Michael Brown Shooting

Autopsy: Michael Brown Was Shot At Least Six Times, Including Twice in the Head

|

Michael Brown, a teenager who was killed by a police officer last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri, sparking a wave of protests, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, according to newly released autopsy details reported by The New York Times. All of the shots entered in the front of Brown's body. 

The new information comes from a preliminary autopsy report by former New York medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden conducted at the request of Brown's family.

Police in Ferguson have not yet released a complete account of the incident that resulted in Brown's death. 

Via The New York 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.

Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front. The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. 

Baden had access to the body for several hours, but according to the Times did not see X-rays or statements by witness or police. Local authorities conducted a separate autopsy, and the Department of Justice has also indicated that it will conduct its own examination. 

Protests continued tonight, resulting in tension and violent clashes with the police. Multiple news reports and live Twitter accounts from reporters on the ground in Ferguson indicate that some shots may have been fired earlier in the evening (although there are now other reports suggesting that the shots may have just been fireworks) and police responded by firing tear gas into the crowd while pushing them to disperse. 

NEXT: Michael Brown Shot at Least 6 Times, Autopsy Reveals

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, on the plus side, he at least wasn’t shot in the back.

    And there’s at least one cop out there who can actually hit what he’s aiming for.

  2. So, not in the back. The narrative erodes some more.

    1. The narrative always erode – its always more complicated than it seems at first.

      But let’s not lose sight that this guy was ultimately killed because he was jaywalking.

      1. And attacked a cop.

        1. Bingo. He wasn’t killed because he was black, or because he stole a box of cigars, or because he was jaywalking, or because the police are too militarized. He was killed because he attacked a cop.

          1. A cop that shot at him – at least according to the timeline *I’ve* seen, the cop shot from inside his car first, then gave chase.

            1. Yes, a cop that shot at someone who was attacking him. It’s not as if the cop saw a jaywalker and decided to gun him down.

              And the cop supposedly had facial injuries, which if true, is rather damning for Brown.

              1. Yes, I would like to see what the cop looks like.

          2. The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body.

            Oh those black thugs with their scary telescopic arms.

            1. And they didn’t test his clothes… Don’t forget the whole story

        2. Why the fuck is there a need to kidnap someone for jaywalking?

          Anyone is justified in attacking a kidnapper. In this case, the cops were the kidnappers.

          1. Mind you I mean the basis of his arrest. The cops did not arrest him for previous actions.

    2. Why is it better that he was shot in the front?

      1. There were witnesses saying he was running away with his hands in the air when he was shot. This invalidates that.

        1. Actually, that’t not what the witnesses claimed. The witnesses claimed that he was running away as the cop shot, THEN turned around with his hands up, at which point he was fatally shot.

          At least get the narrative right before you claim it’s false.

        2. Also, the cop could have shot at him while he was running away, but missed.

  3. Or in other words, the story about Brown charging the officer seems to be born out by the physical evidence?

    But hey, he was just a sweet little kid. Nevermind he was 6’4″, 290 lbs and had just manhandled a clerk in a strongarm robbery. The cop should have waited for him to beat him to a pulp to fire. Or maybe just let him get beaten, because you know, anything else is racism and police militarization.

    1. Or you know, this . . .

      An altercation ensued and a shot was fired from within Wilson’s police vehicle, after which Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson left his vehicle and pursued them, then fired an unspecified number of shots, fatally wounding Brown

      1. How do you get shot in the front if you’re fleeing?

        1. When you turn around and rush the person you are fleeing from. This is what an eyewitness seems to be reporting in the background audio of a cell phone video taken shortly after the shooting. The video made the rounds yesterday.

          One guy in the background audio is telling the other what he witnessed – a struggle in the truck (police vehicle), a short chase, then the soon to be dead guy turns around and comes at the police officer – “he just kept coming” – while the officer fired a number of times.

