Which has what to do with what?

The crazy ways people try to dispute or prove things with huge numbers of assumptions... lol.

Presuming you're trying to argue that you can tell from a chest wound(s), that Brown had his hands up makes the ridiculous assumption that when he was shot in the chest his hands were up instead of at some other time in the process.

Imagine the following scenario - for which there is no proof and yet it is as valid as any other - Brown starts running away, shots are fired and he turns around with his hands up - as he is turning around with his hands up, he is shot in the side. This makes Brown lower his arms and grab his side. He is now facing the officer and a round now enters his chest. Brown doubles over in pain towards the officer. The officer now puts one in the back/top of Brown's skull (because he's bent over enough for this to happen), Brown raises his head and catches the next one in the forehead.

Totally plausible - but more importantly - we have no f***ing idea if this actually happened or not.

The official report says there was a shot in his side, and one in his chest.

Entrance wounds are about as reliable an orientation indicator as you will get.

Which shot are you referring to?

Also, I am only referring to the official autopsy that the Grand Jury worked off of - apparently the autopsies differ ;)...

Rather than dissect all of your diatribe, we can simply start with the initial faulty premise.

The autopsy claims there is a bullet entrance wound in the vertex of his scalp. That's the back side of the top of your head. The bullet came to rest in the right side of his face. That means the bullet traveled from the upper rear of his head towards the front of his face.

Now, somebody who argued like you do would claim this meant he was shot in the back of the head while walking away - but bullets can do crazy sh** when they enter a body. It certainly DOES mean that your stupid assertion that being shot in the top/rear of you head means you had your head down charging like you were in a football stance is incredibly unlikely (for many other reasons as well - people don't run in a

- you can't, you start off in that stance. You can't run like that unless you like staring at the ground and being bent over at the waist.)

Maybe you should read the official autopsy report.

Shot in the top of the head.

Shot in the forehead.

Shot in the side.

Shot in the back of his right arm.

Shot in the chest.

A bullet graze wound on the outside of his right arm that doesn't seem to indicate the direction of the bullet.

A bullet graze wound on the outside and near the bottom of his hand that is oriented toward his thumb.

Yeah think about it, it makes perfect sense if he stops running away and turns around and puts his hands up.

Crazy how you didn't consider that possibility.

Can you provide any links supporting this from a credible source? I've only been able to find information that a single witness claimed that Brown charged the officer.

I can't find any witness information that says Brown beat the cop, or pulled his gun - other than the police officer himself.

Thanks.

At least you're admitting that people get shot by the police when they're not committing crimes (unless you mean jobs that themselves are crime related.)

LOL - seriously?

I love Rutan's designs, love the idea of SS1 and SS2, and wish them the very best - I would love for them to succeed beyond even what we all hope for BUT - the peak of human achievement? We went to the moon 45 YEARS AGO. Testing a shuttlecock aircraft design that isn't even aiming for low earth orbig, for a private company, doesn't quite measure up.

The problem being that the location will then be used to assign 'scientific legitimacy' to the discussion (despite intentionally disregarding science...)

One of the primary goals of creationists is to try and muddy the term 'science' into something subjective.

Interesting possibilities.

You've mentioned this "study" multiple times - would you care to provide some links?