>>>>>>>So I guess tonight they will announce if the cop is going to be charged or not. My guess is that they won't and the whole town will erupt. Hopefully I'm wrong on both counts.
>>>>>>I don't see why the cop should have been charged based on the evidence provided.
>>>>>I disagree. Based on the initial evidence (and I have not read; no will I read all the evidence released to public last night) I believe the cop should have been charged.
>>>>>But even if he were charged; and even if he were convicted, I don't think it would make a difference in the lives of Ferguson people. No would it stop those who burned the buildings and looted businesses last night. No would it stop other crimes in Ferguson.
>>>>
>>>>Care to share the source of the "initial evidence" you mention?
>>>
>>>I meant all that we all saw on tv; mostly the "testimonies" of witnesses. I know that a lot of what was reported was BS but I believe that a cop with the proper training should have avoided shooting Michael Brown.
>>
>>You might want to look at some of the evidence that came out during the trial.
>
>I just want to comment that this was NOT a trial. A grand jury hearing is not supposed to include both sides. Normally, a prosecutor presents only enough evidence to prove that there is probable cause that a crime was committed. An actual trial then determines whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the defendant has an affirmative defense.

Some grand jury statistics: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/