Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate

Why , I guess, Grand Jurors did not demand trial on Darren Wilson , the cop in who had shot a black kid on 9-aug-2014 in town Ferguson, Missouri.
.
The jury trials are open, but the the grand jury proceedings are confidential. So one can only guess. .
.
The MOST important question before grand jury was "did the cop had reason to believe that he himself was in danger and he had sufficient reason to shoot". And the video and related details show that Grand Jurors may have thought that the policeman had valid reason to believe that his life would have been in danger if he had not shot. IOW, it was self defence only.
.
The following video tinyurl .com/Rm2014-1126A (see link in first comment) would have made significant impact.
.
The video showed that the "kid" Micheal Brown , 6' 4" tall, 290 pound, too a pack of cigar , walk out without paying for it, and when the owner some Indian named Andy Patel tried to stop him, Micheal Brown had pushed and manhandled him. Andy Patel immidiately called 911 and said that "a 6.5 tall black male robbed his store and assulted him". The control tried to locate the cop closest to the location, who happened to be Darren Wilson and asked to immidiately go to the store. Darren Wilson was just a few blocks away , and so he appeared within minutes. .
.
Now since Andy Patel had said that "he was robbed and manhandled", the policeman had a REASONABLE reason to believe that Micheal Brown was armed. Also, when the cop asked him to lie down, Micheal Brown started walking towards him. This will further make Darren Wilson feel threatened for his safety.
.
In USA, kids are taught in high school, that when a policeman asks you to lie down, then just lie down, or stand on knees, keep arms up, and dont walk away or towards him. If one walks towards a cop, then the cop feels threatened that he may be attacked. And if he walks away, then cop will feel that he is escaping.
.
(Now if a person is robbing the store, he better know how a robber should behave. One cant go for robbery and then claim "I dont know how policemen are supposed to act" !! Anyway, these are just my personal thoughts)
.
So what policeman saw is
.
1. A 6' 4" inch 290 lb man is in front of him. He has just been accused of robbery and assult, and he may be armed.
.
2. The accused is walking towards himself.
.
So Grand Jurors thought that he had sufficient reason to defend himself using only weapon he had - namely the gun. .
.
Now problem is of USA, and my hands are full with problems of India. So I cant spend more time on this issue. But my point is ---- if you want to understand the whole situation, then please go theu ALL facts including the video that were placed vefore the grand Juror, and the guess what would YOU do if you were Grand Jurors .
.
1. If you decide a trial on policeman, then other policeman may simply refuse to go near "crime in action" scene, as going near "crime in action" scenes always involve higher chances that policeman will have to shoot back.
.
2. If a policeman desist from going near crime in action scene, then crimes will only rise..
.
eg just yesterday, the store of Andy Patel was looted by a mob !! And policemen did not go there. and one reason can be ---- if they had gone there, chances of crossfire and then allegations increase !!!
.
If I were on Grand Jury , and if I had seen the tape and heard the complaint Andy Patel made on 911 phone call to police control room, then would have given benefit of doubt to policeman Darren Wilson that "he had sufficient reason to feel threatened and act in his self defence". Each person may decide on his own.
.