Re: Michael Brown

[rogue06]

Once again not true rogue. The buddy claimed that he was shot at from behind while running away. Then he went on to say that his friend turned and raised his arms in the air at which time he was shot multiple more times by the officer. The problem may be that you are getting your information only from a biased and obviously dishonest source because if you heard it from the witness own mouth you would know that you are not speaking the truth about his testimony.

Actually, I make a point of trying to find liberal sources to cite where and when I can because whiny little snots like yourself try to instantly handwave something away because it was from Fox and the like. I was going from memory which I recalled Dorian Johnson (Brown's friend and accomplice in the strong arm robbery) said that Brown was shot in the back and and that he had been shot "like an animal." Both of these things are true. From USAToday:

Source: Witness to Michael Brown shooting comes forward

"The second time he says, 'I'll shoot,' a second later the gun went off and he let go," Johnson said. "That's how we were able to run at the same time. The first car I see, I ducked behind for because I fear for my life. I'm scared. I don't know what's going on. I don't understand why this officer is shooting his weapon at us."

According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot. which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The same story mentions Johnson's saying Brown was shot like an animal as does this story from USAToday: Witness says teen friend shot by cop 'like an animal'

If he is correct and the first round was fired from within the car it is almost certain that there will be residue that can be detected from the shot. It should be interesting to see what tests reveal.

But you will notice what he also claims. That Brown was shot in the back. There is absolutely no indication that this is the case.

There is some debate whether or not one of the rounds that struck Brown in the arm could possibly have come from behind but the claim that Brown was shot in the back has no basis in reality and draws into serious question Johnson's reliability.

As an aside, it is interesting that the two witnesses that corroborate Johnson's account also claimed that Brown was clearly shot in the back so you have to wonder what is going on here.

But there is other details in Johnson's account that give reason to doubt the veracity of his account. Earlier in the account reported in USAToday Johnson claimed that Wilson first tried to pull Brown into the squad car through the car window (which seems questionable to say the least in that why would anybody try to pull a 6.4' 300 lb. man into a car via the window -- especially if Wilson was driving the vehicle because that would mean that he was trying to pull him into the driver's seat!). And Johnson also said Wilson "grabbed Brown around the neck and tried to pull him through the window." I'm 6.4' it would take someone with arms like a gorilla to reach up from inside a car and grab me by the neck.

And we don't even have to get into Johnson's history of lying to the police, something he has apparently been arrested for. Oops. I read that in Britain's Daily Mail which leans center-right so obviously it must be a lie

The point is that it is a video which you posted from Brietbart, a video which at the moment of the pertinent utterance it is mumbled and confusing.

The only question here is whether you are wrong yet again or still wrong. I got the video from Youtube not Brietbart -- whose account of the shooting I haven't read except for a snippet in this thread.

Here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prrydnTAly0

Notice the source? Last time I checked Brietbart isn't spelled y-o-u-t-u-b-e. Now I have checked Breitbart to see if he uses the same video and guess what -- apparently he does not. Instead he has the full 10 minute video as does everyone else that links to it. I chose the shorter version because it gets right to the pertinent part and the original is loaded with graphic language and images of Brown laying there dead in the street.

And it isn't the message that is garbled and confusing (I'm partly deaf and I had no trouble understanding what was said -- and I'm talking about the first time I heard it in an uncaptioned video). I think it is more likely the case that you are garbled and confused.

You didn't hear the witness himself as of yet, corroborate the video. It also makes no sense to say, as you admit was said twice at the beginning of the video, "he was killed for no reason", and then go on to say that he was charging the officer.

Painted on the side of a looted Quik Trip

As far as the arm wounds are concerned, it wasn't my analysis as to how they could have occurred, it was the coroners analysis which I merely informed you of. Apparently you know better than the coroner.

You were the one who declared that being shot from behind was the "only explanation" whereas the corner said it was possible that it could be the result of having been shot from behind.

Remove the mote from your own eye first rogue. As is apparent above, you are agenda driven, not truth driven.

Since you repeatedly demonstrate you really aren't that bright I ought to explain the image above. It is an iron letter E which stands for irony -- something your last statement is loaded with.

[JimL]

Interesting that you know more about this than the professionals who performed the private autopsy, Jimmy: (bolding mine)

Source: CBSNews

Forensic pathologist Shawn Parcells, who assisted former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden during the private autopsy, said a bullet grazed Brown's right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face.

"We don't know," Parcells said. "We still have to look at the other (elements) of this investigation before we start piecing things together."

© Copyright Original Source

Note that the PROFESSIONALS list THREE possibilities, Jimmy --- and they admit THEY don't know. Why can't you?

Thats right CP, and the three possibilities include him having his back to the shooter, as well as facing the shooter with his arms in the air, just as the witnesses testified to. What is it you aren't getting?

[Cow Poke]

Thats right CP, and the three possibilities include him having his back to the shooter, as well as facing the shooter with his arms in the air, just as the witnesses testified to. What is it you aren't getting?

The EXPERTS clearly say they don't know. One of the major differences between you and them is that you're too buttdumb stupid to KNOW that you don't know.

Source: CBSNews

"We don't know," Parcells said. "We still have to look at the other (elements) of this investigation before we start piecing things together."

© Copyright Original Source

You see that, Jimmy? The experts DO NOT KNOW!

[rogue06]

I'm still pleased that CP is so proud of his little big brother that he put the fact I got a perfect score on that intuition test that he asked if I had taken in his signature.

[Cow Poke]

I'm still pleased that CP is so proud of his little big brother that he put the fact I got a perfect score on that intuition test in his signature that he asked if I had taken.

Well, that PROVES it -- you're right and Jimmy is just slobbering all over his Che Guevara t-shirt!

[JimL]

Actually, I make a point of trying to find liberal sources to cite where and when I can because whiny little snots like yourself try to instantly handwave something away because it was from Fox and the like.

So when you accused Lao Tzu of assuming that what CNN reported was accurate, you were being a whiny little snot? Thats sounds about right. I on the other hand I get my information from all the news outlets and have personally seen the lies and propaganda that continuously flows from conservative media such as Brietbart and Fox news just to mention two.

I was going from memory which I recalled Dorian Johnson (Brown's friend and accomplice in the strong arm robbery) said that Brown was shot in the back and and that he had been shot "like an animal." Both of these things are true. From USAToday:

Yes, both those things are true, but you took what he said out of context and quoted him as saying that he was shot down in the back like an animal. What he actually said was that he was shot in the back as he was running away, and only later in his testimony, regarding the moment after he turned and raised his arms in the air did he say that he was shot like an animal. Very disingenuous of you.

Source: Witness to Michael Brown shooting comes forward

"The second time he says, 'I'll shoot,' a second later the gun went off and he let go," Johnson said. "That's how we were able to run at the same time. The first car I see, I ducked behind for because I fear for my life. I'm scared. I don't know what's going on. I don't understand why this officer is shooting his weapon at us."

According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot. which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Witness to Michael Brown shooting comes forward

Yep, thats part of what he said alright,

Source

© Copyright Original Source

The same story mentions Johnson's saying Brown was shot like an animal as does this story from USAToday: Witness says teen friend shot by cop 'like an animal'[/QUOTE]
Yep, he definitely did say that.

If he is correct and the first round was fired from within the car it is almost certain that there will be residue that can be detected from the shot. It should be interesting to see what tests reveal.

Yep, it will be interesting. I believe the Ferguson police also corroborated this testimony.
But you will notice what he also claims. That Brown was shot in the back. There is absolutely no indication that this is the case.
C'mon will you please. He was obviously pointing out the fact that he was shot while his back was to the officer when he was running away. He can't know exactly where in the back he was hit. And there is indication, the bullet wounds in the back of his arms.

There is some debate whether or not one of the rounds that struck Brown in the arm could possibly have come from behind but the claim that Brown was shot in the back has no basis in reality and draws into serious question Johnson's reliability.

See above. You are trying to hard to make an insignificant point. The point is that the officer was shooting at the young man while his back was to him. Even if the witness was mistaken and his friend was not actually hit in the back, it doesn't change the story at all. The main issue is that he was being shot at, hit or not, he then turned and raised his arms in the air to signal surrender, and was then shot 3 or 4 more times.

As an aside, it is interesting that the two witnesses that corroborate Johnson's account also claimed that Brown was clearly shot in the back so you have to wonder what is going on here.

