He should have been indicted even if he was innocent this situation has spiraled outta control
Not indicting him has resulted in
• A furthering a divide between the people and the government
• sparking riots in major U.S. Cities
•reemergence of rioting and looting in ferguson which there have been gun shots fired and fires lit
Every death, business that is looted and arrest that happens after the indictment will be because of the conditions that the indictment caused.
This is for the greater good he should have been indicted
I read the news stories about Darren Wilson shooting a 5 foot black man(teenager?), and how Wilson described it, it sounded like he didn't need to use such action whatsoever. Sure, the kid went to his window and grabbed at his belt, but Wilson could of opened is door and arrested the kid instead shooting him.
Killing someone either the person killed was guilty of a crime or not is not a justifiable act. Murder is illegal and the fact that Darren Wilson wasn't indicted is a slap in the face of America's black population, Brown's family and even Brown himself. It doesn't matter what motive you had to kill, killing is wrong, immoral and like I stated before, illegal. Not only that, but Wilson is white. There is no denying that in America, white people have an advantage; they're white. White people have a majority in America but does that mean that the minorities be silenced?
But 6 shots is obsessive. If he was in self defense, then one shot to the leg would have been enough. The shot was not at close range, I know this because the autopsy revealed there was no gun powder on the body. If he was just protecting himself like he said he was, 1 non fatal shot would have been effective, and a mother would not have to bury her teenager.
I could go on, and on, and on about why Darren Wilson is a murderer and how he needs to recieve proper punishment like ANY murderer would - but instead I'll just give you same basic facts and you can pretty easily put it together: Darren Wilson claims he was intimidated by Michael Brown because he is 6'4 - but Darren Wilson is also 6'4. Darren Wilson claims he grabbed his gun, but the only way he could do so was if the gun was already pulled out. Also, there was no gunpowder found on Michael Brown. Another fact; Michael Brown was more than 100 feet away when Darren Wilson shot him repeatedly - meaning he posed no threat. Even if it was in self defense, shooting a man in the head (which he did twice) is against police protocol for self defense and is illegal. Darren Wilson also did not complete an incident report, which is illegal. People claim he was a "thug" because he "robbed" a store, but the store owner did not call the police? Even if he did, is a $2 pack of cigarrellos worth more than his life? Darren Wilson didn't even know about it - he was in fact killing Mike for JAYWALKING. That's even worse. Darren Wilson is a child murderer and only in America is a child killer allowed to go on television and say he'd do it again.
Officer Darren should have been indicted for killing Michael Brown, at the time of shooting not only was Michael not armed, witness said he raised his hands to show he had no weapon on and he was ready to surrender himself. Officer Darren still went ahead to shoot him multiple times. He should have been tried and the jury can then consider the evidence and decide if he is guilty or not.
Most legal analysts have found that the Ferguson DA did something very unusual with the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury does not decide whether or not he is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." They decide whether or not there is "probable cause" that a crime was committed for an indictment. "Probable Cause" is a much easier burden to meet than "beyond a reasonable doubt," and prosecutor can bring forth whatever evidence to the Grand jury. Here's the unusual part, normally the prosecutor brings forth her most compelling evidence to the grand jury, (like the several witnesses who said Michael Brown had his hands in the air when he was killed, the lack of "serious" injury to Darren Wilson, the excessive number of shots fired). This prosecutor overwhelmed the jury with every shred of evidence. His convicting evidence was buried with conflicting evidence. These people with no legal training then had to sift through everything, and the witnesses, especially Darren Wilson, were not subjected to a thorough cross examination. The DA should have built a better theory of the case, which I think could have met his burden of proof and got Darren Wilson indicted. Whether or not he would be found guilty is a whole other ball game.
All indictment means is to hold a trial. Michael Brown deserves at least that much. If there is question on the lawfulness of the actions of a person, indict him. This does NOT mean that he will automatically be found guilty. Our country has a fair court system and will figure it out from there.
Only the grand jury members really know all of the evidence that was presented. However, it is hard to accept based on the facts that are out there in the public eye to justify no charges being filed. It should have gone through the court system and to an actual jury for trial.
In all of this conversation about Officer Darren Wilson, something gets lost in the shuffle: that indicting him is not the same thing as convicting him of a crime. By not indicting him, the court has effectively ended any further investigation into the matter. To indict him simply would have set the wheels in motion for a more thorough investigation, which is the least that can be done for the young man who was killed.
Please think with your brain and not your heart. What happened was terrible but it was justified. Forensic evidence shows that Brown had gun shot residue on his hands and a shot in his hand which matched Darren Wilson's description of what happened. With this injury Brown could not have had his hands up in surrender position. He was charging the officer. If you had a 300 pound 6 foot 4 man charging you what would you do?. This is all a race baiting tactic--pushing the myth of widespread white on black racism when black on white racism is more common. Even though black on white murderers are 4 times more common than white on black murderers and black on white crime is 10 times more likely than white on black crime (DOJ) every one wants to distract them selves with stories like the shooting of Michael Brown. Where was the outrage when Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were raped, beaten, tortured and killed by 5 blacks in Knoxville or when Antonio Santiago a one year old white Hispanic baby was shot and killed by two blacks after his mom didn't give them money? What about 14 year old Kelli O'laughlin from Chicago who was stabbed to death by a black man after she found him stealing from her families home?. These are all worse than some guy who robbed a store getting killed out of self defense. Like it or not the verdict is out and we won. Darren Wilson is innocent. Complain all you want but it won't change anything.
Michael Brown was a huge dude, even though he was only 18 he was like 6'3' and 250+ lbs. The officer was SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and had no backup.
The "black lives matter" type of witnesses recanted their statements because they got swept up in the whole situation and just "wanted to be part of something." The credible witnesses all agree that Brown didn't have his hands up, never said "don't shoot!", and said that he dropped his head down and started charging the officer after the initial beating he gave officer Wilson. The grand jury established the following general timeline:
1) Brown and his friend were walking in the middle of the street (immediately after supposedly robbing a liquor store for some swisher sweets of all things)
2) Officer Wilson sped up and stopped near the two after they failed to comply.
3) Brown reaches into the SUV and starts punching the officer. Wilson attempted to reach for his mace or baton (on his left side, against the door) but couldn't reach with Brown blocking him. He grabbed his sidearm on the right side of his duty belt and warned Brown he would shoot; Brown taunted the officer and continued to assault him. Wilson shot a couple of times and struck Brown at least once. NOTE that the FBI had confirmed that Brown's DNA was on Wilson's sidearm, the left side of his uniform and on the inside of the squad car's door.
3) Wounded, Brown ran away from the squad car and Wilson was able to exit the vehicle.
4) After running about 150' he did a 180 and began to charge towards Wilson. Wilson ordered him to stop and fired a few rounds towards Brown. Brown stopped, Wilson stopped, then this process repeated 2 more times.
5) On the 3rd volley Brown was killed and fell face-first into the pavement.
Totally legally-justified police killing, despite what the media and race-baiters would have you believe.
Brown was 6'4" and about 292 lbs. That is about the size of a lineman on a pro-football team., i.e. guard, end, or tackle. Wilson, on the other hand was about the same height but about 210 lbs. That would be about the size of receiver or quarterback.
There is also evidence that Brown would be a known gang member (photos of him throwing gang signs) who used his size in an aggressive manner (the robbing of a convince store).
"Sure, the kid went to his window and grabbed at his belt, but Wilson could of opened is door and arrested the kid instead shooting him."
Brown punched the officer in the face and tried to grab his firearm. Then when the gun went off, brown started to run when the officer tried to arrest him. After Brown turned around he tried to rush the officer as witnesses had said.
Before the shooting, Wilson suspected Brown as the robber. He fit the description down to the socks. If you have seen the video of the robbery, you can also see Dorian Johnson with Brown. In the video he is wearing a black shirt that you can see over his shoulder while he was talking with reporters. Minutes before Wilson spotted Brown, the description came over the police radio. It is no surprise that Johnson, Browns partner in crime, gave false statement or that witnesses confessed later that they didn't actually see the shooting and only repeated what they were told happened, probably by Johnson.
Aside from all the emotional/personal contradictions each person has about this case, the fact of the matter is that ALL the evidence was reviewed by an impartial jury. This jury was made up twelve members from different demographics and socio-economic statuses. Who are we, the public that has only been privy to bits and pieces of the whole picture, to decide whether this man is guilty or not? All the released evidence suggests Wilson was acting in self defense and trying to just do his job. The poor guy had never even used his gun on the job before. I'm not trying to speak bad about Brown's character, but he clearly made some mistakes in robbing a store, assaulting an officer, and then returning to finish the job. It's just tragic that the whole situation ended like this, and my condolences to the Brown family family even though I think Wilson should have not been indicted.
No concrete evidence pointed towards Brown avoiding conflict. There is evidence that Brown instigated the fight, and when you see a 6 foot 4 300 pound guy about to attack you, you pull the trigger. But of course that is overlooked, because on here FEELS are more important than real evidence.
So you don't like the verdict given out by the justice system, get over it. No person getting indicted is now worth the 5 cops who have given there lives protecting innocents, y'all need to grow up and live with the fact that Darren Wilson is now free and there ain't no going back.
You would want a police officer to be indicted for risking his life to keep a MAN who committed a robbery and assault off the streets? The media is damn good at polarizing this country. The saddest part is that so many fall victim to framed information that tugs at emotional/personal strings and don't even bother to verify its validity in any way other than the confirmational bias of their so called "leaders". And why is no one attacking the real issue; the real tragedy this man's parents could have prevented this by properly raising their child to not commit crimes in the first place?
Nobody has been presented with as much information and testimony as the Grand Jury has. In addition, the Grand Jury was able to request additional information to help them decide whether or not a crime had been committed and they exercised that right. Their conclusions as supported by the forensic evidence is that the witnesses who claimed that officer Wilson murdered Michael Brown were wrong. Brown was not shot in the back as witnesses claimed and the forensic evidence supports that fact. Likewise, ACCORDING TO THE GRAND JURY, the forensic evidence supports officer Wilson's claim that Brown fought with him in the car, went for his service weapon, was initially shot during that struggle, ran a short distance away and then charged officer Wilson again. The Grand Jury considered all of the evidence and they were asked to return an indictment if one could be made. They concluded that the shooting was justified instead. I (for one) can see no reason to be dismissive of their conclusions.
We have witnesses testifying to the officer's side of the story. This 300lb 6'4 THUG that had just robbed a local store and was walking in middle in the street. When the officer tried talking to him he charged at the officer and reached for his weapon. The officer used his weapon in self defense. This is the verdict after hearing all of the EVIDENCE to the story, not just a preconceived racially motivated agenda of what happened.
It's my impression officer Wilson should never have been even considered for indictment, as there was never any evidence to support doing so. The only reason a grand jury considered it was to appease the Mike Brown supporters. The people who were in favor of Mike Brown need to educate themselves on the transcript from the grand jury.