Jump to content
Paulding.com

Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Did you even bother to read what she wrote? She is saying is why do some people accuse others of racism when they simply are descriptive when they refer to someone who has committed a crime by their

It's disgusting how some human beings can act so stupidly.

Here is my view of this whole thing.   1. If you do not want to get shot, don't attack law enforcement officers. 2. No rational thinking person truly believes that what has happened since the crimi

 

I know...I didn't mean to imply the local authorities should have called them out. But anybody with two brain cells to rub together should have known after a day that that situation was getting WAY out of hand and that it needed to be addressed pronto, and in a major way.

 

 

The build up of this town's anger, was an eventual disaster, whether the kid was the spark, or not. The town's makeup is still a powder keg.

 

Spending decades to try to make things more suitable for the understandings that are necessary to maintain harmony is to long of a period of time. Somebody is dragging their ass.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not narrow it down a little; is Ferguson, MO safer with Mr. Brown no longer at large?

A better question is would Ferguson, MO. be safer if the police officer who killed an unarmed kid no longer be serving as a police officer?

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds to me like you have condemned the police officer without the benefit of a trial.

 

 

A trial in that town is not something the police department wont's, EZ. It would be like a snake being on trial, with a jury of mongooses.

 

That's reverse discrimination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually zorro, that is the purpose of a trial and the presumption that there won't be one is one of the key reasons the Travon Martin incident exploded and also why people are upset in Ferguson MO.

 

So, while I'm not condemning the guy, I feel it reasonable to ask the question. And, I think that given all the facts currently in evidence - key among them that the Brown kid hasn't shot anyone and the officer has shot and killed an unarmed person - the answer can only come from an investigation and trial.

 

I think you assume that it was a righteous shooting. I'm saying when the victim is unarmed, that is not a presumption anyone ought to make as a matter of process or procedure.

 

And, IF ===> note the IF is in all caps

 

... Regarding early reports that the man was shot in the back ... consider that the were reports of a shot before the flurry of shots and there has not been a report of the number of shots fired in this. Could it be that the officer shot at the boy while his back was turned and barely missed him causing the kid to turn and attack? That scenario would, btw, still be consistent with some eyewitness reports.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who cannot see that a 90% white police department, in a 70% populis of black citizens, is dumb as hell, is in my opinion, also dumb as hell?

 

The claim, by the governing body of this town, is that they have spent 30 something years trying to balance that situation out,

 

Well, any fool could see the discrepancies in that situation, just by understanding a little reality. .

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually zorro, that is the purpose of a trial and the presumption that there won't be one is one of the key reasons the Travon Martin incident exploded and also why people are upset in Ferguson MO.

 

So, while I'm not condemning the guy, I feel it reasonable to ask the question. And, I think that given all the facts currently in evidence - key among them that the Brown kid hasn't shot anyone and the officer has shot and killed an unarmed person - the answer can only come from an investigation and trial.

 

I think you assume that it was a righteous shooting. I'm saying when the victim is unarmed, that is not a presumption anyone ought to make as a matter of process or procedure.

 

And, IF ===> note the IF is in all caps <=== the facts as brought out in trail were to show that the officer exceeded his authority and was expressing rage and revenge when he popped the kid, the answer to the question of whether Ferguson, MO would be safer with the officer off the streets would be a slam dunk HELL YEAH.

 

... Regarding early reports that the man was shot in the back ... consider that the were reports of a shot before the flurry of shots and there has not been a report of the number of shots fired in this. Could it be that the officer shot at the boy while his back was turned and barely missed him causing the kid to turn and attack? That scenario would, btw, still be consistent with some eyewitness reports.

 

pubby

I'm not making a decision it was a righteous shooting or not as no evidence has been produced to prove it was or wasn't. That's one of the things an investigation is for.

 

First reports have "witnesses" saying he was shot in the back, but the autopsy shows that wasn't so.

 

Brown's buddy says when the police officer backed the vehicle up, it almost hit them. He said when the officer opened the door "aggressively" the door hit them and then bounced shut. Was it that or did one of them force the door shut?

 

His buddy says the officer while sitting in the car reached out with one hand and grabbed Brown around the neck. In order for that to have happened, Brown would have had to have been bending forward at the waist towards the open window. If he had done that, was he threatening the officer? Other witnesses claim Brown and the officer were struggling with each other.

 

Witnesses said Brown ran away with his hands up above his head and the officer shot him in the back. As stated earlier, he wasn't shot in the back. Witnesses also said he turned around and was moving towards the officer with his hands in the air to surrender. If they lied about him being shot in the back, were they lying about him having his hands in the air and wanting to surrender?

 

We don't even know the distance between them when the shots were fired. There are a lot of questions right now about this event that are unanswered and if answered would clear the entire matter up. Until then, I'm not making a decision if this was a righteous shooting or not. What about you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not making a decision it was a righteous shooting or not as no evidence has been produced to prove it was or wasn't. That's one of the things an investigation is for.

 

I'm always amused/amazed when people make blanket statements that this should or this should not or whatever WAY BEFORE an investigation is finished. Any conclusions drawn before an investigation is finished are not conclusions...they are speculations. They may be proven to be correct, but one doesn't know until the investigation is finished. That's why I always laugh when gubment sources say right after some incident or other, "We are beginning our investigation, but we are certain it is not terrorism-related." Ohhh-kay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the blood splatter evidence has not been tampered with it will clear up a lot, unless the DA does like our Attorney General here in Georgia, and conceals some of the evidence.

 

In a situation where the 90% white police department has control of the forensics, there is no telling what will happen in a trial.

 

We know that the imbalance of reasoning has already been going on for a long time in this town. There is going to be all kind of kangaroo sheeze going on even before a kangaroo court session.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not making a decision it was a righteous shooting or not as no evidence has been produced to prove it was or wasn't. That's one of the things an investigation is for.

 

First reports have "witnesses" saying he was shot in the back, but the autopsy shows that wasn't so.

 

Brown's buddy says when the police officer backed the vehicle up, it almost hit them. He said when the officer opened the door "aggressively" the door hit them and then bounced shut. Was it that or did one of them force the door shut?

 

His buddy says the officer while sitting in the car reached out with one hand and grabbed Brown around the neck. In order for that to have happened, Brown would have had to have been bending forward at the waist towards the open window. If he had done that, was he threatening the officer? Other witnesses claim Brown and the officer were struggling with each other.

 

Witnesses said Brown ran away with his hands up above his head and the officer shot him in the back. As stated earlier, he wasn't shot in the back. Witnesses also said he turned around and was moving towards the officer with his hands in the air to surrender. If they lied about him being shot in the back, were they lying about him having his hands in the air and wanting to surrender?

 

We don't even know the distance between them when the shots were fired. There are a lot of questions right now about this event that are unanswered and if answered would clear the entire matter up. Until then, I'm not making a decision if this was a righteous shooting or not. What about you?

 

That's why no one should rush to judgement. Most of everything we've heard is 'maybes'. Automatically saying that since it was a white cop it must be racist. Or saying that each state, city, area should reflect the exact same race numbers in every situation. NOTHING so far as proven racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm always amused/amazed when people make blanket statements that this should or this should not or whatever WAY BEFORE an investigation is finished. Any conclusions drawn before an investigation is finished are not conclusions...they are speculations. They may be proven to be correct, but one doesn't know until the investigation is finished. That's why I always laugh when gubment sources say right after some incident or other, "We are beginning our investigation, but we are certain it is not terrorism-related." Ohhh-kay.

I hear ya. Just like Bengazi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the blood splatter evidence has not been tampered with it will clear up a lot, unless the DA does like our Attorney General here in Georgia, and conceals some of the evidence.

 

In a situation where the 90% white police department has control of the forensics, there is no telling what will happen in a trial.

 

We know that the imbalance of reasoning has already been going on for a long time in this town. There is going to be all kind of kangaroo sheeze going on even before a kangaroo court session.

 

So, you're for segregation? You've brought it up enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's why no one should rush to judgement. Most of everything we've heard is 'maybes'. Automatically saying that since it was a white cop it must be racist. Or saying that each state, city, area should reflect the exact same race numbers in every situation. NOTHING so far as proven racism.

We all know if that were the rule, there would still be cries of racism in hiring practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find it interesting how people protest violence with violence and destroy the place the live in.

 

 

Heard a news report today that a lot of the demonstrators are from Oakland and do not live in the town. Also heard that the New Black Panthers seem to be taking the lead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know if that were the rule, there would still be cries of racism in hiring practices.

 

Or, short white people suing to play sports. An exact percentage of each racial make-up in government, on television. Oh, here's a good one, everyone pay the same rate for taxes......

Heard a news report today that a lot of the demonstrators are from Oakland and do not live in the town. Also heard that the New Black Panthers seem to be taking the lead.

 

Oh cool, baseball bats. Will they let the Klan come to the looting party?

Edited by yathink?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Edited to add: Ooh, ooh - I just found this story...excellent (IMHO) about the militarization thing. BTW, the author is conservative. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-playing-soldier-in-the-suburbs.html?_r=0

Excellent piece in The NYTimes mei lan .

 

"But the military hardware issue, the BearCats and grenade launchers and what we’ve seen unfold in Ferguson — that does seem easy, uncomplicated, clear. Crime rates rise and fall, but crime-fighting is a constant for police; dealing with terrorism and insurrection, however, decidedly is not. Yet for decades we’ve been equipping our cops as though the Symbionese Liberation Army were about to come out of retirement, as if every burst of opportunistic lawlessness could become another Watts, as though the Qaeda sleeper cells we feared after 9/11 were as pervasive in life as they are on “24” or “Homeland.”

And this is where it’s ended: with a bunch of tomfool police playing soldier, tear-gassing protesters, arresting journalists and turning Ferguson into a watchword for policing at its worst.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-playing-soldier-in-the-suburbs.html?_r=1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorro:

 

That is what trials are for. Right now, there is no apparent opportunity for a trial because no charges have been filed.

 

The reason for the concern of the citizens in the community is because they don't think there will be charges because the shooter was an officer. Given the intensity of the disruptions their concerns certainly shouldn't be ignored.

 

The lack of quick information - we still don't know how many shots were fired (only that six hit the target) - and from what I gathered, the local police had not even, as a part of their investigation, interviewed neighbors. Rather they let the young man's body lay in the street for hours having not even so much as summoned EMTs.

 

The shooting and its aftermath, even if the actual shooting was righteous, was expressive of disdain for the community and that disdain and disrespect is what is being reaped from the seeds sown so adroitly over time.

 

I'm glad that the attitudes in this community are not like that today.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent piece in The NYTimes mei lan .

 

"But the military hardware issue, the BearCats and grenade launchers and what we’ve seen unfold in Ferguson — that does seem easy, uncomplicated, clear. Crime rates rise and fall, but crime-fighting is a constant for police; dealing with terrorism and insurrection, however, decidedly is not. Yet for decades we’ve been equipping our cops as though the Symbionese Liberation Army were about to come out of retirement, as if every burst of opportunistic lawlessness could become another Watts, as though the Qaeda sleeper cells we feared after 9/11 were as pervasive in life as they are on “24” or “Homeland.”

And this is where it’s ended: with a bunch of tomfool police playing soldier, tear-gassing protesters, arresting journalists and turning Ferguson into a watchword for policing at its worst.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-playing-soldier-in-the-suburbs.html?_r=1

When a riot breaks out, it does so for the most part without any advance notice. Nobody puts fliers up saying, "Join us for a riot this Wednesday starting at the town square." They happen quickly and because of that who are going to be the first ones to respond? The local police. Other than that, what do you propose; to let the rioters continue on unimpeded until the National Guard to show up after the governor activates them? What's your solution CC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorro:

 

That is what trials are for. Right now, there is no apparent opportunity for a trial because no charges have been filed.

 

The reason for the concern of the citizens in the community is because they don't think there will be charges because the shooter was an officer. Given the intensity of the disruptions their concerns certainly shouldn't be ignored.

 

The lack of quick information - we still don't know how many shots were fired (only that six hit the target) - and from what I gathered, the local police had not even, as a part of their investigation, interviewed neighbors. Rather they let the young man's body lay in the street for hours having not even so much as summoned EMTs.

 

The shooting and its aftermath, even if the actual shooting was righteous, was expressive of disdain for the community and that disdain and disrespect is what is being reaped from the seeds sown so adroitly over time.

 

I'm glad that the attitudes in this community are not like that today.

 

pubby

You're assuming a police officer didn't check his pulse and call for medical assistance. I did see a video where an EMT or paramedic did show up and check Brown. Two gunshot wounds to the head probably did a lot of visible damage as well. You're also assuming the police didn't interview any neighbors. How can you say that for sure? You're also assuming there were no good relations between the community and the police. I haven't heard any such thing. Perhaps you can shed some light on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When a riot breaks out, it does so for the most part without any advance notice. Nobody puts fliers up saying, "Join us for a riot this Wednesday starting at the town square." They happen quickly and because of that who are going to be the first ones to respond? The local police. Other than that, what do you propose; to let the rioters continue on unimpeded until the National Guard to show up after the governor activates them? What's your solution CC?

 

The "solution" whatever that means is not going to be found in grenade launchers, sniper rifles and armored vehicles. Neither are these midnight raids and no knock warrants or using SWAT teams for everything from serving a warrant for a missed traffic court appearance to busting up a back room poker game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorro:

 

That is what trials are for. Right now, there is no apparent opportunity for a trial because no charges have been filed.

 

The reason for the concern of the citizens in the community is because they don't think there will be charges because the shooter was an officer. Given the intensity of the disruptions their concerns certainly shouldn't be ignored.

 

The lack of quick information - we still don't know how many shots were fired (only that six hit the target) - and from what I gathered, the local police had not even, as a part of their investigation, interviewed neighbors. Rather they let the young man's body lay in the street for hours having not even so much as summoned EMTs.

 

The shooting and its aftermath, even if the actual shooting was righteous, was expressive of disdain for the community and that disdain and disrespect is what is being reaped from the seeds sown so adroitly over time.

 

I'm glad that the attitudes in this community are not like that today.

 

pubby

Some of the demonstrators really are marching for justice which is color blind BTW. I think those looting and committing crimes .are not there for anything more than to steal, burn, and cause trouble. They are hurting the livelihood of the business owners and might even cause them to lose their source of income. I do not believe this is a race war but I do believe it is being used by some as a war of have nots against haves. They want something and they see a chance to take it. I also think it is time to jail them or shoot them before they do more harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the demonstrators really are marching for justice which is color blind BTW. I think those looting and committing crimes .are not there for anything more than to steal, burn, and cause trouble. They are hurting the livelihood of the business owners and might even cause them to lose their source of income. I do not believe this is a race war but I do believe it is being used by some as a war of have nots against haves. They want something and they see a chance to take it. I also think it is time to jail them or shoot them before they do more harm.

I have no problem jailing criminals but summarily shooting them is a little extreme NJ.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem jailing criminals but summarily shooting them is a little extreme NJ.

 

pubby

Since this topic is the shooting in Ferguson, MO you're statement sounds as if you believe the officer to be guilty when all the facts and evidence are not known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this topic is the shooting in Ferguson, MO you're statement sounds as if you believe the officer to be guilty when all the facts and evidence are not known.

I believe the response was to NJ saying ...

 

I also think it is time to jail them or shoot them before they do more harm.

... which I believe was a suggestion of how to dispose of the minority who were looting and stealing in crimes of opportunity presented by the general unrest.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the response was to NJ saying ...

 

 

... which I believe was a suggestion of how to dispose of the minority who were looting and stealing in crimes of opportunity presented by the general unrest.

 

pubby

Pubby, the law abiding citizens are paying the Police to protect them and their community. I don't see that happening in this case. The law breakers are running amok and the citizens and their businesses are losing. Time to stop the criminals. When they start throwing molotov cocktails at police it is time to shoot them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apples and oranges. That one was different...duh - that was caused by that video. /s

Hang on there panda there are similarities between Bengazi and Ferguson. Now it's being said the second riot was started because the chief of police showed pictures from the surveillance video of Brown robbing the store. The family's lawyer said the police were trying to assassinate Brown's character. The Muslims were saying the same thing about the Muhammad video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only a small group looting, and breaking the law. Most of the citizens as protecting in a none aggressive way.

 

Credibility, and trust, is getting better. So, for police to run photographers and journalists off, and bother peaceful protesters, would be a huge mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my view of this whole thing.

 

1. If you do not want to get shot, don't attack law enforcement officers.

2. No rational thinking person truly believes that what has happened since the criminal was shot, has anything to do with protest or care about the incident.

It has to do with people who do not believe in following the law of the land and will use any excuse to break it combined with others who use any excuse to further their own agenda to destroy what is left of this country, while promoting themselves.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my view of this whole thing.

 

1. If you do not want to get shot, don't attack law enforcement officers.

2. No rational thinking person truly believes that what has happened since the criminal was shot, has anything to do with protest or care about the incident.

It has to do with people who do not believe in following the law of the land and will use any excuse to break it combined with others who use any excuse to further their own agenda to destroy what is left of this country, while promoting themselves.

 

I'v got just one view on this stradial!

 

 

1. If you do not want to get shot for no reason, do like Mickel Jackson, and turn white,

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...