The only people who *really* know how to make that judgement were the 12 men and women on the Grand Jury. Without all the evidence, no one else can make a conclusive, informed judgement.

I'm inclined to believe with Cyrus. I hate these media fueled cases, we simply do not have the pertinent information available to question a decision either way.

I agree with santa and cyrus, im just waiting for someone to say otherwise

*indict

I'll agree with that; need to see all the evidence. Now, having long studied the thin blue line, I'm also not naive enough to believe the whole thing was on the up and up. Now, see if Ferguson's finest can give people space to protest.

I know someone who lives in Ferguson, and apparently the crowds are already smashing up cop cars.

Shots have now been fired. Not sure if it is the police or protesters/rioters.

The police are out there with mass tear gas and armoured vehicles.

Wouldn't blame them if rioters are smashing police cars.

Due process was served, no matter what the result, and the U.S. District attorney is still investigating this. He still could reconvene the grand jury if new evidence is found.

I've expected no indictment for months now because what I know of the case just really can't possibly put Wilson in any way of losing the case. The evidence against him was just all so shoddy. I also recently came to expect continued rioting because from the situation it just seemed consistent and would make sense, no matter how terrible.

My friends isn't sure but she thinks both sides have been shooting.

Sweet. A Fergusonic riot as reported by a Hellenic Riot.

What a lot of observers (particularly international observers) have a hard time understanding is that justifiable homicide has been a foundation of American law for over two centuries.

Interestingly, in the State of Missouri, Officer Wilson could have fatally shot Brown (under the given circumstances) *outside* of a law enforcement capacity and he still would have been not guilty of any crime, under Missouri's Castle Doctrine provision.

Due process was served. Physical evidence has a lot more credibility than contradictory and objectively unreliable witness testimony.

"The only people who *really* know how to make that judgement were the 12 men and women on the Grand Jury. Without all the evidence, no one else can make a conclusive, informed judgement."

The problem is that in the seconds after Brown was killed, Darren Wilson and his brother officers had complete control over the evidence and the crime scene and were free - if they were so inclined - to torture the evidence into whatever form was required to exculpate Wilson. The Grand Jury can only review the evidence the prosecutor and police provide them. When key elements are missing or manipulated (I'm not stating with certainty that they were in this case - only that it was a very real possibility, and the lies told about Wilson's medical condition in the aftermath of the encounter rather seriously suggest some dishonesty), a public trial - not a backroom proceeding where we are completely in the dark as to the facts - is warranted.

I'm just an all round Riot.

@ Tolstoy

But for a public trial, one must have probable cause to believe a crime was committed. A cop shooting a robbery suspect is hardly a crime, almost irrespective of the circumstances. The physical evidence points to a struggle over control of Officer Wilson's weapon, which in it of itself is justification for use of deadly force. Unless there is physical evidence indicating that Officer Wilson continued to fire after Brown was subdued, there is absolutely no case for any criminal wrongdoing.

"The evidence against him was just all so shoddy"
Yeah that's right ...... Wilson is innocent, his behaviour although acceptable in downtown US of A would be seen as criminal by an overwhelming number of civilised countries, it's like you guys are going back to the Wild West.
One shot is self-defence, 6 shots...... I would say be reasonable but then your 'left-wing' President provided arms to Israel to massacre the Palestinians and you have a great relationship with the butchers known as the Saudi Royal Family so is it such a big surprise, nope.
A serious question, is there any Americans who feel embarrassed and ashamed by the actions of their own govt & judiciary?

In general or in this case Nigee?

The troll has arrived, Nigeebaby is front and center

@ NigeeBaby

You are showing your ignorance of modern firearms tactics at this point. Both military and law enforcement are trained to fire multiple times until the target drops. It is quite uncommon/improbable to subdue a target with one shot, especially given the calibers and ammunition types used by the military and law enforcement respectively.

"Wilson is innocent, his behaviour although acceptable in downtown US of A would be seen as criminal by an overwhelming number of civilised countries"

Civilized countries don't provide for their (armed) officers to use lethal force in certain circumstances, such as a suspect attempting to disarm them, as was proven by the physical evidence in this case?

"it's like you guys are going back to the Wild West."

The "Wild West" was one of the calmest periods (with respect to instances of armed violent crime) in American history, largely due to a well-armed populace. Excluding the OK Corral, a Native American war, or a range war, cite three instances of criminal gun violence in the American West from memory.

12 year old white boy was fatally shot in Cleveland, Ohio by police today for wielding a fake gun. This won't make headline national news. People only care when it's convenient, and screw the media for fueling this stupid fire.

I accept that this behaviour is perfectly acceptable and lawful in the US i.e. a police officer off-loading 6 bullets into a person, but isn't their something in the back of your mind that says "how mad is this when such acts of violence" are lawful.
Also when your President lectures China about democracy and human rights and is best of mates with the Saudiis.
Does anyone ever question this stuff?

there not their

Nigee: Was Wilson a tad excessive? No shit, I agree there. Was he violating some law? No, none. He can chop the 6 shots to heat of the moment in self-defense. That's more credible than a lot of the prosecution evidence, which is very circumstantial.
To answer your question, I wouldn't go as far as embarrassed by this case, especially not by the judiciary. What I wish happened was the officer used non-lethal force to subdue Brown and then press charges against him. But his actions were still in the law.

Kallen: That actually has made national news and even international news at this point.

"A tad excessive" - an 18-year old boy gunned down in the street, is that a tad?
If it had not been a police officer who had done the shooting there would be a murder hunt now .... police officer involved, somehow lawful.
One rule for them, another rule for the police.
We had a similar situation in the UK when police officers shot an innocent unarmed Brazilian man ..... and the guy got off, it was even worse because there was no struggle, I would have jailed the guy for pumping 5 bullets into the head of a man doing nothing just on his way to work on the tube.

Out of 162,000 case brought by federal prosecutors in the last year for which there are data, they failed to get an indictment in 11 cases. A prosecutor has to work hard not to get an indictment in a murder with six eyewitnesses. People have been executed on far flimsier evidence. There was no indictment because there was never any intention to get an indictment. American racism wins another giant victory

Meanwhile, did you know cop shootings are the second leading cause of homocides in Utah? More than gangs, felony murders, or child abuse? Next time you see a cop, Remeber he is more dangerous than a gang member and he will never face consequences if he kills you and he knows it

""A tad excessive" - an 18-year old boy gunned down in the street, is that a tad?" I was being sarcastic, calm down.