          This appears to contradict other witnesses who say he was just standing there with his hands up – including the one witness who saw the incident beginning with the struggle in the police vehicle up to the shooting. Because it is so contemporaneous it should hold more weight than statements made days later.

          1. The eyes, quite often, do not have it.

            http://www.scientificamerican……s-have-it/

            1. So we should ignore any eyewitnesses and stick with tried and true making shit up.

  4. It’s hard to shoot someone in the front of their arm if they are facing you with their hands up. And getting shot in the top of the head fits the narrative of Brown charging while being shot.

    This case has been red meat for both the racial grievance industry and for a lot of libertarians, but unfortunately for both groups, the facts aren’t fitting neatly into the narrative that either group would prefer. It still may turn out that it was a bad shoot, that the cop was racist, and/or that the local police are too militarized, but the more that comes out, the more it looks like a case of evolution in action: a dangerous thug gets into a fight with a cop and dies. The moral of the story looks relatively non-political: don’t get into fights with policemen.

    1. Unless the guy’s a bull, he’s not going to get shot in the top of the head from charging.

      OTOH – he quite likely would take a hit to the top of the head while collapsing from the other shots.

      1. You don’t think people ever put their heads down when running? But it’s true it could have happened because he was going down from the other shots.

        1. Not low enough for a 6’4′ dude (which is what people are saying he is – I can’t find any specific info on his size) to get his head low enough for a regular sized dude to hit it.

          I mean, maybe if he squatted down like a linebacker before taking off.

        2. I coach children in football, and often we have to coach them to not put their heads down while charging.

          1. And by all accounts, Brown wasn’t exactly a quick learner.

            I think it’s most likely he had charged, gotten shot a few times, and that the last shot got him in the head while he was going down.

      2. Or keeping his head down to go in for a bull rush type of tackle…

    2. The moral of the story looks relatively non-political: don’t get into fights with policemen.

      Just.. pah.

      The moral of the story should be the introduction of a bi-partisan Police Contact Accountability Act or whatever the fuck name you’d like to give it where all Federal law enforcement agencies are required to wear body cameras in the furtherance of their duties and some heavy duty Federal Highway fund style arm twisting/pot sweetening goes into it to get every damn police force in the nation to adopt similar standards. All the fucked up things taxes get wasted on, why not this? I’m sure some politicians’ cousins and brothers-in-law could make a few bucks on it.

      In light of everything that’s happened it seems to be the one absolutely solid take-away. The problems implementing it would doubtless be a trial, but effort well worth undertaking.

      1. I am OK with police body cameras, but that would only reinforce the moral of the story.

        1. If you believe no one else but the officer that killed him, that is.

          1. Doesn’t everyone agree that he got into a fight with a policeman?

            1. No, everyone doesn’t agree. The officer and his gang agrees, and so do those who blindly support police officers, but no one else does.

      2. Why just federal? Why not all law enforcement?

        With the officer wearing a body camera, the incident may not even have happened. Rialto, CA police performed a year-long randomized test of body cameras. Complaints dropped 88% and use of force was down 60%

        http://benswann.com/police-use…..o-cameras/

        1. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, our federal system consists of a sovereign national government and subordinate but still sovereign state governments.

          However, there are a lot of carrot-and-stick games that the Feds can play with the states, and DwT alluded to those in his post.

          As none of us are residents of Missouri, it’s a little hard to get the laws there changed some other way.

  5. I think people shouldn’t be rushing to rule out suicide.

  6. It’s not unusual for a cop to unload his whole magazine when firing. The real question is why he discharged his weapon in the first place.

    1. The first shot seems to have happened in the car, while Brown was leaning in the door and struggling for the weapon. Exactly what happened outside the car that caused the cop to fire the rest of the shots, yup, that’s the big question.

      The initial narrative of “Gentle youth executed by cop for no reason” seems to be going down, but then, there are still people who think George Zimmerman is a racist vigilante who decided to stalk and kill innocent young Trayvon for no reason.

      I am intrigued that the media reports that Brown “had no adult criminal record.” Did he have a juvenile record? Will that be released?

      1. “The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body.”

        I haven’t read enough on this but I’m confused how he was shot while leaning in the door and had no gunpowder present.

        1. The first shot from inside the car seems to have missed him, but most of the rest did not.

          1. Well it says no gunpowder was found on the body. Even a shot that missed from essentially point blank range would have left a little residue, right?

            1. Not on the body. on the clothes maybe.

      2. The initial narrative of “Gentle youth executed by cop for no reason” seems to be going down

        Nice straw man. The narrative has always been “Cop kills kid for failure to obey.”

        In all of these cases where cops murder citizens, it’s always the same: failure to obey.

        Obey or die.

        1. There’s usually one other factor besides failure to obey.

          1. That other factors is the psychopathy of someone with a license to use lethal force.

            1. We all have license to use lethal force in self defense.

  7. am curious to see what the toxicity results are/were…some of the decision making (and possibly continuing to advance toward the shooter while taking so many bullet wounds) could suggest the victim was under the influence of something.

    1. He probably had a lot of adrenalin flowing. Robbed a store, got stopped by a cop. Fight or flight instinct. His friend fled, he fought.

      1. If he was drunk, that might further substantiate the boorish and belligerent behavior.

        Although I’m betting he smoked weed that morning. He stole a box of swishers specifically to use as blunts.

        1. Do you have a link to any of those claims?

          1. It’s not a huge leap to assume that a teenage black guy stealing Swishers is going to consume them in the way most Swishers are consumed by teenage black guys.

  8. I/m not sure what happened and will wait for more info.One thing I have noticed is how many more people just do not believe the police any more.With all the videos from phones ,several in the last few weeks,they do not get the benefit of doubt as much.From the DEA,Border cops,NYPD,ect,many are starting to see them as a occupying army

    1. You almost got me to click on that… You really shouldn’t post things like that before we all get our first cup of coffee.

      1. Yeah, I hovered over the link, saw po-po one and demurred.

  9. That poor, poor, policeman.

  10. The dude was a THUG plain and simple and got what he deserved. All these black folk need to get over it and move on. I guess being on welfare or criminals themselves they can spend all day and night protesting. This black mentality that the white man “owes” them something is absurd.

    http://www.AnonWays.tk

    1. Geez, even AnonBot done gone racist on us.

      1. It called for a genocide of Italians on the Anti-War Right thread from yesterday.

    2. Skynet joined the KKK?

  11. Glad my early commentary with friends on this subject was about the unconstitutional demands by the police with regard to journalists being arrested for inconveniencing police, rather than the reason for the protests, police presence, or why and how Brown was shot.

    /smugness due to appropriate patience

  12. The militarization of police narrative isn’t being brought up in direct relation to the shooting, it’s being brought up in relation to the fucking paramilitary force who showed up to squash the protest. Truncheons and shields, and occasionally horses do riot work, not automatic rifles, armored vehicles, and camo.

  13. I would like to remind everyone that, if the original witnesses are to be believed, this altercation began when the police officer shouted aggressive obscenities at Mike Brown and his friend because they were apparently jaywalking.
    Now, in all 50 states if you shout aggressive obscenities at someone and a fight or altercation ensues, you lose any claim to self defense on the grounds that you are not a purely innocent victim. You are forbidden by law from a lawful self defense claim if you start and/or escalate the confrontation. Nobody in America is allowed to take an aggressive stance toward someone and yell obscenities at them, and still claim self defense for whatever violent altercation follows.
    UNLESS, of course, you wear a police uniform and collect your paycheck from the government. And therein lies the problem: Police are a protected group with special immunities and legal protections that allow them to shout “get the f*ck out of the road” and “what the f*ck did you say?” and still claim self defense after shooting someone in a fight they started.
    Change the immunity laws and maybe police will start to re-think their overtly aggressive, antagonistic, violent approach to policing these neighborhoods going forward.

