For the "wait for evidence" crowd.

[cheyanne]

47. There is a difference between "justified" and evidence in a court of law.

No evidence will make what Wilson did right, but it will make a difference in what the punishment is for what he did.

As we all know from past experiences (Trayvon), the law has very narrow definitions of murder, manslaughter, etc. that has to be met. And it's crushing when we expect the court to do something it can't: convict on what we believe as opposed to what is proven in court.

At The Volokh Conspiracy you can see a clear explanation of the differences between the charges and the evidence that will be debated in court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/20/what-state-charges-could-be-filed-in-the-michael-brown-shooting/

Here's an example:
"The most serious homicide charge is first-degree murder. Under Missouri law “[a] person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.” This charge seems quite improbable, even accepting the version of the facts most favorable to Brown’s supporters, because it would be difficult to show that the officer deliberated before killing Brown.

This leads, then, to second-degree murder which, as relevant here, applies where a person “knowingly causes the death of another person . . . .” To act “knowingly” means to act in a way that producing a result (here, death) is almost certain. So the officer seems to have knowingly shot and killed Brown. Would this automatically be second-degree murder?"