Micheal Brown deserved to be shot.

[Chad32]

There won't be a jury. This guy didn't get an indictment, because the prosecutor purposefully screwed it up, so it's not going to trial.

[JesusChristLover]

Yes and No. Yes, if he was really going to attack Officer Darren Wilson. No if Officer Darren Wilson made it all up. But I voted Yes, as I hate gangstas anyway.

[MechViking]

There won't be a jury. This guy didn't get an indictment, because the prosecutor purposefully screwed it up, so it's not going to trial.

That's not right. I may not have an opinion on the case, but there needs to be a proper examination of the evidence. This just leaves things inconclusive.

[Ryantology]

Yes and No. Yes, if he was really going to attack Officer Darren Wilson. No if Officer Darren Wilson made it all up. But I voted Yes, as I hate gangstas anyway.

The only sort of person less respectable than a racist is a racist who hides behind obvious euphemisms.

[popeyespappy]

There won't be a jury. This guy didn't get an indictment, because the prosecutor purposefully screwed it up, so it's not going to trial.

What did the prosecutor do to screw it up? What evidence was left out? What evidence was misrepresented?

[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.

[popeyespappy]

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]

[Aractus]

I'm going to go with probably. I don't know all the key facts of this case, but from what I understand he went for the officer's gun. If that's the case he looses his status as an "unarmed" person. But even if he didn't, if he attacked the officer then the officer of course has a right to defend his life if his life is potentially in danger.

[IATIA]

It is not the cop's job, privilege or right to administer justice of any kind. It is the courts place as representative of society to make that call.

[Mudhammam]

The question is unsuitably ambiguous. Shot once? In the leg? Maybe. Six times including twice in the head? Absolutely fucking not.

---

Yes and No. Yes, if he was really going to attack Officer Darren Wilson. No if Officer Darren Wilson made it all up. But I voted Yes, as I hate gangstas anyway.

How a "JesusChristLover" hates anybody is a question that ranks just above how it is that otherwise functioning brains go full retard when it comes to questions of some difficulty.