“The rich” control the parties in every nation on Earth and these problems don’t exist in all of them. The problem is that the parties don’t agree on whether a problem exists, what the problem is, or how to solve it, and one party’s platform is based around the idea that stopping the other party from accomplishing anything is more important than serving the public good.
That being said, anyone who thinks riots and looting are an appropriate form of.class struggle,.or that they will achieve anything positive for the working class,.is a counterproductive fool and an enemy of the people and a criminal to boot and should be trea d accordingly.
Yep, saw a link to this thread at the “other place”, and saw the same bullshit as in every other thread about this sort of issue, mainly blaming the victim of an assault for defending himself, and justifying riots and looting as “legitimate protest”.
As for spoiling for a fight, not really. Just posting in a pit-appropriate manner.
That would be elucidator’s schtick, not mine… If that’s his complaint, he’s an idiot who’s based his knowledge of shooting on movies. Not that he’s the only one who does that here, along with their knowledge of forensics and the legal system.
But hey, thanks for noticing I wasn’t around as much, it’s nice to know you care
… and EACH party’s platform is based around the idea that stopping the other party from accomplishing anything is more important than serving the public good.
Fixed that spelling error for you.
If you read carefully you’ll see that the guy is not claiming that there’s any indication that he was shot from the back. What it’s saying is that it entered the top of his head at the hairline and came out at his eye. Neither of these are consistent with being shot from the back.
The idea is that either his head was bent down or the cop was standing over him.
Note to journalists, if you’re going to issue a clarification, try not to write a monstrosity like “The shot entered behind the location of the exit wound.” What the fuck does that mean?
No, it’s a terrible sentence. His English teacher should be shot “behind the location of” the shed.
First, “the location of” is entirely superfluous and confusing. Even “The shot entered behind the exit wound” is better.
Second, “behind” is a very ambiguous description in this context, since when talking about wounds we might use that word to mean depth in the body or transverse distance across the outside of the body. And using it to mean the second thing is especially confusing since your frame of reference could plausibly be facing the front of the body or the back of the body. Even “up” or “above” would have been less confusing since you probably aren’t envisioning the body upside down and they could not refer to depth in this context, though your choice is even better.
Anything else we can argue about while we wait for more details?
The pertinent wound is not any of the head wounds, we’re talking about the grazing wound in the middle of Brown’s right arm that Baden and Parcells say is consistent with a shot fired from the rear. It’s in the Wire article cited by Sinaptics.
I’m not endorsing the English teacher, but what they’re saying is clear.
They’re saying the grazing shot is “consistent with” him being shot from the back, but that’s not the same thing as the shot being “back to front”.
They’re clearly referring to the shot referred to in the preceding paragraph, about which they say “The first was the shot to that entered the top of Brown’s head near his hairline behind the exit wound by his right eye.” (emphasis mine). “Behind the exit wound” is a description of a “back to front” shot.
Look, the article is pretty clear about this, Fotheringay-Phipps. There were “two shots in particular that correlated with witness accounts of the shooting,” according to the article. The doctors characterized the head wound as being delivered “from above, down into Brown’s head”. That does not sound like they -or the article authors- are calling it ‘back to front’.
But they are calling the grazing arm wound consistent with a shot from behind Brown. This to me means they’re saying it entered the back of the arm and traveled toward the front of the arm.
ETA: And isn’t it a picayune nit to pick that “a shot fired from the back is not the same thing as the shot being ‘back to front’”? The import is not in the precise term used but in what that means to the competing narratives.
You must have missed the interview on CNN where the autopsy assistant talked about the mobility of the arm and how quickly it can change position and therefore they really could not say how or in what position the arm was in when it was hit.
The problem is too many are taking the media’s editing/presenting of the reports as gospel. People think reporters are unicums of logic.
I didn’t miss anything. Carefully read what I’m saying, and what the article is saying please.
“Back to front” in this context means “from the back of the arm toward to front of the arm.” Yes, that might also be consistent with a shot fired from in front of a man with his arms raised in a manner which presented the “back” of the arm toward the front. I am not a doctor, certainly not one of the doctors who performed the autopsy, so I can’t really say whether that’s true in this case. You’d have to ask them (which is more than reporters seem to want to do).
See reply to Morgenstern, above. In addition, that’s exactly what they’re saying the wound is “consistent with,” using the words I quoted above. It’s also possibly consistent with other relative positions and scenarios, but *the doctors did not list any others *in the press conference as reported in that article. And that’s not my problem to deal with; you don’t like it take it up with the reporters or the doctors.
