Michael Brown
Ferguson And The Real Race War ~ FIREWALL
Officer Wilson Suffered Fracture to Eye Socket (UPDATED)
CNN is calling attention to the possibility that the below is WRONG. Completely. Gateway is pointing out that there are FOUR independent sources saying it is a fact.
Via Gateway Pundit:
A blowout fracture is a fracture of one or more of the bones surrounding the eye and is commonly referred to as an orbital floor fracture. (AAPOS)
This comes after St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter tweeted out last night that a dozen local witnesses confirmed Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson’s version of the Brown shooting story.
Dr. Michael Baden ~ Autopsy Contradicts “Eyewitnesses”
Sorry Race-Baiters: Autopsy Reveals Flaw in Testimony (UPDATED 2X)
UPDATE NEAR BOTTOM
(Link in pic above)
Via Gateway Pundit:
The New York Times released details of the autopsy tonight.
Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found.
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. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.
Here are the details that the eyewitness — Blood gang member — got wrong:
…“The whole time [the officer] was holding my friend until the gun went off,” Johnson noted.
Brown and Johnson took off running together. There were three cars lined up along the side of the street. Johnson says he ducked behind the first car, whose two passengers were screaming. Crouching down a bit, he watched Brown run past.
“Keep running, bro!,” he said Brown yelled. Then Brown yelled it a second time. Those would be the last words Johnson’s friend, “Big Mike,” would ever say to him.
Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back. At that point, Johnson says Brown stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”…
(MSNBC)
Two major things can be gleaned from this:
- No close range shot, no gun-powder burn or residue;
- All bullets were shot into the front of Michael….
…as eyewitness testimony reveals that Michael was charging the officer.
Gay Patriot finishes off the non-thinking and ONLY viscerally acting on feelings in the Ferguson case by quoting Thomas Sowell:
Some have said that we are living in a post-industrial era,
while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era.
But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.
UPDATE VIA GATEWAY:
The Wall Street Journal reports that At the request of the Brown family, former New York Medical Examiner and renowned physician Dr. Michael Baden conducted a supplemental autopsy on Michael Brown.
The Baden autopsy found that Brown was shot 6 times. His cause of death were two bullets to the head. Crucially, the Baden Autopsy found that NONE of the bullets entered from the rear: all wounds were received facing Officer Darren Wilson.
As important, the autopsy suggest that Brown did NOT have his hands up (don’t shoot). Of the six bullets which hit Brown, two struck him in the head and FOUR (!) struck him in the arm, with some of the shots PENETRATING THE ARM AND TRAVELING ON THROUGH THE CHEST, PIERCING HIS LUNGS.” This would seem to at least cast some doubt on whether or not Brown had his arms raised in surrender.
The fact that Brown was shot in the top of the head shows that he was likely bumrushing Officer Wilson.
From the WSJarticle: “Some of the shots to his arm went through the limb and entered his chest and lungs, according to Dr. Baden, who served for 25 years in the medical examiner’s office in New York City and another 25 years with the New York State Police before entering private practice.”…
Again, there is raw video from the crime scene where eyewitness “crosstalk” was captured on video. In this crosstalk you hear that the police officers version is supported:
An approximate transcription of the background conversation, as related by the “Conservative Treehouse” blog, who originally discovered the conversation:
But according to the legacy media passing around bogus information — as it is apt to do. Here, for instance, is WaPo just passing on info for the hell of it:
…The governor’s extraordinary action came as the attorney for a key witness described the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown as an execution-style slaying. Lawyer Freeman Bosley Jr. said Dorian Johnson, a friend of Brown’s, has told the FBI that Officer Darren Wilson confronted the two because they were walking in the middle of the street.
Wilson cursed at the pair and ordered them onto the sidewalk, Bosley told The Washington Post. When they refused to comply, he said, the officer grabbed Brown’s throat through the window of his cruiser, pulled out a pistol and shot him. Wilson then chased Brown, shot him in the back and shot him five to six more times as Brown’s hands were raised, Bosley said….
The above autopsy and eyewitness crosstalk answered a question I had via an earlier post pointed out by Legal Insurrection: “Even more curious is that Johnson claims he, by way of his attorney, has reached out to local law enforcement to provide his account of the story, and Ferguson police are refusing to interview him….”
BECAUSE the police knew he was lying by the evidence!
CASE CLOSED!
A tweet by St. Louis Post-Dispatch crime reporter Christine Byers dropped a bombshell in the ongoing reporting on the shooting of unarmed 18 year old Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer.
The below is via The Blaze:
Conflicting Eyewitness Accounts in Ferguson… (UPDATED 2X)
These updates are posted because we were told this was a “good” kid who was days away from going to college. Speaking from experience, if I were killed during my youth it would be based on MY choices and behavior. God saw fit to keep me in His material creation… reaching down into a place you would think God couldn’t — super-max. God is good AND God is sovereign.
ANOTHER Update… thanks Gateway!
The convenience store video reveals Michael Brown entering the store followed by Johnson. Brown hands a box of Swisher Sweets to Johnson. Brown took several boxes of cigars and turned to leave the store. “Brown grabbed the clerk and “forcefully pushed him back into a display rack.”