    1. “Nobody in America is allowed to take an aggressive stance toward someone and yell obscenities at them, and still claim self defense for whatever violent altercation follows.”

      I dont think this is correct.

      1. “Nobody in America is allowed to take an aggressive stance toward someone and yell obscenities at them, and still claim self defense for whatever violent altercation follows.”

        I dont think this is correct.

        It’s not.

    2. The police are not 100% protected by the immunity laws in place (which are for valid reasons).

    3. “this altercation began when the police officer shouted aggressive obscenities at Mike Brown”

      Was this before or after he ‘grabbed the gun’, and other Dramatic Re-enactments engaged in by helpful commentators?

      Do me a favor = since your psychic power to solve crime is so amazingly powerful, could you do everyone a favor, and do some work on the 20+ so shootings every weekend in Chicago?

      You waste your talents on this ‘isolated incident’.

      I’m sure your righteous outrage will sustain you for maybe a few hours before, like me, you really stop giving a shit ‘why’ each one of these shootings happened.

  14. What kind of moron sets off fireworks during a riot?

  15. From reading comments sections all over the internet, there are far too many closet racists in this world. Even here, there are more than I would have expected.

    1. And / or classist.

    2. There are far to many racialists, like yourself, who seem to suffer from racial tourette’s syndrome. When everyone is called racist for any reason it ceases to mean anything.

      1. Dude, I’m pretty fuckin far from politically correct. But when the same people who support violent defense of 2nd amendment rights, are suspicious of police and government in every other facet suddenly make excuses for the way ferguson was handled, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion.

        If I was being easy on people, maybe they were just uncomfortable with the way liberal media has reported this. But it basically boils down to that study reason posted last week. If they think it’s “Thugz” getting their rights trampled on , they’re fine with a police state.

        1. I don’t defend how Ferguson was handled. I am interested in the shooting incident, and how facts and details are swept away to keep up the racial angle. Do you think Trayvon was a coldblooded ‘racial’ shooting of an innocent kid? Many still do, by rounding off uncomfortable facts to fit a certain story line.

          1. The shooting is half the story. And whether or not the shooting was justified doesn’t really determine whether or not the protest or the police responses were.

        2. ” people who support violent defense of 2nd amendment rights”

          Can you explain what this means

          1. From my cold dead hands. A lot of people who see no problem with this sort of rhetoric where rights are concerned, are suddenly all law and order when crazy negroes get riled up about something.

            We tend to make all the excuses in the world for ranchers and armed civilians showing up and pointing guns at the Feds. Where is the same power to the people default when citizens of crappy neighborhoods with decades of harassment and zero police accountability finally get fed up?

            I have noticed especially from the self proclaimed Tea Party camp a large percentage of folks who aren’t willing to apply their own principles to other demographics.

            1. Follow the initial Reason reporting on this story and you will see a different perspective. Similarly with the rancher (you’re referring to Cliven Bundy, I assume?).

              Initially, the narrative tells of the government wantonly oppressing people. So the reaction of the commenters is reflexive opposition. Understandable, especially given the dearth of facts. As more information comes out, the story becomes more nuanced, and it’s harder to take clear-cut stances on the whole thing.

              There are regular stories of police shooting dogs, and the race of the owner never plays a part in the opposition of Reason to the abuse. However, if the police were on the scene for legitimate reasons, and the dog was aggressive without cause, then people will take a more skeptical approach.

              The unfortunate thing is that the greatest injustices get lost in the desire to build a narrative. I think you will find that the more principled people will continue to oppose those injustices, but get accused of tilting at windmills.

              Incentives, and all that.

            2. ” A lot of people who see no problem with this sort of rhetoric where rights are concerned, are suddenly all law and order when crazy negroes get riled up about something.””

