It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Darren Wilson Suffered Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket during attack

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Even the autopsy shows the same based on shot placement.


You mean the autopsy report where the pathologist who performed said he was "shot from a distance"?


Yep...the one done by Brown's family which stated it could have been exactly the scenario that the officer said happened....a bum-rush with multiple shots hitting him from the front and dropping a few feet from reaching the officer.


It would also fit this scenario:

Brown was shot in the shoulder at the car.
Brown was running and was either hit squarely in middle of his forearm or grazed on the inside of the forearm.
Brown stopped at turned around to surrender, putting his hands in the air.
Wilson continued firing on Brown as he (Wilson) advanced on Brown and as Brown went down, hit him twice in the head.




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The independent coroner that was requested by Browns parents and lawyer concluded the same things as the state/local office. That plan backfired. He was not shot in the back and he tested positive for a controlled substance.


(begin sarcasm)I am going to go on a limb here and suggest those Cigarillos were for blunts. (end sarcasm)

This is not about shaming someone's child. I feel for the parents greatly. However, this was a second rate thug who (verified by multiple witnesses) attacked a cop and was shot. No executions.

He did not turn to surrender. He was moving forward as he was shot. He fell head first a few feet in front of the officer. If he was backing away hands up, and was shot multiple times, don't you think he would have fallen back pushed by the force of the rounds hitting him?
edit on 08pm31pmfu2014-08-19T15:54:07-05:000307 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yep....you're right. That is the most likely scenario. Brown was a sweet innocent kid about to attend college and realized in that moment he had done something stupid and gave up, hoping he would still be able to start college the next week.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
Whenever I see this version of events, I have to ask:

Why would a police officer try to pull someone into a car with them?



Why would a man who was fleeing from a cop after an altercation where the cop's weapon was discharged (and he was possibly hit) stop abruptly in the middle of the street to taunt the cop and then charge him? As he was running in fear of being shot, he lost his fear of being shot?

You answered my question with a question.

I will answer your question though.
Maybe Michael Brown was intoxicated.
Maybe he had a death wish?
Maybe he was a large young man that thought the cop would not shoot.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Actually she had been on FMLA leave since March:

www.mediaite.com...

See also here:

twitter.com...

edit on 19-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Another unsubstantiated, out of context "leak" that doesn't prove anything definitively about either what occurred at the vehicle or afterward.

Is the information about the injury true? It certainly could be. Could it have been from a punch? Sounds reasonable. Could it have been from the door? Possibly. What does it prove about what happened afterward? It doesn't even prove what happened in the vehicle.




It proves an altercation occurred. Do you want all the facts, or only ones that prove your point?


This is potentially new information but as I stated, it doesn't help us to know exactly what happened. All of the witnesses said that an altercation occurred. Do you want cherry-picked "facts" from anonymous "leaks" at the FPD that support the cop's story?

No information about GSR on the shirt or hands. Why not leak that? No information about blood splatter on the vehicle. Why not leak that? There was a leak yesterday claiming that Michael Brown had marijuana in his system. Why leak that but not the results of any other preliminary toxicological screening that was obviously done if the positive marijuana result is to be believed?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Actually she had been on FMLA leave since March:

www.mediaite.com...



I see that, but doesn't change the tweet and her saying it was from a police source. She is still a reporter for the St Louis Police....I am pretty sure she would have had to speak with a police officer that is one of her contacts to have made that statement. Paper probably yanked it so not to cause more strife...that or pressure from Holder or FBI somewhere along the line.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Actually, I think her tweet would be a violation of her FMLA terms.

DANGER: Employees Working While on Leave, Part 2

But I don't disagree that what she says may be nonetheless valid.


edit on 19-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Another unsubstantiated, out of context "leak" that doesn't prove anything definitively about either what occurred at the vehicle or afterward.

Is the information about the injury true? It certainly could be. Could it have been from a punch? Sounds reasonable. Could it have been from the door? Possibly. What does it prove about what happened afterward? It doesn't even prove what happened in the vehicle.





It proves an altercation occurred. Do you want all the facts, or only ones that prove your point?


This is potentially new information but as I stated, it doesn't help us to know exactly what happened. All of the witnesses said that an altercation occurred. Do you want cherry-picked "facts" from anonymous "leaks" at the FPD that support the cop's story?

No information about GSR on the shirt or hands. Why not leak that? No information about blood splatter on the vehicle. Why not leak that? There was a leak yesterday claiming that Michael Brown had marijuana in his system. Why leak that but not the results of any other preliminary toxicological screening that was obviously done if the positive marijuana result is to be believed?



I don't know why, I'm not the one leaking the facts, I'm the reading and giving my input on them. Asking me why only certain things are coming out is like talking to the wall next to you, it doesn't know either but you can ask it.

Don't be mad because the things coming out don't support your argument. That's really what this boils down to.
edit on 8/19/2014 by OptimusCrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
I think he only suffered from blisters on his trigger finger.

Whoa did I just clarify the Manson connection?




edit on 8/19/14 by proob4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
What you claim has nothing to do with the autopsy report. There is a thread on the autopsy report that discusses it.

Brown has one wound which is definitely from the front - a shot to the upper right chest.

Two shots to the head came from 'above' the head (Dr. Baden says head bent down would explain this, so top of head facing barrel of gun).
Three more shots struck Brown's inner arm.

