It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Michael Brown Had Gun Powder in Wound to Hand

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 12:11 AM
a reply to: netbound

PS: I keep reading/hearing people say that eye witness accounts can’t always be trusted. That may be true. But do you also think that cops and district attorney’s never lie? If so, I’ve got a newsflash for you...

better add in lawyers and politicians....they are the biggest liars on the planet

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:00 AM

originally posted by: netbound
To begin with, I don’t know exactly what led to the shooting of Michael Brown. I don’t think anyone else here does either. Nor does the main stream media, the coroner, the DA, etc. The only person who really knows is Darren Wilson. And considering Wilson’s on the hot seat, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether or not he’s telling the truth. Obviously, he’s going to say whatever it takes to justify his actions that day. I’ve read nothing from the coroner’s report or media reports that shed any light on the matter.

The fact that Brown had a gunshot wound to his wrist in no way confirm’s he was reaching for the officer’s gun when it happened. Any number of scenarios could account for that wound. How do we know, for instance, that the officer hadn’t pulled his gun on Brown while in the car, and that Brown was struggling to keep from being shot when the gun went off? To me, that scenario makes more sense than the one where Brown is attempting to take the gun away from Wilson. All we’re really confident of is that there was some sort of altercation at the squad car.

It’s the rest of the shots that I question most. After the altercation at the car, it’s quite likely Brown ran from it; otherwise why would his body end up so far away from it? So then, Wilson gets out of the vehicle and starts firing; I think about 10 rounds, 6 of which hit Brown. It’s the killing shot that I find most telling. It entered the top of Brown’s head (maybe around the eye socket or a little above) and the trajectory took it straight down. Considering Brown was 6’4” tall, for the bullet to take that trajectory tells me he was likely either bent over and holding his gut (as one witness has stated) or he was on his way down when the shot was fired. However, that’s contrary to what Wilson claims, which is that Brown was charging him when it happened.

The shot to the wrist hit the tip of his thumb first, then hit the wrist. There was powder embedded in the wound. The hand was very close to the sidearm in a "reaching position." That's evidence that he was going for the gun. The people who are trained in these matters have stated it pretty clearly so I don't think there's room for debate at this point.

The trajectory of the shots that killed him matter very little. Once the scenario goes past the point of lethal force being justified, officers are trained to engage the threat until he stops. If Brown made it clear that he was going to continue attacking the officer, the officer was going to keep shooting until the threat was completely stopped. That's how police officers are trained. It doesn't work like the movies where a cop shoots once and waits for the bad guy to spend 30 seconds dramatically falling down. People take rounds and keep fighting ALL the time. The round that entered the top of his head could have happened as he was falling... it's nearly impossible to know but it's ultimately irrelevant. The only way to claim "excessive use of force" would be if the officer walked up to him after he was on the ground and continued firing.

Unfortunately, the majority of people arguing about this story don't know what they're talking about. They don't understand police procedures. They don't understand forensic investigative procedures. They don't understand ballistics. They don't understand the regulations pertaining to use of deadly force. They don't understand anything that pertains to the actual facts of the case... they're spouting their uninformed and uneducated opinion as a basis for crucifying this police officer. It's pathetic.

People's guilt or innocence should be decided based on facts, nothing else.

edit on 10/23/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/23/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 03:50 PM
There's no logic to drawing the conclusions the medical examiner did. A close range shot on the hand does not mean Brown reached for the gun. He could have but it could also be what other witnesses have said, that Wilson pulled Brown through the window and as Brown was pulling back, Wilson drew and fired.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:28 PM
a reply to: Kali74

Your just one of the people that don't know what your talking about as stared above. Answer must be an expert in all the subjets listed or it would be almost hypocritical for the poster to say what he/she did.
I am also curious as to what the "not for seconday release" means.
If it means it should not be released, then would examiners ignore that and then review it?

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:34 PM
a reply to: Kali74Wilson must have super human strength, to be able to pull a behemoth like Big Mike Brown who weighed nearly 300 lbs. and was 6'5" tall, into his vehicle from a seated position! That argument is ridiculous, with all due respect Kali. That is really a desperate explanation for your choirboy version of Big Mike. I'm really surprised there was no PCP found in his system. How long does it take for that to go away? I know Big Mike was into the dust. He rapped about that, slapping hoes, making money, selling dope, smoking dope, shooting people, etc... He was a loser.

edit on 23-10-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: Mikeultra

1st comment from track 4 at your link.

Almost fell out of my chair...

Well Damn!!! Mike Brown - Who Would Have known! He kept his lyrics real! -To bad he was all off beat and s***...

Gentle giant indeed.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:59 PM
a reply to: Mikeultra

"Come here, closer, closer"

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:27 PM

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Azdraik
a reply to: VoidHawk

I really hope that comment was sarcasm.

Because if it was not, does that mean you truly believe that witnesses cannot "be wrong, dishonest, and completely manufactured"?

I never said witnesses cannot be wrong, of course they can.
However, given what took place, personally I'd believe the witnesses first.

Also, even if there is some variation in the eye-witness accounts, if there is continuity to the testimony of the witnesses I would believe that continuity over the autopsy report. It's too easy to press those doing the autopsy to suit an agenda. The public can be manipulated but an awful lot of people saw the same thing.

As an aside, does anyone else remember that video that was taken from the same side of the street and had the whole altercation from start to finish? I can't find it anywhere. It disappeared just a few hours after it hit the internet. By that though, that kid rushed the cop. He did. But he was still yards away when that cop started popping. Michael Brown didn't get within ten feet of that cop. I didn't want to say anything because I can't find it, but broad daylight, and you could see the whole incident clear as clear. Was it proved a hoax? What the h*ll?

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:29 PM

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Mikeultra

"Come here, closer, closer"

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 10:05 AM
'Shockingly', the St. Louis Post Dispatch took quotes from Melinek out of context.

Talking Points Memo

But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

Ana and Cenk (TYT) break it down here:

Sorry video won't embed properly...


edit on 10/25/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:25 AM
This is evidence that I speculated early on, shortly after the autopsy was revealed.

Once I saw that he was violent (proven by the store video camera), on drugs (proven by toxicology report), not shot in the back (proven by the autopsy), and had assaulted Officer Wilson (proven by Police Chief along with medical report from hospital), I figured that it wasn't a reach to insist that he had went for the officer's gun.

I seriously doubt that the state will proceed in an unnecessary trial.

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:49 AM
a reply to: Answer


This is the same line of logic that the Martin supporters used when they argued that Zimmerman should have just allowed the fight to take place.

My response to that and to the Brown incident is that the law does not require a victim to fist-fight their assaulter. There is also no duty to retreat, so self-defense, even by deadly force, is necessary for preservation of life.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in