That Autopsy

The released autopsy report is yet another nail in the coffin that is the dominant dialog in regards to Ferguson Mo.

People who either have no clue as to competing claims in regards to the shooting, or have not heard the witness to the shooting, or who have a vested interest in playing the "Brown was surrendering" card for all it's worth do not understand what this autopsy has actually revealed.

Before I continue let me make it clear to the reader:

I am among the very few black folks who correctly saw that the Duke Lacrosse team rape charge was a hoax.

I am among the very few black folks who correctly told the public that the charges against Zimmerman would not stick because they were the wrong charges, not because Zimmerman was not guilty of a crime.

I am among a select few who correctly saw that the Sean Bell decision would be an acquittal because like the Martin case, the wrong charges were pressed.

I am among a select few who came out and said that the Hobby Lobby case would be decided in favor of Hobby Lobby due to the issue of enumerated rights.

All this to say that The Ghost has a track record of being right (even if I disagree with the outcome) because The Ghost deals in facts. When you read anything else, ask yourself one question: Is this writer dealing in truth or is this writer pushing an agenda regardless of the facts?

So here we go.

If you are familiar with the audio Then you know that the witness said that not only did Brown struggle with the officer, but that he ran and then returned and rushed the officer. That is eyewitness testimony.

We know there is no dash cam video. So the only evidence to back up the story would be the forensics. The autopsy supports the Officer's story.

One must understand that trained police personnel and others trained in the use of firearms for self-defense know to shoot for the center mass and if need by "finish" with one (or two) to the head.

Once Brown entered the vehicle or even attempted to "struggle" with the cop, the officer had a duty to arrest brown. This is why whether the officer knew Brown had just committed a robbery is not relevant to his actions but IS relevant to the state of mind of Brown.

The autopsy shows that anyone who said that Brown was running away from the officer at the time of the shooting was flat out lying. We now know that all of the shots came from the front, including the head shot.

Did Brown have his hands extended? I say YES. I believe that witnesses that said that saw Brown with his "hands up" saw Brown with his hands extended above his torso. But above the torso does not necessarily mean "up in air in surrender". Let me explain.

The man in the black represents someone trying to come in for a take down. Notice the position of his arms. The are extended "above" his torso but they are not "up in the air" as in surrender. This is why a witness could plausibly say that Brown "had his hands up" when he actually had his arms extended.

Note the body position. Head is down and the crown of the head is pointed directly at the opponent. In the case of the shooting, this would be how Brown received bullets to the head.

You will also note that in the demonstration the assailant has his right side slightly forward. Assuming Brown was also right handed, he would have also lead with his "strong" side. This would explain why the first shots hit him on the right side. And those shots did not stop him and were "non-lethal".

Please note that I am not arguing that the charge was done at the close range depicted in the screen shot. The screen shot is an example for Wing Chun close quarter hand to hand combat.

The would be prosecution would have to argue that the head shot was unnecessary. That's a tough order because shots to the arm of a 300lb motivated thief is not going to stop him.

Is it entirely possible that Brown was standing still with his hands in the air? Sure. Is it possible that the police officer was such a poor shot that he had a clean shot of a 300lb male and could only hit him in the arm but make two head shots? Sure? Is it likely? Not at all.

There may be those who are saying, well maybe he had his hands at chest height. Well lets take that into consideration. Firstly that would contradict witnesses who said his hands were in the air. So you've just created reasonable doubt. Congratulations. Secondly if Brown's hands were so situated then why are there no entry wounds to the back of Browns forearms? The back of Brown's forearms would have been facing the officer and would have been hit first. The autopsy is quite clear that only the front of Brown's arms have entry marks. Consistent with an attempted grapple. So that argument fails on the facts in evidence.

The evidence. This is what matters. This is what counts. Anyone who is not dealing with the evidence is a liar with their own motives.