Posted on 08/22/2014 1:38:02 PM PDT by therightliveswithus
For days something has been irking me about the Michael Brown shooting and the autopsy performed. Repeatedly we've heard from witnesses who do not agree with Officer Darren Wilson's account. They have said that either, one, Brown was shot in the back or, two, he had his hands raised in surrender, while standing upright, when Wilson shot him.
Well, the autopsy showed that Brown was not shot in the back, so the witnesses that claimed that are now confirmed to either be mistaken or liars. But what about the hands raised witnesses? Forget for a moment that most of these witnesses were the same ones who claimed Brown was struck repeatedly in the back. For whatever reason, the press has been reporting that the autopsy somehow confirms anti-Wilson testimony. But that's not true. Simple mathematics disproves their testimony and likely confirms Wilson's.
But before we get to that, let's establish a few facts. First, the particular bullet in question that disproves this testimony is one that entered Mr. Brown's skull and exited into his collar bone.
Second, there are no videos or testimony that the street on which the shooting occurred was unusually sloped or hilly.
Third, we need to look into what those who stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender say they witnessed.
Tiffany Mitchell stated, “After the [first] shot, the kid just breaks away. The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid’s body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around, puts his hands up, and the cop continues to walk up on him and continues to shoot until he goes all the way down."
Disregarding the fact that Brown was not shot in the back (which already disproves this testimony), to summarize, several shots are fired at Brown first, then he turns around and the fatal bullet is fired. Three total witnesses, Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell, and Piaget Crenshaw, say the same thing: Brown was shot in the back, then he turned around, then he was mortally wounded. His head was raised.
Fourth, if Brown's head was raised, then the shot must have been angled, otherwise any exit wound would have exited the back of his skull and not hit any other part of his body. To go from any part of the head into the collar bone is a pretty steep angle.
Fifth, how far away was Brown from Wilson? Well, according to these three witnesses, there was a sizable gap between the two men. Another witness, Michael Brady, seems to corroborate these stories by placing the distance at about 20 feet.
All the facts are now assembled to show how the witnesses testimony falls apart. But just to recap: the street is flat, Michael Brown has his hands and head raised, he is twenty feet away from Officer Wilson, and the bullet in question went from his head to his collar bone.
Now all we need to do is create a triangle that shows the trajectory of the bullet. Actually, we have to create a small one first to get the proper big triangle. And assuming that both Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson were both standing straight up, we can use the Pythagorean Theorem to find out all the proper measurements, or a2 + b2 = c2.
Still following? It's a bit tough at first because Mr. Brown has a height of six feet, four inches, so we cannot use him as the lowest point on a triangle. However, that can be the height on the first triangle we make. So, height would be equal to 6.33, which would be a in our equation.
To get the proper angle, we would use the distance given by Mr. Brady in his testimony, 20 feet, and that would be b. Now we can find out c, the hypotenuse. 6.33 squared is roughly 40. 20 squared is 400. Together, that's 440. The square root of that is almost exactly 21.
Now all we have to do is double the numbers and retain the same angles. The conclusion is... Officer Brown would have to be... 12 feet, 8 inches to have shot Michael Brown the way that "witnesses" say he did. Officer Wilson is not 12 feet, 8 inches.
But you know how this would all make sense? If we take into account Officer Wilson's testimony, that Brown was charging him, his head lowered. There wouldn't have to be a big angle any more because, if Wilson fired forward, it could easily go through Brown's head and into his collarbone.
Math has disproved the already shaky testimony of pro-Brown witnesses and confirmed the story of Officer Wilson.
Now you are to “plausible”
Before you said “And if those wounds did not come from behind, Brown would have to have his palms facing the cop and nobody walks or stands that way...His arm had to have been raised at least partially.”
That sounds like certainty, not plausibility. I have made my point. You don’t know any more than anybody else, yet you still made a claim of absolute certainty about something you cannot know...which is the very same thing that fueled the riots and looting - liars and fools making adamant statements that were either untrue or outside of their knowledge.
You’re not ahead, but it IS a good time to quit.
No the point about sandals and tube socks was, trying running in them. Meaning not the best for speed. In addition, defies common sense that one would charge a guy with gun from distance unarmed, of course, this kid was thug, so anything is possible.
No it’s not possible to fall forward moving and have no abrasions on cement. “My version”? Naw, just the forensics, which you couldn’t debate right? Meaning no abrasions to fit a charging thug theory, and downward headshots meaning guy must be already down since officer isn’t over 6’ 4”.
Both sides have witnesses saying something, who knows.
Again, still waiting for complete forensic investigation.
The sandals and tube socks prohibiting him from running/charging is just foolish speculation. I’ve run in sandals - with and without tube socks. The guy didn’t go out intending to run at a police officer, so he didn’t put on his running shoes and running socks. But, like most of us, when confronted with a situation he did the best he could (stupid decision, probably fueled by intoxicants if what we hear about the tox report is true). Maybe the sandals made him slightly less dangerous, but nobody can claim that a large man running at you in sandals does not pose a serious threat. I have lived in Samoa, and I have seen some pretty amazing things done by people wearing sandals.
I have tripped and fallen forward while running - without receiving the abrasions you base your argument on. Besides, 4 shots to the body and one in the eye can tend to slow a headlong rush to a deliberate plod.
“Downward” headshot (there was only one drawn in the top of his head) could have been sustained while falling.
I don’t know these things, nor do you. I make no claim as to what did happen - but I do know that several “witnesses” are obviously lying, and the type of speculation you are making “proves” nothing and does not support the certainty you claim.
You claim to know what the “forensics” show - are you a forensic scientist? Have you seen the autopsy report? If not, how can you claim to make an argument based on “the forensics”? You are correct, I cannot debate “the forensics” because I don’t know them, and I don’t think you know them either. I am simply debating your conclusions that you draw from uncertain rumors and imprecise information, based on faulty assumptions and a flawed progression.
Everybody likes to play detective as can be seen just by the comments on these threads alone...At least we offer some thought on the incident...
And what do you do??? You claim we are all wrong...None of us can possibly know...And why??? Apparently because you don't have a clue yourself and can't figure out how anyone else could...But thanks for playing...
Forensics were given in autopsy, 2 downward shots top of head other through eye, under jaw to collarbone. Shot while falling? sure, but no skin abrasions which happen when someone is moving and falls on concrete, not grass, etc. Common sense, hardly need scientist credibility.
Opinions, prejudices, sure, everyone has them, like yourself basing false assumptions on what certain witnesses said as you’ve commented on this thread.: That the guy charged the officer, which is what many believe. Sure he’s a scumbag for all the obvious reasons, and the officer in a perfect moral world would have benefit of the doubt, however with no abrasions and last 2 downward shots story doesn’t fit.
So back to square one, waiting on further forensic examination.
You are making uniformed speculation - and that is exactly what let to the riots and looting...uninformed speculation and public pronouncements based on such.
Please direct me to the autopsy report - I haven’t seen that. I would like to.
There was a report of abrasions to the face - so I don’t understand why you rule that out in your odd march to a faulty conclusion...your conclusion may indeed be correct, but the way you got there is faulty, so it has no credibility.
Let me repeat - it is entirely possible to fall forward without receiving abrasions.
Falling and shot in the head, sure, but there’s no abrasion marks on Brown’s knees, hands. How does one charge and fall on concrete without that happening?
How did you acquire that information, and is it verifiable?
“...2 downward shots top of head...”
Here is what I read - btw, this guy is a legitimate doctor/medical examiner - not the guy claiming to be something he is not:
“The New York Times reported the results of a private autopsy conducted by Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by the Brown family.
Baden conducted the autopsy on Sunday, according to the Times.
One bullet entered the top of Brown’s skull. Four struck him in the right arm. All bullets hit Brown in the front of the body, according to the autopsy.
According to Baden, the shots did not appear to have been fired at close range given the lack of gunpowder on Brown’s body. A further determination on gunpowder will have to be made after assessing the teen’s clothes.
Baden provided a diagram to the Times, which shows that the bullet that that struck Brown in the head entered while he was bent forward.
“It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer,” Baden said.”
Abrasion to the face, yes, how did that happen since you claim one may not get a such an injury when falling on concrete? He’s in static position to get abrasion to face. Charging, moving on concrete one gets abrasions to knees, etc.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preliminary-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-six-times/
Last sentence.
Are you really that foolish? I didn’t say one would NEVER get abrasions, I said it is POSSIBLE for one NOT to get abrasions.
You are basing your entire conclusion on the lack of abrasions - it is faulty. Your entire argument is foolish, and your last post proves you don’t have the capacity to reach a logical conclusion - PERIOD.
The cite you give - the last line - is from the family’s lawyer, doing his best to spin the findings....the same guy, who a couple of paragraphs earlier states that the autopsy proves the witness accounts are true...that he was shot several times. This guy doesn’t bother to point out that it also disproved the “shot in the back” testimony...so I count his statements as very untrustworthy.
Two paragraphs up from the line you point out, is Dr. Badens statement about how many bullets went into the top of the head. Please read that and report back....
More big talk, but no explanation by GilesB on the downward trajectory of 2 wounds, no abrasions. Yawn
It’s an autopsy report. Now we’re being fickle with information huh? hahahahaa
You can easily read elsewhere the trajectory of a round from eye thru jaw to collarbone. Let’s not be coy.
“Brown had abrasions on his face from where he fell to the ground, but there was ‘otherwise no evidence of a struggle.’”
Again, research those findings, it’s in many articles, they are from the autopsy report. No damage to body other than minor abrasion to face. No sign of altercation.
So as of now, with what’s been presented (which people will accept or not) this is what we have.
Heavy guy charges/running with no abrasions to knees or legs or elbows on pavement falling forward getting shot?
Don’t think so.
If guy was static, yeah I’d say belly hit first.
And if he was running, he could easily have landed face first. But again, you seem to be making arguments based on facts not in evidence. Are there published autopsy results stating there were no abrasions, or are you making unwarranted assumptions?
Yes there are published results, go look them up in the news. Or my latest posts here with link, and what’s in quotes. This info is reported on many outlets.
If one is in the middle of running, central nervous system head shot, system shut down, knees drop first, guy that heavy, it’s gonna hit hard.
But no abrasions. And if the guy’s already down at lower position, consistent with downward last 2 head shots, he falls consistent with abrasion to face. Which is what was found - 2 downward trajectory shots to face/head, only one abrasion to face.
But hey, I’m still waiting for total forensic investigation as well.
If he took it in the top of the head because he stumbled after being shot in the arm and eye socket, and is falling forward, he's going to fall flat.
Right now there's two stories. He's either charging toward the officer or standing still with his hands in the air. There's only one of those scenarios I can reconcile with the wound pattern on his right arm.
I am not a forensic scientist, it is not for me to explain it. Neither are you - but I know your claims of what MUST have happened is just pure poppycock. You have proven you have no grasp of logic, and you continue to ignore the simple fact that lack of abrausons does not prove that he didn’t fall forward.
You nor nobody else has prodiced an autopsy report that I have seen. Lot’s of tald about what is supposedly said, but not report that I’ve seen...and I’m fairly certain that all you’ve seen are second hand talk about what the report said.
You claim more knowledge and expertise than I believe you have.
And free TV’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.