100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Autopsy of slain Missouri teen shows | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
death to idiots, and mingle will be much less crowded 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the autopsy shows by factual evidence is that the officer was telling the truth and the witnesses were lying. It also shows that Brown was going for the gun when he was shot in the hand. It was the duty of the officer to arrest Brown. From the factual evidence it is clear the officer was in the right and Brown was in the wrong. Speculation about what is NOT in factual evidence doesn't matter anymore. The officer should be cleared of any wrongdoing. Here here, and give him a medal too for all the crap he's had to put up with. He wasted a common thug, a bully, a burden on society, so who gives a s--t. And saved the tax payers a lifetime of expense from jail, parole and welfare. Bbbbut, he was heading for college and Probably would have become a brain surgeon. 
Well, Thugs do refer to prison as college..................... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the autopsy shows by factual evidence is that the officer was telling the truth and the witnesses were lying. It also shows that Brown was going for the gun when he was shot in the hand. It was the duty of the officer to arrest Brown. From the factual evidence it is clear the officer was in the right and Brown was in the wrong. Speculation about what is NOT in factual evidence doesn't matter anymore. The officer should be cleared of any wrongdoing. it did not show that it shows that HE WAS SHOT IN THE HAND AT THE CAR (which only one witness refuted, the struggle at the car) and He did not have his hands Raised WHEN HE WAS SHOT IN THE HAND it shows nothing else the officer statement is that he RAN and the officer gave chase, witnesses statements describe events AFTER BROWN RAN nothing about the autopsy refutes the chase or how the shots happened AFTER THE CHASE The documents, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and analyzed by two experts not directly involved in the case, appears to contradict witness accounts that claimed Brown was running away from Police Officer Darren Wilson when he was killed on Aug. 9. The new information comes on the heels of reports that Wilson told authorities Brown had reached inside Wilson’s police SUV and struggled for his gun, resulting in Wilson firing twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Moments later and outside of the vehicle, Wilson fired the fatal bullets that sparked a national controversy. The newspaper had St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, review the autopsy report, and he determined that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car” including a shot that hit Brown’s right hand. Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco who also reviewed the documents, concurred that the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun" and that it did not support claims Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up. The toxicology test. also obtained by the newspaper and performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed marijuana in Brown’s blood and urine. Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, told the newspaper THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions. “The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,” Staubus said. The shots fired outside of the vehicle hit Brown in the forehead, upper right arm and twice in the chest, Melinek said. The fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head indicates he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter, she said. The fact that a sixth shot hit his forearm and traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm shows Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/22/official-michael-brown-autopsy-reportedly-reveals-teen-was-shot-at-close-range/ *Sigh* there is no hope for Libbo race baiters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
death to idiots, and mingle will be much less crowded I pray for that every day and the Libbo's keep waking up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the autopsy shows by factual evidence is that the officer was telling the truth and the witnesses were lying. It also shows that Brown was going for the gun when he was shot in the hand. It was the duty of the officer to arrest Brown. From the factual evidence it is clear the officer was in the right and Brown was in the wrong. Speculation about what is NOT in factual evidence doesn't matter anymore. The officer should be cleared of any wrongdoing. it did not show that it shows that HE WAS SHOT IN THE HAND AT THE CAR (which only one witness refuted, the struggle at the car) and He did not have his hands Raised WHEN HE WAS SHOT IN THE HAND it shows nothing else the officer statement is that he RAN and the officer gave chase, witnesses statements describe events AFTER BROWN RAN nothing about the autopsy refutes the chase or how the shots happened AFTER THE CHASE The documents, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and analyzed by two experts not directly involved in the case, appears to contradict witness accounts that claimed Brown was running away from Police Officer Darren Wilson when he was killed on Aug. 9. The new information comes on the heels of reports that Wilson told authorities Brown had reached inside Wilson’s police SUV and struggled for his gun, resulting in Wilson firing twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Moments later and outside of the vehicle, Wilson fired the fatal bullets that sparked a national controversy. The newspaper had St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, review the autopsy report, and he determined that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car” including a shot that hit Brown’s right hand. Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco who also reviewed the documents, concurred that the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun" and that it did not support claims Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up. The toxicology test. also obtained by the newspaper and performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed marijuana in Brown’s blood and urine. Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, told the newspaper THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions. “The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,” Staubus said. The shots fired outside of the vehicle hit Brown in the forehead, upper right arm and twice in the chest, Melinek said. The fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head indicates he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter, she said. The fact that a sixth shot hit his forearm and traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm shows Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/22/official-michael-brown-autopsy-reportedly-reveals-teen-was-shot-at-close-range/ *Sigh* there is no hope for Libbo race baiters. lol @ 'race baiter' we have someone dead, and someone who shot him, SIX TIMEs the autopsy answers where the shot to the hand took place it answers what direction the head was when it was shot there is PLENTY of blank to fill in,,, there were SIX shots, an altercation and a chase occurring throughout,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not once he RAN Away WITHOUT A WEAPON threat dissolved,,, When a threat retreats the IMMEDIATE threat is dissolved. This is correct regardless if the person is armed. The danger still exists, however, and vigilance is stepped up accordingly. Admittedly I haven't been following this story so maybe there is evidence that may lead to the contrary, but if a person, who was a deadly threat merely a few seconds earlier, turns and runs at you, they again become an immediate threat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF they turn and RUN at you, that's true
IF people will believe that after being shot and running the deceased decided to stop running so they could turn and RUN towards the shots,,,,,,,,is the issue but they did believe a kid who was trying to GET AWAY from a stalker and get home to a championship game, suddenly delayed everything to turn around and go back to RISK attacking that same person,,,, |
|
|
|
|
