Brown Autopsy Report Leaked by NYT

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Libertygal

originally posted by: cripmeister

originally posted by: Libertygal
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

As it stands now, the officer will have a near impossible chance at a fair, impartial trial, let alone in Ferguson.

Expect a change in venue, IF he is indicted.

Darren Wilson will be indicted and he will be convicted. Darren Wilson will serve his time in general population alongside black men he arrested, harassed and assaulted. Justice will be served.

I would be willing to wager you had George Zimmerman hung before the evidence was gathered, and a jury was selected, as well.

Is that why you're employing the same tactics?

LOOK AT THIS BLACK "KID!" HE'S A GIANT! HE'S A THUG! HE HAD MARIJUANA IN HIS SYSTEM!

I watched the whole trial, my opinion remains unchanged. I never thought GZ was a racist or that he set out that night to kill anyone, but I did think that he was a wanna be cop and he profiled TM.

Can you imagine an armed vigilante exiting his vehicle and pursuing you, without identifying himself or stating his intentions, hell bent on questioning you because to him, you looked suspicious? You might conclude that you were being stalked by a rapist or a mugger. So you duck around a building and hide in the bushes and maybe you panic and you pepper spray the man and knee him in the groin. At that point, he feels that you are probably going to incapacitate him and then he won't be able to maintain control of his gun, so he shoots you in the chest and you die.

Sure, you could have run because you were looking to avoid confrontation (let's not even get into the stand your ground aspects). Then again the armed wanna be could have been satisfied with calling the cops and letting them harass you instead.

I guess I just believe people shouldn't be running around trying to play cop and harassing people who aren't doing anything to them. I actually don't even expect cops to harass me when I'm not doing anything, silly me!

I am not employing any tactics.


Sorry you seem butt hurt.

Funny, how people want information, unless it goes against their stance or belief.

It doesn't matter if it is a leaked autopsy report, or tox report.

However, Johnsons' attorney just confirmed on television the tox report was factual.

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut
Please note:
"...the only place the victim could have..."
"...If he was shot from the back in the right arm..."

Most of your "facts" are not established facts...yet.
They may eventually, become facts...but are highly contested at the moment...
Have you read through this thread?

1st - we do not know that he was shot in/from the back
2nd - we do not know that his hands went up (in surrender)
3rd - we do know that he was 'shot more'
4th - we do know that he died
Between 3rd & 4th, however, there appears to be a slightly longer version of the story than what you have postulated. Some of which is alluded to in the post you responded to...
Do we simply ignore the information/possibilities that don't fit our 'summary verdicts'...?
Seems like it.

a reply to: Libertygal

But thats ok because hes a thug and deserved to die right?
unarmed and fleeing. that is in no way acceptable to shoot to kill a person regardless of their character.
ask any judge. home invasion, they flee the home and then get killed by the homeowner, homeowner goes to prison for murder
(i know, i put words in your mouth. sorry)

Photo of the police confirm on CNN ( could be a error, but it's they show the guy in the video witness too )

twitter.com...

a reply to: WanDash

No we don't ignore any of the provided evidence. i was going with the report and BTW they do know if he was shot in the front or back as forensics would determine
but that has yet to be released

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said any such thing, inferred, implied, or otherwise.

I challenge you to produce evidence otherwise, or stop discussing me, and discuss the topic.

If you don't like the information, perhaps you should look within, and stop projecting.

And no, I don't accept the apology. Don't put words in my mouth, period. I dislike immensely things like that being attributed to me, by any design.

a reply to: Libertygal

I have been discussing the evidence as it brought to light.
if you don't like the apology, tough. it is what it was and i wont apologize further

a reply to: FreeQuebec86

Any context of when that was taken? As in before or after shooting?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Libertygal

according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

Not a fact yet, source can not be verified so how could it be seen as fact?
And weed in system does not mean under influence during event. Weed stays in your system for a month, could of been from usage from up to 30 days prior if not more if he was a chronic user.

And we all know chronic users go 30 days between use, and that's why they are chronic users and not casual users, right?

And chronic users wouldn't steal cigars to roll blunts, would they?

Lots of cigars.

The tox report was just confirmed as factual, btw, by Johnsons' attorney. Perhaps he talks too much.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: FreeQuebec86

Any context of when that was taken? As in before or after shooting?

That was him receiving a commendation some time ago.

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
a reply to: Libertygal

I have been discussing the evidence as it brought to light.
if you don't like the apology, tough. it is what it was and i wont apologize further

So, I can call you names, and say false things about you, as long as I include an apology in the last line?

Think we can get a mod, or SO to weigh in on that?

I would be intetested in their take.

a reply to: Libertygal

So your implying that mike was a chronic user, I guess you could know that some how.
But i guess your point is if he was a chronic user then he was under the influence which is true and untrue.
If he was stealing the cigars, seems like he was getting ready to.
My post was just stating that weed can be in your system for 30 days if not longer. So the weed found in system does not equal high at the time.
I would venture to say he wasn't based on he acted in the market, but that is speculation.
And i was even wrong cause in blood it is 6 months.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You were the one that said that said thc stayed in the system of a chronic user up to 30 days.

I was pointing to a flaw in your logic.

It is a known fact that marijuana users use cigars to roll blunts.

It would seem logical if someone felt a need to have 3 boxes of cigars, they either used marijuana on a frequent basis, or, perhaps, sell it.

I am not making a determination, either way, except to state that chronic does not equal occasional. Chronic means frequent, sometimes heavy, abuse of a substance.

Thc would remain in the system of a one time user for up to 30 days.

Ie: tobacco use. You can be referred to as a tobacco user, or a tobacco abuser, based on the amount you smoke. A person who smokes daily for a period of time would be termed a chronic user.

It is actually a medical term, so feel free to look it up.

By that very fact, you cannot attempt to ascribe a chronic use of something as how it remains in your system for up to 30 days.

By it's very definition, chronic use would allow it to never be out of your system.

There are two types of toxicology tests. Quantitive and qualitative.

A qualitative test just says yes, it's there. A qualitative test is a rapid screen, and can be done on both urine and blood.

A quantitative test takes longer, and determines the actual level. Those tests, along with other toxicogy tests, are the ones that will take 4-6 weeks to get results.

In all honesty, you have no reason to make any statements beyond yep, it's there, until the qualitative results are in, because anything other than presence in the system is just guessing. You, me, no one else, can make any statements on whether his use was casual, chronic, or otherwise. That day may have been the first day he ever used marijuana.

However, as I pointed out, much to your chagrin it would seem, the cigars are certainly a symptom of a larger issue. That cannot be denied. The statement certainly can be made that he simply liked smoking cigars. Not going to argue that.

But, that would be akin to saying that someone with Fruit drink, codeine cough syrup, and candy simply had a cold, wanted a drink and some candy, and would never make lean.

It necessitates a certain level of willful ignorance.

The autopsye arms 2 shoot prouve that : ( Left side of his right arm )


1- He was running aways
2- Was facing the police... Hands ups...
3- Or during the "fight struggle"

These 2 shoot can be there if you are stand still or running toward. Because you left-side of the arm is facing your back

a reply to: UnBreakable

Holder himself will shoot the corpse in the back a couple times, rest assured. That third autopsy will show what is needed politically.

a reply to: WanDash
Thank you. Excellent post. It cannot be denied that some, instead of seeking facts, have a definite agenda. Either way it goes, justice should be served. If the police officer is wrong, he should be punished. If he wasn't, he should not be sacrificed for the will of an outspoken few.

Regardless, a lynching of no man should happen, be he black, or white. That is not justice, it is revenge. Some people, however, confuse the two, or willfully lie in an attempt to hide their true agenda.

The truth eventually outs, however.

Have you seen what Anderson Cooper tweeted? This speaks volumes more than all the megaphones the past week.



This image makes me both sad and bitterly angry, at the same time, for many reasons. More than I could go into in three posts. But, suffice it to say, this type of mentality is not going to help, and it shows the deep reality, the truth, that some of these people are harboring.

Justice, if one were to ask, means one thing and one thing only. The death of the police officer. They don't care if he was justified or not. They honestly believe that one human life should be sacrificed for the black community, the "collective", and that's a sickness no amount of talking will heal.

a reply to: Libertygal

It would seem logical if someone felt a need to have 3 boxes of cigars, they either used marijuana on a frequent basis, or, perhaps, sell it.

So now he might be selling weed too.
Maybe if he was stealing ziplock bags that would make sense. But he was stealing something used to smoke it, not sell it.

By that very fact, you cannot attempt to ascribe a chronic use of something as how it remains in your system for up to 30 days.

Sure you can, cause they can also stop using it at anytime. And at that point it could be in your system for over 30 days.

And I said that thc stayed in your system for 30 days and longer if your are a chronic user.
So this statement

You were the one that said that said thc stayed in the system of a chronic user up to 30 days.

Is not accurate of what I said
Weed stays in your system for a month, could of been from usage from up to 30 days prior if not more if he was a chronic user.
That is what I said.

However, as I pointed out, much to your chagrin it would seem, the cigars are certainly a symptom of a larger issue.

Just to clarify, is that larger issue that he may have been selling? Or is it a different larger issue.

And I don't get how you can tell me this

In all honesty, you have no reason to make any statements beyond yep, it's there, until the qualitative results are in, because anything other than presence in the system is just guessing.

And then go on to say that he might be selling, cause that same statement applies to you as well.

Oh and lean isn't made with fruit drink, it is made with soda.

originally posted by: DexteramLucifer
a reply to: Sremmos80

Did we not go through this in another thread with one other poster who used this same wapo article as proof of a toxicology report ? This is what I was talking about in saying that stuff like this is what causes stories to become convoluted.

I will say it again, in case it gets lost in the kerfuffle.
This tox report has been confirmed as true and correct by multiple sources now, including Johnson's attorney, several other officials, including an ME that was interviewed, and Ben Crump. It is now treated as fact.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Would just like to caveat that it doesn't matter if he had smoked weed 10 minutes prior. Weed does not, regardless of how much smoked, make you violent... rather the opposite.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Your bias is obvious, so, not going to continue.

I know there is more than one way to make lean, as well. Not going there, either.

My statements speak for themselves, and attempting to paint them in a different light just won't work with me. I refuse to be baited any longer, into arguing semantics.

I explained, rather succinctly, the difference between chronic and casual use. I stated he may have only ever used once.
I explained the difference in qualitative and quantitive toxicology reports, and the time periods needed to get results.
I stated the possible reasons for wanting to steal that many cigars.
1. To smoke a lot of cigars
2. To smoke a lot of blunts
3. To sell and smoke
I never said HE sold.

Your knee jerk responses speak clearly of your position, and no amount of reasoned discussion is going to make any difference, however, I will not allow you, or anyone else, to make statements about my posts, that are incorrect.