So, here's a question: do prosecutors and district attorneys normally empanel a grand jury without indicating what charges may or are being sought?  And then proceed to just inundate them with evidence and information with no guidance about where the prosecutor thinks the evidence points?

Grand juries may not determine guilt or innocence, but they do deliberate and determine whether what has been presented to them is sufficient to charge someone with a crime - with the key here being "what has been presented to them."  Please let us not forget that in another case, McCulloch was already been found to have withheld and misrepresented evidence in order to get the charge he wanted.

  In state courts, I have usually had to file the motions under whatever the state counterpart to Rule 6 (e) exists. Some courts make you make a showing that is unfairly rigorous to get the GJ transcript (essentially provide evidence of an irregularity when as a matter of logic  one can't make the showing without having the transcript)

  I digress, but my point was I've never practiced where a prosecutor has discretion to publicly disclose a transcript to the public.

I don't see anything that would make Wilson legally culpable.

  That would be 1st degree murder, which as I said I don't see being applicable unless virtually all the accounts of what various witnesses are described as saying.

  It does not have to be a calculated "cold-blooded" killing to be a crime. If you intentionally kill a person without lawful justification, you have committed some degree of homicide. Justification (in this case self-defense or of others) is an affirmative defense.

 If a case goes to trial, the prosecution initially has the burden of presenting a prima facie case establishing establishing every essential element of the crime charged (that means admissible evidence if fully credited   which would prove every element including the requisite intent). If the prosecution fails to do that, then the judge should grant the defense motion for a judgment of acquittal (directed verdict) without the defense having to put on any case.

  If the prosecution has introduced evidence which (if fully credited) establishes each element then the defendant presents his evidence. With an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of production to present admissible evidence  which  would allow for a fact-finder to decide that the elements of the justification defense exist. If he fails to do that then the judge would not instruct the jury as to the affirmative defense. If the defendant meets that burden of production then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to rebut the affirmative defense, and the jury will be instructed that it must find that the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that every element of the offense has been and that it has rebutted the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

  There are case where private citizens have intentionally killed people and the only issue is the justification affirmative defense but charges are not filed or a grand jury declines to indict. On the other hand, I think people reasonably suspect that if everything about this case was exactly the same save for the fact that Wilson is a police officer, it would be considerably less likely the shooter would not be indicted and required to defend himself at trial as I have described above.

  Self-defense (or of others) is a possible inference) given the reported descriptions of the shooting. It's not the only possible inference. One could quite reasonably infer that Wilson shot Brown because he was angry that Brown accosted him and did not reasonably fear for his life or safety or that of others at the moment he fired the fatal shot(s). Another possible inference is  that the emotion motivating his action was not anger personally directed at Brown but that his response to a startling and chaotic encounter was an unreasonable over-reaction and an unjustified use of deadly force. Those are just 2 of the most obvious examples.

  The GJ is only charged with finding whether probable cause exists and whether  the case should proceed to the trial stage. Given the very low threshold for probable cause and that in cases not involving cops prosecutors frequently do not present "unhelpful" evidence either casting doubt on evidence supporting the elements of offenses or supporting affirmative defenses.

Many many people are indicted without even being informed a grand jury is considering their case. I say without fear of contradiction that the norm is for a prosecutor to call only those witnesses he believes minimally necessary to get a probable cause (true bill) finding by the needed majority of jurors making no attempt to present a "balanced" or complete exposition of the evidence. It's also quite common for the accused  not be to be a afforded opportunity to appear and give their side (in fairness, it should also be noted that the accused are frequently advised not to appear and testify when asked).

For what it is worth in a social context: We know Wilson's internet presence was totally scrubbed within  a few hours of the killing.  We know he has a friend aka Josie willing to lie for him, other friends who have no photoshop skills and fraudulently use a University of Iowa instructional X-ray pretending it was Wilson's X-ray. We know some basic information about his mother. He was 16 when his father died. We know he is hiding on a  paid vacation

However, there remain some valid grounds for criticizing Officer Wilson.