              So, just to be clear: You’re comparing people on their own private land being assaulted by a rogue federal agency attempting to peacefully defend themselves…

              …with rioters who are rampaging in the streets and robbing businesses, etc?

              sounds legit

  16. Soooo, where are all the rabid Reason.com cop-haters? Should be some apologies handed out around here by them, but I guess they’re too busy choking on their bile.

    1. All this proves is that Brown wasn’t shot in the back.

    2. The only people who would owe an apology would be people who called for the death of or injury to the cop, or any other people, as a consequence of this incident. I haven’t seen too many of those, and the ones I’ve seen have been pretty obvious agents provocateur.

      Police are public servants, collecting paychecks from the public till to serve the public interest. They have an obligation to be honest and respectful to us. While I recognize the role that incentives play in affecting human behavior, that obligation does not flow in both directions. Don’t like it? Don’t be a cop.

      Which is in fact the entire crux of what many people (including myself) who have been discussing the actions of the police after the shooting have been trying to make. If you are not willing to explain yourself and subject yourself to scrutiny, then you don’t belong in a uniform.

      1. He was probably ordered by his superiors, and now his lawyers, not to speak to the press. Since the press hounds and distorts when it wants to I do not blame him for not speaking out.

  17. If the clothes test clean for no gunshot residue then the cops story is in question. If the clothes come back with gun shot residue, then we have support for the police officers story. If the car comes back with gun shot residue, then the cops narrative, being attacked in the car sounds more and more plausible.

    If the tox screen comes back showing the 18 year old was high on PCP, or some other aggressive drug, then this story should end. But, it won’t.

    1. Even if there is gun powder residue on his clothes, that neither supports nor refutes the officer’s story. The officer could have shot Brown at close range whether Brown attacked him as he claims, or he attacked Brown as the witnesses claim.

      Similarly with the car, it gunpowder residue proves nothing. Either the cop could have shot at Brown from the car, as the witnesses say, or he could have shot Brown while Brown was shoving him into the car, as he says.

      So far, the witnesses’ accounts sound the most plausible and they corroborate each other. The cop’s account sounds the least plausible, and would have required a struggle that started at the car and moved 35 feet from the car before Brown was fatally shot. That just sounds ridiculous.

      The toxicity screen shouldn’t have any bearing on the outcome. Whether Brown was high or not is irrelevant to the officer’s obvious abuse of lethal force for the crime of jaywalking. The idea that Brown would have approached his car for telling them to get on the sidewalk is just ridiculous. The officer provoked the situation, then illegitimately resorted to lethal force. He should be tried for, at the very least, abuse of power.

      1. The witness’ accounts to me sound least plausible. Not to mention the chief witness has already been caught in a few major lies, and now admits to having been in the cigar store committing the felony along with the deceased.

    2. I don’t know much at all about guns. From what I’ve read, since I posted the above note this morning gunshot residue only occurs from really, really close range; in the order of 16″ or less.

      So, not sure if gunshot residue says much either way.

  18. Why does it have to be that he was shot in the top of the head while charging the cop with his head down? The other shot to the head was through the eye. Baden said the head shots were most likely the last two. Maybe Wilson dials in his sites, pops off 2 rapid shots in succession, the first one hits the eye and Brown’s head was forced down from the impact, so 2nd shot hits top of his head. Nobody knows which direction getting shot in the face will snap the head. Dorian Johnson said Brown was shot IN THE BACK AS HE WAS RUNNING AWAY, which the autopsy proves to be a lie. Add that to the captured audio indicating Brown was running toward Wilson and Wilson’s version of events are starting to seem more and more likely.

    1. Dorian Johnson said he was shot at while running away, not necessarily that he was struck. His account is not refuted by the autopsy report. We don’t know how many rounds the officer fired, but obviously not all of them actually struck Brown.

      The captured audio from the alleged witness offers an account that lacks confidence in what actually happened. The other three accounts from separate witnesses corroborate each other.

      Wilson’s version of events were always ridiculous-sounding, and none of the evidence suggests otherwise.

  19. Truth is the first casualty of Twitter.

    Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.