FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Even after everything that's happened, I forget that this is a thing that exists in the USA. Yikes.

Utah is one of the safest states in the USA with regard to gun violence...so it's not really as scary as it sounds.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Rainmaker, where did you see the criminal record? I can't find anything which substantiates your post above. I'm sure you have a good source, so please link it.

It's in most of the articles I've seen about the case. About halfway down on this one.

Prosecutors: Man lunged with sword before he was shot - CNN.com

I'm also not defending the police in this case. I just think people are too quick to jump on the bandwagon of whatever the cause du jour is. The autopsy results are coming from the family who had one commissioned themselves. It's not the official state one from what I understand. Almost everything that is coming out is coming from the family, not the police.

And while I understand the family is upset, I don't like the assertion that it was racism without any proof. There are aggressive cops who do stuff just because they are aggressive cops. There is no proof they singled out the black guy. That the cops had a history of racial issues. Now maybe they were racists and singled out the black guy in broad daylight to murder, or maybe they are just overly aggressive cops who would have shot anyone doing what that guy did.

I'd also add that running away is an odd action to take. Usually when a cop points a gun at you you put your hands up and drop your weapon. Even if their actions are wrong.

I guess I think people should wait a little bit before making a judgement on these particular cases. Lets see what the official autopsy finds, toxicology reports, his history, surveillance footage, etc before deciding that some white cops decided to spend their afternoon executing a black guy for no reason.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Even after everything that's happened, I forget that this is a thing that exists in the USA. Yikes.

It is kind of scary on the surface. But then you realize that the guys carrying guns legally are usually not the guys committing the illegal acts. At least here in Chicago that's the case.

I'd still be uncomfortable seeing a guy at Walmart with a rifle strapped to his body.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is kind of scary on the surface. But then you realize that the guys carrying guns legally are usually not the guys committing the illegal acts. At least here in Chicago that's the case.

I'd still be uncomfortable seeing a guy at Walmart with a rifle strapped to his body.

It's not scary in that I think the guy is going to go on a rampage. It's the mindset that is scary - that someone either thinks they need to carry a semi-automatic rifle for safety, or that they just want to show off their big ass gun. Both are as scary as each other.

[stevew]

Only thing protecting you from a bad guy with a sword is a good guy with a sword.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by stevew

Only thing protecting you from a bad guy with a sword is a good guy with a sword.

Except one does not ever bring a sword to a gunfight.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd still be uncomfortable seeing a guy at Walmart with a rifle strapped to his body.

This is an easy one. Ban Walmarts.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Except one does not ever bring a sword to a gunfight.

This is what is getting me. Unless he is absolutely nutty, he's not going to attack two cops armed with guns with a toy sword. Or even a real one. In the pic, he looks almost happy, not someone looking for a ninja battle.

So my question is, what happened between when that picture was taken and he was shot, and what actions on his part would lead to him not being shot? I'm assuming there was something, but it seems to me his options were considerably narrower than they should be.

[cuervo72]

Oh, and for the record - this nutbag in PA? In his case, I think I'm ok with shoot on sight.

[Blackadar]

I'll leave this right here:

@ShaunKing exposes Ferguson PD lie about distance from SUV (with images, tweets) · VeryWhiteGuy · Storify

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd still be uncomfortable seeing a guy at Walmart with a rifle strapped to his body.

How prophetic (or maybe you were referring to this?)...yeah, someone was uncomfortable and look what happened.

The Wal-Mart Shooting in Beavercreek, OH (from Aug. 5) - Front Office Football Central

[Buccaneer]

A 21-year-old man was arrested after he allegedly shot another man following an argument, Colorado Springs police said.

Zachary Ballenger got in a verbal disagreement with multiple pedestrians around 11:30 p.m. Friday night near 995 N. Circle Drive, witnesses told police. As he was driving away from them, he allegedly fired at the pedestrians with a handgun, hitting one of them. His gunshot wound was not life threatening, police said but they did not release details about the man's condition.

Officers pulled Ballenger over near Platte and Willamette avenues, where police said they had to use a stun gun on him because he was not obeying orders. Police did not say how many times Ballenger was hit with the stun gun.

Ballenger was arrested and taken to the El Paso County jail on suspicion of multiple felonies, police said.

He was held on $250,000 bond and also had a misdemeanor arrest warrant for failing to appear in court.

Ballenger was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor criminal mischief in 2013 and pleaded guilty to the charges, records show.


Read more at Man arrested after shooting pedestrian in Colorado Springs

Perhaps in certain other police forces or with certain cops, Ballenger would have had six bullets in him?

[BishopMVP]

Police officer shot in Ferguson?

Edit - almost certainly unrelated to Brown/protests.

[Blackadar]

Milwaukee police fire officer who shot man in park - Yahoo News

This is specifically why I have a problem with police departments:

Flynn said his decision was based on an internal affairs investigation. He sidestepped questions about whether Manney should face criminal charges. He said he found "errors of judgment, but no malice" in Manney's handling of the confrontation.

"There's got to be a way for us to hold ourselves accountable absent putting cops in jail for making mistakes," he said.

What the fuck? He shot a guy 13 times after instigating a fight with known mentally ill man and you think he shouldn't go to jail? If anything, cops should be more accountable than private citizens, not less accountable.

The Milwaukee Police Association condemned the firing.

"The decision to terminate this officer is cowardice and certainly unfounded and unsupported by fact," President Mike Crivello said in a statement.

The thin blue line fucks the citizens of this country because bad cops - or cops who commit bad actions - are protected by the rest. I've often said that 4 out of 5 cops are generally pretty good people. But when they try to protect the guys who aren't, they all become bad cops by being complicit and enabling future incidents that harm the general public.

[RainMaker]

I don't understand why cops don't have to abide by the same laws we do. If they commit murder they should be charged with that. If they commit assault, they should be charged with that. This shouldn't be that difficult.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Article discussing the evidence and grand jury testimony surrounding the incident.....

The New York Times

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't understand why cops don't have to abide by the same laws we do. If they commit murder they should be charged with that. If they commit assault, they should be charged with that. This shouldn't be that difficult.

But they are charged when they commit murder.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Article discussing the evidence and grand jury testimony surrounding the incident.....

The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

If cops are going to fear for their lives every time somebody attacks them, maybe we shouldn't have cops.

[Dutch]

For those of you wanting more camera's mounted on police.

After Ferguson, police rush to buy body cameras

At Seattle-based VIEVU, which has sold the cameras to more than 4,000 law enforcement agencies, CEO Steve Ward says requests for test units are up 70% since the Ferguson protests, and September was the highest sales month in the company's history. "We're doubling our sales force to keep up," Ward said.

The folks clamoring for this should be happy.

The rush to outfit officers with cameras is to avoid controversies, such as the one surrounding Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, by documenting whether police acted in self-defense or overreacted.

Police have not yet come to grips with privacy questions that arise when cameras go into homes or record sensitive conversations.

Police agencies are implementing policies on the fly over when cameras must be turned on and off, how to store the videos and how to comply with public records laws.

Well that could cause other problems, I suppose.

Stanley of the ACLU worries about the line between police releasing or restricting too many videos...

And then, of course, we have the ACLU who's primary mission is to be employed apparently. They are ready to pounce no matter what.

[bob]

Forensic tests have found the blood of Michael Brown on the gun, uniform and police cruiser belonging to Officer Darren Wilson, who fatally shot the unarmed teen two months ago in Ferguson, Missouri, The New York Times reported.

Michael Brown's blood found in officer's car, on gun - CNN.com

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And then, of course, we have the ACLU who's primary mission is to be employed apparently. They are ready to pounce no matter what.

I dunno, I think the ACLU piece is a interesting read

Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All | American Civil Liberties Union

ETA: The date on the article is last year, so well before the Michael Brown shooting.

[Dutch]

I think any policy for body cameras on govt officials would be a privacy nightmare. I understand the benefit, but I don't need cops rolling up to my house and looking in my windows with camera's rolling. Talk about a big brother nightmare. And what was the justification for that? Oh yeah....racism....no thanks.

[jeff061]

Really?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Really?

Absolutely.

[RainMaker]

It's really not about racism. It's about accountability. Something police officers lack in this country. From what I've read about the cameras, it forces cops to be nicer to the public as well because they are on camera. And it'll reduce bogus police brutality complaints by people looking to sue for a quick buck. I think it's a win-win.

The big issue will be cost.

Originally Posted by Dutch

But they are charged when they commit murder.

Cops are rarely charged with crimes and rarely terminated.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's really not about racism. It's about accountability. Something police officers lack in this country. From what I've read about the cameras, it forces cops to be nicer to the public as well because they are on camera. And it'll reduce bogus police brutality complaints by people looking to sue for a quick buck. I think it's a win-win.

The big issue will be cost.

Cops are rarely charged with crimes and rarely terminated.

Fair.

Counter point though, we really need to consider the long-term ramifications. Technology is going to be amazing pretty soon and asking state police to (one-day) have real-time feeds of citizens movements seems pretty scary to me...and it's got the potential to be more harmful than good.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think any policy for body cameras on govt officials would be a privacy nightmare. I understand the benefit, but I don't need cops rolling up to my house and looking in my windows with camera's rolling. Talk about a big brother nightmare. And what was the justification for that? Oh yeah....racism....no thanks.

I think homeowners who wind up beaten up, raped, or shot would be fine with the cameras.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I think homeowners who wind up beaten up, raped, or shot would be fine with the cameras.

I agree.

[yeah826]

Apparently Michael Brown actually paid for the cigars and the Ferguson police release the tape to make it seem like he was robbing the place. Also it's been found out that the police didn't even go looking for the tape until Michael Brown had been killed.

Ferguson Cops Busted? New Video Seems to Show Brown Paying for Cigarillos (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

[cuervo72]

Wondering - is Fox News (or any other media outlet) saying much about the thugs* up in Keene?

* that is to say, white college students and out-of-towners tipping over cars, throwing bottles, setting fires, threatening police, etc.

[JPhillips]

The culture of white violence is shocking. I'm waiting for white leaders to denounce it.

[cuervo72]

It's no wonder whites stay poor - they have no respect or regard for property.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by yeah826

Apparently Michael Brown actually paid for the cigars and the Ferguson police release the tape to make it seem like he was robbing the place. Also it's been found out that the police didn't even go looking for the tape until Michael Brown had been killed.

Ferguson Cops Busted? New Video Seems to Show Brown Paying for Cigarillos (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

That video doesn't show anything. And why would he shove the store clerk and why would the store clerk lie and say he was robbed?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That video doesn't show anything. And why would he shove the store clerk and why would the store clerk lie and say he was robbed?

Why would the cop lie and say Michael Brown was rushign towards him when he shot him? People lie to save face.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Wondering - is Fox News (or any other media outlet) saying much about the thugs* up in Keene?

* that is to say, white college students and out-of-towners tipping over cars, throwing bottles, setting fires, threatening police, etc.

It was all over Good Morning America yesterday.

Of course, the police response was also considered justified, rather than raked over the coals. Thugs got out of hand, police moved in with rubber bullets and tear gas, order was restored, and everyone moved on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Why would the cop lie and say Michael Brown was rushign towards him when he shot him? People lie to save face.

If the cop lied, it would be to save himself from going to jail. What is in this for the store clerk? Why would he say he was robber and why would he confront a shopper like that in the store who had just paid for an item?

[Arles]

Official autopsy was released:
Official autopsy shows Michael Brown had close-range wound to his hand, marijuana in system : News

ST. LOUIS COUNTY • The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case.

The accompanying toxicology report shows he had been using marijuana.

Those documents, prepared by the St. Louis County medical examiner and obtained by the Post-Dispatch, provide the most detailed description to date of the wounds Brown sustained in a confrontation Aug. 9 with Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson.

A source with knowledge of Wilson’s statements said the officer had told investigators that Brown had struggled for Wilson’s pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Later, Wilson fired additional shots that killed Brown and ignited a national controversy.

The St. Louis medical examiner, Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report for the newspaper. He said Tuesday that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car.”

Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at relatively short range.

But Graham said, “Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke.”

The report on a supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun.

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.

The county medical examiner, Dr. Mary Case, could not be reached. The assistant who performed the autopsy, Dr. Gershom Norfleet, relayed word that he would not comment.

That post mortem, conducted the morning after Brown’s death, comports in most ways with the findings of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family and made public Aug. 18.

In that one, Dr. Michael M. Baden, a nationally known forensic pathologist, said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range.

Baden noted then that there was no gunshot residue on the body, so it appeared to him that the muzzle of the weapon was at least one or two feet away. He said, “It could have been 30 feet away.”

A third autopsy was ordered by federal officials as part of their separate investigation of the shooting. Results of that one have not been revealed.

The county and private autopsies agree on the number and location of the wounds.

The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the driver’s side of Wilson’s vehicle.

“Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car,” Graham said. “That fits with everything else that came out. There’s blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.”

The toxicology test, performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed tetrahydrocannabinol, THC for short, in Brown’s blood and urine.

Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, said that THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions.

States that have legalized marijuana have struggled with the issue of how to measure impairment.

“The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,” Staubus wrote in an email.

[cartman]

I don't see how they can say that because a shot was fired inside the car, it proves he was reaching for the gun. All it proves is that he was very close to the gun when the shot was fired.

[Coffee Warlord]

They didn't say that. They said there's "gunpowder particulate matter" in a thumb wound, which is consistent with someone reaching for the gun when it goes off.

[Coffee Warlord]

Jesus, how many fucking autopsies can you do on a body?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

They didn't say that. They said there's "gunpowder particulate matter" in a thumb wound, which is consistent with someone reaching for the gun when it goes off.

FTA:

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Jesus, how many fucking autopsies can you do on a body?

I agree. This is getting a little crazy. Three autopsies seems over the top. The problem is with the agendas with each camp (defense, city, feds) - who knows what conclusions are correct. The first from the defense said there was no way a shot could have been fired from up close, the second said it was nearly guaranteed to have happened.

I just hope there is closure at some point, but it seems like that is very unlikely. The pro Brown camp will think anything is rigged that shows the officer didn't gun him down in cold blood and the pro Wilson camp will try to throw everything out that doesn't go with the idea of a struggle that results in self defense. I feel bad for the residents of Ferguson and even St. Louis at this point.

[BishopMVP]

My question is still the same - did the officer initiate the confrontation (almost certainly yes), why, and how did he act at the beginning of the confrontation (everything points to over the top aggressive, but those witnesses haven't proved to be the most reliable).

I'm pretty much on board the "Brown deserved to get shot and arrested once he reached into the car" side, and I'm not sure I could hold Wilson criminally liable for anything after that given the adrenaline, but I'm still guessing the guy was a jackass about the confrontation and shouldn't have a badge and authority.

[Logan]

FWIW:

Expert: My Michael Brown Autopsy Analysis Was Taken 'Out Of Context'

[cuervo72]

AP Exclusive: Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government agreed to a police request to restrict more than 37 square miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Missouri, for 12 days in August for safety, but audio recordings show that local authorities privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests.

At another point, a manager at the FAA's Kansas City center said police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."

This is my shocked face. :|

[Solecismic]

So, it sounds like we're about to hear that the grand jury won't indict Wilson, possibly over this weekend so as to keep traffic to a minimum and to take advantage of the polar vortex blowing its way through the upper Midwest. And it also sounds like the feds won't make any civil rights charges.

At least that's what the media is reporting right now.

It also sounds like the protesters feel very strongly that people will come into the area from all over the country and riot. And violence is possible elsewhere - Atlanta is preparing.

Violence aside, and I assume nobody here wants to go to St. Louis and hurt innocent people there, if the rumors are true, can we accept the concept that Wilson may have reacted in a manner consistent with his training?

Now, this is not a judgment on whether Wilson initiated the situation - we can assume he confronted Brown in some manner, and I don't think we'll ever know if he said something or did something to provoke Brown unfairly.

But do we have confidence that with both a grand jury and the federal civil rights division declining to prosecute (if, indeed, these rumors are true), that the evidence and a good number of witness accounts support Wilson's story?

If so, since they played a big role in the initial media furor, should our president and attorney general hold a press conference this weekend endorsing the decision and urging peace?

I don't know myself. Like many, I grew up with the impression that police were bad-ass and if you made the wrong choices, they'd beat the crap out of you. And we accepted that because we grew up in a culture where these choices were hard to make and our parents didn't feel that they could be singled out if they didn't do anything wrong.

But many African-Americans have a very different perspective because there are quite a few police out there who act in a racist manner. Not all, maybe not all that many. Certainly fewer today than 50 years ago. But enough that the perception is prevalent in many communities. In those communities, often faced with high crime rates, the people who serve and protect simply aren't trusted to do so in a fair manner. This becomes a cycle that makes conditions worse. I don't think we have any idea how much anger is out there because of this cycle. We're seeing this bubble over in Ferguson. I'm not sure this has ever been about Brown and Wilson personally. Either that, or the media has done a really good job creating a narrative.

