Michael Brown Had Gun Powder in Wound to Hand

originally posted by: xuenchen
I wonder what comments Dorian Johnson is making these days?

Has anyone hear from him lately? Is he in hiding? In protective custody? If so, why? Could it be that he planned to tell the Grand Jury the truth and is afraid of repercussions?

The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case....

I am sure that them not being involved in the case means nothing, but could it also mean they don't have all the info?
I will agree this information doesn't look great for brown, but is still unofficial.

I still don't see anyone going for a cops gun just cause he had robbed a store earlier, not like this guy was a career criminal that was going to the pen for life if he gets caught.
Always two sides to the story, his hand could of been close to the gun without him reaching for the gun.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'd rather trust what the eye witnesses have to say.
Autopsy reports can be wrong, dishonest, and completely manufactured.

And people from the area wouldn't lie and fabricate the story?

There is already a people vs. cops issue and then throw the race card into it and I wouldn't believe an eye witness over the FACTS that come out of an autopsy.

You want to believe the "witness" because it serves your agenda.

I have seen MANY times where something happened and a "witness" says "yes sir, I saw the whole thing go down and this is what happened" when they didn't see crap they ju8st want their 10 minutes in the lime light or they are helping cover up for the perp.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The two medical examiners I believe were from St Louis City and San Francisco. They were give copies of the autopsy report conducted by the medical examiner from St Louis County. If you look in the replies section of this thread you will notice that I did link a pdf from the St Louis Post Dispatch. The PDF should give you all the information that was given to the two outside examiners.

a reply to: mwood

One thing to remember is that I think (not sure) but one of the reasons for the grand jury taking so long has been stated that there are witness that would not cooperate. Those witnesses need to be subpoenaed to force their cooperation with the grand jury. What was said to the cameras may not be what was said to the grand jury.

a reply to: feldercarb

I took a look at it, but no sense in me picking it apart if I don't have the qualifications to decipher it.
As I am sure that would be the response if I posted anything from it.

This is a piece of info that I had been waiting on coming out, and like I said it doesn't look great but I still don't see it as showing, for a fact, that he was trying to disarm officer wilson anymore then it just shows that his hand was close to the firearm at the point it was fired.
Why can't it be that Wilson grabbed his gun on his own accord and shot him when they were at close quarters and browns hand was close to it?
Maybe seeing a gun pointed at him and putting his hands up?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Answer

To those who think the cop was wrong, no amount of evidence will sway their opinion. Evidently, "held to a higher standard" means you have to wait until AFTER someone kills you to act in self defense.

that statement is complete dribble and you know it....there is no need to make up stories

Why not, your making up stuff. Why can't everyone else....

In your last post you said
"agreed...the police the not be allowed to execute people if they feel threatened ...there are a few ways this could have played out without brown being shot dead."

You have no idea what happened there even though the facts are slowly coming out.. Your claiming there was another route to take other than killing the man. Maybe there wasn't. What if that was the case here....WHAT IF he had to kill him to stop him?? What IF?

I have grown up in a 80% black neighborhood and grew up dealing with young black thugs who run the streets and I have much experience with those type of people and can just about with a high degree of certainty draw you a picture of what happened....

I think anyone with a lick of common sense knows what happened that day, but there will always be some person who thinks they are the white knight standing up for injustice who will argue in spite of the facts of the case.

I have a few LEO in the family and in my younger years I spent quite a bit of time in jail myself so I can see both sides of the argument.

"I believe"

The cops rolled up on the guys and was going to tell them to get out of the road. They guys had just robbed the store and very likely thought that was why the cops were there. The young MAN got into a scuffle with the cop inside the car and tried to get his pistol, the cop shot him once giving him a minor wound and the guy ran.
Cop gets out and yells for him to stop, the guys turns around holding his arms out at his side (as per witnesses) and is taunting the cop who just got assaulted in the car by a HUGE guy and is most likely crapping his pants. The cop is scared (he's human). The huge man is walking towards the cop saying something to the effect of " You gonna shoot me Fuc**er? ...Shoot me bi*ch ...ect...ect...
As he is closing the gap the cop shoots him till he is down andthe threat is gone.

I have no agenda and could really care less what happened but in my experience through life that is what I BELIEVE happened.

I could be wrong but till I see facts otherwise I don't think so. And a witness ain't facts, people lie.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Always two sides to the story, his hand could of been close to the gun without him reaching for the gun.

Agreed. Neither side makes a lot of sense to me.

I really doubt that a cop was just looking to go shoot someone for fun, or that Brown was executed on his knees with his hands up, but I can't figure out why anyone would be dumb enough to go for a cops gun.

Frankly both the supporters of the cop and the supporters of Brown have irritated me. We've got one side that clearly didn't read anything claiming Brown was killed for stealing cigars, and some folks claiming that because Brown was probably a bit of a punk he somehow deserved it.

I feel bad for everyone because I think at the worst a mistake was made in the heat of the moment, and now a young man has lost his life, a family has lost their son and a cop's life has been shattered.

I want to see justice done, but everything I've read on the matter is inconclusive, including this.

a reply to: mwood

I think anyone with a lick of common sense knows what happened that day, but there will always be some person who thinks they are the white knight standing up for injustice who will argue in spite of the facts of the case.

ok so we know which side of the fence you sit on...and you are now saying that anyone with a lick of common sense is on the same side of the fence as you.....at least we know where you are coming from



so now we have that out of the way....i have not at any point said i know what is going on here....what i have said is that something stinks....if officer wilson was so scared for his life he could have driven away and called for back up and taken brown down without 16 odd bullets....

You have no idea what happened there even though the facts are slowly coming out.. Your claiming there was another route to take other than killing the man. Maybe there wasn't. What if that was the case here....WHAT IF he had to kill him to stop him?? What IF?

what if he didn't ?

I could be wrong but till I see facts otherwise I don't think so. And a witness ain't facts, people lie.

people also believe lies....not only that people have a pre-conceived idea of what happened based on their own experience however small that experience may be...

I have no agenda and could really care less what happened but in my experience through life that is what I BELIEVE happened.

just because you believe this is what happens doesnt mean it is what happened....you are simply showing you have a biased view...and you are entitled to it ...i just dont agree with it

a reply to: mwood

Which witness has him with his hands out in a taunting manner?

And why do you think he reached for the gun? In your experience did the people you grew up around always talk about going for cops guns if they get the chance?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
The police still have to be held to a higher standard. And citizens aren't blameless. There needs to be more responsibility concerning individual actions in this world. Mike Brown was a bad kid, no doubt but it doesn't excuse this officer's actions.

Should the officer have waited until Michael Brown got his sidearm and shot him?

Oh wait, that would be a little too late.

To those who think the cop was wrong, no amount of evidence will sway their opinion. Evidently, "held to a higher standard" means you have to wait until AFTER someone kills you to act in self defense.

You are sooooooooo right. Cops haters put it up like a religion: there's no way they'll search the truth if it's against them. If the facts serve them: ok, if not: forged! Hey a pathologist, so a doc, will put his career on jeopardy and risk going to jail just to help a cop he doesn't know? No way! If someone goes for an officer gun and is able to carry his threat, it's life and death situation. Sadly lethal force IS the response. But if the officer would have done wrong and killed the guy: he goes to jail and that's perfectly fine with me. It's time the 'oppressed' grow up, look what they do/with whom they hang out and make the math.

a reply to: Domo1

Just to give you my 10 cents:

For the 'going for the gun' I saw it once first hand. That did end ok but could have gone otherwise. And also got told of another story by 2 different persons I thrust who were on the scene. Big fight with a military guy so yes it happens. In both cases the guys who went for the officer gun were high.

originally posted by: LoveSolMoonDeath
a reply to: Domo1

Just to give you my 10 cents:

For the 'going for the gun' I saw it once first hand. That did end ok but could have gone otherwise. And also got told of another story by 2 different persons I thrust who were on the scene. Big fight with a military guy so yes it happens. In both cases the guys who went for the officer gun were high.

It happens more often than people realize. There's a good reason nearly all departments require holsters that have built-in retention that doesn't allow an easy take-away. I'm not just talking about a strap over the top of the pistol...

Officers are trained in how to avoid a take-away and it's a threat they have in the back of their mind at all times.

If Brown's hand was so close to the muzzle that powder was embedded in the wound and the bullet hit his thumb first, his hand was extremely close to the pistol and he was reaching for it. It takes a lot of bias to claim otherwise.

Now that the "hands up, don't shoot" myth has effectively been shot down by forensic evidence, will the rioters continue with their defunct chant? Will the t-shIrt profiteers suffer a sudden drop in sales?

a reply to: feldercarb

Reached for the gun, got shot in the hand and then two in the head, for good measure.

Bollocks.

The guy saw a gun, instinctively understood it would be "fired" and put his hands in front of him for defence.

It's an instinct.

Tampering with evidence never happens. I'm surprised it took this long.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: feldercarb

Reached for the gun, got shot in the hand and then two in the head, for good measure.

Bollocks.

The guy saw a gun, instinctively understood it would be "fired" and put his hands in front of him for defence.

It's an instinct.

His hand had to be literally within a foot of the muzzle to have powder embedded in the wound. The thumb was in front of the wrist, that's a "reaching" position.

Don't let your bias lead you to ignoring facts.

a reply to: bjarneorn
The instinctive thing to do when you see a gun being drawn is to duck or run away not force your fat ass through a car window to grab it. But of course he was most likely forcing his way into the car before the gun was drawn, in order to attack.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: bjarneorn
The instinctive thing to do when you see a gun being drawn is to duck or run away not force your fat ass through a car window to grab it. But of course he was most likely forcing his way into the car before the gun was drawn, in order to attack.

really...the instinctive thing to do is not try to fight somebody who has a gun in the first place...unless of course you want to get a bullet or 10 imbedded in you

Why are all the Brown supporters talking about what a normal person would do?

A normal person wouldn't physically intimidate a store clerk and steal blunt wrap.

A normal person isn't over 6 ft tall and 300 pounds.

A normal person doesn't try to fight the Police.

M. Brown clearly wasn't a normal person. Why is it so hard to believe? You are literally ignoring factual evidence in order to maintain a fallacy in your own mind.