder on Brown's body indicated that the muzzle of the gun was probably at least a foot or two -- or as much as 30 feet -- away, Baden added.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:18AM
I wasn't cherry-picking squat. I was correcting an oversight. Unlike some people, I have yet to form an opinion of guilt for either man. Unlike most people, I don't give a happy damn what color either man's skin was. Racists to the left of me, racists to the right. Everyone's already decided this based strictly on skin color; facts be damned.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:10AM
Then shouldn't you be a little more receptive to the detail I pointed out that casts doubt on just how physical he had gotten with the officer?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:26AM
Who said I was unperceptive? I've got doubt coming out my ears on the whole subject. I was simply annoyed at the cherry-picking crack.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:44AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:17AM
Doubt I'm open to. Prejudice and excuses for mindless violence I am not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:42AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:46AM
> You should watch the live streams then and see all the not-violence going on.
Any group who question authority is a lynch mob. That's all the proof I need!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:54AM
Hence the "prejudice" part. The protesters have already made up their minds. Prejudged, if you will, because of skin color. That makes them the very definition of prejudiced.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:37AM
Umnh...because they've seen enough evidence to convince themselves, that makes them prejudiced? While you don't know what evidence they've seen?
I rather expect that people who live in that community may well have seen a "pattern of behavior" which would render evidence more convincing than it would be to someone who has not seen such behavior. I suppose you could call that "prejudice" if you wanted to, I'd be more likely to consider it a set of Bayesian priors differing from yours which could lead to a reasonable deduction different from that which you seem to be suggesting.
FWIW, I'm not totally convinced in this matter, but I'm not really convinced that you aren't. You seem too willing to ascribe conclusions reached by others to prejudice. I do feel that the preponderance of the evidence would lead to a conclusion that the policeman should be found guilty of murder (not just negligent homicide). OTOH, I am well aware that such a conclusion is not supposed to be based on "preponderance of the evidence". From a distance, and only paying mild attention it seems quite clear that prejudice if rampant in that police department, and that it's supported from the top. This doesn't prove intentional murder, but it makes it quite likely that the first reaction to such would be to cover it up.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:30AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:31AM
Some of them, likely. Almost no group is entirely homogeneous. And, yes, that minority of whatever size I do agree with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:17PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:33AM
> Everyone's already decided this based strictly on skin color;
And so have you. You deny it, but at the same time you insist on framing it as figuratively black and white. That people who think there is a problem in the community there are automatically racist. Perhaps meta-racism would be the term to best describe your attitude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:53AM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:13AM
You really don't know me well enough to say that. I'm against the riots because they are a proven fact. I'm also against police brutality and unlawful killings when they can be proven. There is no disparity in holding both opinions. There is no racial component, unlike most every bloody protester, rioter, and redneck asshole who's chimed in on this.
I really do not give a flying fuck what color whose skin is. I do care about assholes looting and burning some poor dude's shop. And if gimpy the wonder cop gets convicted, good on those jurors. And if he gets acquitted, good on those jurors. Why the difference? Evidence. First, last, and only.
Now, you, if you've already prejudged (make note of that word because it's very close in form and meaning to prejudice) based on skin color of the parties involved, you are without question, in no uncertain terms, and by definition a racist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:20AM
> I'm also against police brutality and unlawful killings when they can be proven.
Not just proven, but proven only with a TMB-approved methodology.
Any unapproved methodolgy must be denigrated with extreme prejudice.
The people protesting don't need to prove it to you, they've experienced it personally.
> I really do not give a flying fuck what color whose skin is.
Right, you genuflect to power. When power lines up with race, that's just coincidence.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:30AM
Do you have a better proof system than the jury trial? Really, do you? Fuck no you don't and yet you're willing to judge without even the proof that a jury would be allowed to get. No, I will not lynch a man because of his skin color. You go right ahead if you like. Do you need to borrow a bedsheet to make into a pointy robe?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:43AM
>> The people protesting don't need to prove it to you, they've experienced it personally.
> I will not lynch a man because of his skin color
See, that's exactly what I mean about being a meta-racist.
You see me write "protestors" and you think "lynch."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:57AM
The protesters have already made up their minds. They have prejudged. They are, by definition, prejudiced. A group of people calling for "justice" when what they really want is to see someone of a different skin color hung, metaphorically or literally, are not peaceful protesters. They are a lynch mob.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:04AM
Hahahahah
Let the record show, The Mighty Buzzard has officially called the protesters in Ferguson a racist lynch mob.
hahahaha
Ok, good night.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:18PM
Probably because they ARE a lynch mob. To pull a quote from The Fifth Element, "violence begets violence...shooting it will only make it stronger." There's a reason that the stereotype about black people calling everything "that's racist!" exists, and we're watching it live. Everything is racist, therefore everyone not of my kind is an enemy to wage war upon, therefore our violence is justified. Is anyone else hearing "The Original Caste - One Tin Soldier" playing in their minds right now?
(Score: 2) by monster on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:39PM
Not intending to step in your ongoing argument, but once all the proceedings depend on the decisions of an Attorney General that may or may not have his own priorities beyond reaching truth and justice, jury trial in its current form is no longer the best system. How can a jury be fair in their decisions if some facts are hidden to them, or if the AG decides not to prosecute someone because of spurious motives?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:45AM
The issue is you cannot tell the difference between the guy that looted and the crowd that was there peacefully. You... err pardon the expression... only see this in black and white.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:24AM
Oh I can tell the difference but that "peaceful" crowd was there demanding that "justice" that they'd already decided based upon race be done. That, my anonymous, cowardly friend is a lynch mob.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:29PM
No, you cannot, as proven seven words into your post.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Sunday September 14 2014, @03:18PM
All well and good if the killer is actually charged and tried, but AFAIK no one has even been charged yet.
Maybe that is the "justice" that the protesters are asking for, maybe what they _want_ is the cop to stand trial, rather than a wanting a particular verdict ?
What percentage of US cops who shoot and kill unarmed civilians are actually charged, ever ? If that percentage is low, are those protesters prejudging the outcome of a trial, or are they simply judging the likelihood that anyone will actually stand trial, based on past performance ?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday August 20 2014, @09:40AM
Or the fact that leaked hospital documents show the cop had a badly broken occipital bone, pretty much crushing part of the lower eye socket. If we add this to what we already know (as in not in dispute) we have a 6'3 250 strong arm robber that then walked down the middle of the street and when stopped by the cop managed to hit the cop hard enough to break his eye socket...yeah sorry but its a clean shoot and if the suspect would have been white we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:11PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:38PM
Or the fact that leaked hospital documents show the cop had a badly broken occipital bone, pretty much crushing part of the lower eye socket.
Where can I find these leaked hospital documents?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rune of Doom on Thursday August 21 2014, @12:59AM
I haven't seen any report of "leaked hospital documents" as I've tried to read up on this. I have been seeing "anonymous reports" from sources "close to the police" that Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Brown, was badly beaten. Which, if true, leads me to the question of, why the hell didn't the Ferguson PD make this public earlier? Pictures of an injured officer and a willingly released medical report on his injuries would have changed (and likely helped defuse) the reactions to the shooting.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:09PM
I'm not American. It's getting boring reading the same story with barely any new FACTS. Lets all make wild guesses and decide who's guilty without seeing any evidence first hand. I thought this site was supposed to be international and mostly about technology.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:17PM
> I thought this site was supposed to be international and mostly about technology.
(1) As always, if you are unhappy with the stories here submit your own damn stories.
(2) Soylent News is people and racial inequality is an international phenomenon - just that in the US we tend to air our dirty laundry for everyone to see rather than sweep it under the rug.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:57PM
Racial inequality has not been proven to exist here. Wait for the facts before you go typing inflammatory rhetoric.
As stated above, he was shot from the front. That most definitely jives ill with being shot while running away. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not so much.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Rune of Doom on Tuesday August 19 2014, @10:07PM
I haven't been following this particularly closely, but my mental picture of the scene was the the cop's defenders portrayed it as a close up struggle, while Brown's defenders have been claiming its a case of, "Stop! So I can shoot you more easily!" I.e. that Brown was shot in the act of surrendering, at some distance with his head down and hands up - a scenario that is consistent with, but not proved by, these reported autopsy results.
(Score: 2) by emg on Tuesday August 19 2014, @10:50PM
Clearly he was running away backwards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:14PM
> Racial inequality has not been proven to exist here.
> Wait for the facts before you go typing inflammatory rhetoric.
Dude, the shooting was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Even if that particular incident was entirely justified, it doesn't matter.
The real story is all the other problems in Ferguson and across the country.
Don't focus on the match, focus on the wildfire.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:33PM
Oh, you mean the ignorant dickwads burning and looting their own neighborhoods, thinking that's some sort of valid form of protest? Be happy to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:39PM
> Oh, you mean the ignorant dickwads burning and looting their own neighborhoods,
> thinking that's some sort of valid form of protest?
It is a protest. People lose their shit where they happen to be at the time, that's generally where they live.
Meanwhile the vast majority of people who are peacefully protesting are also worth focusing on.
The people who went to defend the store from additionally looting.
We can also talk about the police running roughshod over the press, tear-gassing them, making an official promise not to harrass them and laughably arresting them the very next day. Or how about the use of tear gas in general - forbidden by the geneva convention for the use in warfare but A-OK for the use on our own citizens.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:53PM
Make you a deal. You get as pissed off as I am about the riots and I'll get as pissed off as you about the shooting just as soon as there's the same level of incontrovertible evidence.
As for the press, I'm of two minds on that. On the one hand, first amendment, you sons of bitches. On the other, I've wanted to teargas Huffington Post asshats for years. Kidding aside, it's a massive rights violation to screw with the press for covering a story. It's a massive rights violation to instate curfews. But the use of tear gas out of context I have no problem with. I had to suffer through the stuff in basic training and a half hour later I was none the worse for wear. It's only pain; vastly preferable to injury or death.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:18AM
> Make you a deal. You get as pissed off as I am about the riots and I'll get as pissed off as you about the shooting
Since I've already said that the shooting is not the story, that it is simply the straw that broke the camels back and that it does not matter if it turns out to be entirely justified ... no deal. The scope of this situation seems to be beyond your grasp.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:22AM
Nah, not buying it. Next you'll be talking about made up shit like institutional racism, telling me to check my privilege, and probably coming out with several other things equally without substance designed to end an argument that you're losing. Specific individuals involved and the actions they took, nothing else matters.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:55AM
> Specific individuals involved and the actions they took, nothing else matters.
So I take you do not believe in the concept of moral hazard then, correct?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:32AM
I have absolutely no idea how moral hazard could possibly relate to this discussion. You might as well ask if I like peaches or what brand of scotch is my favorite.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:44AM
> I have absolutely no idea how moral hazard could possibly relate to this discussion.
Precisely! This situation is beyond your grasp.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:56AM
Do you even know what moral hazard is? It clearly and indisputably has no place in this discussion any more than does Chinese monetary policy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:28AM
> Do you even know what moral hazard is?
I do. I'm sure you've already checked with wikipedia, but I'll quote it for anyone else reading along:
"In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation in which a party is more likely to take risks because the costs that could result will not be borne by the party taking the risk."
In other words, when you have power you are more likely to do risky things because you know fucking up won't hurt you. The police have power, the poor do not. When the police fuck up in Ferguson, the poor bear the cost.
You may now proceed with the pedant's response.
I don't think I'll bother to follow up to that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:50AM
If you really believe that, you're a bigger fool than I took you for. The police only have the appearance of power.
