Officer Darren Wilson Should Have Been Indicted

First lets define the standard for an indictment.An indictment is a formal accusation of a felony, issued by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge. It is the grand jury's determination that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial voted by a grand jury. In order to issue an indictment, the grand jury doesn't make a determination of guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried.The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment of a Grand Jury…." . Therefore grand juries are often used in charging federal crimes.http://definitions.uslegal.com...A prosecutor uses the grand jury as a test to see if the case is strong enough to convince a jury. If they cant convince a grand jury then its very likely that the case is not good enough to charge someone with a felony. Unless the prosecutor can prove a felony was committed then a grand jury will not issue an indictment. My stance is that the case of pro is not sufficient enough to charge officer Wilson with a felony. We cannot use simply probable cause in a felony murder case. Probable cause is used when making a determination to search someone. Not for murder cases. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt must be established in such cases.Witness statements match Wilson's defense.according to..http://www.thesmokinggun.com..."The unidentified witness wrote that the 18-year-old Brown “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.”The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn't’t stop.”This is also a description on Michael browns stats. 6’ 4”, 292-pounds.witnesses saw him leaning into the window of the police car. They saw some kind of struggle. They heard a gunshot fired and they saw Michael Brown start running away.Wilsons statement, "Wilson said, “…it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots…I tell him to get on the ground, get on the ground, he still keeps coming at me…I know if he reaches me, he’ll kill me…(his one hand) is in his waistband under his shirt…”The story adds up.The medical examiner explained that he saw what appeared to be “soot” in the wound, which was consistent with a shot from close range, the ME thought that the soot would be indicative of the gun that fired the bullet causing the wound having been only 6 to 9 inches away. Consistent to Wilson's claim that brown was trying to grab the gun. The examiner also states that browns injuries to his head and arms were made from brown being in a slightly downward position. Consistent to Wilson's story of brown charging towards him. Forensics also found in Wilson’s car skin tissue that appeared to be from Michael Brown’s thumb. The interior left front door of Wilson’s car also had DNA from Michael Brown on it.I could give numerous examples of Darren Wilson's defense being substantiated. The prosecution simply cannot fight hard physical evidence. In order for a grand jury to indict an individual their must be an agreement beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony was committed. Frankly the prosecution cannot come up with the evidence it needs for a conviction therefore an indictment is useless. I cannot say what actually happened but I can say what the evidence says and the evidence says that Officer Daren Wilson acted in his legal scope of practice.Below I will post the standard of gun use by police according to...http://www.theguardian.com...Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.Michael brown earlier robbed a store and had the potential to cause harm to the officer by attempting to grab his gun and assaulting him. The use of a gun was definitely warranted in this case. Therefore Officer Darren Wilson cannot be indicted.