Michael Brown Autopsy by Dr. Baden Released

Dr. Michael Baden, hired by Michael Brown family lawyer Benjamin Crump, has released his autopsy findings. Baden waived his fee and Crump paid his travel expenses.

AG Eric Holder has said the Brown family asked the Justice Department to conduct another autopsy. That's a lot of autopsy requests.

Baden says Brown was shot at least six times, although only 3 bullets were recovered from the body. He said he was shot in the head, the eye, and the arm. [More...]

Baden said all the shots hit Brown from the front (conflicting with some eyewitness statements.) Baden also said Brown had his head down when one shot hit him. As to what that means:

“It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

In other words, no conclusion. Crump, as is typical of him, tries to spin it. I recommend ignoring him.

< Summertime Blues , Contributions Help | Iraq Issues Statement Objecting to U.S. Airstrikes and Arming Kurds >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    An odd statement by Dr. Baden: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:58:21 PM EST
    "In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, `You're not supposed to shoot so many times,' " said Dr. Baden, who retired from the state police in 2011. "Right now there is too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting."

    I can't follow the narrative... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by prose on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:46:34 AM EST
    I'm all for calling the police out, and even more in favor of a real conversation about race and profiling.

    But this "executed in the street" stuff makes no sense to me on two levels.

    1. The six shots, and the grouping (along with the distance) doesn't suggest "execution" style killing.  Overkill, unnecessary conflict - sure.  But it can't be brazen disregard for bystanders AND a cold, calculated execution.

    2. In a lot of ways, it's more disturbing if the cop ISN'T just an overtly racist sociopath.  Suppose he IS an honored cop, an upstanding citizen, etc.  This seeming over use, and possibly completely needless use of deadly force speaks more to systemic issues - both in police culture, and broader perceptions of blackness.

    IDK what I'm really getting at, I guess.  But something about the twitter response, quickness of outrage, and insistence on a narrative that demonizes the cop in question out of hand are really rubbing me the wrong way.

    NY Times article on the Baden autopsy has (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    some great comments, here are a few:

    Top comment as of this moment:  

    Hey everybody! Let's have a trial on the Internet! It's the new, faster way to a fair verdict. There are no rules and no boring judge to keep the proceedings orderly. No juries are needed either -- we are the jury. With an Internet trial there are no pesky, complicated judicial procedures to admit evidence, you don't need to know anything about the law, you just make it up as you go!

    But wait, there's more! With an Internet trial you bring all your existing prejudices, biases, raw emotions, stuff you read on the Interwebs or what your other friends posted on another site, cable news reports, talking heads, flaky website hearsay. It's all admissible! And, of course, most importantly -- your opinion matters more than anyone else's.

    This is pretty much a fact-free proceeding so just sit back and start lobbing whatever you like and see what sticks. Have fun!

    Number two:

    Wait a minute.

    I've been "kind of" following this whole thing for a week now, but I hadn't fully realized:

    This whole thing was about "JAYWALKING"?


    And this, number three:

    After all the conflicting reports are weighed and balanced, we still may never know the truth. An unarmed young black man lay dead: that we do know.

    I think we can all agree that if he had been a white man, his body wouldn't have lain in the street, alone and unloved, for 4 or five hours. That's racism, folks.

    Dunno about that last bit. (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    This white dude was shot and killed by NYPD and the body lay there for a long time while they investigated.

    Not sure how long, but long enough after he was shot for the investigators to show up, put their markers over evidence, take their photos and notes etc., etc.


    Sorry, link is (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    The Problem as I See It (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    How many cop shooting began with something like this, a jaywalking or some other ridiculousness, that turns into a weapon being fired and someone either dead or seriously injured, which occasionally includes a cop.

    Jaywalking was the original 'crime', doesn't appear a citation was issued, so basically a cop deciding to tell someone to use a crosswalk and somehow that spiraled into, if you believe the cops, a justified shooting.

    Shooting someone over a jaywalking is never justified.  Cops, just let it go, grown @ss people don't need you informing them how to cross the road, and they might not give you the respect you think you deserve.  

    Wouldn't it just be easier to let some petty S go from time to time or not get all bent out of shape when a citizen doesn't respond the way in which you think they should over something that is beyond petty.

    Where is the police perspective ?  I have seen it several times, the cops are there for some non-sense and because it is non-sense people aren't exactly giving them the respect they want.  So they decide to formidably make them comply and before you know it, it turns into chaos.

    Chaos that didn't exist until the police arrived.

    People are arrested all the time for 'resisting arrest' with no underlying charge.  That does not make sense.  Of course they resisted, they should not be arrested to begin with.  

    The issue isn't whether it's justified, the issue is that we have police officers who are incapable of letting petty BS not escalate into a national shooting incident.  Even if brown was a lifelong criminal, the worse thug on the streets, it is the cops job to keep things in perspective and not allow a jaywalking incident to morph into a national incident.

    Being disrespectful to a cop is not a crime.

    One or the scariest (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    Things said in the early day of this was the reporters account - of the McDonalds incident - where he said the police kept screaming "STOP RESISTING.  STOP RESISTING" and he was not resisting.  He described it as the most terrifying part and that's how it struck me.

    I highly doubt (3.50 / 2) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    Where is the police perspective ?  I have seen it several times, the cops are there for some non-sense and because it is non-sense people aren't exactly giving them the respect they want.  So they decide to formidably make them comply and before you know it, it turns into chaos.

    That this officer, with no issues on his service record, was feeling so dissed because some teenagers just were jaywalking, and it made him so enraged that he opened up his weapon on them.

    I would bet lots of money that there is more to this story, unless of course, the cop just lost his mind completely, and then of course, he can avail himself of the "temporary insanity" defense.

    I have no idea what happened, and all we have so far are conflicting stories by witnesses who may have their own biases.  Does this result -  a dead 18 year old lying in the street - seem unreasonable for whatever happened?  Absolutely, but like I said, I don't think this cop just up and shot someone to death because he was feeling disrespected.  (If you see the one video right after the shooting, the officer appears nervous and distraught and is pacing back and forth while another officer is on the phone.  Someone who was so cold blooded and felt dissed, probably wouldn't appear nervous.)


    That's not what he said (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    That this officer, with no issues on his service record, was feeling so dissed because some teenagers just were jaywalking, and it made him so enraged that he opened up his weapon on them.

    It is my understanding the victim and his (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:13:19 PM EST
    friend were walking down the middle of the street, not crossing it.

    You know what? (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:05:46 PM EST
    I walk down the middle of Colfax, too. When I'm crossing it. Because often times traffic only clears for the traffic coming from one direction.

    Then I walk down the "middle of the street" until traffic clears in the other direction. I have no idea if that street has the same center median that Colfax does, but that's an interesting question, if somewhat academic.

    But I think I will Google map the location in a little while. Right now I think I will go have a beer.


    The video shows it clearly. (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:37:16 PM EST
    Probably, but (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:32:33 PM EST
    While that is an alternative, I have no desire to see someone get shot.

    There is no median. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:43:13 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#156)
    by sj on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    I hadn't yet dived into Google maps. But darned if I know why this comment got troll rated.

    Funny - he said this (3.50 / 2) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Shooting someone over a jaywalking is never justified.

    You confused me here jb (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    Even knowing your bias, I'm aghast that you appear to be taking issue with the statement that you quoted. So when exactly is shooting someone over a jaywalking justified?

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    And what is the basis for this conclusion:
    Someone who was so cold blooded and felt dissed, probably wouldn't appear nervous.
    That is a giant sized leap right there.

    Sure, why not? (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    It's not like everyone else around here isn't taking huge leaps of logic and filling in with their own biases.

    Just wanted to be part of the crowd...


    Well at least this (3.50 / 2) (#52)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    time you're admitting your pro-police bias, so there's that.

    Has to Admit to It (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:39:06 PM EST
    It's so thick I can hardly see, all the people in streets wanting nothing more than free stuff while the hero sits at home, paid, being the misunderstood target of the liberalists at TL.

    It's called Nixon reasoning, if the guy got shot by the police, he obviously did something. The joke being that if a cop shoots someone it is not a crime.


    Actually, (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    I'm saying this is reminiscent of the "he was armed with Skittles and Iced Tea" and those who hate cops are easily led into going down that path.

    I don't think Scott is one of those, but his comments are inaccurate, with what we know.

    But I know the "we hate all cops" attitude is the norm around here.  Shrug.


    Stop that (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    You're stirring the pot and maligning a whole bunch of people for absolute for no reason whatsoever. The "pro-police bias" statement is for you alone. And I misspoke, anyway. I should have said that your bias is "pro-authority". And it is.

    On the other hand this:

    But I know the "we hate all cops" attitude is the norm around here.
    is just making things up so that you can pretend to be the objective one.

    Are you serious? Merely suggesting commenters (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    here wait for all the evidence, and (best case scenario) the verdict, assuming Officer Wilson is charged and goes to trial) brings forth scathing comments.

    I wish commenters would calm down (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:34:44 PM EST
    The investigation, no matter what is discovered, can never remove the evidence that the police force in Ferguson and in many other places in this country has lost its mind.  And equipment and tactics are being employed and used against American citizens that active duty soldiers currently would never employ even in a war zone.  And the reason for that is because those actions escalate social violence.

    Have you seen this? Law enforcement (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    officer doing his job:



    Now that IS an (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:00:53 PM EST
    interesting article oculus. Man bites dog, and all.

    Have you seen this police (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:01:17 PM EST
    work?  (Caution, some male nudity).  In Prague Czech Republic:  A  man, possibly under the influence of drugs, suddenly attacks a police officer. The situation was handled effectively and efficiently.   The police officer was not injured, business was as usual on the streets.  

    I think this is awful (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:30:50 PM EST
    But being a police officer is about taking risks, that is why on the job they are granted more authority and rights than the rest of us.  They are guardians first, when they act with gratuitous violence that immediately breaks down our social structure.  It destroys the social fabric.  If they wanted uneventful days without challenge and physical risk don't become a police officer, be a CPA.

    I have many friends in StLouis (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    Following this on FBook has been very interesting.  To much has (all white folks) seemed defensive and in denial.  Like rationalizing the lack of political representation.  
    Not all.  One guy I respect and believe says bringing in the National Guard is a huge mistake.  He says that whites there do not understand and seriously under estimate the anger of the black community.  And have for a long time.  
    He thinks the guard and all the news cameras are a very dangerous combination.

    I think he is right.


    This (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:01:44 PM EST
    Has been getting a lot of attantion

    Is segregation the problem in Ferguson?


    Your link says the answer is no. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:20:09 PM EST
    Ferguson and some of its North County neighbors are among the most racially integrated municipalities in Missouri and well beyond.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:17:02 PM EST
    I read it.

    The racial population map (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:12:08 PM EST
    In that article is interesting.  For several reasons.

    What do you think is going to happen (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Jack203 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:08:06 PM EST
    The problem isn't the few dozen idiot looters in Ferguson. The problem, as always, if the virus  spreads elsewhere to other cities.  I doubt it does.

    I understand how angry many African Americans are.  Just when they started to make inroads, the recession that Obama inherited hit them the hardest out of all ethnic groups.  Last hired and first fired is too often true.

    I really wish instead of spending that trillion+ dollars in Iraq we spent that trillion dollars rebuilding our inner cities.


    Who knows (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:16:28 PM EST
    But so far every time the police have pushed there has been pushback.  
    How angry would you be?  The only information being released by authorities seems to be that there was marijuana found in Browns system.

    Yes (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    Funny thing is that the authorities, or Case who was hired by Crump, has failed to mention how long MJ stays in the body.

    IOW he could have smoked weed weeks ago.

    Not that whether he has any MJ in his system is relevant, imo.


    "Unnamed sources" (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    The most vile kind of selective leaking.
    Turns out the justice dept specifically asked the city of Ferguson to NOT release the convenience store robbery.

    Robbery VIDEO (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:30:11 PM EST
    So when police get FOIA requests... (none / 0) (#132)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    ...they should feel free to run them through the shredder and tell the media to get stuffed?

    Have you seen (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:25:59 PM EST
    The FOIA request?

    Yes (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:25:40 PM EST
    They certainly would if it made them look bad.

    This smells like a leak to me. More FETID than FOIA.


    That kind of request (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:35:28 PM EST
    Does not seem like something the justice department would do without some consideration.

    You know there have to be.... (none / 0) (#147)
    by unitron on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:09:17 AM EST
    ...FOIA requests that have been submitted to them for a lot more than just that video, and if the reason for not granting those had no more legal weight than "'cause we don't want to", I expect we'd have heard the press screaming about it 24/7.

    Really? (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:17:21 AM EST
    To imagine that FPD would tell reporters that their FOIA requests are getting turned down:

    "'cause we don't want to"

    Is absurd.

    And btw do you regularly see the press "screaming" about being turned down on FOIA requests?


    While that is true (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    those "scathing comments" tend to come from the same couple of people. So what would that have to do with jb's assertion that
    ...I know the "we hate all cops" attitude is the norm around here.

    Who Exactly, Hates All Cops... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    ...here ?