Yeah, i guess they must have conspired ahead of time.

But there is other details in Johnson's account that give reason to doubt the veracity of his account. Earlier in the account reported in USAToday Johnson claimed that Wilson first tried to pull Brown into the squad car through the car window (which seems questionable to say the least in that why would anybody try to pull a 6.4' 300 lb. man into a car via the window -- especially if Wilson was driving the vehicle because that would mean that he was trying to pull him into the driver's seat!). And Johnson also said Wilson "grabbed Brown around the neck and tried to pull him through the window." I'm 6.4' it would take someone with arms like a gorilla to reach up from inside a car and grab me by the neck.

Conjecture! They were struggling at the window, nobody knows what the officers intent was or why they were struggling. The only point here is that many witnesses seen them struggling with each other at the cruiser window.

And we don't even have to get into Johnson's history of lying to the police, something he has apparently been arrested for. Oops. I read that in Britain's Daily Mail which leans center-right so obviously it must be a lie

Thats right, we don't have to get into it since eveyone is guilty of lying, including you. But the fact of the matter is, is that his story is corroborated by multiple independent witnesses.

The only question here is whether you are wrong yet again or still wrong. I got the video from Youtube not Brietbart -- whose account of the shooting I haven't read except for a snippet in this thread.

Here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prrydnTAly0

Maybe so, perhaps i'm confusing your video with someone elses, but the issue is not worth the effort to go back and check.

Notice the source? Last time I checked Brietbart isn't spelled y-o-u-t-u-b-e. Now I have checked Breitbart to see if he uses the same video and guess what -- apparently he does not. Instead he has the full 10 minute video as does everyone else that links to it. I chose the shorter version because it gets right to the pertinent part and the original is loaded with graphic language and images of Brown laying there dead in the street.

Okay.

And it isn't the message that is garbled and confusing (I'm partly deaf and I had no trouble understanding what was said -- and I'm talking about the first time I heard it in an uncaptioned video). I think it is more likely the case that you are garbled and confused.

Think what you want my friend, its no hair of my back.

Yes, and that person made no sense. To paraphrase: "and he was coming back towards him, cus he already had his gun drawn." He also hasn't come forward to corroborate the video, or to explain what he was saying. So take that for what it is which is one uncorroborated, unidentified, confusing testimony against multiple independently corroborated eyewitness telling of events.

IMHO just the fact that this was an unsolicited, unprompted conversation where a man is overheard telling a friend or neighbor what he saw adds weight to its credibility

Well, of course it does, it agrees with your presupposition. How about the other witnesses on that same video who repeatedly stated that the young man was killed for no reason? Does their unsolicited, unpromted testimony add wieght to their credibility as well in your view?

But you are right the person whose conversation was accidentally picked up has not come forward publicly (although we don't know if he has talked to police or not though the last I heard was that they were still trying to identify him). But that is hardly a surprise in an area where messages like this get sprayed onto walls during the looting in Ferguson:

Painted on the side of a looted Quik Trip

Yes, looks like they paint with a broad brush as well huh?

You were the one who declared that being shot from behind was the "only explanation" whereas the corner said it was possible that it could be the result of having been shot from behind.

No, I never said that. I have repeatedly said that the wounds could have come from either being shot from behind or facing the shooter just as the coroner explained it.

Since you repeatedly demonstrate you really aren't that bright I ought to explain the image above. It is an iron letter E which stands for irony -- something your last statement is loaded with.

No, it is still apparent that you are agenda driven, the same as most of you seem to be here, since you all continuously misrepresent, distort, and take out of context anything that might help your cause, whatever that cause may be.

[JimL]

The EXPERTS clearly say they don't know. One of the major differences between you and them is that you're too buttdumb stupid to KNOW that you don't know.

Source: CBSNews

"We don't know," Parcells said. "We still have to look at the other (elements) of this investigation before we start piecing things together."

© Copyright Original Source

You see that, Jimmy? The experts DO NOT KNOW!

