You agree the law has been adhered to, but you claim the law is unjust. Can you please come up with a fairer system of choosing when to indict. There is a system to decide whether somebody should be prosecuted, in this case for manslaughter, and they decided that there was no case to answer. You could say anybody is biased. If you’re gonna call any jury biased, or somehow believe they misjudged the evidence, despite them having far more access to the facts of the case than you have, then it would be very hard to please you. Remember, you’ve watched an obviously edited video on YouTube, and followed up the case on biased media sites looking or a story. They’ve had a chance to watch cross examinations of participants and witnesses, detailed analysis without bias, and an entire system in place to ensure what they see is accurate and free from conjecture. I trust that when they made that decision, they were making an informed decision as part of a well-thought out, accurate process.
So feel free to protest. That is a demonstration of your free speech, and could lead too positive changes in the system. But I don’t believe it is broken. There was just a single episode involving a stupid man (I don’t wish to speak ill of the dead, but he shouldn’t have resisted), and some stupid officers who, in the moment, went too far. No crime was adjudged to have been committed and I believe that decision was fair, as being stupid is not a crime, being a criminal is. And they did not commit a crime.