    That is Not What I Wrote (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    Obviously something happened to get from jaywalking to shooting.  My point was that cops tend to escalate instead of just letting uncooperative and disrespectful people, who haven't done anything more than jaywalking, be on their way.

    This isn't an isolated incident, they do it all the time, bother people over nothing, then when those people don't show them enough respect, they take it by force.  If I had 3 lifetimes I couldn't watch all the videos of cops escalating nothing into an arrest.

    Not saying this is what happened, but wouldn't it just be easier to let something like this go and do some real police work instead of hassling grown folks about how to cross the street correctly, or that their stereo is too loud, or that the front license plate light is out, or anything that is so minor, that even an arrest would be excessive.


    Yes, it would (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    But what is vital is what happened inside the cop car. That's what escalated everything, it seems.  There was some kind of struggle - did the cop grab "Big Mike" as one witness said? (Would be very hard to do to a 6'4, 300+ pound man, IMO).  Did Brown go for the cop's gun? What kind of injuries did the cop suffer and did he feel threatened enough to justify in his mind the use of such force? Are we going to get accurate answers to these questions or are the emotions and level of mistrut so high that there will alway be doubts?

    You Missed the Point... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    ...which in this case, there should have not been any physical contact to begin with.

    Tell that to whoever initiated physical contact... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    ...except we don't know for sure yet which one of them it was.

    But the point of hassling people in that (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    way is to make sure they know who's boss.  It's about fear and intimidation.  Keeping people in line.

    It's abuse of power.

    There was no reason for the cop, as has been reported, to call out, "Get the fk on the sidewalk," when he could just as easily have said, "hey, guys, how about you move over onto the sidewalk?"  - unless he was taking advantage of his own power.  

    And you have to wonder - at least I do - if this is how the cops approach two young men who aren't doing anything more than walking in the street, how much worse do they act when there's real crime to be dealt with?

    It's the kind of mindset that gets people killed.


    Do we actually know that? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:38:34 AM EST
    There was no reason for the cop, as has been reported, to call out, "Get the fk on the sidewalk," when he could just as easily have said, "hey, guys, how about you move over onto the sidewalk?"  

    Who says that's what happened?

    I mean, the witnesses who all claim Brown was shot in the back while running away have been discredited by the family's own preliminary autopsy - so how do you know what exactly was said?  Is there a tape of that somewhere that I missed?


    Depends on whether you want to (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:35:26 AM EST
    believe Dorian Johnson, the young man who was with Michael Brown through the incident:

    The officer demanded that the two "get the f--k on the sidewalk," Johnson says. "His exact words were get the f--k on the sidewalk."

    After telling the officer that they were almost at their destination, Johnson's house, the two continued walking. But as they did, Johnson says the officer slammed his brakes and threw his truck in reverse, nearly hitting them.

    Important detail in that excerpt: Wilson was driving a truck.  Why is that important?  Because from inside a truck, it's a lot easier for Wilson to reach out and grab Brown by the neck, as has been reported.

    I wasn't there - you weren't there.  Those who were watched some part of a confrontation that at some point involved a gun being fired at Brown.  In the heat of those chaotic moments, I can completely understand the witnesses believing the shots were fired while Brown's back was turned.  We already know that, in general, eyewitness accounts are notoriously flawed; the truth is in there somewhere, but I think it's a mistake to seem to be assuming a nefarious reason for why the eyewitness accounts may not jibe with autopsy results.

    Calm down.


    More unwanted speculation (none / 0) (#154)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    I may try and find the link but I recall one witness claiming Wilson told Brown and Johnson to get out of the road, drove past, then put the vehicle in reverse and backed up to them.  Wilson then opened the door of the vehicle and in the process hit Brown with the door.

    There was some confusion in my mind but the claim was that this was the real spark causing the confrontation, Wilson hitting Brown with the door of his vehicle.

    Brown was a big guy and it is much easier for me to understand how Brown could get in a physical confrontation with Wilson if the door of the vehicle was open as opposed to doing it only through an open vehicle window.  Hard for me to envision pulling a three hundred pound guy through a vehicle window, or even why one would reach out through a vehicle window and grab a guy that big.

    I assume tests for GSR residue have been performed on the inside of Wilson's vehicle.  These tests should determine if a firearm was discharged inside the vehicle and if the door was open or closed when/if the firearm was discharged.

    While nothing will prevent me from speculating I am betting a lot of questions will be answered once we get the results of GSR tests.


    Please don't tell me to calm down (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    Besides being incredibly patronizing, it's also inaccurate as I am perfectly calm. I'm allowed to ask a question here, especially when the facts you are presenting don't add up.

    Dorian Johnson is also the same person who said Brown was shot in the back.  We now know that isn't true.

    Other witnesses decribe Wilson's vehicle as a police car - not a truck.

    You said:

    There was no reason for the cop, as has been reported, to call out, "Get the fk on the sidewalk," when he could just as easily have said, "hey, guys, how about you move over onto the sidewalk?"  - unless he was taking advantage of his own power.

    But then you said:

    I wasn't there - you weren't there.

    THAT was my question - you are taking the word of ONE witness, who already has been mistaken about salient details of the killing and left out other pertinent details of his day (and since we're speculating, probably has not had the best view of the cops before this) - how can you definitively say what was said? Especially when that doesn't seem to jive (so far) with what other witnesses saw and heard?

    So to answer your question, no, at this time, I'm not going to definitively believe what Doriand Johnson said.


    Of course you're not - I didn't expect you to. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    So I have no idea why you even asked the questions, having already made up your mind what was credible and what wasn't.

    I guess we will - maybe - eventually know how many bullets were fired from Wilson's gun.  If more than six, we'll know that bullets were fired that did not strike Brown, making it entirely reasonable that those who saw Brown moving away from Wilson at the same time they heard gunshots could have reasonably concluded - as Brown lay on the street bleeding to death - that Brown had been shot in the back.  

    What do you think people concluded when Brown turned and reportedly said, "stop shooting - I don't have a gun?"  I would conclude that the first shots fired were not the ones that hit him, they were the ones that missed - while he was running away from the man with the gun.

    Do we know if any of the graze wounds could have been inflicted when Brown had his back to Wilson?

    Would the possibility that Wilson fired multiple shots at someone moving away from him be any less of a problem because the shots didn't actually find their mark?  Do you have any thoughts in general on a cop firing his weapon at someone running away from him?  Kind of hard to make a case of imminent danger or fear for life when someone is trying to put distance between himself and the cop, don't you think?

    And, for the record, I told you to "calm down" because of your confrontational, prosecutorial tone that suggests you aren't open to any other conclusions but the ones you have already drawn.

    And don't even accuse me of having my mind made up; offering other possibilities does not indicate belief that those are facts, just that they are possibilities.  And I feel the need to offer them because of the tsunami of universal belief in Brown's "guilt" that washes over this place in these kinds of situations.


    Discredited (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 10:04:47 AM EST
    So if I'm running from someone shooting at me - which can be clearly ascertained, I'm moving away, with my back to the shooter, the shooter presumably has his hand out and is firing, also easily ascertained, it's not a leap for people to say "he shot him in the back." Would you feel better if witnesses said "he shot at him while his back was turned?"

    Further, the family's autopsy doesn't indicate what you state it claims. Indeed the wound on the back of Brown's arm could align with witness statements.

    Will you believe these things if said in court and they hold up under cross? That was your threshold in the past, testimony as evidence.


    Really ? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    Who says that's what happened?

    An eye witness says that's what happened, and until the police decide to tell their version, it's the only evidence available.

    Not sure what 'evidence' you have to be so dismissive, because he's poor and black, or because you know that isn't what the cops are going to say, either way it's clear you have a disdain for the the victims and trying to pawn it off as having some legitimacy.  Pretty sad, you are so normally level headed, but you keep defending the police who have released nothing but unrelated garbage.

    Why, that doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider one side jaywalked, the other side killed a person.  There is no valid reason not to believe that version of events unless you have already made up your mind about what happened that night.

    Nothing has contradicted his statement.

    You are not alone, most people have already decided the cop was in the right, that whatever the cops put out will be accurate, that the black guys initiated the actions.  It's a done deal, defending the cops without any evidence, other than they are cops, is a crystal clear indication that whatever the cops release will be bought and sold with vigor.


    IOKIYAAnne (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:11:50 AM EST
    OK for Anne to speculate..

    for others:


    that would be vulgar or something low class.

    note to self: always put the knife in with a smile
    and good grammar.


    It is interesting, because had one of these young (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    (not by any direct actions of law enforcement), the next step is to sue the city for damages for failure to protect them, assuming law enforcement knew they were there. Happens frequently, although not successfully as to plaintiffs. Same issue if someone else is injured trying to avoid them

    I always thought there was no (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    legal duty by police or fire to any particular person, and as a matter of public policy you cannot sue them for failing to act.

    Usually that is the result, but lots of (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    lawsuits filed and occasionally the court does not grant the public entity's motion for summary judgment.

    MSJ? (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    One would assume demurrer bait, no?

    Yo, Empic, no cussing on this site. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:10:32 AM EST
    Read the rest of the rules too.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    for using profanity. New commenters should read our commenting rules.

    Actually, there's new security video (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:52:34 AM EST
    making the rounds that appears to show Brown paying for the items.

    Is it possible Brown was mistakenly accused of shoplifting, and that's why he had words with the clerk?

    I have no idea if that's what this video shows - and I don't intend to watch it 500 times and take notes and read all the blogs that are micro-analyzing it.  Whatever it is the video shows, its appearance now is just another example of why people need to chill the fk out and quit leaping to conclusions every time something "new" comes out.

    I'm all for transparency in government, but I don't much care for the tendency to think the court of public opinion is an acceptable substitute for the judicial system.  

    New video... (none / 0) (#159)
    by unitron on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    ...or new theory based on same video?

    Did you look at it? Or am I supposed to (none / 0) (#161)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    know what you've already seen and what you haven't?

    The video I linked to is not one I saw before - it's clearly taken from a different angle than the other one I've seen, which was the one where the person purported to be Brown gets into a physical confrontation with someone at the door of the store.

    Was this "new" video part of or among the security tapes handed over to the Ferguson PD?  That raises the question of why only the confrontational video was initially released.

    Dorian Johnson is now - at least according to the AP - admitting that he and Brown stole cigars that day, so your guess is as good as mine how any of the video should be interpreted.  

    We might as well all lay on our backs in a field and talk about what images the clouds represent, and tell stories about them.


    The story I saw... (none / 0) (#168)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 10:33:24 AM EST
    ...about the "he actually paid for them" theory made it sound like it was a different interpretation of the same video the police released due to FOIA requests.

    And your previous post didn't specifically state that you had already seen the first one and that this one was different.


    In an interview with msnbc (none / 0) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    In an interview with msnbc shortly after the report was released, Johnson's lawyer confirmed that Brown had taken cigars from the store.

    "We see that there's tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery," said Freeman Bosley, Johnson's attorney. "We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police."

    IMO (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    They buried the lead of that story.   It seems more important to me that (if true) the police did not see the video until Brown was dead.

    Not sure what importance that has. (none / 0) (#166)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    iirc, the call to the police about the theft pretty much described Brown to a T.

    Bowing his head? (4.00 / 0) (#90)
    by CityLife on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    The wounds to the top of the head indicate his head was tilted forward (or body leaning forward with the head) the Brown family lawyer is insisting this is consistent with witness statements of Brown supposedly trying to surrender but he is claiming Brown surrendered with his head bowed forward. Does that sound credible? Who surrenders with their head bowed forward? That certainly isn't how all the protestors trying to imitate Brown do it. Who would take their eye off the cop and bow their head as they surrender? Does it sound more likely he was charging at the officer which is a possibility that I finally heard a reporter ask! A possibility that even the ‪medical examiner‬ admits COULD BE the case"  Dr. Baden said of the wounds: 'It can be because he's giving up, or because he's charging forward at the officer."  But like I said, who bows their head when they give up?  "The family said that the bullet wound on the top of the skull suggested Brown was bowing his head to submit to the officer when he was shot." Does that sound credible? Or that he was charging at the officer as this witness is apparently indicating when he says he KEPT coming towards the police?

    Perhaps his head was coming forward (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    because he had 5 bullets in him already.

    Bowing your head while surrendering would not be unheard of. Many bow their head when they are cuffed also. And during perp walks . . .


    no one mentioned bowing his head (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by CityLife on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:48:12 PM EST
    correct me if I'm wrong but no witness said he bowed his head right? Standing while bowing your head? Or coming at the officer as a witness described? None of the protesters who try to imitate Brown are bowing their heads, doesn't seem like a natural thing to do with a cop in front of you. People seriously need to consider that the cop shot a very large and violent man who was charging at him.

    Did anyone say he was looking forward? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    And yeah, standing and looking down is not an uncommon act. Looking a cop in the face could be considered defiant. See how that works? Again, by the time he got shoot in the head, he already had 4 bullets in the arm and one in the face, from what I understood.

    And I really don't care what the protestors are doing. Some of them were rowdy and some of them were peaceful, how does that reflect on what Brown was doing?


    Bending over (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:16:36 PM EST
    After being shot once, forget 4 times, does not seem like an unusual thing to do.

