Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.

It's been explained in this very thread that the cameras pay for themselves quite quickly. All it takes is a single settlement that didn't have to get paid out vs one that was, and I imagine most large police departments pay out several such settlements per year. There are other considerations with the cameras, but the cost is really the most minor of them.

Preaching to the choir--but remember that the general public tends to consist of kneejerk reactionaries who are easily swayed by key terms.

"Tax hike!" is one of those terms.

Not law enforcement being the Governor called them up. Even if they were Military Police (more likely) they do not have LEO authority unless granted by POTUS. I do not think they are going in with ACH and IOTV's on though which would be dicey since six LEO were injured when they were told to not wear the Protective/Riot gear (they're suing). Now the "Mob" (Going with the Roman "Mob" being the Looters/Rioters from media view is mostly black) might actually claim "Combat Troops" have been deployed against them.

Helmet cams can be attach on anywhere. Its "KISS" at its finest. Except the cord would piss everyone off being it will catch on things damn near


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.

It's been explained in this very thread that the cameras pay for themselves quite quickly. All it takes is a single settlement that didn't have to get paid out vs one that was, and I imagine most large police departments pay out several such settlements per year. There are other considerations with the cameras, but the cost is really the most minor of them.

Preaching to the choir--but remember that the general public tends to consist of kneejerk reactionaries who are easily swayed by key terms.

"Tax hike!" is one of those terms.

Tax Hike can be counter with public safety, liability, and "common sense". Helmet cams have been used to clear "Unauthorized Shooting" in OIF and OEF

Csi kronk, can you get a pic of the doll with is arm folded at the elbow or outstretched forward in a reaching or lunging motion?

 Surtur wrote:
Csi kronk, can you get a pic of the doll with is arm folded at the elbow or outstretched forward in a reaching or lunging motion?

From watching actual CSI shows and documentary

Red rods inserted into wounds to show path of round before entry would tell more

 Surtur wrote:
Csi kronk, can you get a pic of the doll with is arm folded at the elbow or outstretched forward in a reaching or lunging motion?

d=uSa is CSI. Kronk is not. Kronk is BAMF.

 Jihadin wrote:

Tax Hike can be counter with public safety, liability, and "common sense". Helmet cams have been used to clear "Unauthorized Shooting" in OIF and OEF

All that's really unnecessary. Did the city raise a tax to buy an armored car (in the pics it didn't look like milsurp) assault rifles, etc, etc.? No. It's simply a matter of budget priorities. Maybe body cams are not immediately in reach for very small police departments, but PD's of even moderate size get quite a bit of leeway in prioritizing equipment acquisition.

Really, in the longer term, it's probably a moot issue. With the constant improving of technological quality and decreasing of price, it won't be more than a decade or two before a body cam on an officer is as ubiquitous as a badge. The cell phones carried by the spouses of police officers probably have an overall higher level of technology in them than an average body cam.

Professor d-usa.

The cranial shot... wouldn't Brown have to be falling/charging like this?

I don't think I've ever seen a man his size run like that, though. And that's coming from starting blocks.

After the initial start, a runner is completely erect.
*spoiler'd due to size

Please show a pic of a football player rushing to make a tackle.

Yeah... I know.

From my arm chair... I'm guessing he got that wound when falling down.

But, don't mind me... I'm the resident noob-forensic expert.

 whembly wrote:
Professor d-usa.

The cranial shot... wouldn't Brown have to be falling/charging like this?

I looked around the computer and found the enhance button. I pushed it five times and suddenly found myself inside the laptop looking out, and my whole house had this weird supersaturated yellow/orange/blue thing going on. After my cat put on sunglasses the printer spit out a summary of all knowledge that states that the suspect did, in fact, have his right hand on top of his head and the bullet that struck the right hand was deflected down and into the skull.

I have no idea but it sounds good and science-like doesn't it?

 Laemos wrote:
Please show a pic of a football player rushing to make a tackle.

spoilered for size:

 mega_bassist wrote:
*spoiler'd due to size

Spoiler:

Half the runners in that pic have their heads tilted forward or down.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... I know.

From my arm chair... I'm guessing he got that wound when falling down.

I'm thinking that a person that hears the first shot and instinctively ducks/lowers his head forward/raised the arms forward as to block the shots could also end up with wounds in all the positions indicated in the report.

 Laemos wrote:
Please show a pic of a football player rushing to make a tackle.

I also thought of that, but (to my knowledge) we don't have any information on how far away he was shooting. And you only bend over when you're about to make contact...and there was no power residue on his skin, right?

D. Make your model appear to have arms covering the face and the head bent a bit downward. Like one trying to protect one's face. Waist a bit forward to to give the shooter a smaller "target"

 kronk wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Csi kronk, can you get a pic of the doll with is arm folded at the elbow or outstretched forward in a reaching or lunging motion?

d=uSa is CSI. Kronk is not. Kronk is BAMF.

CSI Kronk... Now that's a frightening thought.

 Jihadin wrote:
D. Make your model appear to have arms covering the face and the head bent a bit downward. Like one trying to protect one's face. Waist a bit forward to to give the shooter a smaller "target"

I tried, but the cheap model doesn't want to bend elbows or waist. It won't hold that position at all. But just trying to hold that position myself and looking at my arms and where the wounds are, it seems like it would be possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: what do we actually know about the skull wound other than "it hit the top of the head"?

Did it go straight in, did it just glance, anything?

Which of course is something to keep in mind about my fancy CSI work. I know anatomic position and I know that normally the body doesn't stand like it looks on that paper. But other than that all my fancy detective work is based on guesswork, no forensic training of any kind, and a grainy scanned single sheet paper from a preliminary report from a private autopsy.

I heard one round enter the lower jaw and glance down to enter into the clavical. That jives with head down (could be second to last shot) pushing the head downward more to entry into the top of head being the final shot.

More likely he was right handed. Which would mean he would more likely turn left into incoming fire

Damn good chance the LEO was trained to fire into center mass.

A weapon that firing we all know would track up from discharge. Since it was a rapid trigger squeeze no sight picture was reacquired after first shot.

 Jihadin wrote:

More likely he was right handed. Which would mean he would more likely turn left into incoming fire

Does turn left mean right shoulder forward?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
I heard one round enter the lower jaw and glance down to enter into the clavical. That jives with head down (could be second to last shot) pushing the head downward more to entry into the top of head being the final shot.

I looked back through and it seems like that might have been the one that entered near the right eye and then was deflected down out through the jaw and into the clavicle. Lots of heavy bones around the brain, I could see them deflecting a bullet. Especially if the head was tilted slightly forward.

When you attempt to change direction suddenly you often end up in a lowered position like what was shown coming off the blocks or a tackling position. Ever try and do shuttle runs in gym class?


Also I find the media twisting a rather massive legal adult into a "teen" pretty biased. Dude was 6"4 and 300 lbs, that's not a boy, or what I'd consider a "teen". We send 18 year old adults off to war all the time and judging by his size he's bigger then most soldiers (and cops) so his size has everything to do with the amount of physical threat he'd pose, and they've tried to conceal that issue by labeling him as a "teen" in the headlines. Also why is it they were showing pictures of him when he was in the 12-13 age range? They want to portray him as a innocent boy for sympathy and not as the large and imposing adult he actually was.

Because... The Narrative™.

It's the flaw in having a 24/7 news cycle... they have to fill the airwaves somehow.

Teenager: a person in his teens: from thirteen through nineteen.

You can be an adult and a teenager at the same time. It's that magical period where you are given responsibility of an adult and try to combine it with the stupidity of still being a child.

 d-usa wrote:
Teenager: a person in his teens: from thirteen through nineteen.

You can be an adult and a teenager at the same time. It's that magical period where you are given responsibility of an adult and try to combine it with the stupidity of still being a child.

I actually have no problem the media saying "teen".

We all can figure it out once we hear his age.

However, I do object the strategry of primarily using this pic:

13/14 yo?

Compared to his more recent pic at 18 yo:


'cuz... The Narrative™ needs to be messaged.

His age is irrelevant. He's 6'4" 300. There are occasionally monstrous 14-15 year olds running around that could very well bloody an average adult male and possibly a competent police officer.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

More likely he was right handed. Which would mean he would more likely turn left into incoming fire

Does turn left mean right shoulder forward?

I've seen the shoulder going downward and forward to try to protect the head (going say instinctive refex(?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
I heard one round enter the lower jaw and glance down to enter into the clavical. That jives with head down (could be second to last shot) pushing the head downward more to entry into the top of head being the final shot.

I looked back through and it seems like that might have been the one that entered near the right eye and then was deflected down out through the jaw and into the clavicle. Lots of heavy bones around the brain, I could see them deflecting a bullet. Especially if the head was tilted slightly forward.

Going to guess this
First round was right chest above the nipple
2nd round upper right arm
3rd lower part of upper arm
4th forearm
5th (thumb) I would say a graze with the round entering the right eye which (guessing) slowed the round enough to deflect downward to exit out the lower jaw into the clavicle
6th round the kill shot on top of the head

 whembly wrote:
'cuz... The Narrative™ needs to be messaged.

Of course you are trying to create and propagate your own narrative as well. If you weren't you wouldn't be as insulting or use handpicked photos to try and characterize the victim either. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you would do what you complain about, so I am not.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
'cuz... The Narrative™ needs to be messaged.

Of course you are trying to create and propagate your own narrative as well. If you weren't you wouldn't be as insulting or use handpicked photos to try and characterize the victim either. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you would do what you complain about, so I am not.

Please... do tell me what's my narrative?

Not enough boot strapping?

I think there's a difference between an old photo that's misleading (both age and size), and a new photo that shows what the victim actually looked like.

I don't have any real problem with the second picture that whembly posted. I mean, he's fully clothed, not doing anything illegal. None of the clothes appear to be overly vulgar or "bad". It gives the impression of an adult vs a child, but beyond that, it doesn't seem to cast him in any dimmer a light than I would imagine any other picture to do so.

I mean, I work with people in a professional environment who dress more questionably than that on a daily basis.