Does the character assassination make you feel superior CP. I don't know whether he was actually hit from behind either, nor did i ever claim to know, what i claimed to know is the eyewitness testimony which says that he was being shot at from behind as he ran away and that the wounds to the arms would be consistent with being hit from behind as well as from being hit from the front with his arms raised in the surrender position. You all must have a mental block of some sort that disallows you the ability to understand this point. Whether he was actually hit from behind or not is such an insignificant issue i don't know why you are trying so hard to disprove it. You don't deny that he was being shot at from behind, you don't deny that he then turned around, the only thing you deny is the independent eyewitness testimony's which states that he raised his arms in the surrender position when doing so and that the officer continued to shoot him multiple times anyway. Instead you think that he turned and ran straight into the line of fire. Why do you think this?

[Juvenal]

I'm still pleased that CP is so proud of his little big brother that he put the fact I got a perfect score on that intuition test that he asked if I had taken in his signature.

Grammar nazi is not pleased.

[Cow Poke]

Does the character assassination make you feel superior CP.

It's not character assassination simply to point out your stupidity, Jimmy. You have to HAVE character in order for it to be assassinated. OH, WAIT... YOU meant Johnson?

I don't know whether he was actually hit from behind either,

Well, that's PROGRESS! I already KNEW you didn't know that.

nor did i ever claim to know, what i claimed to know is the eyewitness testimony

which is often the most FAULTY part of any defense or prosecution

which says that he was being shot at from behind as he ran away and that the wounds to the arms would be consistent with being hit from behind as well as from being hit from the front with his arms raised in the surrender position.

ONLY kinda sorta, Jimmy --- there are other more plausible explanations.

You all must have a mental block of some sort that disallows you the ability to understand this point. Whether he was actually hit from behind or not is such an insignificant issue i don't know why you are trying so hard to disprove it.

Ah, but I'm NOT! I'm looking at the evidence, and it appears VERY WEAK to support your little theory.

You don't deny that he was being shot at from behind,

I don't know if he was or not!

you don't deny that he then turned around, the only thing you deny is the independent eyewitness testimony's

that would be testimonies, Jimmy, and the MAIN one is a criminal who's on record as giving false information to the police -- his OWN LAWYER doesn't dispute that.

which states that he raised his arms in the surrender position

I believe another witness will testify that he was doing that in a mocking taunting gesture just before he bum rushed the officer.

when doing so and that the officer continued to shoot him multiple times anyway. Instead you think that he turned and ran straight into the line of fire. Why do you think this?

Well, you think it DIDN'T happen, and you're wrong about 97.4% of the time, so It's almost a sure bet he DID run at the officer.

Jimmy --- you think this was a nice kid on his way to college... I think he was a thug who seemed to think it perfectly OK to pull off a strong arm robbery, assault and intimidate the clerk, start to walk away, then turn RIGHT BACK TO the clerk to intimidate him again, before walking down the middle of the street in broad daylight as if nothing ever happened. And you have to remember, he had had a date with Mary Jane. SPEAKING of which, Jimmy --- do you have any idea what swisher sweets are used for by young folks these days?

[lilpixieofterror]

Which witnesses would those be lilpix?

Did you not read this thread Jimmy or watch the video? It's ok, I know you don't want to hear things that contradict anything you previous believed, so tell yourself whatever you want to hear...

What physical evidence would that be lilpix?

Ever been shooting? My guess is never, huh? See the thing is, being shot in the arm, but not the back would unlikely be the result if he was shot in the back. You do know what you're talking about or are you just talking out of your rear end and hoping that nobody calls you out on your lack of understanding. In order for him to have been shot in the back of the arm, while his back his turned. He would of had to have been hit, turned around, and ran at the officer. The officer would have had to have shot, waited for him to turn around, and than started firing against. Does that turn of events make any sense to you? Think before you speak Jimmy, it would help you not sound like a ranting buffoon.

I haven't even mentioned racism when arguing the specifics of this case so first get your facts straight.

Right, you have just happened to have jumped into a thread, about a person who some say was killed because he was black and keep defending the guy against all sense and logic, but nope. You're not arguing it was racist. Sure... and I was born yesterday.

Second, where is your evidence that the young man rushed an armed police officer?

How did he get shot in the front than? Did he just turn around and stand there while the cop shot at him? Stop being an idiot or is that something you can't do?

