Indictments are very liberally given. It is for that reason a lack of indictment in this case is absolutely shocking. The "con" voters are all relying on conviction and charge standards, such as reasonable doubt and probable cause. However, in this case, we are simply seeking an indictment, which would allow more evidence to come forward and the case to be fully investigated. My guess is that he followed procedure and would not be charged with excessive force, but the fact that this was thrown out by the Grand Jury at the indictment phase is rather shocking and improper.
People have been indicted for much, much less. Near all indictions are passed- rather suspicious that this one didn't, wouldn't you say? He may not be charged, but at minimum there should be an indictment, for there are parts of this case that are uncertain and need to be made clear.
If we could take the time to look at the whole story, we would see that Brown was some guy that was coming back from an ARMED (armed(adj.)- possessing at least one weapon) robbery with someone else. And as for all these "witnesses"? There was already a sour relationship between cops and black people in Fergeson. What are the odds that you would say something to help prove the point of someone you dislike at the expense of the validity of your claim? So of course, they would make up some kind of... For the lack of a better word... Crap... Like "[insert horrible hillbilly impression here]Well, he was a to-be college kid and he was just crossing the street, when a cop just came out of nowhere and shot him! [end horrible hillbilly impression here]" Then they were saying he was running away when he got shot, and he had his hands up, and all this other stuff that his autopsy clearly disproves. The autopsy shows that Brown was presumably running TO, not running AWAY from Officer Wilson. Of course, we'll never know the whole story because the 2 versions BOTH contain inconsistencies, but it's worth noting that humans can be humans... Perhaps Officer Wilson was fearing for his life, and if there was some crazed maniac that was coming back from a robbery after you, and the closest available weapon was a gun, I know I would use that. Why Michael Brown is seen as some type of martyr is unknown to me...
The evidence supports Officer Wilson and when suspects testimonies are conflicting the evidence must be majorly considered and heavily weighted. It was obvious that Micheal Brown was a criminal and Wilson was trying to protect himself from danger which resulted in Brown being killed, unfortunately. But when criminal activities occur usually nothing good is a result.
Micheal Brown was a dangerous criminal who robbed a store, the he got into a fight with officer Wilson. Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown but the shooting wasn't in cold blood it was in self defense. Police officers don't just carry guns to protect other people, police officers carry guns to protect them selfs.
It's incredibly obvious that Michael Brown was a dangerous criminal and, by walking away from the convenient store he had just robbed, Darren Wilson was legally justified in shooting Michael Brown. Aside from that, strong evidence points to the fact that Michael Brown had forced an altercation between himself and the officer, which made Darren Wilson fear for his life and, subsequently, shoot Michael Brown.
Most people have no idea when and why law enforcement is allowed to use deadly force. An officer's job requires them to carry a deadly weapon. If they are assaulted and the attacker(s) gain the upper hand, they can take his weapon and kill him with it. This has happened numerous times and is why police shoot and kill "unarmed" individuals who are assaulting them.
Due to the Double Jeopardy Laws there is no way that Darren Wilson can and or will be indicted in the shooting death of Michael Brown, it is unconstitutional to even try. If Darren Wilson were to have to shoot another thugs then yes he could be attempted to be indicted once again, but not for this death.