Why Michael Brown beating the fuck out of the cop is relevant.

[NLXSK1]

I would be more concerned with gunpowder / burn residue on Mike that could indicate the closest distance at which a shot was fired at Mike.

If close, Mike could have been struggling for a weapon. If no evidence of close range shots then it looks pretty bad for Wilson.

Actually, they already have that evidence from Dr. Baden the medical examiner from his skin. It has already proven that Michael Brown was not shot at close range. Gunpowder residue is only useful if you are the shooter or got shot. Everybody seems to agree that Michael Brown died 2-3 feet from the cop and there was no evidence that a gunshot was fired closer than 1-2 feet into him.

I doubt there will be the concrete piece of evidence that confirms what this was one way or the other. Maybe both of them were wrong and it is a gray area. Like I said before, there are no winners from this.

 

[Red1966]

Don't you have to be within like 4 feet to have residue on you?

 

[jahbrudda]

I'm still laughing at the theory that officer Wilson's eye injury came from him discharging his own firearm, that's one of the dumbest things I've heard on this thread.

 

[Red1966]

Actually, they already have that evidence from Dr. Baden the medical examiner from his skin. It has already proven that Michael Brown was not shot at close range. Gunpowder residue is only useful if you are the shooter or got shot. Everybody seems to agree that Michael Brown died 2-3 feet from the cop and there was no evidence that a gunshot was fired closer than 1-2 feet into him.

I doubt there will be the concrete piece of evidence that confirms what this was one way or the other. Maybe both of them were wrong and it is a gray area. Like I said before, there are no winners from this.

Clothing would have stopped the residue from attaching to the skin. Dr Baden has already said that it didn't prove that Michael Brown was not shot at close range.

 

[NLXSK1]

Don't you have to be within like 4 feet to have residue on you?

Dr. Baden repeatedly said 1 to 2 feet. Which is ridiculous when talking about minimum distances. Is it 1 foot or is it 2 feet?? A way for them to CYA. That would be just for the body. The clothing might be a different issue and there could be residue on that.

Unfortunately, cops in reality are not CSI. Everybody expects microanalysis and concrete proof and a guilty verdict within 30 minutes including commercials!!!

 

[NLXSK1]

Clothing would have stopped the residue from attaching to the skin. Dr Baden has already said that it didn't prove that Michael Brown was not shot at close range.

I listened to what he said both at the press conference and on Fox News. It is my understanding that he said that because there was no gunpowder residue on the skin or body, then the shots were not within 1-2 feet.

Clothing may tell us more.

 

[Red1966]

If everyone says Brown died 2-3 feet from the cop when he had been 30-35 feet away when the shooting started, doesn't that indicate Brown was moving towards the officer?

 

[NLXSK1]

If everyone says Brown died 2-3 feet from the cop when he had been 30-35 feet away when the shooting started, doesn't that indicate Brown was moving towards the officer?

The position of the body and the position of the officer relative to the vehicle are going to be extremely important in the investigation.

How far did the cop move. Did he walk or did he run? Where was the body in relation to the cop?

 

[Red1966]

I listened to what he said both at the press conference and on Fox News. It is my understanding that he said that because there was no gunpowder residue on the skin or body, then the shots were not within 1-2 feet.

Clothing may tell us more.

He said that he didn't have the opportunity to examine the clothing, so he couldn't determine how far away he was when shot. Only that the gun wasn't in contact with the body when fired. What significance would being within 2 feet have? No one has claimed they were that close to my knowledge.

 

[jahbrudda]

If everyone says Brown died 2-3 feet from the cop when he had been 30-35 feet away when the shooting started, doesn't that indicate Brown was moving towards the officer?

What no one has mentioned is how far Brown was from the police car when his body came to rest.
That will be crucial to the investigation.

 

[Silky Shagsalot]

you don't always get residue on you. it's just an additional tool/evidence..

 

[SnapsProvolone]

you don't always get residue on you. it's just an additional tool/evidence..

But if shot at point blank, methinks residual evidence would be present...

 

[UncleBuck]

i like how darren wilson is now a "distinguished" officer.

what makes him so distinguished?

 

[jahbrudda]

i like how darren wilson is now a "distinguished" officer.

what makes him so distinguished?

http://news.yahoo.com/video-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-commended-for-struggle-with-previous-suspect-182521551.html

 

[UncleBuck]

http://news.yahoo.com/video-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-commended-for-struggle-with-previous-suspect-182521551.html

beenthere, before i click on a link, can you promise me that it is not an article put together by a holocaust denier, like last time?

 

[jahbrudda]

Not a chance, rollie.

 

[Silky Shagsalot]

But if shot at point blank, methinks residual evidence would be present...

many factors, which i don't about. but that's supposed to be the deal.
i was looking and found this info. i can't remember where i heard the no residue thing, maybe forensic files, lol...

When a GSR population is found (at least one three-component particle is identified), a gunshot residue expert can say that it landed there in one of three ways:

1. The subject discharged a firearm.
2. The subject/object was in close proximity to a discharged firearm.
3. The subject/object came into contact with an object that already had GSR on it.2

Because GSR evidence implies that a subject has been exposed to a GSR population in one of three ways, it is a key piece of evidence in solving an investigation. Conversely, the absence of GSR does not mean an individual was not exposed. There are several reasons why a person may not have GSR on them even if they were assumed to have discharged a firearm. These reasons include:

• Time elapsed
• Activity
• Weather
• Washing hands, clothing, or surfaces
• Masking from biological material
• Firearm or ammunition were not good depositors
• No discharge2,4

There are some scenarios where only one and two-component particles are found through the course of analysis. In these scenarios, the population of particles could have come from the discharge of a firearm, but they also could have come from other sources in the environment. Examples of sources include nail guns, battery terminals, and pyrotechnics.4,6

Even a lack of GSR aids in reconstructing or corroborating the incident in question. This is especially true when GSR evidence is used in conjunction with other types of evidence.