I understand you're trying to come at it from my point of view, and I appreciate the effort, but the way you've phrased it comes across as condescending. Just as I think you and your opinions deserve my respect, I should hope my person and my opinions deserve yours.
Yes, I know and believe me, I did take all that into consideration. But you must understand that my issue is not that Officer Wilson did not have the right to protect himself or even that he drew his gun. My issue is that he did not give himself any other option because he
had no other option. I elaborate on it below.
I'm glad you think all of that. I do as well.
Actually, there was no trial. There was only a grand jury. That is not the same thing as a trial. A grand jury is a lot less formal than even a preliminary hearing; it has no judge, no lawyers. There is only a prosecutor and the jury that is selected by a judge. All a grand jury does is decide whether or not there is enough probable evidence to issue an indictment. It's considered a strategy for prosecutors to shoo in a case to court for two reasons: a. it is held in private, unlike a preliminary hearing wherein they have to publicly prove to a judge that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction and thus also give the opposition a preview of their case while at it, and b. it is considered stupidly easy to secure an indictment because people who lack legal training usually don't know what to do with the evidence and simply follow the prosecutor’s lead. This is where the old joke comes from: 'a grand jury could indict a sandwich.'
Now, the reason why this whole thing is so controversial is that it is incredibly rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment, but not so rare for a jury to decline to indict a law enforcement official. The other thing that is making people twitch is the fact the prosecutor deviated from the norm in putting the defense on the stand and allowed him to speak without questioning his credibility for over four hours. This, coupled with the fact that this case has become something of a poster child for people's mistrust for the law enforcement and the belief that the system protects them, couldn't have made the no-indictment verdict any more unfortunate.
Many people see the way that this whole thing played out as unquestionable evidence that the system does indeed favour law enforcement officials. Many others look at the ratio of black to white jurors and the divide between black and white opinions in social media and see this whole scenario as proof that institutionalized racism exists. Because its seen as representing these issues, the no-indictment verdict feels like a slap in the face. That Michael Brown didn't even deserve the dignity of a proper trial. That they, by extension, don't deserve the dignity of a trial when going up against a white officer. No matter what, the white officer always wins.
But really, this whole case was handled terribly from the very beginning. There's a lot conflicting information spreading through social media like wild fire that has been further propagated by the efforts of mainstream media, lack of proper police procedure and the irregular 'leaks' of information that have all gotten lost in a mass vortex of social issues and personal feelings. It has very much become about race because people have
made it about race and it continues to be sensationalized.
As far as my opinion goes on the subject and the people involved, I don’t think Michael Brown was innocent. I think that a lot of the responsibility for what happened does rest on his shoulders. Robbing a store. Talking back to a cop. Assaulting a cop in his car. Angrily turning back around to charge a cop. However, his guilt in those matters does not mean that we cannot look at what Darren Wilson could have done differently as a trained officer of the law. There is human life involved here. It does appall me that people dismiss it as ‘kid was a punk, attacked an officer, officer has gun and he must use it. The end.’ I think the case could be treated with a bit more respect and scrutiny (ie. a trial), even if a thorough investigation only proves that Darren Wilson did everything he could.
I know you and a lot of people will disagree with me, and that's fine, but I still maintain that police officers have the advantage of formal training and should at least have options available to them that will allow them to diffuse a tense situation, if need be, rather than immediately resorting to lethal force. Officer Darren Wilson stated that he has been trained to use a taser, but does not carry one on his person because they are ‘uncomfortable.’ The only means of self defense, then, is the gun in his holster. In my opinion, that immediately raises the stakes in any confrontation he might have when he goes out into the field. There is no non-lethal option because he’s taken it out of the equation altogether. He knows all he’s got is the gun.
The other thing that personally gets me is that I’ve compared Darren Wilson’s account of what happened with the photographs of the injuries he’s sustained and I cannot help but observe that these things don’t line up and seem vastly exaggerated. Furthermore, his comments about how Brown taunted him, called him ‘too pussy to shoot,’ and the way he recounted the whole scenario also sends my whiskers twitching. We don’t know what caused Brown to turn around and charge Wilson after walking away, but the circumstances and the violence of this situation gives me the impression that desperation to save his own life isn’t the
only possible scenario here. The other possibility is that Darren Wilson might have called something out to provoke Brown. That perhaps what guided Wilson’s hand in this situation was not just pure desperation to save his own life, but anger and injured pride.
Obviously, no one is an expert here and there are likely things that you or I are not considering because we might not even know to look for them. However,
this forensic pathologist’s opinion on the autopsy report on the gunshot wounds suggests that there are other possibilities, other ways to look at this. Indeed, the reactions across the country further underscore that this case isn’t as obviously open-and-shut as a lot of people in this thread are making it out to be.
All we have right now is Darren Wilson’s testimony of what has happened. But it is just a testimony. No one has cross-examined him or any of the witnesses in court and Michael Brown is, of course, dead.
If there is one thing that I hope most people will agree is that this case
needs to go to trial.
