Ferguson Riots

[Quin]

I can fathom no potential problem of protestors being tear gassed or having flash-grenades used while armed with semi-automatic assault rifles. Cause you know, we can tell that these guys aren't possessing guns legally. They don't look like legal gun owners somehow.

[EvilMonkey]

Balta's last line was funny at least.

Except I said that in post #972.

[Jake]

Well if we can arm the black folks well enough, the NRA might start supporting background checks and such like they used to

[caulfield12]

Well if we can arm the black folks well enough, the NRA might start supporting background checks and such like they used to

 

 

THE PURGE

[southsider2k5]

So much for McDermotts chance at Governor. Mike Pence is smiling his ass off right now.

 

Yeah, he continues to win the minority vote here....

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=102...e=1&theater

[StrangeSox]

Should I be reading that as him throwing the NAACP under the bus? That's what it looks like but I'm not sure.

[southsider2k5]

Should I be reading that as him throwing the NAACP under the bus? That's what it looks like but I'm not sure.

 

Yep. The guy is a real arrogant piece of work. That is how his entire feed reads.

[greg775]

I hate checking Twitter for Ferguson cause you get so many posts from things that happened days ago. Anything up in Ferguson this current weekend?

[StrangeSox]

Whites riot over pumpkins in NH and Twitter turns it into epic lesson about Ferguson

[Chicago White Sox]

Whites riot over pumpkins in NH and Twitter turns it into epic lesson about Ferguson

What is your point in posting this? And why does this have anything to do with Ferguson?

[cabiness42]

Whites riot over pumpkins in NH and Twitter turns it into epic lesson about Ferguson

 

People of any race who riot deserve whatever happens to them. You break into my house you're getting shot full of holes before I bother to check your skin color.

[StrangeSox]

What is your point in posting this? And why does this have anything to do with Ferguson?

Perhaps you can read the link to find out!

[Chicago White Sox]

Perhaps you can read the link to find out!

I read the link and still don't get it. It was just bunch of stupid tweets trying to be clever/funny.

[StrangeSox]

I read the link and still don't get it. It was just bunch of stupid tweets trying to be clever/funny.

 

It's running on the same theme that Ta-Nehisi Coates addresses here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...ologies/359841/

 

When a group of black people do something, such as the discord in Ferguson, a lot of people including our media is quick to lump all black people together, talk about "black culture" etc. When a bunch of white people riot over pumpkins or the removal of a coach of a football team for covering up decades of child sexual abuse, these same sorts of things don't get said. Those tweets were saying what was said about Ferguson more or less verbatim, just swapping black for white and Ferguson for Keene.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's running on the same theme that Ta-Nehisi Coates addresses here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...ologies/359841/

 

When a group of black people do something, such as the discord in Ferguson, a lot of people including our media is quick to lump all black people together, talk about "black culture" etc. When a bunch of white people riot over pumpkins or the removal of a coach of a football team for covering up decades of child sexual abuse, these same sorts of things don't get said. Those tweets were saying what was said about Ferguson more or less verbatim, just swapping black for white and Ferguson for Keene.

 

lol, way to downplay it.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

It's running on the same theme that Ta-Nehisi Coates addresses here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...ologies/359841/

 

When a single police officer does something, such as the discord in Ferguson, a lot of people including our media is quick to lump all cops together, talk about "police culture" etc. When a bunch of white people riot over pumpkins or the removal of a coach of a football team for covering up decades of child sexual abuse, these same sorts of things don't get said. Those tweets were saying what was said about Ferguson more or less verbatim, just swapping cops for white and Ferguson for Keene.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Sounds like the autopsy backs up Wilson's account:

 

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/new...ael-brown-case/

 

Not that the truth will matter at this point.

[StrangeSox]

Not seeing that:

 

St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham says the report supports claims that there was a “significant struggle” in Wilson’s patrol car, and Brown suffered a hand wound at “relatively short range.”

 

A forensic pathologist from San Francisco, Dr. Judy Melinek, says based on a bullet wound to Brown’s arm, Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson in the standard surrender position – with hands up and palms out – when he was shot, and Brown was falling forward or lunging when he was hit by the fatal shot to the top of his head.

 

I don't think either side disputes a struggle in the car, so that's nothing new.

 

What's meant by "relatively short range" is critical, but Wilson's story is that he fired two shots during the struggle and believes he hit Michael in the hand before he turned and ran. I don't think that shots during the initial struggle was disputed, so this supports Wilson's story up to this point but it doesn't provide justification for what happened after Michael ran.

