Case for support of the Grand Jury decision

[pettypace]

Just finished reading the NY Times story on the Grand jury which can be gleaned at the following link:
[link:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/the-duties-of-12-jurors-who-do-not-decide-guilt.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article|

I believe it laid out an impressive case for why the Grand Jury decided as it did. The following are excerpts which back up the jury's decision.

* The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots

* The accounts of several other witnesses from the Ferguson .... including those who said Mr. Brown was trying to surrender — changed over time or were inconsistent with physical evidence

* the officer fired five shots as Mr. Brown charged him, then another five shots as he made what one witness called a “full charge."

*Some people claiming to be eyewitnesses said Mr. Brown was shot in the back....but later changed their stories when autopsies found no injuries entering his back.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I believe one last question remains, who among the 12 jurors disagreed with the decision not to indict. The article states that at least NINE couldn't agree. I'm not sure what that actually means, particularly since there were three blacks and nine whites on the jury.

If the decision was split racially, that would be the biggest story going forward.

[olddots]

1. Berlin 1933

[Oktober]

4. Really...

I wish I could make this text more incredulous...

I hope you can feel my eyes rolling all the way from Africa...

[Shivering Jemmy]

10. you aren't in Africa.

[Oktober]

13. *looks out the window*

Ok buddy... Whatever you say...

[Shivering Jemmy]

16. Good. Glad you saw sense.

Whatever I say is exactly the only good course of action.

[Oktober]

17. I'm sure that the Africans....

.... currently living in a trash heap 200 yards to my north will be glad to hear that they no longer live in one of the poorest areas of the world.

Maybe they'll go for mocha frappachinos at the local Starbucks.

[Shivering Jemmy]

19. you aren't in Africa.

[Oktober]

21. What are you basing that on?

Remember... logic...

You can do this...

[Shivering Jemmy]

24. What I am basing it on

Is that for several posts now I have completely prevented you from spewing any more thought-sewage.

But you still aren't in Africa.

[Oktober]

30. Ohhhh...

Reasonable discussion and facts make you uncomfortable?

Poor thing.... Must make life difficult...

[snooper2]

51. If you were in Africa you wouldn't be shivering

I crack me up

[Recursion]

25. Are you saying Oktober has been making up living in Africa for months now

For no particular reason?

[LanternWaste]

73. No doubt there is indeed, a particular reason.

No doubt there is indeed, a particular reason.

[rudolph the red]

83. Made me think of Jimmy two times from Goodfellas

get the papers, get the papers

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I'm sorry, 12 shots...

I don't care.

[Agschmid]

7. Yup.

[truedelphi]

11. Twelve shots to kill one person.

Who apparently did not deserve a jury trial for the crime he may or may not have committed, but which the public has been given every assurance he did committ.

Because, well, you know, skin color, and what more does anyone need to know?

[Bobbie Jo]

60. This. Period. nt

[madfloridian]

3. Fact remains that Brown was not armed.

[Oktober]

6. Are you under the impression that...

a) You need a weapon to cause damage to someone

or

b) It is unreasonable to think that an attacker might try to take a weapon in a conflict

[Shivering Jemmy]

9. Yes.

[Blue_Tires]

14. I'm under the impression that for some magical reason, belligerent white folks

can be apprehended by the police without the use of deadly force, while we cannot...I know this because I see it damn near every weekend during the summer when it's bar/club closing time...

[hfojvt]

86. you see what every weekend?

Pretty sure that stats and facts will show that many, many black people are apprehended without the use of deadly force. How else do those millions end up in prison or on probation?

And there are also a number of white people shot by cops. Here's one that google found for me

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-after-police-killed-my-son-110038.html

"After police in Kenosha, Wis., shot my 21-year-old son to death outside his house ten years ago — and then immediately cleared themselves of all wrongdoing — an African-American man approached me and said: “If they can shoot a white boy like a dog, imagine what we’ve been going through.”"

[Blue_Tires]

88. To answer your question

I see white kids who were fightin' drunk do more in their confrontations with cops than what Brown (allegedly) did to Wilson and lost his life for...

I'm not saying no innocent white folks have ever been killed by the cops...But I'm sure you realize the scale is heavily tilted in only one direction...