I find it incredible that anyone, particularly with the evidence to the contrary, could even believe that a man being shot at turned and ran right into his certain death. That is beyond incredulous.

People do stupid things all the time. You're surprised that somebody can be this stupid? You haven't read the news lately, have you?

Running at the officer with his arms up in the air lilpix, running right into the line of fire. The only one ignoring the facts while making up their own here is you. Why is that Lilpix?

Too bad that personal incredulity is not an actual argument, eh? Too bad the actual forensic evidence backs that version of events up, eh? Too bad you're wishful thinking doesn't make things true eh? You think it's stupid to turn at an armed police officer? Sure it is. Do you think sending waves of men against machine guns is stupid? Oh yeah, yet that is just the strategy that was done during WWI that ensured tens of thousands of deaths, in a matter of hours. People do plenty of stupid things, now do you have an actual argument here or are you going to keep saying it didn't happen that way because well... you said so and you know everything.

Once again, who is disputing that lilpix? Just exactly who are you debating with yourself, or what?

So how did he manage to turn around? Did the police officer stop, allow him to turn around, and opened fire again? Might want to get a new theory, this one is dead, but don't worry. I'm sure you'll come up with a thousand more excuses to back up your delusions with. Keep the entertainment coming.

[Sparko]

Lilpix, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Eyewitnesses can be wrong yes, but we don't have just one eyewitness, there are now at least 4 independent eyewitnesses each of whose story substantiates the others. And as I have said repeatedly the facts do not totally support that he was not shot in the back. The wounds in his arms, as stated by the coroner himself, could have been inflicted either when he was running with his back turned to the officer, or they could have been inflicted while facing the officer with his arms raised in the air. Perhaps you also, like CP and rogue, are better qualified than the coroner to make this judgement. So, I am not ignoring anything, but obviously you are lilpix. Why?

No Jim, the autopsy (the county's and the private one the family commissioned) both said all shots came from the front. There was no way he had his back to the officer and running away. So yet again you show that you don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately deceptive.

From the county coroner:
"Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm," he said, adding that "all the bullets were fired into his front."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...imes.html?_r=0

The private autopsy:
"The autopsy also suggests that all of the shots were to the front of Brown's body, and Brown's head was down at the time," he added.
"We don't know if that means he was rushing at the officer, or if he was giving up," he said.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/patholog...#ixzz3BJiqqIhj

[Sparko]

Careful CP, your pretend neutrality is showing again. The back of the arms when running away is the back.

except there are no bullet wounds to the back of his arms. Not even any exit wounds.

[Juvenal]

except there are no bullet wounds to the back of his arms. Not even any exit wounds.

The orientation of that graphic doesn't reflect the body position when he was shot. Reports say that the eye, jaw, and collar wounds are all from the same round. I think either of the lower two arm shots could have been from behind, especially the grazing wound, depending on how his arms were swinging on entry. You don't run with your palms forward, or even stand that way unless your arms are up. I don't know if there'll ever be a definitive answer.

He did stop running.

[JimL]

No Jim, the autopsy (the county's and the private one the family commissioned) both said all shots came from the front. There was no way he had his back to the officer and running away. So yet again you show that you don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately deceptive.

From the county coroner:
"Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm," he said, adding that "all the bullets were fired into his front."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...imes.html?_r=0

The private autopsy:
"The autopsy also suggests that all of the shots were to the front of Brown's body, and Brown's head was down at the time," he added.
"We don't know if that means he was rushing at the officer, or if he was giving up," he said.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/patholog...#ixzz3BJiqqIhj

I don't care what this report says, I saw an heard Dr.Baden, the coroner, in his own words and that is not what he said in the interview. He made it perfectly clear that he could not tell whether the victims arms were hit from the back or the front since the two positions, from the back, arms hanging down, and forward facing arms raised are equivalent. I certainly did not make that up, and would never have even thought of it had the coroner not explained it thus. Besides if you want to argue that all the shots that hit him came from the front, then you are incriminating the officer all the more. If the shots came from the front then it is consistent with the eyewitness testimony stating that the victim had his arms raised in the air. Don't you find it odd that Michael Browns clothes still have not been turned over to the coroner for further inspection? How long has it been now?

[Cow Poke]

I don't care what this report says

This is not new!