Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Michael brown never shot in the back [View all]Ms. Toad
(38,664 posts)55. I am just reporting what the autopsy report commissioned by the parents said.
The accusation I responded to said,
"All eyewitness reports AND the Autopsy itself say the shots were fire when Brown was down in a PRONE position
I don't know why ANYONE would spread lies like those you just said
I don't know why ANYONE would spread lies like those you just said
That is NOT what the autopsy said, so the accusation that someone who is accurately paraphrasing or quoting the autopsy report is spreading lies is pretty offensive. So far, the person I was responding to has not offered an autopsy report to support his/her statement about what the autopsy says.
As for what was going on when he was shot in the top of the head, according to the autopsy report, "The last two shots in the head would have stopped him in his tracks and were likely the last fired." So, from the perspective of the expert hired by the parents, those two shots had to be close together. Whatever he was doing (charging or bowing his head in surrender) started before the first shot in the eye - and the doctor performing the autopsy couldn't tell from the information he had available what was going on - but did say, "It can be because hes giving up, or because hes charging forward at the officer.
I didn't perform the autopsy - but I can read the quotes from it, and there's no point in getting snarky with people who are accurately reporting what the autopsy says.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
NO! I am spreading the information from the articles I have read. Please post your source.
JJChambers
Aug 2014
#16
No. I don't like people making crap up then acusing others who report things accurately of lying.
Ms. Toad
Aug 2014
#58
"How else do you shoot someone in the top of the head, from the front, from a distance?"
AgingAmerican
Aug 2014
#15
Or if it's an automatic, one click might fire them all? IDK guns like that, just shotguns.
freshwest
Aug 2014
#39
I agree that the cop's story stinks to high heaven and is likely made up out of whole cloth.
stranger81
Aug 2014
#27
He could have been looking down at the 4 shots in his arms. I don't see proof he was attacking.
freshwest
Aug 2014
#38
"Gunshot wounds on the inside of his arms conducive to someone shot with his hands up." Per some
kath
Aug 2014
#11
You didn't provide a link to back up the assertion you touted in your OP, either.
MADem
Aug 2014
#19
"Gunshot wounds on the inside of his arms conducive to someone shot with his hands up. "
MohRokTah
Aug 2014
#12
I was under the impression that cops were trained to aim for center mass. n/t
cherokeeprogressive
Aug 2014
#36
And he was fleeing even if he'd turned around to follow instructions. Correct, doesn't clear Wilson.
freshwest
Aug 2014
#57
Even the stoic, impartial NY coroner said that shooting that many bullets is unusual
Number23
Aug 2014
#60
The autopsy SO FAR does not show any bullets in the back. But who performed this autopsy?
kelliekat44
Aug 2014
#62