[madfloridian]

22. Yes. There is no excuse for this mess.

[Oktober]

23. It's amazing how easy it is to say...

... when it isn't you.

[arthritisR_US]

47. Tell that to Micheal. nt

[noiretextatique]

77. it is easy to claim Mike Brown "looked like a demon, and grunted"

if you are white and know that other white people will respond to that blatantly racist depiction. it is real easy to justify any shooting or murder of black people when they are always put on trial, not the perpetrator. same thing happened with Trayvon Martin. and the same thing will happen to the 12yo who was killed in Cleveland...and the same thing will happen with the 28 yo who was killed in NYC.

[kcr]

49. Are you under the impression that...

a)Police should just shoot anyone they damn well please regardless? or b)Particularly if they have happen to have too much melanin in their skin? Because c) don't you think the presence of a weapon is in any way relevant?

[sabrina 1]

55. Who was 'damaged' in this case, the one WITH the weapon or the one WITHOUT the weapon?

[Oktober]

66. Oh, I see... That's new standard? One has to take damage before responding with force?

I'm sure all the women who have been threatened by their exes will appreciate that....

Assault is gone... Brandishing is gone... Robbery is fine as long as you don't actually stab the person... They agreed...

Lordy but this whole event has turned off the logical parts of everyone's brain.

You are looking at it with the glorious benefit of hindsight. It's a fine way to feel smug and superior but not acceptable for a legal standard.

[sabrina 1]

68. Oh you are right about one thing, 'this whole event has turned off the logical parts of everyone's

(not everyone's, however) brain'.

And please don't play the 'woman' card with Democrats like me. We are tired of women being used this way, too smart to be 'emotionally manipulated' with the 'I care about women' card, it is insulting.

Now, back to reality. Wilson was a hulk at 6'4" who turned to jelly when he tried to grap a teenager, why we don't know, who needed a weapon to defend himself with, because frankly, as with all these cases, Zimmerman et al, it appears that these Law Enforcement people are COWARDS.

Here's some advice for armed, cowardly cops from now on.

When someone is just walking down the street and to YOU they look like DEMON/HULKs or whatever his fantasy was, don't grab them by the arm. That would be the logical thing to do.

Same with Zimmerman who stalked a perfectly innocent teenager but couldn't handle a fair fight which is why he too, NEEDS A WEAPON.

Most of the men I have known all my life, first, don't put themselves in these situations, and if someone else puts them there, they have been able to handle themselves, WITHOUT A WEAPON. Eg, my BF was able to talk a wanted, escaped man out of a woman's bedroom where he had her trapped, without a weapon, without hurting anyone, and escort him to the cops when they arrived.

I guess I associate with men who can handle themselves and probably avoid the cowardly types who need weapons to make themselves feel secure. Not that I never met that type, I did. They are dangerous, because they are frightened.

[WinkyDink]

81. A trial would be a good place to answer those.

[Spazito]

5. I don't fault the grand jury for their verdict, they were given select evidence...

put forward by the prosecutor's staff, evidence put forward in the defense of wilson instead of in prosecution of same.

What they also got was the prosecution of the victim. What the victim received was injustice.

[arthritisR_US]

20. Let's get real. That grand jury was not

presented with evidence from any prosecutor, it came from defense attorneys. They ran it like a fecking trial against Michael Brown.

[Spazito]

28. The prosecutor presented a defense case for wilson, the grand jury didn't receive any evidence for..

prosecuting him. It WAS a trial of Michael Brown, I totally agree.

The Grand Jury are not the ones to blame, imo, that lies with the lying prosecutors, the disgusting Governor, the murderer wilson.

[arthritisR_US]

45. That is exactly as I see it! I'm so mad I

could puke, never mind I already have. Lady Justice must really be sinking in the harbour.

[snooper2]

62. you haven't read a single page of the evidence presented apparently

[arthritisR_US]

67. You are wrong in your assumption. nt

[pettypace]

8. Sorry here's the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/the-duties-of-12-jurors-who-do-not-decide-guilt.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

[davidn3600]

12. 9 of the 12 jurors are needed to indict

That's what that number means. 9 jurors were needed to agree to indict.

