Quote Originally Posted by Malbec View Post
That is not to say that the situation should be forgotten about, an inquiry is/was necessary if only to ensure police officers do not feel entitled to use lethal force with the belief there will not be consequences for them if it is misused.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-darren-wilson
That is not the case with a civil suit. The standard is “preponderance of the evidence”, the balance of probabilities which essentially means just “more likely than not”. It is sometimes described as 50.01%.
Another benefit of a civil suit is that Wilson himself could be compelled to testify.
Trachtenberg said that the lack of a grand jury indictment against Wilson doesn't necessarily affect the Brown family’s chances of winning a civil suit. “Certainly, if you get a criminal conviction then a civil suit is child’s play – all the jury would have to do is calculate damages,” he said. “[But] a mere indictment might not have been helpful.”
- The Grauniad, 27th Nov 2014

A question:
If you were the family of Michael Brown, would you think that justice had been served?
The fact that Officer Wilson was not indicted means that he will not be brought to the scrutiny of a criminal trial.

The way I figure it, the grand jury purpose of the Fifth Amendment is supposed to be a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial; is solidification of the process mentioned in the Magna Carta (1215). The problem is that no fair trial in a criminal court will even proceed. Is that good?