You and your fellow right wingers can rightly criticize his poor marksmanship.  Only one third of his rounds actually hit the unarmed boy.  Tsk, tsk.

And I, being an unrepentant, albeit sometimes reluctant, liberal, can whinge about the greenhouse gases produced by the cartridges that missed.  Clearly unnecessary and environmentally challenging

"Everything else is pure opinion."

Facts:

1. Officer Wilson is an officer of the ferguson, MO police dept.

2. Officer Wilson (by his own admission) saw mr. brown and his friend walking in the middle of the street.

3. Officer Wilson (again, by his own admission) stopped his vehicle, and yelled at the two young men to get on the sidewalk.

4. Mr. Brown and his friend made some dergatory comments (by the friend's admission) to officer wilson, and continued walking down the middle of the street because (according to the friend) they were only a short distance from home.

5. Officer wilson continued on, then stopped, reversed, and drove back to brown and his friend, nearly hitting brown. not standard police procedure.

6. officer wilson attempted to open his door. because the car was so close to brown, it bounced off him and closed.

7. per the eyewitness, officer wilson reached out, grabbed mr. brown, and dragged him halfway into the vehicle (not standard police procedure). A tussle ensued. per the eyewitness, mr. brown was attempting to extricate himeself from officer wilson's car, and officer wilson was attempting to keep him in there. why all this happened is still unknown.

8. officer wilson drew his police weapon because, according to him, mr. brown was trying to grab it out of its holster. the eyewitness claims otherwise, that brown was still trying to just get out of the vehicle.

9. officer wilson discharged his weapone twice, hitting brown once in the hand, and missing the other time. this explains the blood and skin found inside the car, and the particulates found on mr. brown's hand.

10. mr. brown finally broke free, and the two friends ran (attested to by other eyewitnesses).
    
11. officer wilson got out of his car and started shooting at mr. brown's back, while he was running away. officer wilson hit mr. brown in the back 4 times. officer wilson did not radio in for backup, standard police procedure.

12. at a distance of approx. 120 feet from officer wilson, mr. brown stopped running. he turned around and placed his hands up in the air, the pretty much universal sign of surrender. attested to by multiple eyewitnesses. officer wilson continued shooting, hitting mr. brown twice in the front.

13. after being shot two times in the front of his body, mr. brown collapsed. attested to by multiple eyewitnesses. officer wilson had still not radioed in for backup.

i'm not going to provide multiple links, that have already been provided all over the net. any news site will have them. suffice it to say, i feel pretty confident that the facts i've stated are those provided by both local police officials, and interviews of eyewitnesses, who all seem to tell a similar story.

why did officer wilson feel compelled to turn a routine, "hey, get out of the road, before you get run over!" into a deadly confrontation? beats me, it just sounds bizarre on its face. the fact remains, he was the one that started and ended it, by his own (limited) admissions. he never called for backup. he had no reason to suspect mr. brown of being involved in a robbery, because he never received a call to that affect, before or during the incident. his own boss admitted that. further, there is some question as to whether or not this claimed robbery even occurred; according to the store owner and his attorney, it didn't, and no one connected with the store called the police about it.

As quoted in the Stltoday article, St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman is incorrect, traffic was flowing on the street in front of the FPD. Protestors want cars to drive by. In fact, the almost universal honks of solidarity while heartening to Protestors are probably more than irritating to the cops. Temporary waist high metal fencing (placed earlier in the day) girding off some of the PD parking lot was knocked down early in the evening no protestor stepped over it.

Police were more orderly than many previous days. It is clear they have been practicing: how to walk in single file,  efficiently hold pepper (or mace) spray bottles, stand for long periods of time weighted down with riot apparatus, and point guns at people without responding in personal rage.

It must have been all that time spent sprawled out on the asphalt in the street that added to his stature in death.

His 6'4" height as cited by everybody across the fruited plain and beyond is etched not in stone but on that Missouri Drivers License in his wallet.

For Wilson's height check the videos and pictures of him on the internet standing over Brown in the street and towering over Chief Jackson.

Perhaps you could post them for us.

He said that there was no GSR found on the body anywhere [and btw wounds are part of that body]