I don't believe we will ever know who voted what since those are deliberations which are secret. And the identities of the jurors can only be unsealed by a judge.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. That's why they needed nine WHITE people. Dollars to donuts, all nine said no indictment.

Wilson defense attorney, McCulloch - who plays a prosecutor for the bright lights and cameras - did everything he could to ensure that another white cop got away with extrajudicial execution of a young black man, sending a message to all White cops across this nation: shoot to kill any Black you please if they so much as look at you because you get three months paid vacation and there will never, ever be any penalty for doing so.

U.S. police are no different than the Schutzstaffel (SS) and Gestapo of Nazi Germany, notwithstanding the good police officers with integrity who are few and far between.

[Dreamer Tatum]

35. Again, because all white people are racists.

Again, except you, of course.

[noiretextatique]

75. no, but there are some racist white people

too many of them.

[snooper2]

52. the decision by the grand jury was unanimous-

[BlueCaliDem]

58. That's not what I heard. That said, the GJ in Ferguson doesn't NEED all twelve.

They only need nine. And since McCulloch himself declined to say whether the decision was unanimous, how do you know?

[Spazito]

76. Link please to where it is stated "the decision by the grand jury was unanimous"..

the prosecutor stated he could not ask what the vote was so I am very curious where you got your information.

[mythology]

54. By that "logic"

They only needed 4 white jurors.

Or of course you could be wrong.

[BlueCaliDem]

59. Good thing you put that word in quotation marks.

Because the logic of your opinion is really, really OUT there, and in that, I'm not wrong.

[WillowTree]

65. If I recall correctly, I heard that that grand jury was empaneled before this shooting.

So it wasn't selected specifically for this case.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. Why are you promoting whitewashing the Grand Jury and Wilson? Do you agree with their decision?

IF that's the case, what the F is wrong with you??

[Jacoby365]

18. What a load of hooey... n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Thank you! ^^^This!^^^ eom

[TorchTheWitch]

80. or you could just read all the documents yourself

All they eyewitness interviews and stuff.

Not that you would though. So much easier to pop into a thread and scream BS. Now that the evidence is out unsurprisingly all the folks here that weren't willing to wait for it in the first place don't want to see it. Then they'd have to admit how horribly wrong they've been all these months. Can't have that.

[procon]

29. There are probably hundreds of scientific studies

that have concluded that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, but any savvy lawyer will place great import on personal accounts knowing that they make a deep impression on juries. Even as notoriously flawed as they are, it isn't even necessary for a witness to lie or be coached to inaccurately state "facts" that never happened... it's just human nature that our memory is subject to all manner of creeping distortions.

I was not surprised to hear the prosecutor placing such a heavy emphasis on unreliable eyewitness testimonies, or even when there was no state officer advocating on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown. The system was rigged from the start.

[fishwax]

31. well, those are all claims that the prosecutor made, anyway

Of course, we know that he's lied about evidence presented in grand jury proceedings before.

Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.

An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.

On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.

A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.

[MaggieD]

40. Exactly

[BlueCaliDem]

61. That sorry excuse for a prosecutor should have either recused himself or have the Gov remove

him and give the case to a special prosecutor. This was rigged from the get-go and Michael Brown and his family will never get justice.

Remember, kiddies, police officers are above the law. That's the message they've sent out with this latest travesty.

[arissa]

32. The problem isn't that the grand jury didn't indict.

I believe it is reasonable to assume that most of the people on that grand jury believed they were making the right decision.

The problem is actually evidenced in your post. The problem is that it has become ok for police to use deadly force in response to citizens who, whether or not they were acting aggressively, angrily, or inappropriately, are not threatening deadly force on the officer.

Police officers do a difficult and dangerous job, but they should be trained in a way that allows them to respond to violent, non-life-threatening cases in a non-life-threatening way. If you shove a man in a drunken bar argument, and that man then pulls out a gun and shoots you 12 times and kills you, he would be going to jail - even though he may have been justified in feeling "threatened" by you, it doesn't give him the right to use deadly force.

Police officers should be trained highly enough that they can respond to these situations without resorting to using their deadly weapons. I believe that many of them are. I train self-defense and martial arts, and I've trained with police officers who are very skilled in this and take pride in it. They've told me many stories of disabling a suspect that was being aggressive with them without resorting to deadly force.

