I just want to reiterate that I think the grand jury in the Michael Brown case was wrong not to indict.
I also want to forcefully reject any comments that attempt to tell me it's wrong to have that opinion, which implies that juries are always right—they aren't. O.J. case anyone?
I do not think that it's so radical to hold the opinion that this case should have resulted in an indictment and gone to trial—the dismissal of all concerns, the decision that says nothing that happened here rose to the level of deserving a trial is insulting and feeds into the mistrust a significant percentage of the country has for the legal system.
All that said, a trial may very well have resulted in the officer being exonerated—there were plenty of witnesses and there was plenty of evidence that could have swayed a jury to decide he defended himself the best way he knew how.
Rioting and looting is not the answer, and reflects badly (and unfairly) on those who are legitimately pained by the events in this case.
If you have a different opinion, that's your right. Please don't preach to me that I don't have all the facts or don't understand how the system works or that I think Michael Brown was an angel, and I will not imply that you're a racist or that you don't have all the facts, either.
People can have all the same facts and still respectfully disagree, which is another reason why it's wrong to chastise people for disagreeing with juries' decisions in some cases—juries are just people considering facts, and there is ample evidence in the history of the U.S. that juries have been wrong, and are occasionally biased. If you agree with the decision, good for you—but don't parrot the prosecutor's talking point that no one but the grand jury has any right to have an opinion on this case, and that no one but the grand jury knows the truth.
A few points: