Holder Orders DOJ to Do Further Autopsy on Michael Brown

[neijia_boxer]

Michael brown was shot in the front. He had approached the office after already having a confrontation, he had previously robbed a store of cigars for rolling blunts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pr1oE34bIM

[Interloper]

This video on CNN is interesting.
http://www.thewrap.com/michael-brown-sh ... ght-video/

[David Boxen]

[windwalker]

double post

[windwalker]

with the clip you posted you point was? another parasite making money off of others troubles.

the robber has nothing to do with events leading to one person getting shot?
they wanted to release the video earlier but where told not to by the DOJ.
they withheld some information trying to determine what actually happened,
also trying to not inflame the situation.

the feds, and others are involved now. 3 autopsies

I do agree that it was handled badly, they should have gotten
out in front of the story line that was presented.

[Steve James]

Well, the robbery has no logical connection to the shooting unless the two are immediately connected. If the officer was attacked after the guy had taken his grandmother to the hospital, the question would still be "what happened at the shooting." Yes, if the guy had murdered his granny, the same would apply.

So, what happened at the shooting? I dunno, but clearly people will believe whatever second-hand source they choose. So, what they think is the truth is irrelevant to what happened, though the majority of the conversation will be spent on arguing about it. And most of that argument will be about the fact that someone is arguing the other side.

Afa the way it was handled, isn't that why there has been more than one autopsy? I.e., the sheriff's coroner did the first --and released that sort of awkward ("more than two") answer at the press conference. (The question was probably raised because someone said that the officer didn't have to kill the victim. I'm not saying that emptying his clip wasn't necessary, just that someone was bound to ask). If the answer the chief gave didn't match with the report done by the coroner (forensic pathologist) hired by the victim's family, then having the feds come in to do a third autopsy seems downright reasonable. That is, unless one believes that the feds wouldn't be impartial. Otoh, who would be the ideal person to do the autopsy if the people don't trust the police in the first place?

Anyway, we have our Garner march this week. Afa the video, I thought the stuff about the cops wearing camo while pointing weapons at unarmed civilians was tragicomic. It reminded me of Mall Cop or something with Simon Pegg.

[windwalker]

the robbery has no logical connection to the shooting unless the two are immediately connected.

you mean like one having proceeded the other when people where saying that
that the "gentle giant" could never do anything that would cause the reaction that he received.

its called plausibility, when preceding events are connected to the current event, its possible that one
can then understand the frame work that the event might have happened in.

Or should one accept the

“We called him the gentle giant. He was a gentle giant,” Charles Ewing, Brown’s uncle, told the Washington Post.

http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-shooting ... 35396.html

no logical connection wow...

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

http://history1900s.about.com/od/martin ... quotes.htm
the "gentle giant" apparently was not so gentle

[Steve James]

you mean like one having proceeded the other when people where saying that
that the "gentle giant" could never do anything that would cause the reaction that he received.

You're illustrating my point. The guy could certainly have attacked the officer --to rate the number of shots. But, the guy's size has nothing to do with the robbery. And your point about what people are saying is irrelevant to what happened as well.

the "gentle giant" apparently was not so gentle

Yeah, got it. It's not really a novel argument. So, whether he was attacking or had his hands up isn't really a question. Now, if I had a nickel for every time some mass murderer's family called him a "nice, quiet boy," I'd have a few dollars at least. Of course, as I mentioned to Mike, character assassination is common. Prostitutes (and wives) can't get raped. I'm just illustrating the logic. Btw, if he had been a skinny guy, would it have made any difference? Not to mention the fact that, maybe his family didn't know about his activities? What make a point of condemning what some people might actually think about him? Well, I know it's because it's politically correct to defend the officers in these cases (while condemning the gov't if it happens in other cases). Note that the fact that the gov't is getting involved is seen as a negative, but only because (imo) the belief is that their results will disprove the findings they believe.

I also know that there are those who might say that I believe the officer shot the kid down in cold blood because he's a racist ... blah, blah, blah. I'm sure that if the policeman is condemned or indicted, they'll say that he's been given a raw deal --especially since they know what really happened. A defense fund will be set up; actually, dueling defense funds. People will line up behind their teams. None of which will have any logical connection to what happened.

For ex., if someone asked me why a person might fire 9 shots at someone, my first response would be Fear. There's no logic to it, the trigger gets pulled until the clip, magazine or cylinder is empty --and can keep on clicking. Of course, that is not the ideal response for a professional. So, the "he was a beast of a guy" is no excuse for a cop. Or, there shouldn't be small officers. Otoh, it's not the actions of an assassin, imo. So, I'm more inclined to believe that it wasn't an intentional murder, but it may have been a punishable mistake. Now, if the kid had been armed, there'd be no doubt at all. In fact, kids have been shot while holding water pistols --and recall the guy who was shot in Walmarts while holding a toy gun? Prosecutions against people who are shot while brandishing are rare. Imo, when unarmed people are shot, the "law" needs to pay special attention, especially when it's an officer of the law who's done the shooting. But, I ain't gonna argue the black brute bit.