This is MO not Detroit or Chicago. Basically every damn citizen who wants to be can be armed. Any smart MO cop is absolutely terrified of trying to police a population where they're both massively outnumbered and outgunned. I find it far more likely that whatzis-cop was scared shitless and did something stupid than "set out to shoot him a colored feller".
Now I could be wrong—that's just a guess based on what little I know—but that's for a jury to decide. Not you, not me, not a bunch of racist protesters who can't see past skin color, and damned sure not a bunch of fuckwads who want to burn and steal everything in sight because they think they have an excuse.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:00AM
> If you really believe that, you're a bigger fool than I took you for.
> The police only have the appearance of power.
You actually made me laugh out loud. The poor weak little popo. Backed up with full force of US government as well as perjury without penalty [nytimes.com] and if that's insufficient there is always qualified immunity. [cornell.edu]
Clearly the police have no risk of moral hazard at all.
What a fool I've been!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:23PM
> "In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation in which a party is more likely to take risks because the costs that could result will not be borne by the party taking the risk."
WARNING! Feminazi shitlord detected! Professional patriarchy investigator in our midst! THE GOYIM KNOW, SHUT IT DOWN!!!
Seriously, you've just gone full retard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:32AM
I had to suffer through the stuff in basic training and a half hour later I was none the worse for wear. It's only pain; vastly preferable to injury or death.
Except that would've been by your own choice, as part of training for a job/task you opted to take. People in Western countries don't take the job of domestic journalist expecting that the police from their own country will inflict pain, harm or death on them for merely being present.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:02AM
So? It's not an if-then situation. It's quite possible to be in favor of the domestic use of CS gas in general and not in favor of using force against reporters unless they are breaking the law (specifically non-martial).
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:51AM
You are vastly overstating the 'riot'. In fact the protesters were protecting stores from the handful of opportunists. One of the stores that was boarded up even put up a sign thanking them for the protection. Maybe you should look at this situation a little more objectively.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:32AM
Fuck you, you ignorant piece of shit.
You have nothing of value to offer, and instead you
post comments which imply there are "problems".
Do us all a favor and drink some Drano.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:17PM
> As stated above, he was shot from the front.
> That most definitely jives ill with being shot while running away.
It jives with the story I've heard from the beginning.
He was leaving, the cop shot at him, he turned around put his hands in the air and sank to his knees and then the cop killed him.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:58PM
From a story I heard he was running away when the officer fired the first two shots, then Brown stopped, turned around and raised his hands above his head. The officer kept firing until Brown was on the ground.
I don't know about Furguson but usually cops are not supposed to fire on fleeing suspect because they could hit bystanders, and the officer also has to account for where every bullet fired hit. Which can be a real task considering the slug might be a quarter mile or more away. Though things might have changed since I was trained.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:29AM
Sounds plausible. I'm interested to see what a jury decides.
FYI though... Felony suspects attempting to flee arrest can be shot down in MO. Brown may have been a felony suspect. Reports are that the timing was slightly off for him to have been but I for one do not trust the media to know or tell me the truth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:46AM
I'm sorry, but racial inequality has definitely been proven. Racial prejudice hasn't been proven, but is rendered extremely likely by the facts as known (e.g. almost no black cops and a predominantly black community).
It's also true that murder hasn't been proven. That also appears quite likely. And it also appears quite likely that very few people in that community have any belief that they have a reasonable chance at a just trial. (They quite likely also have a very strong opinion as to what a just verdict would look like, but that is a secondary point. Perhaps that are wrong about the secondary point. There seems little doubt that if they were quiet they would be correct about the primary one. I will grant that the disruptive protests don't make a just trial any more likely..this time. Perhaps next time.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday August 20 2014, @09:50AM
NOT possible as the last round was in the top of his head in a front to back trajectory...the only way one could be running AWAY and get hit there is they ran backwards and after the fifth shot they did a backflip and bounced forward on their toes...not happening. When you add in the things not in dispute, a history of strong arm attacks, walking down the middle of the road blocking traffic after a robbery, the video with the witness describing the suspect going for the cop's gun, and finally the autopsy? I think its pretty clear what happened. We'll know for sure as soon as the hospital report that the cop had a broken occipital bone is confirmed. If its confirmed then by the time the first shot fired Brown had already broken one of the cop's bones, I don't see how anybody could say the cop couldn't defend himself at that point.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:50AM
I think its pretty clear what happened. We'll know for sure as soon as the hospital report that the cop had a broken occipital bone is confirmed.
