The decision to not indict Officer Darren Wilson was justifiably correct

There is a saying in the legal world, that you could "indict a ham sandwich" showing just how easy it is to get someone charged from a grand jury. In fact, in 193,000 cases, 162,000 were prosecuted and only 11 weren't because the grand jury did not return an indictment(1). And in each grand jury case, there is always conflicting evidence and always problems. The purpose of a grand jury isn't to decide whether or not they are guilty, it is to decide whether or not they could be pursued.But let's talk about the Grand Jury for a moment. Was it entirely fair? How about the fact that in a town where 67% of the population is black, only 3 black people were present on the jury? Something also interesting, 9 of those people were white, and only 9 votes are required for an indictment. But maybe you don't buy how that was unfair. The let's talk about the prosecutor, one Bob McCulloch himself. Did you know he has a fund raiser set up for officers of the law? And did you know that his charity held a fund raiser for Darren Wilson(2)? Sounds kind of like a conflict of interest? Even if this is not enough to show that this Grand Jury was rigged from the outset, then how about the fact that the jury was given an outdated statute that said an officer could shoot a fleeing subject (3)? Who gave the jury this outdated statute that was deemed unconstitutional in 1985? The prosecutor. Yes, the person that is supposed to try and indict Wilson misled the Jury so that Wilson could get off. I was going to right this out in paragraph form, but there turns out to be just so many things that it belongs in a list. Breaches of Protocols/Mistakes in Investigation: (4) Wilson, after the shooting, washed his hand of blood evidence. Michael Brown's blood, by the way. Wilson admitted he was not cut in any place. The officer to interview Wilson did not take any notes. They also did not record the conversation. His testimony of Wilson's account was given from memory. Wilson called that officer to go over his account again, which could have influenced his testimony. A medical examiner at the scene didn't take any measurements because they seemed "self explanatory". This same examiner didn't take any photographs because her camera batteries were dead. Wilson's gun was never checked fro fingerprints. As Wilson said Brown went for the gun, this was obviously something crucial to the investigation. I wonder why they didn't test the gun... Wilson bagged his own gun in evidence. Wilson's initial interview was delayed to go the hospital. Darren Wilson would testify that he didn't believe he needed to go to the hospital, though he would also say his life was potentially in danger from Brown hitting him. Hmm... Wilson's initial interview contradicts with his testimony. In the interview, he would say that he had no idea Brown was the suspect for the theft. When he got on the stand, however, he seemed to be very confident that Mike Brown was the robber and would even say he saw the cigarillos. Does the evidence even support the account Darren Wilson gave? The experts disagree. Oh, and the National Bar Association is questioning the Grand Jury decision (5)Sources:1:http://www.washingtonpost.com...2:http://www.addictinginfo.org... 3:http://www.vox.com... 4:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5:http://theurbandaily.com...;