What we know about Michael Brown's shooting

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
History showing cops routinely covering up their wrong because they have no reason not to.
first you need to show that it is routine. That is that it is very rare for a cop to not lie as opposed to saying nothing. Saying nothing doesn't count because that is normal.
In any case it is not evidence that it happened in this case yet you have already decided the cop is guilty.
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Autopsy finds unarmed teen killed by police was shot six times: NYT

"The bullets, some of which left as many as five wounds, did not appear to have been fired from very close range, the Times reported, because no gunpowder was detected on his body. That conclusion could change, however, if gunshot residue is found on Brown's clothing."


If Brown was indeed rushing the officer and the officer was emptying his firearm at him Browns clothing will be awash in gunpowder residue even though his wounds showed no evidence of close-range shots.
note VERY close range. It does not need to be very close range to have been charging the officer.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
note VERY close range. It does not need to be very close range to have been charging the officer.

weeeeeelllll... you'd have to be pretty close before shooting becomes more appropriate than saying "stop or I shoot".
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not too much spinning the wheel when all the shots are from the front. Backs up his story, and flies in the face of the other witnesses who said brown was running away. One witness said Brown charged the cop after running a distance, that looks to be the case now.

How it got to that point is a bit cloudy, but its hard not to find it self defense with the kid rushing the cop.

If Brown was rushing a cop with gun in his hand and already injured, it may very well be, that he was under the influence of some type of chemical, that allowed him to do so. This would also match with his behavior at the store just a few minutes before, in which he shoved and intimidated the clerk.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,322
MI - Michigan
✟520,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
If Brown was rushing a cop with gun in his hand and already injured, it may very well be, that he was under the influence of some type of chemical, that allowed him to do so. This would also match with his behavior at the store just a few minutes before, in which he shoved and intimidated the clerk.

So he injured the police officer from a distance in order to disorient him, then he rushed him as the police officer was firing his weapon? Those must have been some expensive cigars, did they ever find them?
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,028
2,423
✟459,470.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What confuses me? You have cop sitting in his car, and the witness says he tried to grab Big Mike and choke him. I would have a hard time doing that to an average size individual, and Mike was extremely tall.

Now grabbing him in general? Sure, people can do that. Attempting to choke a tall man from a sitting position in a car? I just can't see that.

I think maybe his friend got that part of the story wrong.
 
Upvote 0

bill5

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
6,091
2,197
✟63,199.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
although there is media footage of either a friend or family member saying he was in the process of getting down on the ground. Does cast doubts over their side of the story when they can't decide if he had stopped and was getting on the ground or running away. Now this claim.
Oh cmon. There's no way friends or family members would lie about this!

And what about all the "he was shot in the back" so-called witnesses? I guess they, uh, just were mistaken. Yeah that's the ticket.

Cmon. Stick to the facts. Officer white, victim black = murder by a racist cop! duh!
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So he injured the police officer from a distance in order to disorient him, then he rushed him as the police officer was firing his weapon? Those must have been some expensive cigars, did they ever find them?

That is not what I said.

Some people reported, Brown was in the car with the cop and that is where the confrontation occurred initially. Now, further forensics and autopsy information will provide some evidence as to contact between Brown and the cop.

My main point was, if Brown was rushing the cop who had a gun in his hand, it may very well could be, he was under the influence of something to promote this type of behavior. I wouldn't call it; typical, for an unarmed person to rush a cop with a gun drawn.
 
Upvote 0

Brigid48

Junior Member
Aug 8, 2014
554
28
USA
✟1,137.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Well...aside from showing he didn't get shot in the back, this basically supports that he wasn't surrendering either. Cops are trained to shoot for center mass, same as anyone who's been trained to shoot (center mass is the upper-middle of the torso for the uninitiated). It's gonna be very difficult (and pointless) to hit the arms of someone surrendering if they've got their hands up over their head. If they're running towards the shooter though...they would be pumping in front of the body about chest high.

I wouldn't be surprised if these initial eyewitnesses decided not to testify in person. It's ok though, I'm sure if this poor cop is acquitted of all crimes...the Brown family will be the first to apologize for all the accusations and threats of violence.
Unless the person has their arms over their head and is getting down on their knees and down onto the ground, in which case both the head and the arms would be tilted down and forward in place of C.O.M..

Like this, exceptstarting to bend to go down on your stomach:
85


That makes far more sense than somehow being shot in the top of the head (a 6'4" person) while charging at a police officer, while also somehow being shot in the arms while charging as well.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bill5

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
6,091
2,197
✟63,199.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
weeeeeelllll... you'd have to be pretty close before shooting becomes more appropriate than saying "stop or I shoot".
Hardly. Only an idiot (and one totally untrained as cops are) would wait until the last possible moment and go "OK now he's REALLY close, so NOW I'll say stop or I'll shoot." As soon as someone is a perceived threat, you remind them you're the one with the gun.

And only a COMPLETE idiot - or someone on drugs, or someone who's just not right in the head in some other way - would charge someone with a gun while unarmed.
 
Upvote 0

bill5

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
6,091
2,197
✟63,199.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
What confuses me? You have cop sitting in his car, and the witness says he tried to grab Big Mike and choke him. I would have a hard time doing that to an average size individual, and Mike was extremely tall.

Now grabbing him in general? Sure, people can do that. Attempting to choke a tall man from a sitting position in a car? I just can't see that.

I think maybe his friend got that part of the story wrong.
You mean his FRIEND might have lied?

No way!
 
Upvote 0

bill5

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
6,091
2,197
✟63,199.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The media, family members, friends, and the family lawyer were all clamoring for this cop's name since this incident began for one unspoken reason since this whole thing began....and since the police released that name, I haven't heard one peep out of any of them regarding this issue. That's issue is... the cop's professional reputation. This is a community where they complain that their police force is racist, abusive, and unprofessional. I've heard accusations that the cops regularly engage in profiling, use excessive force, and generally harass the black community of Ferguson. Though they may not have said it, I believe the media, family, friends, and the lawyer all wanted this cop's name so they could dig up his career record to look for dirt to use to smear his name in the public's mind before the investigation is ever completed. I don't doubt for a moment that if they found that dirt, his career record would've made headlines within the hour. Headlines like, "Killer cop once used the n-word." or "Michael Brown killer has record of racial profiling" or even "Teen slayer had been reported for excessive force against blacks".

As it turns out though, this cop has a stellar record of professionalism amidst a police department known for exactly the opposite. He may not be the most senior officer on the force, but six years means he's no rookie either...he's likely been in very dangerous situations before, probably had to pull his gun many times, and all without incident. If his record can be used to smear him in the public eye, why doesn't it seem to work in the other way as well? I haven't heard anyone mention the fact that this cop appears to be the last guy on the force who's likely to just decide to gun down a kid for any reason...let alone that reason being that Brown was black. Everyone still seems to be talking about racist cops even though it seems fairly obvious racism doesn't have anything to do with this situation.
Welcome to the 21st century America and the Great American Double-Standard. The race card is all-powerful, so you best just get out of the way. What gets me is that it's so blatant yet so many people are incapable of seeing/getting it (which means they are stark raving blind at best, complete morons at worst) or they don't ever say anything contrary to it because they're apathetic at best, cowards at worst.

It reminds me of the "all that's required for bad people to succeed is for good people to do nothing" phrase.

And it's not stopping any time soon. White cop shoots black guy? Blacks instantly and almost unanimously side with the black guy and the horrors of an alleged injustice - without a shred of evidence either way. And now that evidence is coming out more and more exonerating the cop (though still far from a given, don't misunderstand), gosh they're getting awfully quiet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mpok1519

Veteran
Jul 8, 2007
11,508
347
✟28,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now I'm seeing a medical examiner saying there were shots to the back, namely the head.

So one of these autopsies is flawed or dishonest. Will have to wait to find out which.

Just as I suspected, the authorities are botching this investigation.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
From what my friend told me, there are to be 3 autopsies, state, federal and private. The state and private are at odds with each other, the federal wasn't released last check.

Do you have a link to the state autopsy results?
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Do you have a link to the state autopsy results?

I'm looking around, I think my friend had it wrong. There are indeed 3 autopsies, but one appears to be local not state.

Ah this article does a decent job explaining it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/u...-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

There was a private autopsy, the local and the federal is still to come.

It was the attorney who said something about bullets from behind, not the autopsy.

So shots from the front seems almost certain.

The number of shots seemed excessive according to the examiner. They also brought up the point of checking the vehicle for residue as well as Brown's clothing. Any residue showing up would all but confirm the officer's version.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Hardly. Only an idiot (and one totally untrained as cops are) would wait until the last possible moment and go "OK now he's REALLY close, so NOW I'll say stop or I'll shoot." As soon as someone is a perceived threat, you remind them you're the one with the gun.

And only a COMPLETE idiot - or someone on drugs, or someone who's just not right in the head in some other way - would charge someone with a gun while unarmed.

Sometimes I forget internet tough guys are a thing.
 
Upvote 0