And Wilson's story sounds fabricated also. But, he is the only one of the 2 that can tell it.
Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?
None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown. Brown wasn't a hardened felon. And while he might have been stoned, this isn't how stoned people act. The toxicology report did not indicate he was on PCP or something that would've led to suicidal aggression.
Which doesn't mean Wilson is a liar. Unbelievable things happen every day. The fact that his story raises more questions than it answers doesn't mean it isn't true.
But the point of a trial would have been to try to answer these questions. We would have either found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with Wilson's unbelievable story.
Wilson's story is actually quite believable once you watch the video of the strong arm robbery Brown committed immediately prior. It speaks volumes regarding Brown's propensity for violence, willingness to do harm to others, aggressiveness, etc. The fact that Brown was walking down the big middle of the street, basically drawing attention to himself afterward, instead of laying low, tells me he had a cocky and defiant attitude. An incredibly large, strong man who is violent and full of attitude is a recipe for bad decision making.
Eighteen year olds in general are not known for making wise decisions. (View the robbery video again for proof of that.) But to commit a robbery, walk down the middle of the street drawing attention to yourself, refuse to move to the sidewalk when a policeman tells you to do so, etc., all show INCREDIBLY bad judgment. And it just got worse from there. Brown's own bad choices caused his death. Period.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Brown had gotten the gun away from Wilson, Wilson would have been dead in short order.
Why no trial? The forensic evidence backs up Wilson's story and that of the witnesses (Yes, the Black witnesses) whose testimony corroborated Wilson's story. The forensic evidence contradicts those witnesses who told stories that made Brown out to be an innocent victim. Simply put, they were lying. To take that pile of crap to trial would be irresponsible. This would be an expensive trial....hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute, easily. And it would be unwinnable because of the EVIDENCE. No decent prosecutor is going to take an expensive case to trial when he cannot win due to the evidence making it clear the "victim" wasn't a victim at all.
Brown may be dead, but he was no victim.
