Brown Autopsy Report Leaked by NYT

Odd how for some people we mustn't rush to judgement, must give the benefit of the doubt etc etc. Until some evidence comesup that indicates Brown might be at fault, then it's clearly the stone cold truth.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
This is the evidence of poor training. Too many bullets. None to the lower extremities to keep him put and a top of the head shot?

This shows serious issues on the police officers value of this mans life.

"Too many bullets" is nonsense as is "shoot to wound." You keep shooting until the threat is over and you shoot at center mass. The issue is not how many bullets or where the wounds are, but whether the shooting is justified or not.

What the autopsy does do is dispel the "shot in the back" narrative.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Odd how for some people we mustn't rush to judgement, must give the benefit of the doubt etc etc. Until some evidence comesup that indicates Brown might be at fault, then it's clearly the stone cold truth.

It works both ways.
I have seen plenty of posts about how the police shot this 'child' in the back, but it really doesn't seem that this was the case.
I am all for waiting for a complete investigation to occur, it seems that there were a lot of people in Ferguson that didn't want to wait.

a reply to: butcherguy

Two wrongs don't make a right. And anyway not everyone who has protested has done so based on a suspect version of what occurred. They've been outraged that a policeman would shoot an unarmed youth, at the police's subsequent response, and at the way the protests themselves have been handled by the authorities.

To try to suggest that this is all just a load of thugs getting worked up about a potentially justifiable shooting is inherently a biased way of looking at the issue.

I've seen plenty of posts (mainly elsewhere) that have literally made their mind up that a drugged-up 350 pound gang-banger was mere yards away from a terrified officer, grabbing for his gun, foaming at the mouth and intent on murdering him. This has not been substantiated in any way.

a reply to: Bilk22

I agree. I also agree with someone's theory(was it yours?), that the cops eye/face might have been swollen, blood dripping into his face, did Brown threaten he had a weapon, I wonder?? Cause maybe the cop believed he did, hence all the shots to the right side/arm to brown....just a theory, trying to figure out why all the shots were to the right arm area....Really wish we had a dash cam here!!

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
This is the evidence of poor training. Too many bullets. None to the lower extremities to keep him put and a top of the head shot?

This shows serious issues on the police officers value of this mans life.

"Too many bullets" is nonsense as is "shoot to wound." You keep shooting until the threat is over and you shoot at center mass. The issue is not how many bullets or where the wounds are, but whether the shooting is justified or not.

What the autopsy does do is dispel the "shot in the back" narrative.

And supports the hands up scenario.

originally posted by: Bilk22
Well the "shot in the back" just went out the window.

Can someone please tell my why the "shot in the back" is off the table? Sorry, I can't look at the Times. Thanks!

originally posted by: Kali74
And supports the hands up scenario.

Possibly, but it also supports a charging suspect. I trust Dr. Baden's opinion and he felt it was not conclusive to prove or disprove either hypothesis and stated he needed further forensic evidence to form a better conclusion.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Bilk22
Well the "shot in the back" just went out the window.

Can someone please tell my why the "shot in the back" is off the table? Sorry, I can't look at the Times. Thanks!

The report says that the entry wounds were to the front of Brown's body.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No wounds on the back. Either entry or exit.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kali74
And supports the hands up scenario.

Possibly, but it also supports a charging suspect.

Does it? Can you explain how?

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
This is the evidence of poor training. Too many bullets. None to the lower extremities to keep him put and a top of the head shot?

This shows serious issues on the police officers value of this mans life.

"Too many bullets" is nonsense as is "shoot to wound." You keep shooting until the threat is over and you shoot at center mass. The issue is not how many bullets or where the wounds are, but whether the shooting is justified or not.

What the autopsy does do is dispel the "shot in the back" narrative.

And supports the hands up scenario.

Or hands up during a charge as well. I'd say that the forearm wounds, with the extended channels suggest hands held out and forward, not straight up.

On an aside: the stringing of all of the hits to the left in that manner indicates a right handed shooter who is "mashing" the trigger. When you put your trigger finger too far into the trigger guard, you string to the left, when you just use the tip, you string tot he right. I don't see it as relevant, just an observation.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

When you run is your head held completely upright or does it tilt forward slightly?

a reply to: butcherguy
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks, guys.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Hhhmmmm...interesting, maybe walking back towards cop, with hands splayed out, yelling stop, or showing he had no weapon, again, if the cops eyes were hindered in anyway, he may have thought he had a weapon....to many questions not enough answers yet....

originally posted by: j.r.c.b.
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hhhmmmm...interesting, maybe walking back towards cop, with hands splayed out, yelling stop, or showing he had no weapon, again, if the cops eyes were hindered in anyway, he may have thought he had a weapon....to many questions not enough answers yet....

Certainly possible I guess. The wound on the right thenar eminence (base of thumb) shows that the bullet struck parallel to the tissue plane, not perpendicular, meaning that the hand was pointing towards the shooter, not straight up, for what that's worth.

The more I think about the less likely Michael Brown had his hands up in the air. Put your hands in the air and think about someone shooting at you. It makes no sense that Michael Brown has 4 shots to the arm. One is to the thumb, one is to the forearm, one is to the bicep region and one is to the shoulder and goes into the pectoral region. For Darren Wilson to have hit those areas of the body with the hands raised would mean that he was shooting OVER Michael Brown's head. That makes no sense. He would be incredibly luck to hit upraised hands. It would also go against every firearm training. You always train to hit the center of the target. If Michael's arms were by his side or reaching out in front of him then the shots would be close to the center of Michael's body. We need to see the blood splatter patterns to prove which way the arms were but it seems very unlikely the arms were raised.

A second question that occurred to me; was a chain of custody observed before the second autopsy. The second autopsy was performed at a mortuary. If the body bag had not been sealed with a tag after every time someone viewed the body how do they know that the body did not get washed at some time. There was no mention of blood splatter or blood pooling in the report. If the body had been washed, then there good reason no gunpowder was found on the body. This would make the second autopsy and the DOJ autopsy to be of questionable accuracy.

a reply to: NavyDoc
I was actually thinking that was the first shot, to the hand, if he really did try grabbing for the cops gun inside the car. But they found no residue on his person, as far as I can tell. I do appreciate those with more knowledge about guns, helping to clear up a few things. Even if it's just a theory, it's still appreciated.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JuniorDisco

When you run is your head held completely upright or does it tilt forward slightly?

While this is true, if you're running with your head tilted forward slightly and you get shot through the top of the head, what are the chances that your face will come up so that you can then be shot in the right eye?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JuniorDisco

When you run is your head held completely upright or does it tilt forward slightly?

While this is true, if you're running with your head tilted forward slightly and you get shot through the top of the head, what are the chances that your face will come up so that you can then be shot in the right eye?

I thought that the medical examiner said that the bullet wound to the top of the head was the last shot. Thus, to me, was the bullet wound to the eye that went to the jaw and the collarbone, the cause for the head coming foward? No way to really know.