Micheal Brown deserved to be shot.

[Chad32]

He gave the defense's side, which you are not required to do to get an indictment. They also first told the jury it was legal to shoot someone in the back when it wasn't, then later told them to disregard that part without making an official statement or an apology. The prosecutor has close ties to the police, and purposefully threw the case.

So what you are saying is that instead of presenting all the available evidence to the grand jury the prosecutor should have skipped the coroner's report. You know, the one that supported Wilson's version of the encounter and said Michael Brown wasn't shot in the back. Which by the way didn't significantly differ from the conclusions drawn by the pathologist hired by Brown's family to conduct their own autopsy. Skipped the rest of the physical evidence and the testimony from the witnesses that could be collaborated by the physical evidence. Then present only evidence from the witnesses that would support an indictment including those that were contrary to the physical evidence or later recanted.

Yeah, that's the way the courts should work. [/sarcasm]

Yes, that's how the courts work. The prosecutor's job is to convince them that this should go to trial. The trial is where the defense gets to work towards getting the guy out of it. Getting an indictment doesn't even mean he's guilty. It just means someone may have done something, and we should take this to court. Then he may be found innocent or guilty.