Forgot about that, but eyewitness accounts can be wrong as proven many times...
Yes John Good stated several times he say Trayvon Martin on top raining down punches on George MMA style.
There were claims that Brown and the officer were in a physical altercation.....as such now it appears there was no contact at all...other than officers bullets to Browns body...wut? Sorry, explain what you mean by that? As in... no confrontation with the officer based on "damage" Brown's body?
Sorry, no arguing, I'm legitimately confused by what you are saying.
There were claims that Brown and the officer were in a physical altercation.....as such now it appears there was no contact at all...other than officers bullets to Browns body...
Forgot about that, but eyewitness accounts can be wrong as proven many times...
If Michael Brown hit the officer, being as big as he is reported to have been, wouldn't photos of serious wounds on the officer have been shown by now?
He should have been arrested and prosecuted for stealing cigars perhaps charged with assault in relation for that theft.
However, I find it hard to believe people are all right with someone being shot several times for the above.
If there is evidence of a serious assault on an officer that required deadly force that has been released maybe I just haven't seen it yet.
However, taking into account that eyewitnesses can be wildly unreliable, shooting someone who has their hands up several times until they drop dead over the robbery that we know of is just way beyond the pale. Has there been a definite indication about whether the officer knew of the cigar theft?
Also the coroner's report at first glance seems to indicate excessive force resulting in a fatality was used.
Perhaps I am missing something but it looks like a DA would easily get a Grand Jury to indict on manslaughter based on the information available now.
....
If Michael Brown hit the officer, being as big as he is reported to have been, wouldn't photos of serious wounds on the officer have been shown by now?
He should have been arrested and prosecuted for stealing cigars perhaps charged with assault in relation for that theft.
However, I find it hard to believe people are all right with someone being shot several times for the above.
If there is evidence of a serious assault on an officer that required deadly force that has been released maybe I just haven't seen it yet.
However, taking into account that eyewitnesses can be wildly unreliable, shooting someone who has their hands up several times until they drop dead over the robbery that we know of is just way beyond the pale. Has there been a definite indication about whether the officer knew of the cigar theft?
Also the coroner's report at first glance seems to indicate excessive force resulting in a fatality was used.
Perhaps I am missing something but it looks like a DA would easily get a Grand Jury to indict on manslaughter based on the information available now.
....
a few things
they haven't shown the pic fo the officer because they tried to protect him.
2nd is "evidence of a serious assault on an officer" is kinda wrong. there does not need to be a serious assault. just a minor assault is enough. hell acting like you are going to assault them is enough for the police to justify a shooting.
though you keep saying he was shot over a robbery. that is a lie. he was shot for assaulting the police.
Seems to me that this can support either contention, that Brown turned and was attempting to surrender (with his hands held straight out to ward off danger) or that Brown was charging the officer. Stopping and turning to surrender seems a lot more likely to me than running thirty-five feet and then turning to charge, although people do stupid stuff so we can't really say either way.Before I watch that, I'll leave this:
County investigation: Michael Brown was shot from the front, had marijuana in his system
*edit
Damn, after watching your video explanation I realize the arms in that drawing are turned over. Absolutely backwards from what I assumed a normal laid out position would be.
That one shot IS the "back" of the arm.
Good summation, although I've known some cops who have shot and killed fleeing suspects (60s and 70s) without suffering even a trial or loss of job. Cops get (and deserve) a lot of latitude.Just to let it be known, the autopsy picture doesn't discredit either side story yet.
1) One shot that grazed the inner part of the arm by the elbow is from front to back. The autopsy report doesn't show the direction of the wound, or if one could be determined. This could indeed be a shot fired while MB had his back facing the officer.
2) Being shot at in the back, MB could have turned, took stock of his current situation and realized he wasn't going to be able to hide from more shots from where he was. So perhaps he thought he could close the distance between himself and the officer to stop the officer from shooting him further and hope he didn't get hit on the charge in.
3) Officer sees MB charging him and fires more shots.
4) MB puts his arm up and over his face with the inner part of the arm facing outwards in an attempt to block shots to his head as he is running. His arm is in a position much like a person shading their eyes from the sun as he is running forward.
5) At one point MB stops running, puts his arm down, and the next two shots hit him in the head. Making him keel over.
That narrative, while I do not know if true, would follow along with most of the eye witness testimony as well as the autopsy findings. People watching from the side would see MB with his arm up, thinking it a surrender pose, when it was more to ward off incoming shots to his face.
The key is that wound at the elbow. If it was shot from behind, the cop is the one in trouble. Even if MB had attacked him in the vehicle. Again, I am not saying MB was not a thug that didn't deserve prison time for his actions. He most certainly deserved to be rotting in jail for his actions. The part I'm pointing out is the well established law that doesn't all officers to shoot at the back of a fleeing suspect except on very special circumstances.
What still needs to be determined is if the officer did shot at MB while his back was turned. Nothing yet released proves nor disproves that claim made by multiple eye witness accounts.
As for the human scum looting again, I wouldn't have shed a tear had they all been shot to death in the process of looting in a mob that size. I know had that been my establishment, they would all have been eating some lead.