What would you do if you lived in Ferguson? Would you want to protest the verdict? If you felt riots were going to ensue, would you hold off on protesting for your own safety, or would you essentially shield the rioters by asking that the police back off from your non-violent protest? What does protest mean to you? Can it be controlled and still be effective? If the president endorsed the lack of prosecution, would you still want to protest?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So, it sounds like we're about to hear that the grand jury won't indict Wilson, possibly over this weekend so as to keep traffic to a minimum and to take advantage of the polar vortex blowing its way through the upper Midwest. And it also sounds like the feds won't make any civil rights charges.

At least that's what the media is reporting right now.

It also sounds like the protesters feel very strongly that people will come into the area from all over the country and riot. And violence is possible elsewhere - Atlanta is preparing.

Violence aside, and I assume nobody here wants to go to St. Louis and hurt innocent people there, if the rumors are true, can we accept the concept that Wilson may have reacted in a manner consistent with his training?

Now, this is not a judgment on whether Wilson initiated the situation - we can assume he confronted Brown in some manner, and I don't think we'll ever know if he said something or did something to provoke Brown unfairly.

But do we have confidence that with both a grand jury and the federal civil rights division declining to prosecute (if, indeed, these rumors are true), that the evidence and a good number of witness accounts support Wilson's story?

If so, since they played a big role in the initial media furor, should our president and attorney general hold a press conference this weekend endorsing the decision and urging peace?

I don't know myself. Like many, I grew up with the impression that police were bad-ass and if you made the wrong choices, they'd beat the crap out of you. And we accepted that because we grew up in a culture where these choices were hard to make and our parents didn't feel that they could be singled out if they didn't do anything wrong.

But many African-Americans have a very different perspective because there are quite a few police out there who act in a racist manner. Not all, maybe not all that many. Certainly fewer today than 50 years ago. But enough that the perception is prevalent in many communities. In those communities, often faced with high crime rates, the people who serve and protect simply aren't trusted to do so in a fair manner. This becomes a cycle that makes conditions worse. I don't think we have any idea how much anger is out there because of this cycle. We're seeing this bubble over in Ferguson. I'm not sure this has ever been about Brown and Wilson personally. Either that, or the media has done a really good job creating a narrative.

What would you do if you lived in Ferguson? Would you want to protest the verdict? If you felt riots were going to ensue, would you hold off on protesting for your own safety, or would you essentially shield the rioters by asking that the police back off from your non-violent protest? What does protest mean to you? Can it be controlled and still be effective? If the president endorsed the lack of prosecution, would you still want to protest?

I think there's no way the Ferguson folks won't recognize the screw-job they've gotten. That'll blow up now or in some future incident. The number of crooked things the local authorities got away with here is ridiculous. At the very least, there should be a number of obstruction charges for all the clearly intentional instances of failing to file reports and to proceed in an efficient manner with the investigation.

If none of the people empowered to investigate does so in a timely fashion, there's no way that a suspect/defendant with resources at his disposal is going to fail get off.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But do we have confidence that with both a grand jury and the federal civil rights division declining to prosecute (if, indeed, these rumors are true), that the evidence and a good number of witness accounts support Wilson's story?

Nope.

A federal civil rights case has a higher burden of proof than the state-level charges would. The feds would have to prove that Wilson intended to violate Brown's civil rights. That's...hard.

The grand jury declining to prosecute is...you've got racial tensions in the area anyway. Black protestors convinced that this is another case of whites doing harm to their community and getting away with it, and whites rallying around Wilson because they think he's the real victim in all of this.

You've got a grand jury of 9 whites and 3 blacks contemplating these charges. If they decline to charge him, that could mean that the evidence doesn't support the charges. It could also mean shenanigans.

The federal Justice Department is also investigating, separate from the grand jury and Civil Rights Division. If all three groups decline to indict/prosecute, then it's probably fair to say that either there isn't enough evidence one way or the other, or that the evidence supports Wilson.

But given the reported history of police activity in Ferguson, the way the racial battle lines have been drawn between 'us' and 'them' by both groups, and the high standard for civil rights charges, I don't think the grand jury declining to indict or the CRD declining to prosecute are necessarily strong indicators of innocence.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The most suspect outfit for "shenanigans" would be the current administration & the Justice Department.

If they can't conjure up something to charge a white officer with then there's simply zero there to be charged for.

[Dutch]

A federal civil rights case has a higher burden of proof than the state-level charges would. The feds would have to prove that Wilson intended to violate Brown's civil rights. That's...hard.

Whew, it's a good thing we don't all have to live by those rigid standards.

Meanwhile...

Fuck evidence, burn Wilson at the stake.