Pathologist Michael Baden had not seen the original xrays taken before the autopsy and that information isn’t available yet. Three bullets have been recovered. The other three, or more, could still be in the body. It’s also not officially known how many shot were actually fired.
As I said, this was according to the pathologist at the press conference this morning:
The key word there is initial. His initial contact was for jaywalking. At some point after the initial contact, but before the shooting, Wilson says he saw the cigars and made the mental connection between the person he was confronting and the person described over the radio. It certainly helps explain the sudden escalation of the situation (while not in itself justifying the shooting).
So, in an enclosed environment, like a vehicle, the chance seems likely that he should have residue on his person.
Following this train of thought, I’ve been imaging in my mind that the officer and the teens were traveling towards each other so that the teens were next to the driver’s window of the patrol car. Does anyone know if that is, in fact, the case?
Additionally, do we know what model gun was used by the officer?
That’s just the first link that comes up in about a 2 second google search for PCP shooting. I don’t have time to collect the 100’s of stories over the years about PCP heads seeming superhuman in their ability to stay on the attack even when they are turned into swiss cheese, tased, or pepper sprayed (or all three).
I guess you’ll hang your hat on the 20 shot hyperbole in my post now right? Ok you win…:rolleyes:
You want a police force that avoids confrontation? That’s easy just come by the station to fill out a report. Hopefully the criminals will all turn themselves in.
-
Are you trying to establish a self defense motive? There was an initial verbal exchange about jaywalking. Then a physical contact happened when it was realized that there was a possible suspect of a crime. A police officer is allowed to detain suspects. If you deem him an aggressor because of that so be it.
-
No it’s not. Jaywalking may have gotten him noticed but it is dishonest to say in any way that he was killed for jaywalking. It’s just as valid to say he was killed for robbery since that probably changed how he would react to the police soon after. Or he was killed for eating Cheerios since that started the whole sequence. No, he was killed because of what happened in the minutes after he was first noticed. Whether or not it is justified has not been determined.
-
That’s why I asked the question. So far you are the only one to answer. But there have been the usual silly posts about shooting extremities and how tasers are used. Maybe someone else will answer.
If he was trying to avoid confrontation with the police, he would not be walking down the middle of the road. People who are trying to avoid confrontations with the police do not make it impossible for the police to not notice them committing a crime.
Clean up, clarify: tomato tomahtoe. Either way all we have is a third party trying to relate what he heard. Probably through the filter of the investigating detectives since a Chief is not going to do the interviewing. Once we see what the officer said in his interview with the county and Feds then we will know what his actual story is. Which can be matched to the 911 and radio calls to prove when he was able to hear about the robbery.
(post shortened)
You have to remember that this was the 2nd autopsy and Baden and the other examiner did not have access to everything in the 1st autopsy. The clothing had not been reexamined, the blood had been drained and replaced, the body may even have been washed (hopefully not).
It? Wow.
“Wow” what? Is “it” no longer an acceptable pronoun to refer to a generic living being?
Aside from my own personal experience related to the self defense pistol classes I’ve taken? I’ll admit its a limited number of classes (3) but each stressed the desire to make the attacker stop, not kill them.
There is the philosophy from one firearms trainer stressing the “stopping power” of a handgun and not the “killing power”. This notion again supports the idea of using a firearm to stop a threat, not kill it.
You also have defensive trainer Gabe Surarez making the following statement:
“Defenders will fire their weapons until the threat disappears. That means that until the role player falls down (simulating effective hits delivered), or runs away (removing the target), the good guy will keep firing. The concept of school solutions, controlled pairs, or otherwise artificially limiting the number of shots (as one does in a firing string on the range) does not hold up even in guys who’ve been extensively trained to do it.”
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/07/robert-farago/how-many-bullets-do-you-need-in-your-home-defense-handgun/
In addition you have an article from the American Rifleman stating the purpose of using your handgun is getting the attacker to stop before he injures you
There is the US News report that shows if a defender uses a firearm they generally suffer fewer injuries. Does not address the desire to stop the action instead of kill the attacker, but greatly supports the notion that a firearm has a defensive use.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for-defense-leads-to-fewer-injuries
My link to the CDC report regarding the number of deaths vs the number of injuries of those shot is only intended to represent that firearms are not a magical death ray as some of the audience believes.
So bubbadog, now it is your turn – please present some cite that states the sole purpose of a defensive handgun, and the training to use one, is to kill someone.
Please see the above – People using firearms for self-defense are doing so in order to stop someone from doing something that will very likely greatly injure or kill that person. While death may occur that is not the intent.
Police use a simple color code to decide what to do with suspicious persons:
White Nevada Rancher: Let them continue to steal from the government
Light Brown Person: Ask for papers
Dark Brown Person: Shoot!
Sorry Elvis, I may have misread one of your previous sentences. Did you mean that Brown was less likely to avoid confrontation? Obviously not. It is a fact that he robbed the store. He appeared to be very confrontational. He didn’t care that anyone saw him. He was quite brazen. He was then walking down the middle of the street. That was confirmed by his friend. His friend has been proven to be a liar but I see no reason to doubt this since it doesn’t really help Brown. So we know he committed a robbery and then did nothing to hide from police or make himself less conspicuous. Just the opposite. Why? I don’t know. Was he drunk or high? Was he trying to impress his buddy? Was he used to using his size to intimidate people? Was he stupid? Or just immature? Maybe we will know at some point maybe we won’t.
Yes that happens every time. You so smart.
You can make up whatever you want to, but not if you want to participate in a good-faith discussion. A simple scroll-up will clarify for you that I’m concerned about who is the aggressor in a killing. Your reasons for evading that issue are your own but deserve some discussion.
To whatever extent the aggressor was the officer, sure. Why would that not be self-defense?
Isn’t it about time you cut that shit? :dubious: Somebody was responsible for making that contact. You won’t make yourself say who it was or why or how. But that’s the fucking point, innit?
More of that evasive passive-tense shit. Why IYHO did Wilson kill Brown?
Because I’m used to seeing you discuss topics honestly and in good faith. This is getting to be an exception, though.
Correct - and the only way to ensure that you have stopped an attacker is to kill them, because a guy who’s on the ground clutching his chest and gasping for air can still kill you with his other hand. That is how you use a handgun for self-defense.
Makes you look like one cold motherfucker.
One of the things Baden is pretty well-known for is testifying in defense of OJ Simpson. In that case his expert opinion was that there were multiple killers with multiple weapons, none of them OJ.
Note that this doesn’t disqualify anything he’s saying here, and what he has said seems to favor the cop, from what I can tell. But I’m speculating about the intention in having all these various autopsies to begin with, and I don’t think Baden’s reputation precludes him being a hired gun.
Fair point, but it would seem the same would still apply. In that case, his arms would also have been away from his head, but to the side.
We haven’t received full findings yet, so I wasn’t trying to jump to a narrative. Clothing analysis, for instance, will probably tell us a lot.
I was just adding another piece of data to the set.