I was watching the news when I heard about the cops broken eye socket. My conspiracy theorist brain kicked. The first thought I had was cover up your face, maybe put a bandage on yourself, then call up your cop buddy Frank D. officer and have him sock you in the eye asap. At this point in my life, a cop with a broken orbital socket proves nothing to me. I put nothing past those cocksuckers. Just to clear things up, I don't care so much about robbers getting shot, or some prick cop getting punched. I guess I'm so jaded, I hope they burn their whole fucking town down and they all die in the fire.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:33PM
The source of the eye socket story [thegatewaypundit.com] is very sketch. Its a blog with anonymous sources that used a doctored xray photo of someone else. [aapos.org] Since that fact has been publicized the doctored image has been tagged "file photo." So far there has been no confirmation from any other sources.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:39PM
Oh please you REALLY THINK a cop is just gonna stand there and have a "buddy" punch him so damned hard in the face it shatters his occipital bone? Bullshit, black eye or bloody lip MAYBE, but you have to put some SERIOUS power behind a hit to break that particular bone.
Lets face it if the report turns out to be genuine and added to all of the evidence not in dispute, history of violent strong arm robberies, robbery of store not 10 minutes before encounter with cops (thus giving Brown every reason to try to fight his way out, seeing as he had 5 previous arrests for robbery in just 7 months), walking down the MIDDLE of the street after robbing a store and if that isn't enough we have the hidden video of the eye witness describing what happened to his friend (before he could change his story to the "he was giving up and got shot for nothing in the back" BS) where he talked about Brown punching the cop in the face and trying to grab the cop's gun...I'm sorry but anybody who defends brown after ALL OF THAT is simply pushing a political agenda or truly believes that nobody white is allowed to defend themselves when they are attacked if the person attacking is black.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:16PM
all of the evidence not in dispute, history of violent strong arm robberies,
That's a funny definition of "not in dispute" given that the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney [bizjournals.com] says he had no criminal record.
walking down the MIDDLE of the street
Felony jay-walking!
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:31AM
(1) I submit lots of stories (I'm not the OP but prefer general stories to USA specific ones*), but the USA ones still seem to get put up.
What was missing from this particular summary is who the hell Michael Brown is for the benefit of anyone who isn't following this story closely. A minimal bit of background would have been nice.
* USA specific stories are often political, and if not often turn out that way and get people ranting at each and not adding any value to a discussion. Case in point: this post has 79 comments and only one is currently ranked at 5. A whole 3 comments have been given a score of 4.
(Score: 1) by Chillgamesh on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:20PM
No, this site is people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:21PM
Right, it's international, so you might have to read a story from a location that's not from your country.
Not enough news here from Elbonia? Submit some.
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:35PM
For what it's worth, BBC world service radio is doing the same thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:51PM
> I'm not American.
I am and I find the endless repetition and panty twisting annoying as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:59PM
Me too, the media has turned this into a spreading racist circus.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 19 2014, @10:53PM
True, but let me bring this back into our realm.
