Case for support of the Grand Jury decision

[Nevada Blue]

87. we will never know

I'm exhausted and disheartened by all of this -- the media build-up, the police build-up, the waiting 6+ hours for the announcement, all the bullshit.

However, I came across something on slate this morning and based on the legal technicalities, the decision is legal (if not ethical, if not the right thing to do given the situation, if not lots of relevant issues - still legal).

From slate: "there are the general standards for use of deadly force by police, which give wide latitude to officers who use their weapons. The Supreme Court allows police to use their weapons in two circumstances: To defend their lives and to stop an escaped felon. If Wilson believed that Brown was a felon—or committed a felonious offense—then he was justified under existing law. And if Wilson believed he was in danger of losing his life—a belief that only has to be “objectively reasonable,” not likely or even possible—then, again, he was justified under existing law." Bolding mine.

So, do I think Wilson was a 'bad cop'? Yes. Do I think this could have been handled a couple dozen different (and better) ways? Absolutely. But did it fall within the law? Yes.

If this case will cause the law to be scrutinized, that is a good thing. But the GJ did follow the letter of the law as it stands now, because the law allows for a perceived danger of losing one's life. Perceived danger is impossible to disprove.

Do not misunderstand. I am heartsick about this case and the outcome. But separating my personal opinions from it, it was not an illegal decision. A poor one? Probably. A lighted fuse on a powder keg? Yes. But not illegal under current law.

I'm tired and I'm rambling and I'm going to stop now. My only wish is that it had all gone down differently from the moment he stopped them for walking in the street.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/darren_wilson_was_never_going_to_be_indicted_for_killing_michael_brown_our.html