See the police report that details more at Gateway.
….yesterdays update below:
Here is the UPDATE, via Gateway Pundit
- Hannity: Either a shot was fired from inside the police officer’s car or it was not.
- Jackson: It was, yes.
- Hannity: Do we know for a fact then, so there was a struggle for the gun then?
- Jackson: It is a fact…
- Hannity: …Then are you convinced that the officer involved in the shooting was in department guidelines in protecting himself?
- Jackson: I can’t answer that until I have the report from the county.
- Hannity: But you are convinced that an altercation occurred and a shot was fired within the car, meaning Mr. Brown was in the car at some point?
- Jackson: He was, he was. Yes.
The two pictures on the left [below] appear to depict two different hand signs that show allegiance to a “Bloods” street gang. Take note of the red as well.
End Update
There are two versions of what went down in the Ferguson shooting. I am leaning towards the officers version… but I agree with Rational Beacon’s main point to finish out his post, which is: “…police should video record everything they do. If we had a clear video of what happened, we’d almost certainly be able to firmly nail down the relevant facts.”
I hope there is video (or at least audio from the forward facing video?).
Legal Insurrection, however, has this head turner that the eyewitness has not been interviewed by the police:
…There appear to be conflicting reports from law enforcement and supposed eye witnesses regarding what actually happened. Law enforcement claim Brown assaulted the cop that took his life. Dorin Johnson who claims he was with Brown at the time he was shot has a very different story. Johnson says he and Brown were minding their own business when a cop rolled up, told them to get on the sidewalk, then proceeded to assault Brown and eventually kill him.
Johnson’s story seems to corroborate with another supposed eye witness, Piaget Crenshaw.
Even more curious is that Johnson claims he, by way of his attorney, has reached out to local law enforcement to provide his account of the story, and Ferguson police are refusing to interview him….
Here is the first version of the haps:
Here is what happened, according to police, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:
Authorities said the shooting occurred around noon Saturday, when a Ferguson police officer encountered two men in the street. When the officer tried to exit his vehicle, Chief Belmar said one of the two pushed the officer back into the cruiser. The suspect allegedly assaulted the officer in the car and the two struggled over his gun. At least one shot was fired inside the vehicle. A few moments later, Chief Belmar said, the officer allegedly fired multiple shots outside the vehicle that killed the suspect, about 35 feet from the cruiser.
If that account is accurate, and if Brown is the “suspect” in question, then arguably Brown attempted to murder a police officer.
Here is the other eyewitness account:
…now consider the accounts of Brown’s associate and another witness, as reported by the Los Angeles Times:
Dorin Johnson, a friend of Brown’s, told Fox 2 that he and Brown were walking in the street when the police car pulled up. The officer said to “get the eff onto the sidewalk,” he recounted. Johnson said the officer reached out of the car window and grabbed Brown around the neck.
Another witness, Piaget Crenshaw, said she saw police chase Brown. “He ran for his life,” she said. “They shot him and he fell. He put his arms up to let them know that he was compliant and he was unarmed, and they shot him twice more and he fell to the ground and died.”
Whether the officer shot Brown as Brown was running away is independent of whether Brown assaulted the police officer and reached for his gun. If Brown assaulted the officer, then Brown was in the wrong. If the officer shot Brown while Brown was running away, then the officer was in the wrong. So, yes, it’s possible, depending on the facts, that both parties were in the moral and legal wrong.
Prager Makes A Common Mistake In Regards To Jesus’ Divinity
Listening to the Dennis Prager Show the other day, Dennis said two things that caught my attention. They are:
a) he likened Jesus to other Messianic figures;
b) he said the Gospel of John was the only place Jesus called himself “Divine,” God.
Here is the Audio:
To be clear of what is below.
- First, that Jesus refers to himself as Deity (GOD) in the Gospel of Mark;
- Second, how did ancient rabbi’s view Isaiah 53;
- Then I show Jesus referenced himself as Diety in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
While I deal with two points, the third (Psalm 110) deals both with Jesus being different than past Jewish Messiah’s, as well as showing Prager’s statement about the Gospel of John to be wrong.
So lets deal with this two fold then. I will deal with “B” first, as it is a short response, needing only one example to show Prager’s assumption to be wrong (and remember, he loves truth for truths sake). He seemingly accepts the typical attribution to the age of the books by modern Biblical critics because he accepts their premise that John is the only book Jesus claims divinity. Then, using the attributed idea that Mark is the oldest book and is itself from “Q” material, any claims of Divinity in it should be THAT MUCH MORE powerful (early).
Mark 14:60-64
Here is Josh McDowell intimating an encounter many years ago he noted in his now classic apologetic work, “More Than a Carpenter.”
So, that short, succinct, recapping of a challenge I the university class room by a professor is just one example to show a clear claim to Divinity by Jesus in another Gospel other than John.
Now to the larger response, “A.” Jesus is not, was, not, like any other Jewsish pseudo Messiah, He, yes He, is much different. Why? Because he alone has fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in Scripture.
Isaiah 53
The first thing that came to mind about this comment from Prager is how Jewish people/culture have changed the book of Isaiah over time to mean something different than the earlier Rabbis believed. Here, we get into some reading, I will of course put some video to it as well… but a serious subject requires a bit of reading, and I was impacted by Chuck Smith’s and Mark Eastman’s work on the subject, “The Search for Messiah,” of which the following is from…. again, it is long (13-pages to be exact).
This post is meant for the serious student, or Dennis Prager:
- Dr. Erez Soref – The Messiah is the purpose of the Torah
Psalm 110:1-7 ~David’s Son and David’s Lord
A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.’ The rod of thy strength doth Jehovah send from Zion, Rule in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people are free-will gifts in the day of Thy strength, in the honours of holiness, From the womb, from the morning, Thou hast the dew of thy youth. Jehovah hath sworn, and doth not repent, ‘Thou art a priest to the age, According to the order of Melchizedek.’ The Lord on thy right hand smote kings In the day of His anger. He doth judge among the nations, He hath completed the carcases, Hath smitten the head over the mighty earth. From a brook in the way he drinketh, Therefore he doth lift up the head!
In Matthew 22:41-46 (Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44), citing Psalm 110, Jesus said, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’ [Messiah]?” Jesus stumped his skeptical Jewish questioners by presenting then with a dilemma that blew their own neat calculations about the Messiah “Lord”(as he did in Ps. 110), when the Scriptures also say the Messiah would be the “Son of David” (which they do in 2 Samuel 7:12.)? The only answer is that the Messiah must be both a man (David’s son or offspring) and God (David’s Lord). Jesus is claiming to be both God and human, at the same time!
Here is the Matthew verse:
While the Pharisees were together, Jesus questioned them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose Son is He?” “David’s,” they told Him. He asked them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit,[a] calls Him ‘Lord’:
The Lord declared to my Lord,
‘Sit at My right hand
until I put Your enemies under Your feet’?
“If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how then can the Messiah be his Son?” No one was able to answer Him at all, and from that day no one dared to question Him anymore.
It is bullet pointed thus:
- Double-question by Jesus (42a)
- Answer by Pharisees (42b)
- Second double-question by Jesus (43–45)
- Silence (46)
Richard B. Gardner, Matthew, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991), 329.
Matthew Henry notes the importance of this verse as a call to reflect on WHO Jesus is:
22:41-46 When Christ baffled his enemies, he asked what thoughts they had of the promised Messiah? How he could be the Son of David and yet his Lord? He quotes Ps 110:1. If the Christ was to be a mere man, who would not exist till many ages after David’s death, how could his forefather call him Lord? The Pharisees could not answer it. Nor can any solve the difficulty except he allows the Messiah to be the Son of God, and David’s Lord equally with the Father. He took upon him human nature, and so became God manifested in the flesh; in this sense he is the Son of man and the Son of David. It behoves us above all things seriously to inquire, What think we of Christ? Is he altogether glorious in our eyes, and precious to our hearts? May Christ be our joy, our confidence, our all. May we daily be made more like to him, and more devoted to his service.
Walter A. Elwell also notes that “Only a person who recognizes Jesus as both God and man could understand and answer the question of verse 45.”
Jesus is truly the son of David (1:1–17), but not merely so. For he is preeminently the Son of God (16:16) and thus David’s Lord. As Jesus now reveals, the Old Testament itself (Ps. 110) witnesses to Messiah’s deity, to both the distinction of person and the identity of being between God the Father (“the Lord”) and God the Son (“my Lord”). The Pharisees do not acknowledge Jesus’ messiahship, much less his deity. Only a person who recognizes Jesus as both God and man could understand and answer the question of verse 45.
Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, vol. 3, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), Mt 22:41.
See also Hebrew University professor Israel Knohl’s supposed discrepancy with this idea and Jesus’ geneology, here. Also, a greate xcoriation of this Psalm comes via The Rosh Pina Project, and, while it is a longer article, his opening is worth the posting here:
This is the most quoted Psalm in the New Testament (about one-third of quotes from the Tanach come from this Psalm.) For example Psalm 110:4 in Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:3, 11, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28). Words about sitting at God’s right hand are echoed in Mark 14:62, Acts 2:34ƒ and Hebrews 10:12ƒ.
Psalm 110 is also a very disputed psalm. There was a time when few did not consider this a Messianic Psalm, today the few are those that continue to affirm the Messianic nature of this Psalm.
Modern Liberal scholars who presume that foretelling prophecy does not exist approach this text with a bias. They say it must all speak of a contemporary situation from the time of the writer. There is some truth to the fact that this must have meant something at its time of writing. But, there is implicit in this a failure to accept the essential futuristic foretelling aspect that defines prophetic writing as prophecy.
The fact that the Psalm starts with נְאֻ֤ם יְהוָ֨ה “ne’um Adonai“, a classic prophetic phrase, firmly fixes the prophetic nature of this Psalm.
- 2 of 2
- « Previous
- 1
- 2