The GJ determined that a violent crime took place (Brown attacked the officer) and that the officer on the scene lawfully defended himself using deadly force. The officer had indeed made a unilateral decision and the decision was not deemed unlawful by a GJ. Just as in the Zimmerman/Martin case, the GJ (or jury) must decide who was the initial aggressor and whether the shooting preceded the initial physical attack or was used to stop that attack.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Your insane theories that the cop should just wrestle the guy, rather than shoot the attempted killer, are just theories. That's why the grand jury didn't side with you.
In this case, the deeply held belief was that a white cop shooting a black person is never justified, and that the cops just have it out for black people.
Which is why the Ferguson case and the case of the cigarette seller in NY get lumped together. The facts show that they're two very different cases, but the only thing seen by the racist through the goggles of deeply held belief is white cops and black suspects. Supporting evidence, any facts, are irrelevant in their eyes.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
We're giving both citizens and law enforcement liberty to take lives which while currently legal doesn't match up to my view of either ethical or beneficial to society.
"The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville