Re: Michael Brown

[Juvenal]

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

That's not from the county coroner. Context:

One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.

Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.

Keep in mind this autopsy was performed at a local mortuary without access to x-rays or the clothing he was wearing. I don't believe I've seen anything from the county coroner or the FBI. According to the above report:

Dr. Baden, 80 [...] is one of only about 400 board-certified forensic pathologists in the nation.

I'd like to think the FBI's examiner is also board certified, but have no reason to believe the county coroner is similarly qualified. In most jurisdictions it's an elected position and doesn't even require a medical degree.

As ever, Jesse

[JimL]

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...

Once again lilpix, you can't and so don't back up your assertions, you just continue on with your nauseating and thoughtless rant.

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.

Here we go again. I ask you to back up your assertion with evidence, which btw would have to contradict the expert analysis already given, and you just go on ranting about a personal theory of your very own as to what happened.

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.

I don't know that you were born yesterday, but your critical and objective analysis has certainly not matured much since you were.

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?

Yes, that is what has so far been testified to. Or do you think that when a suspect turns and raises his arms in a surrender mode the officer is supposed to continue shooting him?

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?

Is it likely Lilpix? No it isn't, and the independent eyewitness testimony so far contradicts your personal and unsubstantiated point of view.

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.

Have any actual evidence to go on Lilpix, or will you keep up the nauseating and pointless rant ad infinitum as is your usual modis operandi?

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.

Yeah, thats what a police officer is supposed to do when a suspect surrenders Lilpix. Geesh!

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, thats what a police officer is supposed to do when a suspect surrenders Lilpix. Geesh!

It has not been established as fact that he was surrendering, Jimmy. That's another of those pesky little fact thingies about which you don't give a flyin' flip.

[Juvenal]

I'd like to think the FBI's examiner is also board certified, but have no reason to believe the county coroner is similarly qualified. In most jurisdictions it's an elected position and doesn't even require a medical degree.

I should not have said it was an FBI examiner. The justice department autopsy is part of an FBI investigation:

Obama Administration Plans Autopsy of Michael Brown in Effort to Keep Peace

But it is not being performed by an FBI agent:

Michael Brown Autopsy Conducted by Veteran Military Examiner

A federal autopsy on the body of slain teenager Michael Brown was being performed Monday by "one of the most experienced medical examiners in the United States military," Attorney General Eric Holder said as he prepared to travel to Ferguson, Missouri, to meet with federal criminal and civil rights investigators.

The NYTimes story above strongly suggests no information from the FBI investigation, including its autopsy results, will be released before trial, if there is a trial. There are clear indications the Obama and (Governor) Nixon administrations were not pleased with leaks to the press in general, and in this case in particular.

That's a reference to the release of the convenience store surveillance video.

I agree.

As ever, Jesse

[JimL]

It has not been established as fact that he was surrendering, Jimmy. That's another of those pesky little fact thingies about which you don't give a flyin' flip.

And I did not say it was so try and stay focused on the facts CP, rather than on slandering your opponents. I said that the independent testimony thus far indicates that to be the case.

[robrecht]

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, others were saying this same thing earlier in the thread, but I've posted another part of the cororner's statement that makes it clear that it is indeed possible that one or two of the shots might have come from behind. This is clear from your own link:

"At the news conference, Parcells said it was unclear what position Brown's arms were in during the shooting.

He said a graze wound on Brown's arm could have occurred in a number of different ways: Brown could have had his back to the officer, or he could have been facing the officer with his hands in the air or in front of his face in a defensive position. "We don't know," he said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/patholog...#ixzz3BK8YPGpr

Parcells is the forensic pathologist assistant who assisted Dr. Baden with the autopsy. In interviews they are both explicit about the first shot(s) might have come from behind. The lower arm and hands are very mobile.

[Cow Poke]

And I did not say it was so try and stay focused on the facts CP,

I'm a fact kind of guy, Jimmy --- you, on the other hand, would rather go by gossip and mob rule.

rather than on slandering your opponents.

You such a funny funny guy!

[Cow Poke]

Sparko, others were saying this same thing earlier in the thread, but I've posted another part of the cororner's statement that makes it clear that it is indeed possible that one or two of the shots might have come from behind. This is clear from your own link:

"At the news conference, Parcells said it was unclear what position Brown's arms were in during the shooting.

He said a graze wound on Brown's arm could have occurred in a number of different ways: Brown could have had his back to the officer, or he could have been facing the officer with his hands in the air or in front of his face in a defensive position. "We don't know," he said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/patholog...#ixzz3BK8YPGpr

Dr. Parcells is a pathologist who conducted the autopsy with Dr. Baden. In interviews they are both explicit about the first shots might have come from behind. The lower arm and hands are very mobile.