This was an interesting comment: http://time.com/3132635/ferguson-coming-race-war-class-warfare/ [time.com]
The media focuses largely on race, but this really a class thing, coupled with the militarization of the police force who use all sorts of methods from cameras to automated license plate scanners, access to private info without a warrant by virtue of the third party doctrine, collateral construction with the help of the NSA -- all to protect and serve those with the power. These race incidents are just practice for the coming police state and that is why you should be concerned, because it will apply to you in a colorblind fashion unless you're a millionaire, billionaire, or in-favor politician.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:51PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:15PM
http://www.localtrafficbuilder.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/head-in-the-sand.jpg [localtrafficbuilder.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:06PM
You have pointed out the man behind the curtain, and I am glad you did. The incident in Ferguson may not have been planned, but it is being fit into scenarios that have been planned for years. The American polity has been purposely divided along Democrat-Republican lines so that they will not organize to overturn institutionalized power, but race is another schism that has been in this country since the beginning. It had begun to be passe in many parts of the country, so it's interesting that the elites are whipping it up again. They must be quite scared.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by jon3k on Tuesday August 19 2014, @10:07PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/?PageSpeed=noscript [thegatewaypundit.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @10:46PM
You actually believe that nonsense. It isn't even valid let alone cogent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:33PM
From that link:
> This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.
The robbery didn't happen.
The police released a misleadingly edited video.
The full video shows Brown paying and dropping the box of cigarellos, picking them up and putting the box back on the counter.
It appears that the shopkeeper thought Brown had not fully paid and attempted to physically stop Brown and Brown disagreed and pushed back - as anyone would do in a similar situation. This "thug" pays for just some of what he's alleged to have stolen? Does that sound plausible?
And while the shopkeeper has not made a public statement, but he is not the one who called the police. It was a customer who only witnessed part of the events in the store because they were in the bathroom at the start.
Here's the part of the video that the police edited out. [youtube.com]
And for those who say the attorney of the surviving kid admitted they robbed the store, that is a misparsing of the attorney's words, he said they "took" the cigarellos as in took what they paid for. Surely if Brown deserved to be shot for robbing the store, his accomplice at least deserves to be charged, right? They had the kid in custody after the shooting, did they not?
(Score: 1) by pert.boioioing on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:26AM
I've watched this more than a dozen times and I still didn't see anyone paying for anything. Where, *specifically* is the purported evidence of payment in this video?
(Score: 1) by PapayaSF on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:56AM
One of the YouTube comments says you can see currency in the hand of the store clerk at :36 seconds in, near the end. Of course, that proves nothing: maybe the clerk was counting other money, maybe Brown took more than he paid for, maybe it's not money that he's holding. And this clip cuts off before the part where Brown roughs up the clerk, which is hard for the "there was no robbery" conspiracy theorists to explain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:06AM
> And this clip cuts off before the part where Brown roughs up the clerk, which is hard
> for the "there was no robbery" conspiracy theorists to explain.
Surely someone who is falsely accused and physically detained would never strike the person detaining him.
Not possible!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:53PM
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/06/067b12b6aeaaa53187e981f7935811ef5980f881f8fef242a359629bae99452e.jpg [quickmeme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @01:11AM
Browns friend admitted they robbed the store. Stop the lies.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:00AM
Looks to me like the shots are rising, from his hand to his head. Also seems all the shots are on the right side of the body, which is consistent with a right handed shooter jerking the trigger.
My 100% armchair quarterback guess is the cop shot 4 times, first 2 hitting the hand/arm, exiting, and hitting again. Shot 3 hit the eye, shot 4 hit him in the top of the head when he was falling down.
That said, I think the cop needs to be arrested and charged with manslaughter as a minimum. Any cop that shoots an unarmed person needs to go to trial for manslaughter as a minimum. Too many cops shooting too many people/dogs and getting away with it 100% for this kind of police training to be acceptable to the American public.
Then again, I *am* sitting in my La-Z-boy watching TV.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:57AM
Don't forget shot #1 was in the car when the suspect was wrestling for the cops gun. I've wanted to say something about this case without sounding like a racist, but as I'm anti-racist it's not possible. The guy got what was coming to him no matter what color he was.
(Score: 2) by emg on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:02AM
So why did the autopsy apparently not find any gunshot residue on his body?
I don't have any particular opinion either way, and there may be a perfectly good explanation, but what's been reported doesn't seem to match what the cops claim.
And why would he do it in the first place? All that's come out so far is that he might have been guilty of stealing some cigars. You think he'd then suddenly progress to shooting cops?
(Score: 1) by pert.boioioing on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:49AM
Offhand, I can think of a few reasons:
1. The clothes that Mr. Brown was wearing which may have "caught" the GSR were not part of the examination and thus were not tested at this time.
2. The gunshot(s) that was claimed to have occurred at close range was pointed in a direction where GSR would not have been deposited on Mr. Brown.
3. The GSR was removed or destroyed during the process of the previous autopsy.
4. The gunshots occurred at a range where GSR would not be present.
The lack of GSR during this autopsy might be relevant in light of other evidence during the investigation and possible trial but, due to the absence of other evidence being presented via the media, it currently does not seem very meaningful towards determining the truth.
(Score: 2) by emg on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:48AM
While those are certainly possible, 1&3 would indicate piss-poor evidence handling, and 2&4 would indicate that he couldn't have been fighting with the cop for his gun when it went off.
None of which helps the police case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:10AM
(1) is true. But it isn't due to poor evidence handling. The results we've seen are from the 2nd autopsy and the examiner has explicitly said he didn't have access to the clothes. As to why he didn't have access, I have not seen that question addressed, I have assumed it is either bureaucracy or a deliberate attempt to stymie the 2nd autopsy or a little of both.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:05AM
According only to the policeman's testimony, which conflicts with the lack of gunpowder indicating that the guy was 2+ feet away when the gun was fired (matching the claims of the other young man present).
PS. A person can *claim* they're whatever they want... They can even genuinely believe that because they're not a bad person or consciously bigoted, any racist thoughts or tendencies don't really count -- that's where the good old "some of my favorite people/friends are [target group]" defense comes from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:13AM
I don't think you said anything racist, but how do you know when and why shot #1 happened?
Not that the court system is perfect, but you may want to wait until all the evidence is presented before jumping to conclusions.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:57AM
I agree just for the simple reason that it means evidence would be gathered and properly presented to a jury to decide if he went too far, as opposed to just letting his cop buddies sweep it under the rug. "Oh... me n Bob here investergated and we agree, that guy suuure was scary! I done woulda shot him, too!"
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday August 20 2014, @09:31AM
So it looks like Brown had his hands up, defensively, and the bullets passed through and into him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:25PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:55AM
One thing that isn't being mentioned is that he was clearly shot after he was down and out.
(Score: 1) by Username on Wednesday August 20 2014, @08:12AM
I know it’s not racism. They treat every criminal like they’re trash, race irreverent. It’s just that he gave the officer a chance to use lethal force, which the officer took because that is what he was trained to do. Almost all police training is about how to use lethal force and liability. But, if calling the police racist bring about change to militarization of law enforcement, I’m all for it. Even if it just stops them from using their armored vehicles all the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:17PM
Why would a cop shoot someone in public view during broad daylight? If it were racist he would have waited for a more opportune moment where he wouldn't be seen. Something bad happened before the shots were fired or this wouldn't have taken place. Give cops a break, their job is hard enough without this racist crap being shoved down their throat. Racism goes both ways, stop it and it'll go away. If you keep accusing people of racism, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:28PM
Why would a cop shoot someone in public view during broad daylight? If it were racist he would have waited for a more opportune moment where he wouldn't be seen.
Because that's not how modern racism works. It is not about deliberately setting out to hunt down a black kid. It is about biased reactions to events as they unfold, poor assumptions that lead to disproportionate responses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:39PM
I doubt he was deliberately hunting down a black kid in a black neighborhood. What was he supposed to do, let the kid jaywalk? Let the kid take his gun and shoot the cop? Lets make a law where cops have to ignore blacks, it's racist after all, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:02PM
I feel like what I wrote and what you read are two completely different things.