The problem is that, as a society, we've somehow got to the point where someone acting physically aggressive with a police officer is justification for deadly force, instead of attempting to disable the suspect first. That's scary, and not ok.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Superb response! +1

[lovemydog]

37. Another problem is the law in Missouri that gives way too much

discretion to the police to use deadly force even when not met with deadly force.

[mr_liberal]

34. It doesnt say any jurors disagreed.

Its just obvious that at least nine didn't vote to indict because there was no indictment.

The jury could have been unanimous. I don't think we'll ever know for sure though because thats information thats not allowed to be disclosed. Maybe a juror could tell us though if they do interviews.

[MFM008]

42. In his garbled explanation

That prosecutor said it was unanimous.

[Wella]

36. Do you have a link for that?

Thanks.

[TorchTheWitch]

38. enough of the racism about the jurors

I'm really fucking tired of people constantly bringing up the race of the jurors as if they're so racist that they would make their decision based on their own race or anyone else's. Racism is never going to end until people STOP thinking that a person's race or the race of another is what makes even their most critical and important decisions.

The racial make up of the jurors and how they voted matters not one single iota, and I'm shocked that anyone would even consider their races. I'm pissed off that their races were even reported. It's the ONLY thing about them that has been reported, and it should be abundantly obvious why... so that even those people that claim to abhor racism and love to point it out in everyone else whether it's there or not can happily be racist themselves believing that any juror on that panel whether white or black made their decision based on race while being entirely blind to how racist that is not to mention how insulting to those jurors regardless of which race they are.

As for why they voted as they did... no one here other than me has given a single fart in the wind about evidence from the first report of the incident. Anyone else that may have has kept their mouths shut all this time. Best of luck getting anyone to even look at it other than the race part since believing that the races of the jurors is all that moved them has been fashionable here with no one even realizing how grossly racist and insulting that is.

This case has caused far more damage to race relations than anything else I can think of in more decades than I care to consider. Every bit of reporting continually emphasized race with every single article when not one single person actually involved in the incident ever said one single thing about anyone's race. Even those people that normally and thankfully never even notice anyone's race or how or why it may move them in their beliefs and decision making have jumped on the racist bandwagon not seeing anyone as a person but as a WHITE person or as a BLACK person. Just how the hell does anyone expect to overcome racial problems or racism in general by emphasizing everyone's race? The only way that racism can ever stop is to stop looking at everyone as a person of XYZ race and believing it is the end all and be all of everything they say or do, and to do that as someone who claims they aren't racist and without even realizing how racist it is to be judging the decisions of the jurors solely based on their races is abominable.

I keep having terrible visions of the civil rights era where black men protested wearing or carrying signs that said "I Am A Man" meaning they weren't a BLACK man but a man just like any other man. Martin Luther King would be rolling over in his grave to see people that claim to abhor racism figuratively hanging a sign on every person that says "I Am A Black Man/Woman" or "I Am A White Man/Woman" utterly destroying everything that works when it comes to overcoming racism. Rather than shaming the media by emphasizing everyone's race, everyone EMBRACED it believing that they were somehow helping to turn the tide against racism when all it has done was cause more racism than I've ever personally seen in my life.

As a lily white blonde person so light I'm practically translucent I seem to be a target for every racist on earth that believe that because I'm so extremely white that they can freely make racist remarks with the belief that I feel the same way. I can't even count anymore the number of people I've publicly roasted alive and while at work making the foul judgment that because I practically glow in the dark that I'm just as racist as they are. And every single time not ONE other person stood up with me though many had said something in thanks very quietly and under their breath for which I also roasted them for being so disgustingly cowardly. Never in my life have I ever let any racist comments go past me, and I utterly resent the assumption that my glowing whiteness makes me just as racist as these foul people. Anyone I see doing it here is equally going to get the rough edge of my tongue. Since I only even open a small fraction of threads here and have an ignore list so long that it could probably wrap around my entire town several times I absolutely cringe to imagine how much of the racism here that I'm not even seeing as what I have seen has been absolutely appalling.

[MaggieD]

41. LMAO

Really? Sorry, I'm too tired to dissect. But, really? I'm white. We apparently grew up in real America versus fantasy america. Whatever.

[Specialist-Ed]

71. That's Racist

Believing black jurors would react and vote a certain way based on their race, is racism no?

[TorchTheWitch]

72. I said that

Believing someone of any race would react and vote a certain way based on race is blatant racism. Doesn't matter which race... some of the jurors are white while others are black and these comments have been directed toward all of the jurors. White, black or whatever believing any of them would vote due to race is racist. How is this not as obvious as a horse, three elephants and and entire lion pride sitting on one's lap?

[noiretextatique]

74. who said you were a racist?

who here said you were as bad as white people who are racists? are you denying that they exist? i don't know who was on the grand jury, but i do know the entire investigation was NOT either fair or impartial. so, given the evidence they were presented, including wilson's racist dog whistle about brown "looking like a demon" and "grunting" like an animal, i don't blame them for not indicting. and you are WRONG about MLK. he didn't DENY the reality of racism, as you seem to be trying to do, he denounced it. do you really think wilson was looking at the content of mike brown's character when he killed him? or did he see, as he claimed "a grunting demon?"

[TorchTheWitch]

82. who said anything about me being racist?

I'm talking about the racism directed at the jurors. Where the hell did you ever get the ridiculous idea that I'm denying the reality of racism. Cripes, what the hell post were you reading? Do I seriously need to walk you through every word and explain it to you??? How is it that what I actually SAID wasn't clear and so unclear you've come up with just about every exact opposite of what I SAID.

And no, you don't know for a fact that there was any unfairness about the entire investigation. The fucking documents are all right there to read for yourself every interview with every person and when this case has gotten more scrutiny by more agencies all the way up to the White House than any case EVER somehow all this unfairness and partiality went on right under everyone's noses so much so that you who have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of it believe that just sitting in your armchair you just "know" that the impossible occurred because now matter what the evidence that's out there now no one here ever had any interest in any of it from the start. Someone what a very precious few said to the media was the end all and be all of everything and We Don't NEED No Stinkin' Evidence!

Interesting how everyone only wants to read Wilson's testimony but have no interest in any of the eyewitnesses when for months there's been all this screaming about what the people that claimed to be eyewitnesses said to the media.

So far I've read 8 or 9 eyewitness interviews that are excruciatingly detailed and every one backs up Wilson's version of events save for one by a woman who only saw anything from the point of Brown already having been shot and just before he fell over from a perspective of her third floor apartment. Every one of them that saw Johnson report that he was standing near a tree no where near the police car when the altercation in the car took place, that most of these witnesses were much closer to the scene and couldn't see what was happening inside the car themselves only that because of Brown's arm movements that there was a struggle taking place. They also report that when the shot inside the car was fired Johnson ran to a white Monte Carlo, jumped into the passenger seat, and the car took off at speed. Johnson didn't even know that Brown had been shot or that he'd been killed until he heard it from others. He then returned to the scene sometime later with a girl that had her arm around him.

[trekbiker]

84. whats this...?

a logical, rational post in the midst of all this DU racial hysteria??

thank you. I guess I wont quit this mess DU has become after all.

[MaggieD]

39. Oh brother

Well now we know how easy it is to propagandize people.

[TorchTheWitch]

43. where's the link to this NY Times story?

It's customary when providing information from a source to provide the link to that source.

[pinboy3niner]

44. It's in Reply #8. But the OP author should edit to add it to the OP. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

48. thanks much! on edit - I don't have a reply #8

I must have someone on ignore that's whacked out quite a long string. I'm missing quite a lot of replies in this thread. Can you re-post the link?

I did a search and all I came up with for the NY Times were articles announcing the coming announcement. Weird.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. Here is the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/the-duties-of-12-jurors-who-do-not-decide-guilt.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage

[Live and Learn]

46. Naivety is not the same as innocence and is not something to be proud of.

You refuse to believe the some of the eyewitnesses the (already shown to be police biased) prosecutor CHOSE to use to get himself off the hook for not pressing charges.

You do realize that the Prosecutor in charge was not one unbiased at all given his own personal history (and should have recused himself, due to it)?

You do also recognize how ridiculous it even sounds to believe that even a young, unarmed, person (under no influence of drugs, other than marijuana) would charge a cop that has a gun pointed at them and had already shot them sounds?