[windwalker]

For ex., if someone asked me why a person might fire 9 shots at someone, my first response would be Fear. There's no logic to it, the trigger gets pulled until the clip, magazine or cylinder is empty --and can keep on clicking

no logic? you mean like shooting until the threat has been stopped. This is not done out of fear, its training.
the fact that the guy was big, only supports the number of shots fired to stop the threat. Had he shot to the head to begin with
the number would have been much less.

when LO get certified they are taught to shoot center mass,

Most 9mm handguns that are full size would hold between 15 to 17 rounds. Some manufacturers do make 20 rounders like Beretta and some can use 30 round mags like Rugers and Glocks depending on the model. A buddy of mine has a 9mm ruger carbine that uses a 30 mag that fits in his Ruger P89.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 246AAjIR5O

6 shoots fired, out of a full magazine, out for fear? ok

if the kid had been armed, there'd be no doubt at all.

despite the other narrative that the officer was attacked twice, the 2nd time resulting in the death of the one said to have attacked him.
"if the kid had been armed" not if the "man" had just committed a robbery and was stopped by the police for something else, but could not have known
why they where being stopped. This would be called "motive" as in not wanting to be arrested.

Ok,,,,

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!"

so far, there has been nothing shown in the officers "character" that would prompt what happened other then the color of his skin.
the news didnt start out with "officer shot an unarmed Ferguson teen Michael Brown"

[Steve James]

no logic?

Stop right there. "Logic" referred to the connection between the shooting and the robbery. Iinm, the robbery was miles away from the shooting.

[windwalker]

cool, we seem to see things a little different,
my only point would be that the robbery, would tend to show how
the events following could have or did happen and why.

This will be proven or dis-proven at the trial should
there be one.

I just wish that those who fan the flames would stop
and think about what they'er doing.

The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.” He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michae ... rs-n184216
why didnt they tase him? or pepper spray ?

A pair of officers arrived to see the man acting erratically, grabbing his waistband and holding a knife. The police got out of their car, and gave verbal commands for the man to drop the knife, which he was brandishing with an overhand grip “in an aggressive manner,” Dotson continued. He then approached the officers.

The police repeated their commands to drop the knife. When the suspect did not drop the weapon, both officers drew their guns and shot at him from a distance of three to four feet, killing him, the chief said.

notice what it doesn't mention.

how many shots where fired?
why did both officers have to shoot?
where the officers white?
why didnt they tase or use a non lethal means to stop him?

[Steve James]

my only point would be that the robbery, would tend to show how
the events following could have or did happen and why.

I.e., either the officer shot because the guy was a robber ... or he shot because his life was threatened ... or for some other reason. Well, I don't see that we disagree as much as you've decided. In fact, I wasn't arguing against you, I just asked why you were arguing against the third autopsy, implying that something sinister was going on. If we're (all supposed to be) waiting for the facts, why the conclusions? But, if it's a complaint about the reactions to the shooting, the first or second autopsy, the police (in camos carrying M5s), and the media handling, all of those are irrelevant to "what happened." We don't know what would have happened if there had been no robbery, or if the participants would have reacted any differently. Iow, the officer could have very well been justified.

[windwalker]

According to a source from within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, Wilson suffered an, “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket,” which has been confirmed by the St. Louis County Police. The Pundit describes, “A blowout fracture is a fracture of one or more of the bones surrounding the eye and is commonly referred to as an orbital floor fracture.”

should be easy to prove or disprove...

The Gateway Pundit can now confirm from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.

"reads a little different when put into a narrative that tends to explain the following events"

Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

All I know is this: Newspapers encourage their reporters to tweet, and a lot of what they tweet is baseless speculation. (As is much of what they write in the papers.) It’s not hard to imagine that someone in a position to intimidate the Post-Dispatch didn’t like Byers offering a tweet that suggested Officer Wilson may not have done anything wrong, and that the paper’s editors reacted against Byers in knee-jerk fashion out of fear.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65412

[windwalker]

the third autopsy, implying that something sinister was going on.

it wasnt the autopsy, it was the fed gov, getting involved trying to control and shape
the events.

our "free press" who dosn't seem to know or understand investigative reporting.

[Steve James]

it wasnt the autopsy, it was the fed gov, getting involved trying to control and shape the events.

O, how were they shaping it? Have they even done an autopsy yet? Or, isn't it that they are getting involved at all that you see as shaping things?

Anyway, afa the fractured orbital socket, geez, that can be serious. I didn't know about that. Did he go to the hospital? I guess if people had known that, their reactions might be different. But, I wouldn't blame the feds for that.