The decision to not indict Officer Darren Wilson was justifiably correct

As someone who has only studied law for 1 semester, my terminology maybe incorrect and if so, please feel free to correct me Darren Wilson was not indicted for a variety of factors. The main factor was the defense team casting doubt on the actual case. As the prosecution has Burden of Proof, he/she is required to prove to the judge that the accused is proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" and that the accused has reasonable evidence against him. However, the witness' testimony throughout the trial noticeably changed as more physical evidence came to light. Also, there were conflicting witness testimony when the truth finally came to light that some witnesses simply made up their "evidence". (1) for example, the witness testimony's stating that Michael surrendered and raised his hands is false because he was found deceased with one of his hands in his waistband. (3) It seems highly unlikely, that when someone's shot, there hands would suddenly drop and miraculously slip underneath the shirt and into their pants/ shorts. Another point is the forensic evidence already confirming certain parts of Wilson's testimony, for example, "When he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me." (2) follows suit with the foresenic report "The deceased was lying in the prone position. His right arm was extended away from his side. His left arm was next to his side his lower arm was beneath his abdomen and his hand was near the waist band of his shorts. " (3) This adds credibility to Darren's testimony giving it more credibility than other witness testimony's as that is the one true fact on what happened the night the crime happened. What Darren could have been successfully charged with was severely limited. The options possible for him being charged include first degree murder, second degree murder or manslaughter. (5) The first degree murder charge can easily be brushed aside due to the fact that evidence would be needed to prove that Wilson maliciously set out to murder Michael with clear motive and with mens rea. However, this is simply not true as Brown was called out to stop the attempted robbery conducted by Brown (4) and had no personal motive to murder Brown in anyway Second degree murder can not be proven due to the statements of Michael charging at Darren, thus it would be acceptable circumstances to believe that the situation is life threatening when a bulky 18 year old graduate is preparing to shoulder charge you. The fact that Michael had the intention to cause grievous bodily harm towards Darren would definitely intimidate most policemen by themselves no matter how much experience they had. Due to the fact that Darren had fired multiple times at Michael should have caused him to run away or retreat. Due to Wilson firing multiple times with Michael showing no signs of retreat, it can be deduced that Michael clearly wanted to assault Darren even if he had a gun. Thus self defense would be a valid defense when defending Wilson (4) Last of all manslaughter charges can be pressed however, i doubt that protesters would be satisfied with manslaughter charges, also, the same defense of self defense as it is still valid and there was no intention to kill when firing the shots initially as they were only warning shots. (1) http://www.businessinsider.com... (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com... (3) http://www.documentcloud.org... (4) http://www.theatlantic.com... (5) http://www.vox.com...