It looks really bad for the cop scenario, not the witness scenario.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
A Police source defending the police story?

Surely not.
I can't imagine any bias there.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: matafuchs
What you claim has nothing to do with the autopsy report. There is a thread on the autopsy report that discusses it.

Brown has one wound which is definitely from the front - a shot to the upper right chest.

Two shots to the head came from 'above' the head (Dr. Baden says head bent down would explain this, so top of head facing barrel of gun).
Three more shots struck Brown's inner arm.

It looks really bad for the cop scenario, not the witness scenario.


Actually the report specifically references that Brown could have incurred these wounds while bum rushing the cop. So your thought is he just sat down, the cop walked up and put the gun to the top of his head and fired?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Taggart
A Police source defending the police story?

Surely not.
I can't imagine any bias there.


Like all the family and friends of Michael defending their UN-BIASED story?

This road ain't no one way yo.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Does it? It speaks of a single shot - not all of them.

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”


Speaking of the cop scenario, let me outline some things from photographs we have seen:
This photo (WARNING DECEASED MICHAEL BROWN, JR.) shows a pine tree and a bush in the background, as well as apartments, a parking lot/drive, and a hill behind the apartments. The images in Google Earth are a few years out of date, but you can tell that the two trees in the background being removed in the Twitter photo and they match the coordinates as well; the apartments have been remodeled which took a bit to figure out (see wider photo below). The hill behind the apartments is also visible. It appears that Brown was shot at approximately (lat,lon): 38.738°, -90.273° on Canfield. This location is (directly) about a third of a mile northeast from the incident at the store located on W. Florissant Ave & Ferguson Ave.

The pine tree and bush are on the south side of the street, so the photo was taken from the north side of the street. Brown's body is on the ground from feet (left) to head (right). Thus, his body is pointed towards the west or northwest.

So, as he was shot from the front (and I guess top due to head shot positioning & path) and assuming he fell to the front (because he's charging at the officer, from the police story), that means the officer is further to the right (in the image) and so further west or northwest, right?

But then I saw a photo Vasa Croe linked, which can be seen here: www2.wptv.com... . It is a photo of the hat that Brown was wearing, and a crime scene tape-wrapped SUV next to it. Supposing that this is likely to be Wilson's SUV and that this is where the initial incident happened... there's a problem. Perhaps I am mistaken, and the taped SUV is not Wilson's, but I don't know why else it would be wrapped with crime tape.

That SUV isn't to the west of Brown, but to the east - behind him. If you notice in the background between the SUVs and past the hat, there is a street light next to a curved segment of road. There is also a paved area immediately past the light post in relation to the road. The only section of road that matches this is to the east of the shooting, some 180+ feet away from where Brown was shot (if Google Earth ruler is accurate).

You can see in this wider resolution photo an idea of the scene. The left side of the photo is to the east, while the right side of the photo is to the west. The pine tree reference point can be seen again here to the south (the bush is obscured by the SUV), and if you check the coordinates on Google Earth you can see that the apartments on the south side of the street have been remodeled to look like the ones on the north side of the street since that was last updated.

Far down the street on the left side - east of where Brown's body was seen - is where the street curves, and where the light pole is. This means that the SUV was, relative to his body, to the east. Thus, Brown's body is facing away from the police SUV.

It cannot be seen just how far away it is from these photos, but it looks like the SUV (or at least the group of SUVs) is approximately equal in distance from Brown's body as the light pole on the north (left) side of the street. The light pole, according to Google Earth, is approximately 35 feet away from Brown's body.

Here is a rough illustration of what I'm seeing from compiling this information:


As everyone says he was shot from the front, does this mean his body spun around? If he was charging at the officer when he died, wouldn't he crumple forward towards the officer?
edit on 17Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:53:45 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: Taggart
A Police source defending the police story?

Surely not.
I can't imagine any bias there.


Like all the family and friends of Michael defending their UN-BIASED story?

This road ain't no one way yo.


That was my point, people connected to the sides involved are hardly impartial.
I wouldn't expect the deceased's friends say it was the deceased's fault and
I wouldn't expect a police source say it was the police's fault



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The fact that the autopsy revealed no gunshot residue on the kid's body makes me seriously question the cop's story. I've heard people say that the clothes haven't been tested, but that doesn't really matter when you consider this: Cop claims the kid was attacking him, trying to go for his gun. If you look at the places where he was shot, most of then were on parts of his body that weren't covered by clothing. His lower arms, neck, and face. If the gun had been fired so close to the kid, and this kid was going for his gun, there should be residue on his hands. But there ain't.

They are still processing the crime scene stuff, and I would really be interested to see what the fingerprint data collected shows.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Yeah...it does. Even in your quote from the report it says he could have incurred the shot from charging the officer....oddly enough that is what the officer said before the autopsy report came out based on the statement from his friend.

There's no conspiracy here. Brown lived like a thug and died like a thug.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
I do not agree.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Yes, that one shot. He specifically points to a single entry wound, and says that shot could have been either way. He does not make the same pronouncement for the rest of the wounds.

What about the entry wound that went down, through his eye socket, through his face and jaw and into his collar bone?
What about the upper-right chest entry wound, if his head were down and he was charging like a bull (I guess) at the officer?
What about the 3 entry wounds on the inside of his arms - how do you get those charging? Try to reenact that scenario yourself.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join