Posted on 08/18/2014 3:41:30 AM PDT by Enterprise
The results of a private autopsy on Michael Brown may escalate tensions in Ferguson, Missouri even further: The examiner says the unarmed teenager was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, and all the bullets came from the front, reports the New York Times. Pathologist Michael Baden, New York City's former chief medical examiner, says all the bullets were fired from at least one or two feet away, and one bullet—apparently the last one fired—hit the top of the 18-year-old's head.
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
Exactly. It could mean 30 feet away.
I agree. I just read the article and I don’t find that wording either. Did they leave something out that Newser reported? Or, in light of no report of there being powder burns, did they just conclude that Brown was beyond the distance of getting powder burns?
All the report is saying is the minimum possible distance based on the evidence the coroner was presented with, i.e., the body itself sans clothes. The shot must have come from further than 1-2 feet away as there were no powder burns on the corpse nor signs of powder residue, so it could not have been a contact-range execution as some are claiming. The clothing will display evidence of powder burns and other residues if it was within 2 to about 6 feet; if there’s no significant effects displayed, the shooting took place at further range than that.
These are general rules - they can and do vary quite significantly based on a number of variables.
he first shot at the car was definitely at close range. Thanks for noting.
Baden had no access to the clothing, so he can only say the shots weren’t from very close range.
And he can say overall that no powder burns were on the body.
Johnson says that Brown was hit by a close range shot at the vehicle, though.
All shots fired from the front.
That pretty much tells the tale.
It puts the lie to the fantasy stories about the poor little black boy shot in the back while on his knees with his hands in the air pleading for mercy.
Nothing upsets the liberals and Gib-Me-Dats more than the public knowing facts that don’t fit their racist narratives.
Excellent and crucial point. Thank you.
I could be very naive, but it looks pretty straight forward to me.
Big guys robs a store and is already in a hostile and aggravated state. He could likely have some drugs both in him and on his person. Officer catches him and he’s now in a real pinch - guilty of robbery and likely carrying drugs.
The fact that six shots were fired at his front, and some at close range tells me the “gentle” giant was coming after the officer. Again, likely hopped up on something.
Excellently illustrating the point that if you want to make a conservative mad tell him a lie. If you want to make a liberal mad, tell him the truth.
A shooting that took place two feet away from the target would definetly leave powder as well as particles of metal from the cartridge case and bullet..
That material should be all over the clothes and skin.
He had just committed aggravated robbery and was pretty well amped up just to be confronted by police within minutes of his crime. Even if the officer did not know he had committed robbery, Mr. Brown surely did.
Looking at the diagram that was posted, there is an unusual elongated wound below the right thumb. I'm wondering if Brown got that wound while he was struggling with Wilson over the gun.
Excellent article written by a doctor:
Stopping Power: Myths, Legends, and Realities
When it comes to claims about the effectiveness of handgun ammo, don’t believe the hype.
January 16, 2013 | by Sydney Vail, MD
As a trauma surgeon and a tactical medical specialist, I am often asked by law enforcement officers what caliber and type of handgun ammunition offers the most stopping power. I can’t answer that question. Let me explain why.
Excerpts...
Now we need to go back a step and define stopping power. Is it the ability of a particular ammunition to:
Immediately incapacitate a threat?
Eventually incapacitate a threat?
Slow down a threat?
Render a person less able to remain a threat?
Knock the threat to the ground?
....
The ultimate stopping power rests with your training with your weapon system. Accurate hits in any reasonable caliber will “stop” a person if that person has experienced enough brain or spinal cord damage to interrupt regular neurologic impulses from reaching vital areas of the body or the person has hemorrhaged enough blood to lower his or her blood pressure where the brain no longer is able to function well. You can also stop a person if a major bone shatters after a bullet injures it, but does that stop the fight?
I heard briefly on the news report while I was driving (so I didn’t catch the name of who said this) but some law making dingbat said “It was an execution style shooting”
Puh-leaze.
fta:
“To have a shot that’s at a 90-degree angle from the top of his skull to the bottom of his chin, almost vertical, that sounds like an officer standing over him,” A LAWYER FOR THE BROWN FAMILY tells the Los Angeles Times, though Baden stresses he had no access to witness statements and more information will be needed to determine the facts of the shooting.”
emphasis provided.
This guy isn’t a low info type, he is a money grubbing, MF lawyer who is out to keep the pot boiling by keeping the stupid racists riled up..
I think the salient point here is that this shows conclusively that all shots were fired as he was facing the cop. That’s really the deciding factor, at least for reasonable people.
What is left to debate? That he was shot just as he was starting to run towards the cop, or a few feet in front of him? What does that matter: if I see a 300 lb guy charging at me, I don’t care if he’s one-hundred YARDS away, I’m firing. Especially if he just almost took my gun.
Or are we honestly and sincerely entertaining the possibility that he was gunned down in cold blood as he literally just stood there, with his hands up, motionless and clearly willing to surrender?
Let’s get a grip people. Don’t let a few “witness” descriptions color your own reasoning ability. Remember, the witnesses that said he put his hands up and the cop still shot him, ALSO said he was shot IN THE BACK. So clearly that testimony can be thrown out the window. It’s clearly colored by (no pun intended) hatred for the police in general.
And probably racism too.
So don’t let this clearly false narrative contribute to or dominate this issue. He was shot as he faced the cop. That means he was charging towards the cop after trying to take his gun: ie a THREAT. It’s immaterial how far away he was when he was shot.
Unless you sincerely believe he was shot as he was standing with his hands in the air. If that’s the case, I submit you have deeper issues than will be resolved in this entire affair.
are any Freepers opposed to
cop cams?
just curious.
“from at least one or two feet away”
Come on now; the story says “at least”.
I assume that means that a professional examiner knows that powder burns are there if a shooting occurs closer than 1 to 2 feet away.
And since there are no powder burns; so that means he was further than 1 to 2 feet away.
No mention made of how far away; just that it was FURTHER than 1 to 2 feet away.
Doesn’t matter. The libs narrative that the poor, innocent little young man was FLEEING as was gunned down from behind is now disproved. The question now is, why would a little, young innocent man want to rush towards an armed police officer?
Perhaps the toxicology reports will shed some light.
The tendency is to leave dynamics out of the equation.
If the giant assaulter was moving forward then the distance was decreasing between shots. The last shot would be the closest and the one most likely to exhibit powder burns.
The shot in the head would be the only one to have powder burns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.