I flattered myself some of you might be interested in what I thought of the whole mess so thought I'd write it up. I know this is a sensitive issue so I'm going to put it under a cut, and if anyone needs to keep on scrolling I won't think any worse of you.
1) There's more nuance and ambiguity in the physical evidence and testimony than you might think. Witnesses gave contradicting testimony, and there were multiple autopsies - some of which supported Wilson's story, some of which didn't. You wouldn't necessarily get this impression through the media coverage, particularly if you read a lot of coverage from a certain vantage point. I definitely think what Wilson did should earn him a long prison sentence, but I can see why a grand jury wouldn't indict him.
2) Following up on that point: the case that was presented is very, very odd. For the non-Americans (or Americans who've forgotten high school civics), grand juries are just groups of jurors that decide whether there's enough evidence to justify a full trial. The burden of proof is much lower than a full trial, and only the district attorney gets to present. So a decision to present evidence that made the situation look complicated was ... odd. My crystal ball has gone fuzzy and I'm hesitant to guess about peoples' motivations, but the only way I can make sense of that move is incompetence (and the prosecutor is experienced enough I don't believe that) or wanting to have the case not go to trial. My gut feeling? McCullough didn't want to prosecute Wilson but felt he couldn't just dismiss the charges because of political concerns, so he set up his case in a way that encouraged the grand jury to no-bill him.
3) It's true, grand juries almost always indict people on some charge or other. But that's not nearly as true with cops as with people generally. So while I think McCullough presented the case badly, it's not all that unusual for cops to get off.
4) Wilson knew about a robbery that had happened just before he came across Michael Brown. Brown also apparently gave his friend a packet of cigarillos, the same item that was stolen from the store. That gave Wilson a reasonable suspicion that Brown had committed the robbery, which is a felony. So technically under the law in effect, he had a right to use legal force to arrest Brown.
(Which is obscene. So, so wrong that the law sees nothing wrong with a cop killing someone because they suspect him of robbery. But it is the law as it exists in that state.)
5) If we assume Darren Wilson's testimony is basically truthful (I mean the events he talks about actually happened; obviously he has his own biases and perceived things from his own frame of mind, and probably put the best spin on them possible), then Michael Brown seems like he was acting like a punk and (I suspect) showing off a bit for his friend. He was walking down the middle of the road and talked back when a cop asked him to get over on the sidewalk. He also apparently had marijuana in his system when he was shot, and the thing about handing over the cigarillos in front of Wilson definitely had an air of defiance in it to me. If he'd been a student in my class and acted like that I probably would have told him to drop the attitude or leave and come back when he was able to do that.
That said, none of this is a reason to shoot him. At all. It's exactly the kind of things that stupid eighteen-year-old white boys are allowed to do but black and brown boys usually aren't. He doesn't come off as a hardened or dangerous criminal to me. A stupid kid, maybe, but in the neighborhoods I was lucky enough to grow up in, that won't get you shot.
6) According to his own testimony, Darren Wilson entered into the situation on his own terms (he saw the jaywalking and backed the car up, had time to get himself together before engaging Michael Brown), and he didn't have options at hand besides using his gun. He talks about how he reacts badly to mace so didn't want to use it in close quarters; how he couldn't get to his taser without leaning over to the next seat. He called for backup before engaging but didn't wait for it. And there was no real urgency that I can see: it was just two teens walking down an abandoned street. Basically, my point is that Wilson didn't seem to have any strategies for handling Brown pushing back that didn't involve lethal force - and it seems like he had time to arrange those. It's telling to me that the killing can still be justified when he didn't take reasonable steps to make it unnecessary.
In case it needs saying, I think it's shameful that Michael Brown died, even if I think there's evidence to suggest (also contradicting evidence!) he was a bit aggressive when he came up against Darren Wilson. I don't think he would have died if he was white, because of the combative history between POC and the mostly-white cops that police them (and I could write quite a bit about the economics and the histories and the political situations that drive all that) and also because of some latent racist stereotyping in how a lot of cops in those forces see POC. Do I think Wilson is a racist in the sense that he consciously hates black people or thinks they're especially criminal? Not that I can see evidence of; the issues are subtler than that, but still there. I do think Brown's family would have faced an uphill battle toward getting a conviction even if they were white, which is another issue: why we give cops so much latitude to act violently in this country. It's a major problem, and again, I could say quite a lot if I were so inclined.
Now I get go make casseroles and watch Granada Holmes, and probably later explain to the Kid why people who look like her cousins and her dad get treated this way. Joy. :-S