 

Same story for the last part. Brown being shot in the head while falling forward or lunging is consistent with both sides. That conclusion can just as easily support falling forward due to several gun shots as it supports him running at Wilson head first.

 

edit: I really don't see any new information here at all, or anything that differs from the first autopsy done a couple of months ago.

Edited October 22, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Not seeing that:

 

 

 

I don't think either side disputes a struggle in the car, so that's nothing new.

 

What's meant by "relatively short range" is critical, but Wilson's story is that he fired two shots during the struggle and believes he hit Michael in the hand before he turned and ran. I don't think that shots during the initial struggle was disputed, so this supports Wilson's story up to this point but it doesn't provide justification for what happened after Michael ran.

 

Same story for the last part. Brown being shot in the head while falling forward or lunging is consistent with both sides. That conclusion can just as easily support falling forward due to several gun shots as it supports him running at Wilson head first.

 

edit: I really don't see any new information here at all, or anything that differs from the first autopsy done a couple of months ago.

 

The part about the forensics not matching someone with his hands up in the air, palms towards the shooter? Maybe that was reported in the med. examiner's report, I don't remember.

[StrangeSox]

The part about the forensics not matching someone with his hands up in the air, palms towards the shooter? Maybe that was reported in the med. examiner's report, I don't remember.

 

The initial one had it as indeterminate. Like I said above, though, Wilson (through 'sources') says that he shot Michael in the hand at close range during the initial struggle. So the wound to his hand doesn't say anything about what happened after he ran.

 

What the forensics can't tell you, as far as I understand it, is the order of the wounds. It's just as plausible that he was raising his hands or in the process of raising his hands, Wilson shot him again, and then he dropped his hands as a reaction to that. Or, again, going by the 'sources' Wilson account, Wilson claims that Michael had one arm to his chest and one arm out to the side.

 

The autopsy reports really just don't rule out a number of plausible scenarios, both good and bad for Wilson. On the balance, I have to imagine that's good for Wilson since the state needs to prove the plausibility of his guilt to the GJ, and indeterminate evidence doesn't help them.

[Jenksismyhero]

The initial one had it as indeterminate. Like I said above, though, Wilson (through 'sources') says that he shot Michael in the hand at close range during the initial struggle. So the wound to his hand doesn't say anything about what happened after he ran.

 

What the forensics can't tell you, as far as I understand it, is the order of the wounds. It's just as plausible that he was raising his hands or in the process of raising his hands, Wilson shot him again, and then he dropped his hands as a reaction to that. Or, again, going by the 'sources' Wilson account, Wilson claims that Michael had one arm to his chest and one arm out to the side.

 

The autopsy reports really just don't rule out a number of plausible scenarios, both good and bad for Wilson. On the balance, I have to imagine that's good for Wilson since the state needs to prove the plausibility of his guilt to the GJ, and indeterminate evidence doesn't help them.

 

That pathologist is talking about a wound to the arm though, not just the hand. I'm sure the entry/exit angle on the arm is going to show in what position it was in, i.e. up in the air, faced toward the shooter.

 

But yeah, it's not the whole story but another piece that appears to lend support to Wilson's version.

[StrangeSox]

Dr. Judy Melinek is not very happy with the way her statements were portrayed by the reporter.

 

Forensic Sound Bites & Half-Truths

 

A reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week, saying she had Michael Brown's official autopsy report as prepared by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine and analyze it from the perspective of a forensic pathologist with no official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death. I read the report, and spent half an hour on the phone with the reporter explaining Michael Brown's autopsy report line-by-line, and I told her not to quote me - but that I would send her quotes she could use in an e mail. The next morning, I found snippets of phrases from our conversation taken out of context in her article in the Post-Dispatch. These inaccurate and misleading quotes were picked up and disseminated by other journals, blogs, and websites.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.” Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun. Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

 

 

 

 

Notice the difference? There's a big difference between "The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown's hand would have been close to the barrel of the gun" and "he's going for the gun."

 

That's a pretty petty gripe, IMO. He editorialized a bit, which is probably wrong, but I'm sure she was less formal in her conversations with him over the phone versus her prepared quotes.

 

Also, just because you tell a reporter not to quote you doesn't mean they violate some ethical or professional rule by doing so. For all we know he/she said no, I can't promise you I won't.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Something something truth won't matter.

[Jake]

It is actually a part of journalistic ethics to respect on-the-record/off-the-record agreements