Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Enterprise
one or 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?

34 posted on 08/18/2014 4:23:08 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: KC_Conspirator

The information was that the distance was at least 1 to 2 feet, meaning as other posters have pointed out, that the distance may be greater than two feet. That being said, the location of the wounds makes it unlikely that he had his “hands up” while running towards the officer. People don’t run like that.


38 posted on 08/18/2014 4:26:13 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: KC_Conspirator

No, because there is no way Baden could determine that without access to the clothing.

Baden can only say that the shots were not very close.

Baden only said the shots were not from close range.

From the NYT article:

“The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.”

A very close shot would leave stippling and soot even through clothes.

Trayvon Martin had a soot ring and heavy stippling even through a hoodie and a t-shirt.

Note that Johnson says that Brown was shot at close range at the vehicle and began to bleed there.


39 posted on 08/18/2014 4:28:26 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson