The Office of the Medical Investigator has released a report of the guy who died after shooting a police dog. It says he shot himself. But in a strange statement the report says
"On the left chest, 45 cm below the top of the head, 2.5 cm to
How can there be no evidence of gunpowder burns at that range? What kind of clothing would resist it? There might be good explanations, but this report should be reviewed by the Department of Justice, because it just doesn't ring true.
He also had broken bones in his face from bean bag hits, and dog bites.
"On the left chest, 45 cm below the top of the head, 2.5 cm to
the left of the anterior midline, and 5.5 cm superior and lateral
to the xiphoid process, is an entrance gunshot wound consisting
of a 0.9 cm round defect with an up to 0.1 cm wide
circumferential pink marginal abrasion which is widest at 11 to
2 o’clock position. Thermal injury, pink discoloration from
possible carbon monoxide, soot, unburned gunpowder particles
and gunpowder stippling are not visible on the skin surrounding
the wound.
Path:
The hemorrhagic wound track sequentially perforates the skin,
subcutaneous tissue, left anterior 4/5 rib, pericardium, right
ventricle, interventricular septum, left ventricle, left liver lobe,
stomach, spleen, and left posterior intercostal space. The
missile comes to rest in the soft tissue of the left lower back.
Associated injuries include left hemothorax (1600 mL), a small
left pneumothorax, and a mediastinal shift to the right. No soot
or unburned gunpowder particles are visible on the hands nor
on the gloves overlying the hands."
He also had broken bones in his face from bean bag hits, and dog bites.
6 comments:
I’m not sure why you are the only one who seems to be interested in this story. It’s good that you are on it!
Off topic, sort of, but food for thought about new vs. old journalism.
As quoted in this article:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/
“But beyond surveillance and privacy, one of the goals of this NSA reporting (at least from my perspective) was to trigger a desperately needed debate about journalism itself, and the proper relationship of journalists to those who wield political and economic power. The question of why The New York Times was excluded from this story led to a serious public examination for the first time of its decision to suppress that NSA story, which in turn led to public recriminations over the generally excessive deference U.S. media outlets have shown the U.S. government.”
Journal, KOB, KOAT and KRQE, are you listening? If you want to survive, without your dysfunctional codependence on this government, you may want to reevaluate your priorities.
The issue is that this unfortunate person was attempting to defend himself from a police dog that was instructed to attack and maul him -- without justification -- when he did not pose an immediate threat to anybody -- and shot himself, by accident, in the process. While it may not technically be a homicide -- this individual would be alive today but for APD's unnecessary use of excessive force. Similarly, the dog handler who sicked the police dog on Boyd's lifeless body -- while he lay motionless in a pool of his own blood -- likewise should be held accountable just like the officers who shot and killed him. Please keeping shinning a light on this.
To springboard on Anonymous #1's comment and go off topic a little further; the media outlet that quote is taken from, The Intercept, is the new online publication financed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and edited by Glen Greenwald of Edward Snowden document fame along with Laura Poitres, the documentary filmmaker, which whom Greenwald worked to get the Snowden documents to safety and to get Snowden out of Hong Kong and into Russia, and also co-edited by the excellent investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill.
As the domain name implies, The Intercept is one of several ventures in alternative media Omidyar has planned under the First Look Umbrella.
This kind of project, incidentally, always raises questions on the Left from people who worry not so much about the power all his money gives someone like Omidyar, I don't think, but that it's instead of something coming from the grassroots.
About Snowden's NSA documents. Although they seem to be increasingly ignored by the mainstream media, they just keep coming, and the revelations in them aren't any less staggering. They are seemingly being dribbled out gradually, which apparently has to do, on the one hand, with having to go through them, understand them, and decide which ones should be released. Like Wikileaks they don't publish everything but weigh potential harm versus the public interest being served, as traditional media outlets have always done when deciding whether or not to publish things.
Also, Greenwald saved some things for a book he released to relatively little fanfare last month - "No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State."
The revelations from the book may be on The Intercept site, but I haven't noticed them, although he did go on at length about them in an interview with Amy Goodman at Democracy Now, the transcript of which is here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/13/collect_it_all_glenn_greenwald_on
A couple highlights from that interview: Greenwald said that Snowden documents clearly show that the NSA is scooping up everything. "Collect it all" is their motto. Everything.
Also, despite the attention given to its spying on US citizens and foreign leaders, the NSA also devotes a lot of resources to economic espionage - stealing trade secrets from foreign companies, spying on foreign governments' economic conferences to find out their strategies for competing against the US, etc.
It's a pretty revealing interview. Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and a careful journalist, but it seems to me he just likes telling stuff to Amy Goodman.
Bubba,
Greenwald has been on the circuit. Here's his interview on Charlie Rose.
http://charlierose.com/watch/60391353
And for those of you who missed it, Charlie Rose did an interview with Thomas Piketty, who discusses economies from a historical perspective, it's relationship to inequality, and the results. It's particularly interesting for New Mexicans if they want to understand the collective groups in the Movement. There is a theme.
http://charlierose.com/watch/60404949
I just had a chance to watch the Greenwald interview and it's a very different interview. Charlie Rose has a vastly different audience than Amy Goodman (and is a better interviewer) and it's his first time with Greenwald so he spends much of the time grilling Greenwald about the national security implications of the Snowden documents and of their release and less on what's been in them, but anyone who is not clear about any of it - why it's important that we know what the government is doing, what actually happened, how Snowden and Greenwald got together, the process, how Greenwald vets documents for release, whether Russia or China got hold of any of the documents while Snowden was in Hong Kong or after he got to Russia - will gain a much better understanding of all that and why it's a very important story.
I'm looking forward to the Pitketty interview in which Rose will no doubt immediately go after him regarding the criticisms about his documentation.
Rose does ask the hard questions and Piketty answers them effectively in my opinion. And you'll note that Piketty accomplished his mission on this blog and in the world of "conversations about ideas," since we are discussing it. : )
I'd enjoy a blog conversation about how his concepts can be applied to Albuquerque and New Mexico with this group if Jim's willing to post it.
Post a Comment