    OMG, please. Take a breath and (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:39:58 PM EST
    consider that you don't know all the facts, you weren't there, eyewitness accounts are notably unreliable, and are all over the place in this instance.

    If, as some people have theorized, the cop was trying to stop his forward progress, and he'd managed to shoot Brown 4 times in relatively short order, how unreasonable is it that he's beginning to go down, unable to hold his upper body, including his head, in as upright a position as he was before he got shot?

    You don't want to consider "bowing" because it connotes "surrender" and your scenarios are more about "defiance."  But there's more than one reason, other than surrender, why Brown's head may have been in more of a descending position at the time the bullet was on its way to his head.

    I'll tell you what I really hate about the aftermath of these situations: the need people feel to be the one whose story gets the most traction and wins the day.  And I hate the way people cherry pick through the facts, decide that speculation is as good as fact if they like where it goes.  They put thoughts and motives in people's heads as if, sitting in front of a TV and a computer keyboard, they have even a clue about people they don't know, one of whom, in this case, will never be able to speak for himself.



    Forget it, Anne. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:11:25 PM EST
    I fear that these threads are quickly turning into Zimmerman Redux. It's pointless to argue with people who have an obvious need to choose sides in this dreadful affair, and will cherry pick whatever facts or innuendo is out there which reinforces their own preconceived narrative.

    I'm outa here.


    autopsy results help police (2.00 / 2) (#13)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:33:07 AM EST
    Supposedly Brown was shot 6 times, of which 4 shots were into his arm.  All shots seem to have been fired from or to the front . . . the shot to the head indicates that the victim was leaning forward or downwards, corroborating someone's statement that the victim was bumrushing the officer.

    Nothing in the autopsy suggests the victim was shot while he was standing stationary with hands up . . .

    Are you a medical examiner? A forensic (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:55:23 AM EST
    expert of some kind?  A medical doctor?  An expert in crime scene reconstruction?


    Then I fail to see how you have been able to come to this conclusion:

    Nothing in the autopsy suggests the victim was shot while he was standing stationary with hands up . . .

    re autopsy (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:12:30 AM EST
    the legal analyst in the New York times says of the 4 shots in the arm, that they indicate or suggest that the officer was attempting to stop the fellow, presumably while the fellow was charging at him.

    moreover, the autopsy results already are in clear contradiction to the eyewitness faulty testimony that Brown was shot in the back or while his back was turned.

    The eyewitness was mistaken or lying.

    The 4 shots to the arm do not indicate the intention at first to kill the fellow but to stop him, indicating that those who are claiming execution killing are not correct.

    The autopsy person claims that he believes that the shots to the arm were fired first, followed by shots to the head.


    and have learned from first hand experience in shooting handguns, all LE are trained to shoot to stop/kill only, which means the shots are aimed at the "center of mass." ie, the chest area.

    That so many shots hit Brown a significant distance away from his center of mass is a good example of how inaccurate people are with handguns, especially when they are under pressure, and why LE are trained to aim at the center of mass.

    LE shoot to wound bad guys in the arms/legs only in the movies.


    cbs news says (none / 0) (#21)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:49:26 AM EST
    Koblinsky believes the shots to the arm indicate the policeperson wanted to stop the fellow.

    That's some fancy shooting (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    right there. Shooting him in the arm to stop him. Clearly that was intentional, right?



    Sure, because shooting someone (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:36:39 AM EST
    in the arm who's 6'4" and almost 300 pounds, who's moving toward you, is the best way to stop the legs from working, right?

    Do arm tackles work in the NFL?  Not usually.

    Maybe the cop was just a really bad shot - does that ever occur to anyone?


    I'd say he's one of the better marksman on the Ferguson PD.

    And/or (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    some of the bullets could have richocheted - off the cement, off of his other parts of his body, or anything else.

    Baden, who also spoke at the news conference, said Brown, 18, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head. None of the bullets entered from the back, and three were recovered from Brown's body, he said.

    Brown could have survived all of his wounds except for the shot to the top of his head, Baden said. That shot was probably sustained last, hitting Brown as he was bending over, and exited through his right eye, he said

    And of course, other autopsies may reveal different interpretations (so sayeth the above referenced Paul Callan this morning).


    Most police departments in the U.S., (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    Most police departments in the U.S., including the NYPD, train officers to shoot for center-mass, or the chest, because it represents the largest part of the body, and a hit there would most likely result in stopping a person bent on violence.

    The rules governing whether deadly force can be used often differ between jurisdictions and have evolved as police departments adopt technology and progressive training to better subdue a suspect, experts said.


    When Mr. Kennedy allegedly lunged at the officers, two of them fired a total of 12-shots, killing him as a clutch of stunned bystanders looked on.

    According to a spokeswoman for the city's Medical Examiner, Mr. Kennedy had 13 gunshot wounds, including entry and exit wounds, to his arm, thighs and torso.

    Paul Browne, the top NYPD spokesman, said on Monday that officers are trained to aim for "center mass" when using deadly force, which is sanctioned once "the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the police officer or to another person present."


    Ms. Haberfield acknowledged that debates have raged over police aiming to kill suspects, rather than maim them, but she said there is strong evidence to suggest wounding an emotionally unstable person can further agitate them. Similary, tasers and pepper-spray can be ineffective against a person in such a state of mind.

    "The pain can further aggravate a person," she said.

    According to Ms. Haberfield [Maria Haberfield, a professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.][Ms. Haberfield, a former lieutenant with the Israeli National Police who has studied police use of force in 10 countries,] shooting a suspect to kill them is also employed out of necessity: The average officer can't dedicate enough hours to marksmanship training in order to become expert enough to attempt to stop a person by shooting them in the leg or hand.

    Departments that require officers first attempt to shoot a person in an extremity, such as police departments in Israel and Poland, are often staffed by former soldiers who have had extensive weapons training.

    Another question about police-involved shootings that is often raised by critics is the perception that officers often fire excessively. Ms. Haberfield said her own research has found that in high-stress situations, human beings case lose up to 70% of their vision--making it difficult for a police officer in the midst of a shooting to assess the damage they are inflicting.

    "Decisions like this are not fully rational," Ms. Haberfield said of an officer who must decide what to do in the face of a life-threatening scenario. "Police use of force never looks pretty but you have to stop the threat."

    If the cop (none / 0) (#45)
    by ding7777 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:05:07 PM EST
     just wanted to "wound", why not use his taser?

    Is it known for a fact... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:02:34 PM EST
    ...that he had a Taser?

    No Money For Tasers (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    They blew their whole police budget on Hi tech military gear.

    They may have gotten that gear (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    for free.

    Yves has a really good post about this.


    Making things up again, Squeaky?? (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    That said, I am all for video cameras and audio on each officer. The technology is here and it will stop all this "he said she said."

    Possible Thing but Who Knows (2.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Emperor of Ice Cream on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:09:45 AM EST

    Post Dispatch tweeting that over a dozen witnesses corroborate Wilson's account.  OK, but what is Wilson's account?  Is it still what "Josie" said on talk radio?  How is it good for FPD to invite speculation that they are polishing the report to match witness statements?  Is Justice or Springfield or both asking it be withheld?

    Why would Springfield (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:12:22 AM EST
    ask for the report to be withheld?  They have no jurisdiction here;  Springfield is the capital of Illinois.  
    Ferguson is in Missouri.  The capital of Missouri is Jefferson City.

    All the shots hit from the front (none / 0) (#2)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:14:13 PM EST
    Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.

    Note that this contradicts the friend, who says Brown was shot in the back at least once.

    Also, if he had his hands up, how did four bullets hit him in the arm?

    It could be that the first shot was fired ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:50:23 PM EST
    ... and missed its target completely, while Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson had their backs turned and were fleeing.

    My grandmother used to tell me that if I really and honestly don't know, then I must resist the temptation to simply assume. So, I'm not going to speculate any further. There is so much to this sad story about which we obviously don't know, and about which initial reports ended up as either mistaken or false, that I'm now content to see it unfold in real time and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps with patience, the truth will be revealed to us.



    Bingo, Donald. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    No confused witness necessary if the cop shot at the back of the fleeing, unarmed suspect, and missed.  The suspect turned around and then it was game on for the cop, since his shooting practice was limited to targets showing men facing him.  

    There's an obvious market opportunity here - for printing targets of torsos facing away, i.e., backshooting practice targets for the modern P.D..

    Gunning down an unarmed man remains the problem, no matter what its local proponents do to muddy the waters.


    Wakes way less sense (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    then he shot him while he charged him.

    but if you want the cop to be guilty of shooting a man in the back then just speculate away.


    The point here, Slado, is that ... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:00:10 PM EST
    Slado: "[M]akes way less sense [than] he shot him while he charged him."

    ... none of us knows for sure what exactly went down nine days ago on that street in Ferguson. For that matter, the bullet holes in Michael Brown's arms may also be entirely consistent with defensive wounds, because the strong human instinct for survival would compel one to naturally put one's hands out in front of oneself as a means of protection -- even though common sense would nominally tell us that a hand or arm is hardly going to stop or deflect a 9mm or .45 bullet coming your way.

    That said, I just don't know. And when I'm no longer certain of what the facts are any more, I'm not going to assume anything here. There's been too much spin, misinformation and misdirection put out there as it is.

    The only things I'm certain of are twofold: (1) The Ferguson PD's handling of this entire matter has been absolutely abysmal; and (2) The almost obscene racial disparity between city personnel (who are 85% white) and the black-majority population (67%) rendered Ferguson, MO a powder keg waiting to blow.



    Still incomplete (none / 0) (#3)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:20:07 PM EST
    While Baden did not find any GSR on Brown's body he did not have access to Brown's clothes which is the most likely place to find GSR.

    It will be interesting to see what the local report says.  Guess there is still more waiting.

    The friend was insistent (none / 0) (#6)
    by toggle on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:38:59 AM EST
    He said he saw Brown's blood after the cop shot him while they were both struggling through the car window.

    Here's a video of the friend telling his story: youtube video

    It would have had to have been one of the arm wounds [since the head wounds were debilitating] Maybe the upper one could have been produced and Brown's t-shirt caught all the GSR. But I doubt it. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

    The friend might also have been more specific as to where Brown was shot in another interview, I'm not sure.


    Bleeding is not always caused by gun shots (none / 0) (#12)
    by ragebot on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:29:02 AM EST
    The locals who first examined Brown's body almost for sure did GSR tests on both the body and clothes.  Problem is once Brown's family took custody of his body the chain of evidence was broken.

    Standard procedure at a funeral home is to clean the body and use fairly strong chemicals to some what preserve it and makeup to make the body make the body look more normal.  Not to mention the body was left in the street for five hours according to some reports which may have also degraded the possibility of detecting GSR.

    Bottom line is much of the evidence has been compromised by time and actions of those in custody of the body.


    "once Brown's family took custody (2.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:50:18 AM EST
    of his body?"  

    What makes you think Brown's body has left the custody of the Ferguson PD/medical examiner since the time of the incident?

    Are you even aware there has been no funeral yet?  That the hope is the family will be able to bury their child by the weekend of the 23rd of August?

    I know you think you know what you're talking about, but it's clear to me that you don't - and that's the real problem, in my opinion: all of this rank speculation that has no basis in the facts of this case.


    according to the article (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ding7777 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    The two medical experts conducted the four-hour examination Sunday at the Austin A. Layne Mortuary in St. Louis

    What he said (none / 0) (#29)
    by ragebot on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    Anne do you ever get embarrassed when you post something like you just did and it turns out you did not comprehend what you read in the article or maybe just did not read the article.

    It was clear the body was released to the family from several sources including the one Jeralyn linked to.  How did you manage to miss that.


    Please don't tell me the body was (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:28:54 PM EST
    released to the family before the initial autopsy was done.  Do you expect me to believe that the medical examiner's office said, "pardon me, but could we have the body back - we forgot we needed to do an autopsy?"  Where are St. Louis County autopsies normally conducted - do you know?

    And don't even try to make the case that, if the body was released to the mortuary after the initial autopsy, that the family did not already know it wanted an independent autopsy and would have instructed the mortuary not to begin the normal preparation of the body for interment so as not to compromise the integrity of the evidence.

    I have not seen Dr. Baden, for example, express concerns that his conclusions would be compromised by the mortuary's funeral preparations.  I haven't seen the Justice Department express concern over that, either.  Do you think that could possibly be because no such preparations had commenced?

    If you can provide a link that states that (1) the body was released to the family prior to any autopsy being done, or that (2) embalming and other preparations commenced prior to Dr. Baden's autopsy, that would be helpful.


    This was only a preliminary autopsy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    and a restricted one, most likely, which results can usually be available the within 2 days according to JHACO.  Complete autopsy reports can take anywhere from 45-90 days.

    St. Louis County released their preliminary autopsy results on August 18th.


    Well (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    At least Anne gets it wrong with total conviction and hurls  her usual invective about your inability to get it right.

    Squeaky thanks (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    for the post.  While we don't always agree on things in this case I have to give you credit for having integrity.

    I always try to give credit where credit is due.


