Because you need to consider what the world would be like if prosecutors brought in front of a GJ everyone who they thought they could get the GJ to indict (only to be acquitted at trial). It would result in an enormous increase in the number of innocent people suffering through trials, being ruined by legal fees, living in fear etc. etc., not to mention the enormous strain on the judicial system.
I don’t think many people would genuinely want this for society. It’s only by looking at the Brown/Wilson case in total isolation that people are able to adopt this stance.
As I pointed out in another thread, this is not the “St. Louis cops”. It is the St. Louis Police Officers Association, which is a non-profit lobbying organization affiliated with neither the St. Louis Police department nor the St. Louis County Police. The statement was delivered by Jeff Roorda, a corrupt ex-cop who was fired for repeatedly lying. As far as I know, no actual St. Louis police officer has commented on the issue at all.
Another question that causes me to ponder: why was Officer Wilson chasing Brown unless he intended to use his gun? We are told he was much threatened by Browns diabolical physical strength, such that he was compelled to pull his gun in the first place, reasonable fear for his life. Then Brown runs, and he chases him on foot.
To what end? He did not fire at the fleeing Brown, of this we are assured, but chased him on foot to…what? Tackle him and wrestle him to the ground and cuff him?
OK, he pulled his gun fearing etc. Brown flees, imminent threat abates. Wilson pursues, but not firing, because that ain’t legal. But if he catches him, he is provoking the same potentially lethal situation he just avoided!
He’s not using his pistol, because its against the law, but he is chasing Brown (who, at 300 lbs, most likely can’t run very far…) which very likely will result in him being, once again, in reasonable fear etc.
Officer Wilson was insistent that he did not wish to shoot Mr Brown, the necessity was forced upon him. So why chase him?
From your link:
“As Wilson (almost certainly a faster runner) gained on Brown, Wilson fired the first six shots toward Brown’s back. Brown, realizing that Wilson was attempting to kill him, stopped fleeing and turned around. He raised his hands in surrender and began to walk slowly toward Wilson. (It’s important to note that the blood trail did show Brown moved a total of 25 feet back in the direction of Wilson before his body came to rest in the street.)”
Once again: Brown was hit 6 times. The second group of shots was 4 shots. Even if EVERY one of those hit Brown, that means that at least two of the first group of shots (the “first six shots” from your link) hit Brown. All 6 hits on Brown were in front. Thus the statement above from your link cannot be true.
[QUOTE=Terr]
Brown was hit 6 times. The second group of shots was 4 shots. Even if EVERY one of those hit Brown, that means that at least two of the first group of shots (the “first six shots” from your link) hit Brown. All 6 hits on Brown were in front.
[/QUOTE]
If Wilson fired six shots at Brown’s back, and Brown was not hit from the back, then the six shots must have missed. But Brown was hit six times, out of a total of 10 shots fired by Wilson. Since Wilson fired four more shots, all from the front, if the shots fired from behind all missed, Brown could not have been hit six times. But Brown was hit six times. Therefore, two of the first burst must have hit, and, since Brown was not shot from behind, then those two shots at least could not have been fired at Brown’s back.
It’s also possible (or consistent with the evidence) that he turned during the first volley, and could have been hit (in the front) by the tail end of the first volley.
The statement “Wilson fired six shots at Brown’s back” has still been refuted.
And the blood evidence demonstrates that Brown was moving towards Wilson when he was shot. Which is further evidence that Wilson did not fire at Brown’s back. Terr has covered this as well.