The decision to not indict Officer Darren Wilson was justifiably correct

"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. " This is not considered a breach of protocol because it is considered common to prioritize medical treatment over giving an interview. By deferring from protocols even in this scenario it does not directly intervene or change Wilson's testimony. "Does the evidence even support the account Darren Wilson gave? The experts disagree." http://www.youtube.com...... What the forensics person is stating is all hypothesized because he has no solid evidence that directly suggests that Michael Brown was shot prone. However. what we can defer from Wilson's testimony was that Michael bent over and charged at him. This fact corresponds with the autopsy report provided by the forensics person that Michael was shot twice in the head with the bullets entering parallel to the ground and twice in the arm and twice with the bullets in a downward trajectory in his chest. Thus it is plausible to hypothesis that Michael Brown was shot in the arms twice (his arm was sticking out and angled out due to him tucking it in his waistband) as warning shots. It is also important to note that the video stated that 2 bullets entered on the outer arm (outer arm meaning the side of the arm that's facing outwards when the arm is laid parallel to your body or the side where your elbow its), this fact correlates with the possibility that the bullets entered his arm when he was charging towards Wilson when his hand was tucked in his waistband when charging at Wilson. (Try it yourself, when facing someone tuck your hand in your shorts with your knuckles touching your hip and you'll find that the other person can only see your outer arm) Only when Wilson believed his life was in danger he fired shots aimed towards his head and because his head was bent over the bullets entered parallel into Michael's skull. The shots in the chest can be explained because Wilson may have missed a couple of times when Wilson aimed for Michael's head. because he was bent over when charging, the bullets appear to have gone straight but when Michael's body straightened it gave the impression of the bullet entering in a downward path. "Oh, and the National Bar Association is questioning the Grand Jury decision (5)" oh and your reference doesn't work so your claim is invalid "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." After looking briefly on the internet for this scenario, i find no sources stating this because without references this argument is invalid. "This same examiner didn't take any photographs because her camera batteries were dead." This is not a breach of protocol for police, cameras running out of battery does not change the evidence presented to the court as there are already pictures of the crime scene available on the internet which can be used in court. " And in each grand jury case, there is always conflicting evidence and always problems." Generally in a court case, the prosecution normally would be confident when trying to press charges and evidence presented would support the prosecutions claim entirely. If their is conflicting evidence or if the prosecution doubts that the accused would be indicted then there is a problem. Also please provide sources to back up your claim. "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)." An interesting fact but i see no relevance between that statistic and the topic at hand.