    Autopsy One Day After Shooting (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    The St. Louis County Medical Examiner's Office, which conducted Brown's autopsy the day after he was killed, said the teen died as a result of gunshot wounds.

    Body released to family about 5 days ago (aug 13)


    All I wanted was a link, which I (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    had tried to find on my own, so in spite of your need to make a completely gratuitous and vulgar comment - I guess you just can't help yourself -  allow me to thank you for providing the link.

    I'll be honest: there has been so much rank speculation about these events, quite a bit of it provided by ragebot, that I cannot and will not take at face value anything he represents as fact unless it comes with a link to a (reasonably) reputable source.  If you have a problem with that, by all means, continue to make the kinds of comments that got you in time-out not so long ago.  

    I guess ragebot hasn't considered that if bodies can be exhumed and re-autopsied, there must not be as much of a problem with "chain of evidence" as he wants there to be.


    Vulgar? (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    Well if you mean low class to point out that you cannot help yourself from insulting people who disagree with you, so be it.

    At least I insult with full awareness, you seem to think that you are above that kind of behavior..  well it is obvious that you are not.

    I know you think you know what you're talking about, but it's clear to me that you don't - and that's the real problem

    That my friend is an ad hominem aka personal attack.


    Speculation, of course, (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    but given the eyewitness accounts of so many shots fired, but Brown only being hit in the front, and only 6 times, is it possible that Wilson missed some shots?

    Perhaps some missed Brown during the time he had his back to Wilson and/or some missed after he'd turned and faced/approached Wilson?

    iow, that there are only bullets in Brown from the front might not mean Wilson only shot at Brown when Brown was facing him.

    And, this just illustrates (none / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:12:40 AM EST
    what Donald was saying. This case is like the kaleidoscope image a racked set of pool balls makes when struck by the force of a champion pool player smashing the cue ball into its center......IOW, an infinite number of possibilities.

    With each scrap of information delivered, or, suggested, I have a dozen more questions pop up in my head.


    does anyone know (none / 0) (#10)
    by ding7777 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:08:31 AM EST
    what kind of gun the cop had?  how many bullets did the gun hold? and were there any bullets still in the gun after the shooting?

    Of course it does (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:14:37 AM EST
    Police miss MOST of their shots (which is why when concealed-carry advocates say they would be able to make people safer because they could take down a shooter, say in a Colorado movie theater, it's completely ludicrous.  Police are trained and work under stressful conditions - your average concealed-carry inviduals do not, yet they think they are going to be better shots?)

    Also, watching CNN Legal contributor Paul Callan (a former Homicide Prosecutor and Defense Attorney) this morning, he said that most police-involved shootings take place at a distance greater than 20 feet, so it wouldn't be surprising if they didn't find GSR on Brown or his clothes.


    The Residue... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:49:56 AM EST
    ...would be from the struggle in which the gun went off inside the car.  Not from the shouts that killed him.

    But that is hit or miss, depending if Brown was near the gun when it was fired and which way the gun was facing.

    Also, there should be a bullet or evidence that a bullet was discharged inside the vehicle.

    The question I am curious about is the quote from oculus:

    "... said Dr. Baden, who retired from the state police in 2011. "Right now there is too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting."

    Is it normal for the pathologist to not have the police report during examination ?  IMO that is the way it should be done, independently so the coroner doesn't have any incentive for bias.  But when I watch the true crime shows, the coroner is usually fully aware of what happened before the exam.

    But why release that information before the police report ?  I would keep it under wraps to see if it meshes with the report.  


    It is under wraps (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    what you're reading is a report from someone hired by the family. It's tough to keep the players straight without a program.

    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:37:37 AM EST
    ...the family has no reason to release it.  they can't keep the official one under wraps, but the one performed by an premier pathologist should be locked away until after the cops release their report IMO.

    The police are damn sure going to make the report they release coincides with the all evidence available.  Having evidence from a highly respected pathologist that disputes their version of events would be step one in proving they lied, which is what the family believes, but can't prove at this point.  


    And then we have this (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:36:19 AM EST
    In regards to the head down or charging:

    @6:28/6:29 of video

    #1 How'd he get from there to there?

    #2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck - cause he was like over the truck


    #2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran - the police got out and ran after him


    #2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him -

    [there is dispute here whether he says "doubled back" or "coming back."]

    #1. Oh, the police got his gun

    #2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I'm thinking the police kept missing - he like - be like - but he kept coming toward him


    #2 Police fired shots - the next thing I know - the police was missing

    #1 The Police?

    #2 The Police shot him

    #1 Police?

    #2 The next thing I know ... I'm thinking ... the dude started running ... (garbled something about "he took it from him")

    The following not from the video.

    This is terribly important because if Mike Brown had been shot, and he advanced towards the cop instead of surrendering, it would substantiate the narrative that the policeman shot in self-defense due to the fact that he was being threatened with severe bodily harm. This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:

    This seems to say that Michael Brown decided to turn and attack the officer. This is consistent with the aggression shown in the video from the store.

    Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren's first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, "Freeze!" Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him... And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something."


    What a mess. The question I have is... Did Brown rob the store? The video appears to say he and his friend did.

    Whatever the video "said," (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    The owner of he store where five dollars worth of tobacco was shoplifted says that there was no 911 call from the store about the incident.

    If there had been, you can bet the rent the police would have released the recording to pile on to the video.  So here's my question to everyone who thinks the kid had been identified as a thief, HOW DID THE POLICE KNOW IF THERE WAS NO 911 CALL?  When did they learn about a kid boosting some blunts, and how did they learn it?

    Don't you think the answer would have been provided by now, if one existed?


    Stop embarassing yourself. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    St. Louis local news is reporting that the Attorney for the Ferguson store, Jake Kanzler said the the Ferguson store owner, nor any store employee called the police to report any shoplifting of cigars, but, rather, a customer called the police.

    Embarrassing Himself? (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    The point is that the Ferguson store owner did not find the shoplifting worthy of calling in.

    It was not requested or asked for. The person in the store took it upon themselves to make the call.

    REPORTER: "I asked the attorney for the owner of the store how the Ferguson police ended up with the video the Police Chief released this morning, the attorney said, 'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape."

    Looks like the police did more than review the tape.

    [the]Ferguson Market attorney acknowledges the obvious, "Whatever the police are looking for on the surveillance tape, has nothing to do with what went on in the street."

    Take away: the alleged theft of the cheap cigars was so insignificant to the Ferguson Market that they did not even bother to call 911 about it -- yet -- the Ferguson Police Chief appears to want us to pretend that the alleged shoplifting of the cheap cigars somehow justifies Officer Darren Wilson killing the unarmed teenager who they claim was the alleged suspect.

