Quote:
Originally Posted by Orruar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Apparently you didn't go directly to the source of the info. All they could determine so far was that he was at least 2 feet from the officer. Could be 2, could be 30, could be a quarter mile. I think if someone who was 300 lbs was charging at you, you'd be right to shoot even from 30 feet.
As for eyewitnesses changing their stories to match the facts, nobody is going to buy it. We now can discount any eyewitness who claimed he was shot while running away (does such a person exist?) That's how an investigation works. Forensic science can help us determine which eyewitnesses are most credible in order to determine things that can't be determined through forensic science alone.
|
I watched the news conference live. I think the medical examiner was the same guy from the Trayvon case but I'm not positive (I know I've seen him talk about this sort of thing before).
He mentioned that the lack of gunpowder residue meant he was not shot up close, which brings into question any statements that he was going after the officer's gun.
And yes I agree about eyewitnesses, I'm just predicting what will be said by some people. There are people who are automatically finding the officer guilty and exonerating Brown and they'll say whatever's necessary to confirm it.
What's funny is during the news conference Brown's lawyer said the autopsy confirms the accounts that Brown was facing away and the kill shots were back to front, claiming a small bullet wound on top of the head led to an exit wound out the right eye. The medical examiner took the podium after and said something different, that it exited the eye and re-entered the jaw, like he was shot with his head down not back to front.
Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHh...tailpage#t=492