yeah no
1. The grand jury can return a no true bill with a minority of 4 votes. That means you need a super majority to get an indictment. So since we don't know how they voted, we don't know anything about whether or not "the narrative I favored (which you continually, at this point purposefully, misstate)" was "summarily discounted." What we know is that at least four said not to go forward.
2. What do you need me to do to get it through you abnormally thick head? Seriously? Tell me. What exact words do I have to type concerning whether or not "Wilson WAS assaulted?" Tell me. Because I've said every way possible that I thought there was a physical altercation at the vehicle and the nearly exact words I typed was that Brown had a large degree of the responsibility there. Seriously, at has to be on purpose at this point. You have to know exactly what I've said and for some reason are just lying about it.
3. I didn't say Brown was shot in the back. I said he was shot at while running away. Again, you ask why I don't weigh in? Here's one reason why.
4. Whether Brown was shot attempting to surrender was not "discounted" by the GJ. There were 22 witnesses who talked about the end of the shooting. I'll ignore his friend. That leaves 21. 5 look like they didn't see enough at the end to know much more than that there was a shooting (either because they couldn't see or weren't looking). That leaves 16. 2 are clearly lying by saying Wilson was standing over Brown and shot him. That leaves 14 who saw what happened and don't appear to be outright lying. Of those 14, 6-7 said Brown had his hands up [Federal witness 16, and witnesses 14, 22. 37, 42, and 64] (one is iffy on it) . Another 4 said Brown was walking towards Wilson, not rushing him. That's 10-11 out of 14 people discounting the idea that Brown was charging Wilson. 1 said he was rushing Wilson. Another sorta intimates that. That's 2 out of 14 people. So not sure what testimony you were reading to come to the assertion that his hands were not up. If you want to talk about witnesses with no credibility, then one of the TWO witnesses who described rushing wrote in his journal the day of the shooting ""I'm going to take a random drive to Florissant. Need to understand the black race better so I stop calling blacks ******s..." He also testified that Brown grabbed Wilson's leg and punched off the rear view mirror, both things we know didn't happen.
5. Let's look at the testimony of Wilson. As an attorney with tons of experience in defense, and two years as a Chief of Justice (effectively the "DA" of an Army post), I've seen 100s of witnesses on the stand. The easiest way to tell someone is lying is when they portray themselves as pure and 100 percent good, and the other side (Accused or Victim) as wholly bad or evil. That's exactly what Wilson did, from describing Brown as a "demon" to over-exaggeration of a lot of details. But don't take my word for it, this link does a lot of the work: http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side
I could also include questions like: how did the gun jam twice in the car? Why did Wilson testify that Brown was rushing at him and also had his hand in his waistband like he was going for a gun when we all know he didn't have a gun? That's a straight up lie designed to make folks think black man with a gun. We are to believe that one-handed, Brown held down/beat down Wilson in the car while handing his cigarellos to his friend? Oh, and we are to believe that immediately after the shooting, the police chief was wrong when he said Wilson didn't know about the robbery. Why? Because Brown testified once he saw the cigarellos, he put together that Brown was involved in the robbery. It's baloney. A real DA seeking an indictment would have made Wilson look like a lying idiot. Heck, no defense attorney would have put Wilson at the GJ without COMPLETE assurance that there was no danger.
6. As to whether or not there was credible evidence to get an indictment? Of course there was. If the DA wanted an indictment, he could have gotten one. He didn't.
If you want an indictment you don't bring in the accused to testify.
If you want an indictment and you do bring in the accused to testify, you don't act like his defense counsel in questioning him
If you want an indictment, you give the panel clear legal standards and you limit the possible offenses to limit confusion. They didn't do the latter, and they gave the GJ the wrong, outdated Missouri legal standard for police shootings, one that was favorable to Wilson, and when one of the GJ members pointed it out and asked what they should do (follow MO or follow the Supreme Court) the Ass DA basically said don't worry about it. Don't believe me, research it.
If you want an indictment, you don't attack the witnesses who say things against the accused, challenging their credibility.
If you want an indictment, you don't bring in defense friendly witnesses period.
I could go on, An indictment happens nearly all the time (because probable cause is a really really low standard--one could argue it's the second lowest of the legal standards we have just about reasonable suspicion), except in police cases. Then they almost never happen. Of course, in this case, it didn't happen not because of the reasons you want to believe, but because the DA was a guy who's father was a cop killed in the line of duty by an African American, and a guy who's spent his entire career without ever so much as indicting a single cop. And because the DA set up the process to make sure the GJ had too much information, had conflicting information, had the wrong legal standard (or was at least confused on the correct legal standard), and brought in the accused to testify. And if you don't think an accused testifying at a GJ is unusual, it's borderline unheard of, just ask Scalia.
