Brown was shot "at least" six times, twice in the head.

BvStrkLIQAAPk06.jpg-large

The New York Times reports that a private autopsy has found that the unarmed teenager killed last weekend by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was shot at least six times.

One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.

Now you know why Ferguson police will not release the original autospy report.

Dr. Michael C. Baden, former New York City medical examiner, performed the private autopsy, and says that "In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times.'" A family lawyer says that the position of one of the wounds, on the top of Brown's head, is evidence of an "execution-style" killing.

“That points to a higher likelihood, as witnesses corroborate, that he was surrendering to officers when the fatal shot was given,” said Daryl D. Parks, an attorney for Brown’s family. “That pretty much shows that the officer shot him execution style.”

Previously.

Notable Replies

  1. I think conclusions about the circumstances of the shooting based on the number and placement of bullet wounds is highly speculative. First, to the number of shots; a gun is a deadly weapon and police are not trained to shoot to subdue or wound, they are trained to shoot to kill and to fire as many bullets as it takes to kill. Once the choice has been made (rightly or wrongly) to use deadly force, there can be only one conclusion.

    As for the placement, especially on the top of the head, there is very little that can be drawn from that. A wound on the top of the head could be from instinctive ducking or falling just as easily as it could be from a person on their way to lying down and putting their hands behind their head. There is simply no way to know what happened from the placement of these wounds, and calling it "execution style" is not only drawing an incorrect conclusion, it's reckless.

  2. Whew. I'm relieved. As long as it wasn't execution style, Wild volleys of gunfire in a residential neighborhood are just fine for police to let off, regardless if it was, in effect, an execution. Hmm, Come to think of it, firing squad executions wouldn't really have an execution style to them either...

  3. That isn't true at all. If you shoot someone and they go down on the ground, you don't keep shooting at the fallen, still person. "Shoot to kill" as I said elsewhere, doesn't mean "If someone is bleeding out on the ground put two more in their head to make sure they are dead." It doesn't mean that once you start shooting you aren't allowed to go home until the death certificate is issued. It simply means shoot for center mass and don't try to minimize your chance of killing them.

    "Execution style" is a loaded term for sure, but the relevant question is whether Michael Brown had thrown up his arms in surrender when he was fatally shot. There were two accounts of the shooting - the police one and the one witnesses gave. Since the initial police account was that they shot at fleeing suspects who had attempted to assault them. The witnesses say Michael Brown threw up his arms in the air in surrender and the police officer opened fire. Which of these two stories does six bullets into the front of the body match?

    "Execution Style" may mean a specific pose to you, a pose which, SirCracked pointed out, is not the pose people shot in when they are actually executed. But I think people could be given leeway to use the term "Execution Style" to refer to any shooting of a person who has surrendered.

  4. This simply demonstrates the well-known liberal bias of independent autopsies.

  5. teapot says:

    Why the fuck would he rob a convenience store of some cigarillos?
    People steal small things far more frequently than large things because the perceived risk is less. Petty thefts of this nature happen all the time.

    Why the fuck would he then walk down the middle of a road?
    You see people doing this all the time. Why? Beats me... seems unnecessarily dangerous to me but it's a thing people do.

    Why the fuck would he then scuffle with a cop (which everyone seems to agree happened, regardless of whether he reached for his gun)?
    Mike didn't know that the cop didn't know that he had robbed the convenience store. Running away is sometimes a heaps better option than getting a felony arrest.

    None of these things make a lot of sense to me, but I can believe that the cop may have thought Brown was going for his gun even if he wasn't.
    I don't know.. It's certainly a possibility and I'm obviously not the best to comment on such matters (not being African and/or American) but my understanding from the things I'm into are confirmed by the post Xeni made yesterday in regards to African Americans' lack of faith in police. There's the go-to example of Public Enemy's 1990 track 911 is a Joke which is specifically about how cops and ambulances take forever or don't show up at all. Surely 20 years would change things, right? Nope. 2013's DDFH by El-P and Killer Mike rap about situations exactly like what happened with Mike Brown.

    But even if all this happened, and even if he did go for the cop's gun, this doesn't explain why he was shot from a distance when he was unarmed.
    Word.

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

75 more replies

Participants