Answer these questions, Mr. McCulloch

On Monday night, I raised two questions that were not answered by Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch:

   1.  How far was Michael Brown from Office Darren Wilson when he fired the shots that killed him?
   2.  What is the evidence that lethal force was justified?

About #1.   For months the authorities have been saying that Brown was about 35 ft from Wilson -- making it seem more plausible that he had reason to fear for his life.    But there is pictorial evidence floating around the more substantial blogs (Daily Kos) that actually measures the distance from Brown's body to the officer's SUV at 148 feet.   What isn't answered is how far Wilson had run from his SUV in chasing Brown.

The fact remains that Brown did run 148 feet away from the SUV where the original altercation took place.   So it sounds like he was the one fearing for his life.  Wilson had already wounded him once.

About #2.  Over and over in his press conference announcement, McCulloch emphasized that there were conflicting testimonies from witnesses;  and he said that they each had to be tested against the physical and forensic evidence.

But did anyone test Officer Wilson's statement about how threatened he actually was by Brown's aggressiveness?    So the answer to #1 becomes extremely important.   Wilson can say -- months after the incident and many opportunities to think through and rehearse his testimony -- that Brown looked like a demon and was as big as Hulk Hogan.    But if Brown was running away and ran 148 ft, how threatening could he be at that point?

Is someone, who stole some cigarillos from a convenience store and who mouthed off and maybe attacked a police officer, so dangerous to the community that he must be shot down in the street like a mad dog?

All of these questions may have good answers.   But they add up to more than sufficient reason to find probable cause to have a trial.

Justice has not been served.    It does not help to learn that it is extremely rare for an officer to be indicted for killing an unarmed suspect, unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence of criminal activity on the part of the officer.    No, that just indicts the whole system and screams out for a thorough investigation of our law enforcement.

Ralph