Yes, we don't know.

[robrecht]

Yes, we don't know.

And people on both sides of this debate have previously thought that they did. Just like eye-witnesses, people oftentimes see, read, and believe what they want to believe.

[Cow Poke]

And people on both sides of this debate have previously thought that they did.

Not ME! I know NUSSING!!!!

[JimL]

I'm a fact kind of guy, Jimmy --- you, on the other hand, would rather go by gossip and mob rule.

No you are not a facts kind of guy CP, you are a pretend facts kind of guy, just like you are a pretend neutral kind of guy. If you were a facts kind of guy you wouldn't be going out of your way to make up your own facts. For instance you call independent corroborating testimony, "gossip."

[robrecht]

Not ME! I know NUSSING!!!!

I didn't want to name names or embarrass anyone. It seems like some people in this thread, again on both sides of the debate, enjoy arguing based as much on positions taken in previous arguments, and are more interested in belittling their opponents personally. I don't understand why anyone enjoys this kind of argument. I'm not intending to be critical, people can enjoy different kinds of discussion, and its no skin off my nose, but I think I will probably unsubscribe because so many posts lately are more and more of that kind. Hope you had a good church service, this morning!

[Sparko]

I don't care what this report says,

That's what we keep saying.

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?

So the coroner disputes his own autopsy report? If so, which time was he lying? Since the autopsy commissioned by Brown's family also said the shots came from the front, I would think that would confirm the county report. I think you misheard the coroner, or you are just making stuff up at this point.

And no, the shots from the front do not mean he had his hands up. It COULD mean that. Or it COULD mean that Brown was charging at the officer and was shot that way, which is what most eye witnesses have claimed. What it does mean is that he was not shot running away as you kept claiming. If he were, the shots would have entered the back of the arms, not the front.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your liberal rant.

[Sparko]

Sparko, others were saying this same thing earlier in the thread, but I've posted another part of the cororner's statement that makes it clear that it is indeed possible that one or two of the shots might have come from behind. This is clear from your own link:

"At the news conference, Parcells said it was unclear what position Brown's arms were in during the shooting.

He said a graze wound on Brown's arm could have occurred in a number of different ways: Brown could have had his back to the officer, or he could have been facing the officer with his hands in the air or in front of his face in a defensive position. "We don't know," he said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/patholog...#ixzz3BK8YPGpr

Dr. Parcells is a pathologist who conducted the autopsy with Dr. Baden. In interviews they are both explicit about the first shot(s) might have come from behind. The lower arm and hands are very mobile.

They are talking about one of the wounds. But since all of the other wounds definitely came from the front, that means that so did the graze wound. It just means they can't prove it on that specific wound by itself. It would be pretty hard to shoot someone running away from you in the front. That means Brown was facing the officer when he was shot. Whether he was giving up, or charging at the officer remains to be seen.

[JimL]

That's what we keep saying.


So the coroner disputes his own autopsy report? If so, which time was he lying? Since the autopsy commissioned by Brown's family also said the shots came from the front, I would think that would confirm the county report. I think you misheard the coroner, or you are just making stuff up at this point.

No I didn't misunderstand the coroner Sparko, the explanation that I gave is exactly how he described it. They, at this point can not be definitive, particularly since they have not even got access to the victims clothes yet which may shed more light on the matter. But the coroners inexactness is counterbalanced by the eyewitness accounts that have so far emerged which independently and in there own words testify to the fact that he was shot at from behind while running away, whether he was actually hit or not, and that he turned with his arms in the air in the surrender position and the Officer continued shooting 3 or more times until the victim fell dead on the ground. Now you don't have to believe the eyewitness accounts if don't want to, but making up your own imagined story to comply with your own beliefs only works for you, it doesn't work in a court of law.

And no, the shots from the front do not mean he had his hands up. It COULD mean that. Or it COULD mean that Brown was charging at the officer and was shot that way, which is what most eye witnesses have claimed. What it does mean is that he was not shot running away as you kept claiming. If he were, the shots would have entered the back of the arms, not the front.

First off, you seem not able to comprehend that the back of the arms are equivalent to the front of the arms when they are raised in the surrender position. Second if you would reveal all of these eyewitnesses that you purport to have knowledge of it might help to make your case, but merely asserting that they exist doesn't help.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your liberal rant.

That is obviously the problem that you yourself are having, facts do not seem to be an issue that you and yours concern yourselves with.