    Uh, actually, this was his point, (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    you can tell because he chose to yell it at us.
    So here's my question to everyone who thinks the kid had been identified as a thief, HOW DID THE POLICE KNOW IF THERE WAS NO 911 CALL?
    There certainly was a call, and all it takes to find out about the call is a 2-second google search.

    Where is the tape of that call? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    You say the call took place.  If it did, why hasn't THAT tape been released?  After all, they have piled on with everything that DIDN'T have any connection to the shooting, so if that call did take place, where is it?

    Help me out here.  Wouldn't an important witness be someone who made such a call?  No one has surfaced to say they made it, the police can't produce it, and they have been shown to be liars.

    Why should we believe this?


    Argument from ignorance (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

    I anticipate the any tapes of 911 call(s) and (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:07:40 PM EST
    dispatch and communication to or from Ferguson P.D. will be released along with any computer logs and or transcripts. Patience is a virtue here.

    911 Tape (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    Anonymous hacked the 911 tape..

    The tape appears to be from St. Louis County dispatch -- but the officer who fired the shots works for Ferguson's police department. Discussion of the shooting begins at 11:26, when a dispatcher mentions hearing about the incident "on the news," and at minute 44, which contains audio from 1:35 p.m. - 2:05 p.m., the dispatcher says "we are switching over to the riot channel."

    Not the 911 Tape (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    From the person in the store...  

    Details, Details... (2.00 / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    The greater point is that the Ferguson store did not find the shoplifting significant, nor related to the business between Brown and the Police.

    Your personal opinion, (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    on something that neither RR or I were discussing, is noted.

    The store didn't call.,.. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    ...due to fear of retribution--that's why they made a point of trying to get it out to the public that they never reported any of it voluntarily.

    No Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    You don't know why the store owner didn't call. It could have been that he knew someone had already called. It could have been he was so intimated by Brown's actions that he was fearful that Brown would come back and harm him.

    But it doesn't matter. The call was made, as it should have been unless you want to live in a world were someone can walk into a store, rip off what they want and then leave.

    Is that okay with you?

    It now seems clear that the officer tried to arrest Brown. Brown escaped. The officer yelled for him to stop.

    Now, did the officer shoot before Brown turned??

    Don't know, yet. But we do know Brown was not shot in the back. So the description of Brown "bumrushing" the officer is accurate.

    Remember. Brown turned around at the store and attacked.

    Perhaps he thought he could do so again.

    From this view, a very large man running at him....the officer was within his rights.


    A Psychic Has Come To TL (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    Please let us know what Brown's last thoughts were.

    So turning around is "bumrushing"? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:19:52 PM EST
    It could be. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    I am quoting (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:32:48 PM EST
    what was said.

    You said it was accurate. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:41:37 PM EST
    How so? Proof? Same for the 'fact' the officer was trying to arrest Brown, please.

    If the officer wasn't trying to arrest (2.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:38:48 PM EST
    Brown, why did all this happen??

    The link I posted provides the information.

    Is it true? Correct??

    I don't claim to know.

    But, Brown's actions, as described, matches his aggression at the store as shown in the tape.


    Repack, for the record (none / 0) (#129)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:55 PM EST
    The box of cigars cost nearly $50. I'm not saying that to justify anything, but it does explain why the clerk was trying to stop him (as opposed to letting a big guy get away with a $5 cigar).

    For The Record? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    For the record he had a bunch of packs of $.99- $1.29 packs of cigarillos in his hand, not a 50 count box.

    So... in the incident report, it first says that the stolen property is a box worth $48.99. But later in the report, when an officer is detailing what he was told by the employees, he relates the story that Dorian Johnson put the box back on the counter, then Mike Brown "reached across the counter and grabbed numerous packs of Swisher Sweets and turned to leave the store." It goes into the altercation with the employee at the door, and then states that Brown "exited with the cigars."

    Technically, and legally... (none / 0) (#77)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    ...the friend did not rob the store.  Brown handed him one or more packages of cigars but Johnson put them back on the counter very shortly thereafter.

    I saw that translation but how about... (none / 0) (#146)
    by CityLife on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:36:22 AM EST
    I saw that this is the translation at Conservative Treehouse: #2 The next thing I know ... I'm thinking ... the dude started running ... (garbled something about "he took it from him")
    Yet can anyone say that this translation is incorrect?: "The police shot him. Next thing I know I think he missed him. Then the dude started running - kept coming towards the police." from this video?
    This witness, which I have yet to see mainstream media report on, may have said  "Then the dude started running, he kept coming towards the police." What do people think he said? I don't hear ""he took it from him" instead I hear "kept coming towards the police."
    what do you guys think?

    I would have "reasonable doubt"... (none / 0) (#136)
    by crimebird on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:49:29 PM EST
    if this case went to trial and what is currently known about what happened and the individuals involved were the only facts to make a decision on.

    Because at least right now, the forensic information appears to fit both "the cop is guilty" and the "cop is innocent" interpretations of what happened.

    So that leaves what the cop says what happened against the word of two eyewitnesses.  I wouldn't count Brown's friend as credible because of him being less than honest about what had just happened before the shooting at the store.

    So if the cop gave good testimony and the two witnesses did as well, I can't imagine myself convicting him of a grave crime like murder.

    It doesn't mean I'd be nominating the police officer for "cop of the year" but to me at least, the word of two people against one is not sufficient to overcome the "reasonable doubt" hurdle.  Heck, I wouldn't even convict someone of a grave crime like murder based on the word of three eyewitnesses assuming that the accused was just as credible as they were.  I would need more.

    How about manslaughter (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:59:15 PM EST
    Wrongful death.  Don't know what the MO terms are but there are possibilities besides murder.

    isn't wrongful death... (none / 0) (#138)
    by crimebird on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:17:26 PM EST
    a civil case verdict..there, as I understand it, it's a preponderance of evidence and not reasonable doubt.

    Yes. Money damages. Not criminal. (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:12:45 PM EST
    even in manslaughter... (none / 0) (#139)
    by crimebird on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    The prosecutors would have to prove beyond "reasonable doubt"...I would say that equivocal forensic evidence and the word of two witnesses against one (the cop) does not get past that requirement.

    Also, I have a feeling that a decision to charge the cop with manslaughter would not be accepted by the Browns and their supporters.


    Saw an attorney supporting the (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:25:53 PM EST
    Family today saying shooting an unarmed person six times is enough to charge manslaughter.  She was in NY and said police had been convicted there for less.

    No idea if that's true or not but that's what she said.


    I think you can cuss (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:12:06 AM EST
    you just have to fake out the search engines. I think you can say something is effed up.  

    or use an asterisk (none / 0) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    or symbol in place of one of the letters.