Autopsy results enough to charge officer, Brown family attorney says

a reply to: amazing
Alot of people are failing to see the bigger picture here..maybee they don't want to.

a reply to: LDragonFire

In other news, the Fox guarding the hen-house spoke to reporters today, telling them all how well the chickens in his care are doing.

"Trust me..." he said, between feathers sticking out of his teeth.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Pistols are notoriously poor at stopping a human.

There have been many cases where people have been shot multiple times, continued to fight and survived. Even when being shot in the head.

You should do a little more research on pistol ballistics. You may be surprised at what you find.

originally posted by: amazing
There was no need to shoot him. this was Murder.

What evidence have you gathered to this point that leads to that conclusion?

a reply to: amazing

What about the thugs on the other side, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, the gangster, the dealer selling drugs to your kids, the abusers, the molesters? Those are the REAL thugs....

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: amazing
There was no need to shoot him. this was Murder.

What evidence have you gathered to this point that leads to that conclusion?

This man had no weapon. Sure he was a big man, but it's just another example of Police Murder. The autopsy report, the eyewitness accounts. Tussling with the police does not equate to a death sentence. It used to be that the police would shoot as a last resort, but not any longer.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
a reply to: amazing

What about the thugs on the other side, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, the gangster, the dealer selling drugs to your kids, the abusers, the molesters? Those are the REAL thugs....

Right! That's a lot to worry about. I am worried about them. It used to be that the police would be on my side, helping me defend against those types of criminals. Now, I have to worry about the police too. I have to add the police to that list of thugs. It shouldn't be that way. It didn't use to be that way.

originally posted by: amazing
There was no need to shoot him. this was Murder.

Seriously? You have enough information to make this kind of statement? It sure sounds ignorant to me, but then, I don't know all the facts yet. I don't know if there was a dash cam video that has yet to be released, or what the officers story is. I only know what Mike Brown's buddies have said. And I am sure they would not twist any facts.

Point is, nobody has enough information to make any judgements at this point.

a reply to: amazing

So you're saying that he was murdered because he was unarmed? No matter if he attacked the cop or not?

what about the fact he was shot through the back of the head.....the bullet exited his eye......yeah real threat with his back turned.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Is that really conclusive evidence?

Attorneys aren't proficient in ballistics or crime scene investigations so they can't presume with any certainty that they know exactly what happened at that fatal moment. Sure the officer involved was identified and he will be held accountable, but for the attorney to come out and say that he has proof of how events unfolded is another thing altogether.

The problem is with highly publicized cases like this is that lawyers will be climbing over their grandmothers to get a chance of representing the victim, and I hope that the this suit is working pro bono because if he isn't he'll just be another cretin who is cashing in on another tragedy.

One thing is certain though: this won't be settled anytime soon.

a reply to: amazing

Just so you know, as soon as you go for an officers weapon, you are considered armed in their eyes.

originally posted by: gary714
what about the fact he was shot through the back of the head.....the bullet exited his eye......yeah real threat with his back turned.

At this point, we simply do not know the facts to say that he had his back turned for sure. Say hew was shot reaching for the officer, was hit by a few bullets and then retreated? That would be an explanation right there.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: LDragonFire

Pistols are notoriously poor at stopping a human.

There have been many cases where people have been shot multiple times, continued to fight and survived. Even when being shot in the head.

You should do a little more research on pistol ballistics. You may be surprised at what you find.

I agree. There is a video of a trauma surgeon floating around where he talks about the ineffectiveness of most pistol calibers.

He states that only 1 out of 5 people actually die from injuries sustained when shot with a handgun.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
a reply to: amazing

Just so you know, as soon as you go for an officers weapon, you are considered armed in their eyes.

We don't know that he went for the gun and simple assault on a police officer doesn't qualify as attempted murder.

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: gary714
what about the fact he was shot through the back of the head.....the bullet exited his eye......yeah real threat with his back turned.

At this point, we simply do not know the facts to say that he had his back turned for sure. Say hew was shot reaching for the officer, was hit by a few bullets and then retreated? That would be an explanation right there.

I've got a better one. Being gut shot makes you bend over. Still facing the cop but not face first. This makes sense to me.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: thesmokingman
a reply to: amazing

Just so you know, as soon as you go for an officers weapon, you are considered armed in their eyes.

We don't know that he went for the gun and simple assault on a police officer doesn't qualify as attempted murder.

Right. "We don't know". But you've already convicted the guy.

No shots to the back, so all of them testimonies are fabricated and not a shred of what they say otherwise will be any good in a court.

No toxicology leaked yet
No clothing evidence leaked yet

The dead guys violent nature is a proven fact now with the store robbery video.

So much for the picture perfect image that was first attempted to be portrayed. That will easily be shredded in a court of law also.

a reply to: amazing

You are right we dont know, but we do have what the police have said that happened, and they said there was a struggle, and that he was going for the officers gun.

originally posted by: intrepid
I've got a better one. Being gut shot makes you bend over. Still facing the cop but not face first. This makes sense to me.

IF he was charging the officer, it's possible that during the succession of shots fired one of them doubled him over and as he was falling forward the last shot struck him in the top of the head. One possibility.