boom, headshot... boom, headshot.
Where did this source get the information about one or two feet away? The NYT long article said there were no powder burns, but that the clothes were not tested and powder might be on them.
BTW, the NYT did break this story and reported fairly, I think, saying in the headline all shots were fired at the front of the body.
And this morning on the news they’re saying there were no gunpowder traces on his body or clothes, which I assume would indicate we was shot even further away than one or two feet. I doubt we’ll ever know the truth of the matter.
“At least 1 to 2 feet away” is not the same as “no more than 1 to 2 feet away”.
Moderator—Is this parenthetical claim that the shots were fired 1 to 2 feet away—as opposed to “at least 1 to 2 feet away” sufficiently misleading and inflammatory to remove it from the FR headline?
Some people just don’t know how to behave.
Operative words there are ‘at least’. The reason they’re saying that is because there’s no powder burns on the flesh around the wounds.
He could have been at 2.5 feet, 25 feet even 25 yards. You can’t tell for sure from a post mortem (though you can sometimes guess, based on caliber, bullet weight and observed tissue damage.)
I heard ABC Radio News a number of times last night. The fella s writing the copy could not bring themselves to include the following pertinent facts:
1:It was the second autopsy.
2:It was done at the specific request of Michael Brown’s family.
3: It was performed by Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York.
4: All the wounds were in the front or top of the head contrary to Brown’s accomplice’s report who said most were in the back.
The MF at ABC want a Race War for some reason. Or maybe they were just waiting for Obama to lift the Information Embargo.
“shot at least six times” could have been fewer shots, and 6 hits as some could have pass through arms.
Questions I have: What was this man on? PCP, Heroin?
What kind of ammo was it?
IMHO, Regardless of race, when that big man started coming at me, I would have felt threatened enough to open fire.
It says AT LEAST one or two feet away. That is vague, but just means that the shots were not closer than that. That they were in the front means that the deceased was not fleeing.
The heading for this item as posted in FR is misleading.
i can’t find anything in the NYT article about “one to two feet” away.
So is this true? If so, then he was not shot with his hands up in the air from 35 feet away?
DOUBLE TAP TRAINING CENTER
CIVILIAN - SECURITY - MILITARY - POLICE
Law enforcement officers firearms defensive training is to ‘Double tap’ against such a deadly physical threat as the officer faced to his life.
Double Tap Training Center is now one of the premier firearms, public safety consulting and training facility in the west coast. We offer current and the highest training standards on all of our courses. Numerous training courses are offered from beginner to instructor level certifications to law abiding civilians, security, military and law enforcement professionals.
We are proud to provide training to law abiding citizens, celebrities, public safety, military and law enforcement personnel as well as firearms instructors and rangemasters both nationally and internationally.
Double Tap Training Center is an instructional school of defensive shooting techniques. We have no affiliation with, nor do we promote or encourage, any subversive or quasi-subversive entities or acts against the United States of America or against the American People, inside or outside of U.S. borders. Any and all instruction and training conducted by our staff are done in accordance with Federal, State and Local Laws. We will not train any foreign or domestic entity(ies) that could pose a threat to — or has denounced — the United States of America or anyone prohibited by law to possess firearms.
http://www.doubletapshooting.com/
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.
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.
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.
I wish they would publish this information. Inquiring minds want to know.