If you've been following the case in Ferguson we have a black teenager shot by a white police officer.
This is one of those stories that has wildly varying claims about what happened and who did what.
Witnesses claim that the teenager, Michael Brown, had his hands in the air and was trying to surrender when the police officer, Darren Wilson, shot him.
The reason Brown was initially approached by Wilson appeared to have been an incident where Brown allegedly robbed a store by basically walking out with some merchandise.
As usually the media has been all over the map.
There were significant, often violent, protests in Ferguson over the shooting. A Grand Jury was convened to consider whether or not the police officer should be indicted for Brown's death.
After wading through volumes of testimony and forensic evidence, the Grand Jury declined to indict Darren Wilson. The jury consisted of seven men and five women, nine of them white and three black. Nine votes were required for an indictment. What the vote actually was has not been made public.
What can I say? Clearly the Grand Jury was not convinced that an indictment was warranted. From what I've heard the eye witness testimony tended to support Brown being shot down unjustifiably while the forensic evidence seemed to indicate that Wilson's version of the events was closer to the truth.
If that's true then I can understand the reluctance to indict because eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
I didn't hear the evidence so I can do is rely on the decision of the Grand Jury.