Autopsy results enough to charge officer, Brown family attorney says

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It supported the narrative that Mr. Brown was shot in the back

Again, who said that? No one said "shot in the back" Did I miss something?

Autopsy results enough to charge officer, Brown family attorney says


I s Anyone surprised ???

the Lawyer wants his Fee.... so he is going to tell the 'Deceased' family what they want to hear... regardless if the legal avenue is completely stupid-useless-un-winnable waste of time & resources

a reply to: FlySolo

Mr. Johnson, who said Mr. Brown turned around after he felt the shot. The implication is that he was shot in the back and that narrative was picked up by many of the protesters.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: FlySolo

Mr. Johnson, who said Mr. Brown turned around after he felt the shot. The implication is that he was shot in the back and that narrative was picked up by many of the protesters.

Now we're getting somewhere. No, unfortunately that narrative is being picked up by ATS, right here. The good people of Ferguson are just mad as hell that an unarmed black kid was killed in cold blood.

a reply to: FlySolo

It was in Ferguson due to that interview with Mr. Johnson and was not completely dispelled until Dr. Baden's report.

Expert: Autopsy Reveals Eyewitness Accounts That Brown Was Shot In Back Are ‘False’

Info on CNN that there are 6 bullet wound, but only 3 bullet found by private autopsy ... So maybe the police dept take them off ? why?

a reply to: FreeQuebec86

They could have fragmented in the body. The X-rays have not been released yet which will show any additional fragments that may have remained.

What I find odd is the Browns lawyer is the same from Trayvon Martin family's.

Right now we all should wait to see what the grand jury decides on, as that is what will determine if there is enough evidence to proceed or not.

But here is the question that is on my mind. What if the Grand Jury decides that there is not enough evidence to support a trial, then what?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: FlySolo

It was in Ferguson due to that interview with Mr. Johnson and was not completely dispelled until Dr. Baden's report.

Expert: Autopsy Reveals Eyewitness Accounts That Brown Was Shot In Back Are ‘False’

That is the story of the eyewitness, the friend of Michael Brown, Dorian Johnson, was that Michael Brown had been running away from the vehicle and a shot was fired. That apparently is false,” Koblinsky told CBS News. “He was not shot in the back. What a pathologist does is look at entrance and exit wounds and it is clear that no shot was fired at his back.”

Even Koblinsky is using the incorrect narrative when the article states what Johnson said verbatim

He shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air, and he started to get down,” Johnson said. “But the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots.”

And would seem the ATS crowd is drawing to this particular narrative like moths to a flame. The argument here really lays with semantics. Johnson said "shot was fired" and Koblinsky said "false". He's making that assumption, not Johnson

Koblinsky added that the gun was at least two to three feet away from Brown at the time of the shooting.

I guess that qualifies for "point blank" btw.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are not false, they could be mistaken.
If you see some one running, hear a shot and see the person jerk and turn, you might assume he was shot.
What would make them false if it can be proven that he did not shoot as he ran away, and has that been proven?

a reply to: FlySolo

The narrative was picked up by more than this site, it was being repeated in ferguson after the shooting.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I was referring to the false narrative that Mr. Brown was shot in the back.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter does it. If Brown was shot in the back that would be bad. Brown not shot in the back but in the head is still just as bad. The only way the shooting could be justified from the front is if Brown charged, but that isn't in the narrative at all. It would be pretty safe to assume at this point that this was not a justified shooting.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: FlySolo

Mr. Johnson, who said Mr. Brown turned around after he felt the shot. The implication is that he was shot in the back and that narrative was picked up by many of the protesters.

Dorian Johnson, seated next to his attorney, made 3 very important claims.

1. Michael was shot in the right arm while struggling with Darren over the weapon in the truck (7:05)
2. Michael was shot in the BACK (9:05)
3. Michael NEVER SAID "Don't shoot me, I am unarmed." (9:28)

Interview of Dorian Johnson (with Mike Brown duri…: youtu.be...

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Johnson never said he was shot in the back, he said " he shot again and once my friend felt that shot he put his hands up and started to get down. The officer approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots"

Johnson did, indeed, say that, in about two or three other interviews. See the MSNBC interview posted, seated next to his attorney, and being questioned by Al Sharlton, for proof.

He also never said, "Don't shoot, I am unarmed." as was claimed.
W
These are all lies.

a reply to: FlySolo

Yes, let's believe the guy that was dumb enough to have the makings for sizzurup, including a full pharmacy bottle of codeine cough syrup, on the counter.

Very, very, credible source.

At this point anyone defending the cop just sickens me. There is no excuse to shoot an unarmed person six times! The cop should have used equivalent force to bring him under control. Using a taser in this case might have been acceptable, but not his gun.

That's just what gets me. We know for a fact that Brown was unarmed, and shot six times. I don't even care if he was running away or assaulting the cop. Shooting an unarmed person six times is unacceptable under any circumstances. The cop should have used a non-lethal method to subdue him.

When I was younger I believe there was a law about the police use equivalent force in response to violence. I can't find anything about that today. It might have been something that got buried years or decades ago as they became more militarized. IMO if it's not there now it's something that should be put into effect again. They are supposed to protect and serve, not overwhelm and destroy.

originally posted by: FlySolo
The only way the shooting could be justified from the front is if Brown charged, but that isn't in the narrative at all. It would be pretty safe to assume at this point that this was not a justified shooting.

That possibility was not ruled out by Dr. Baden's findings as he felt it was one of only two viable options.

a reply to: LDragonFire

And how many hundreds of daily intervention has happened since then. Rodney King made an attempt to run from police and it escalated the problem. That was many years ago. It makes as much sense as "it is Bush's fault".