I did not overlook this at all, you are inventing something that never happened to continue your belief.
You have it backwards. A grand jury, with evidence collected jointly by the local authorities and the federal Justice Department, found nothing to indict the officer for. It is you who are inventing something... some non-specific charge that you believe they missed.
The grand jury does not charge a man, sorry.
I'm not a lawyer so to me the difference between "charge" and "indict" is not very significant to our discussion. If you want a pedantic discussion then you are probably engaged with the wrong guy.
Holding someone accountable for their actions is not throwing him under the bus,
It most certainly is! You suggested that even though he didn't actually commit a crime, it is still worth putting him through the trial process so that things can escalate to some "next level". You are suggesting that it is "worth it" to screw up this guy's life for a while just to further some greater cause. That is not justice, that is calculated political strategy.
The first and probably the second are not being questioned. Perhaps even three we can say was justifiable defense. The remaining 9-10 bullets are the excessive force, and pretty obvious excessive force which you seemed to agree with above.
I don't think cops should be chasing down suspects on their own. I don't think beat cops should be carrying handguns, thus guaranteeing that a non-lethal struggle becomes a lethal struggle since the weapon is always in play. However, the rules being what they are, I can't say whether or not the officer in this particular case was justified or not - I wasn't there and I wasn't on the grand jury. Having watched the Justice Department presentation, I must say that they seem to have made the right decision given the facts that they had.
Police violence against civilians has escalated, not the other way around..
Where did you see those numbers?
For posterity, I don't support either end of the extreme. The cop in this case was not angelic, and the crowds are not altruistic. If you study Hegalian dialectic, the reason for these things is obvious.
Yes, I think we agree on the ends but not the means.