For what it's worth I'm acquainted with two different men who have been shot at point blank range and survived without major disability, one taking five shots to the chest with a .38 and one taking five shots to the chest with a .32. The one shot with the .38 even went home and was picked up at home and taken to hospital before being arrested. The one shot with the .32 laid there until the ambulance came, totally if temporarily incapacitated. (The old man also ran over him before leaving, so that temporary incapacitation might not be all the result of the shooting.)No
You do not understand. If one shot was a back to front shot by the officer, that lends credence that the officer's FIRST shot was done at the backside of Michael Brown. An officer is NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT at an unarmed suspects backside. It quite clearly set into law this precedent as ruled by the Supreme Court of the US.
The whole case hinges upon that initial shot. If one shot was a back to front shot, then that lends credence to the multiple eye witness accounts that the officer fired upon a fleeing Michael Brown. If the officer shots in that regard then the officer broke the law. It doesn't matter that Brown turns around and charges the officer after being shot at while his back was turned. That can be seen a defensive, even if ineffective, action on account of Michael Brown to stop the officer from killing him. Again, that is ALSO a well established case law. Citizens have a right to defense themselves from law officers if the law officer is illegally using force against them.
Point being that if the officer shot at a retreating Brown then the officer broke the law and is criminally responsible for the death of Michael Brown. If the officer didn't shoot at Michael Brown's backside initially, then the shooting will be deemed legally justified use of force.
As for gun training of which I have plenty of,
You do not shoot to kill unless you are war or a criminal. You shoot to STOP A THREAT. That usually results in a death, but not always. Police are taught to shoot center mass for this reason. Headshots are very hard to do, have a chance of missing their intended target and hitting something else behind the target, and unless they hit the brain or spine just right then those shots aren't very effective at stopping the target. Death by shooting is brought on my amassed bodily trauma and blood loss. Which is why multiple shots are normally needed to take a person down. The human body is quite resilient to damage and staying alive.
a few things
they haven't shown the pic fo the officer because they tried to protect him.
2nd is "evidence of a serious assault on an officer" is kinda wrong. there does not need to be a serious assault. just a minor assault is enough. hell acting like you are going to assault them is enough for the police to justify a shooting.
though you keep saying he was shot over a robbery. that is a lie. he was shot for assaulting the police.
Death for STRONG ARM ROBBERY. When are you going to recognize that it wasn't petty shoplifting?
I suppose that somehow John good could have been blind enough that he mistook as arms coming the upper-half of the torso of a person making a punching down motion to the body of a person pinned below them as what should have been something else? Maybe Trayvon Martin had huge mandible jaws that could articulate that same motion in the the dark gloomy night. Or maybe it was a knee!
Or maybe Trayvon was just making air punches at George while George was only pretending to be pinned and instead was hitting himself? Or maybe George was grabbing Trayvon's hands and making Trayvon punch him in the face? Those wounds and busted nose on George got there somehow, and it couldn't have been punches as stated by a witness right? Because witness get things wrong sometimes, even though they get them right sometimes too. Naw must have been Georges mental ability to instantaneously spawn injuries on his face like the mutant freak he is. I mean it isn't like there wasn't corroborating evidence to John Good's eye witness testimony with the wounds inflicted upon Georges face.
Okay I'll stop with the sarcasm for now.
As I said before, ISIS is looking for a few good men with attitudes like yours. Have fun.
If Michael Brown hit the officer, being as big as he is reported to have been, wouldn't photos of serious wounds on the officer have been shown by now?
As I said before, ISIS is looking for a few good men with attitudes like yours. Have fun.
Oh fuck off. Answer me this. Was it shoplifting or a felony he committed? You get the difference yet? You seem to want to hurl insults when something obvious is being ignored by you.
Oh fuck off.
Answer me this. Was it shoplifting or a felony he committed? You get the difference yet? You seem to want to hurl insults when something obvious is being ignored by you.
For what it's worth I'm acquainted with two different men who have been shot at point blank range and survived without major disability, one taking five shots to the chest with a .38 and one taking five shots to the chest with a .32. The one shot with the .38 even went home and was picked up at home and taken to hospital before being arrested. The one shot with the .32 laid there until the ambulance came, totally if temporarily incapacitated. (The old man also ran over him before leaving, so that temporary incapacitation might not be all the result of the shooting.)
LOL. but again, one last time, GZ's nose could have been broken
before the witness saw what he claims to have seen...no?
-snip-
Or maybe Trayvon was just making air punches at George while George
-snip-
-snip-
As Trayvon Martin was shot by a CCW permitted civilian and not a trained officer it doesn't seem like there's much sense calling back to that incident in relation to this one imo.
.....
Last time the skin fell off my hands when I punched someone in the face... hrm let me think about that.
Done! the answer is never.
Unless I cut my hand on their teeth or missed my punch and hit something a bit more solid behind them (which I've only done once) I have never damaged my hands while punching someone. Hell I rarely hurt them when I building them up with a punching board when I was taking martial arts classes. My left knuckle still shows a bit of permanent discoloration though due to hours of hitting that punching board for days over years. Along with being a bit notty.
Anyhow, point being is that most people are considered "soft" targets when punched. Skin, muscle, and fat aren't going to really hurt the hand of a person that has done a punch properly. And punching the face? Even less so. The head snaps back and absorbs a ton of the energy of a punch. Unless some guy has sandpaper for a face, you aren't going to be taking chunks of skin off your hands when you punch someone.
When was the last time you were in a fight?
Dont think so given that it was allegedly in a car, you ll have damaged skin here or there..
I think the prior robbery has an indirect relation to the shooting.
You have no issues with death as a penalty for theft. You've stated that in this forum. What's your issue? You said what you said.