The jurors should not be blamed no matter the make up for they are given ONLY the evidence the prosecutor decides (which is why it is so easy to indict innocent people and ham sandwiches). This prosecutor chose which witnesses to present to the grand jury and presented mainly those that had the least credibility.

I don't find his presentation the least bit credible. The fact is Brown was unarmed and there was no excuse for taking his life.

And by the way, Brown is simply a symbol of all the wrongs. It is far more reaching than that.

[tiredtoo]

53. personally i think there should be a like button

here on these posts. I found many comments here that i like and of course some that i dislike.

[sendero]

56. The only way the actual, sworn evidence ...

... was ever going to be made public was through a trial. There should have been one.

[JustAnotherGen]

57. Explain this

If the decision was split racially, that would be the biggest story going forward

That kind of comes across like you have a hang up about how a black juror would review the information -

Do you mean? We can't serve on Grand Juries/Juries when there are blacks with other races involved in an investigation, criminal case, court case?

Not following you here . . .

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Might Be Overreading It JAG

The way i read it was that if indeed, black jurors saw fit to vote for indictment and no white jurors did, that would be a story.

I doubt that is the case (just a feeling), but i don't think the OP was saying black people can't be fair and impartial.

[kdmorris]

64. "At least nine"

means that this was the number that were needed to either indict or not indict. They have not said how many voted which way. It could have been unanimous for all we know.

[NightWatcher]

69. There is a lot of racial injustice, this case may not have been the one to use as an example

This was not a clear case of a white cop targeting someone because they were black and killing them.

It surely was not so obscene as to warrant the riot as a response last night.

The riot that followed the Rodney King incident was more warranted and excusable in my book. Last night, not so much. This case was a he said/he said with no overwhelming proof in support of one side or the other.

[stevenleser]

70. Most credible witnesses according to whom? Were the witnesses cross examined?

If they weren't cross examined, how do you know they were "most credible"?

[noiretextatique]

79. damn good question

i was just thinking that myself.

[WinkyDink]

78. It is not up to a GJ to determine which witnesses are "most credible." The GJ, faced with CONFLIC-

TING stories, NEEDED TO CALL FOR A TRIAL TO SORT THINGS OUT UNDER OATH, IN PUBLIC.

[JCMach1]

85. of course, we will never have the officer's initial statement (there was no report by him)

His testimony was created with the help of a lawyer AFTER THE AUTOPSIES...

That is a key point everyone is forgetting.


Oh yeah, and where are the fingerprints, or hand smudges, partials that indicate Brown grabbed the officer's gun.

Nope, only DNA that could have come from either of the shots fired in the car.

[Nevada Blue]

87. we will never know

I'm exhausted and disheartened by all of this -- the media build-up, the police build-up, the waiting 6+ hours for the announcement, all the bullshit.

However, I came across something on slate this morning and based on the legal technicalities, the decision is legal (if not ethical, if not the right thing to do given the situation, if not lots of relevant issues - still legal).

From slate: "there are the general standards for use of deadly force by police, which give wide latitude to officers who use their weapons. The Supreme Court allows police to use their weapons in two circumstances: To defend their lives and to stop an escaped felon. If Wilson believed that Brown was a felon—or committed a felonious offense—then he was justified under existing law. And if Wilson believed he was in danger of losing his life—a belief that only has to be “objectively reasonable,” not likely or even possible—then, again, he was justified under existing law." Bolding mine.

So, do I think Wilson was a 'bad cop'? Yes. Do I think this could have been handled a couple dozen different (and better) ways? Absolutely. But did it fall within the law? Yes.

If this case will cause the law to be scrutinized, that is a good thing. But the GJ did follow the letter of the law as it stands now, because the law allows for a perceived danger of losing one's life. Perceived danger is impossible to disprove.

Do not misunderstand. I am heartsick about this case and the outcome. But separating my personal opinions from it, it was not an illegal decision. A poor one? Probably. A lighted fuse on a powder keg? Yes. But not illegal under current law.

I'm tired and I'm rambling and I'm going to stop now. My only wish is that it had all gone down differently from the moment he stopped them for walking in the street.

[link:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/darren_wilson_was_never_going_to_be_indicted_for_killing_michael_brown_our.html|