At 9:00 last night, Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch gave a twenty minute explanation of events that led to Michael Brown’s death last August before finally saying that the Grand Jury found that there not enough evidence to bring this case to trial.

Lots of very reasonable people believe that this was a clear cut case of police brutality against people of color. I’m not sure. Mostly because I don’t know all the evidence. I wish this case had gone to court, because I think that there was sufficient evidence to merit a trial and a public trial would have given people the information that they needed.

I think the courts turned this Grand Jury into a full trial, but one that was protected by rules of privacy. The privacy was probably to protect Office Wilson and the African-American witnesses who confirmed his story. I appreciate the concern for those individuals, but the secrecy of those proceedings have created other problems.

Was this a case of a split second bad decision? Cops have to make split second decisions all the time. Sometimes people choose badly in those cases. Split second bad decisions aren’t necessary criminal, except if you can show that the bad decision was the result of historical personal and institutional bigotry. Was there evidence of historical personal and institutional bigotry? I don’t know.

Wilson shot the Brown twelve times. That’s a lot of bullets. A split second wrong decision means one or two bullets. Why all the bullets? I needed more information on this.

If this case had gone to trial, other issues would have become part of the debate. Cops have a wider legal latitude for self-protection than the general public. They can use lethal force if they believe that they are under imminent threat. Is that too much discretion? A trial would have brought up that discussion.

I’m just rambling here… Open thread..