That's your (increasingly obviously) inexpert opinion. The point of the grand jury is to determine if there is a case to try someone for murder.

In what way? What evidence do you have for this position, aside from not as many cops being convicted as you would wish?
That could be anything from a mistake about the distances, to conflating two different references. Or did Wilson estimate he started firing at a distance of 35' and the body ended up 100' away? Because there is nothing contradictory or suspicious in that. No one is claiming that Wilson nailed him with the first shot, or that Brown was not running away. Even if there was some sort of proof that he did lie about the distance, it does not prove that it was a case of murder.
Are these proven lies, or differences of opinion from one of the most extremist and ill-informed posters on this board?

Lack of a police report and lies by police department ALWAYS and ONLY mean a police officer has committed murder!

No one is doing that. Brown's criminal activity, which was not retroactive, is never cited by any reputable or reasonably intelligent parties as a justification for the shooting, it is merely used to demonstrate that the cop had a legitimate reason for confronting him, and provides motivation for Brown's own assault on the officer.
As numerous people have pointed out, THAT IS WHAT A GRAND JURY IS FOR! It is not in place of a trial, it is a necessary preliminary step to a trial!

Only someone as breathtakingly stupid as you would cite such a saying to make your point. The case against Wilson failed to clear even such an easy hurdle as being indicted by a grand jury. There is nothing to your position, aside from a racist belief in one side's story against all evidence.
In the first place, no they did not, and in the second place, even if they did, who says they are wrong?

Regarding the first issue, they decided that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to charge Darren Wilson. They were presented with evidence in a court setting, under well-established rules, and the supervision of a judge, and gave their decision in defiance of wide-spread and violent public opposition. They did not obtain all of their information about the case from sensationalist televised news or cherry-picking stories from far-left blogs and periodicals. They got to review the prosecution's case, and were instructed on the criteria to use to determine if it met the legal standards. You don't even know what a grand jury is for, but you're going to claim they didn't do it properly?

By your own phrasing, you are saying that the case is a value judgment on people, rather than their actions. You are moronically and simplistically saying that it boils down to Good Guy and Bad Guy, that in making their decision, the jury is picking sides, rather than weighing the merits of the case.

As for the second point, prior to their altercation, Officer Wilson was helping a sick child, while Michael Brown was assaulting and robbing a productive member of society. I'd say, yeah. Michael Brown's life does not have much value compared to Darren Wilson's.

It's funny, but my view is almost exactly the same by literally inverse. There are a considerable number of incidents of excessive force or unjustifiable shootings by law enforcement across America. This case was not one of those by any stretch of the imagination. And in fact, served largely to distract from an actual incident of excessive force and police brutality, regarding a genuinely controversial technique.

What is not justifiable about shooting a large, powerfully built thug, who was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery, who tried to grab a police officer's gun in the officer's car, injuring his skull, before resisting arrest, attempting to flee, and then turning and charging back at the cop? You could be the saintliest person in the world, but charging at a cop who is pointing a gun at you is going to get you justifiably dead. The opinions of a bunch of civilian onlookers as to whether or not he acted in a sufficient manner to be considered a clear surrender are irrelevant, given their lack of training or citation of any procedures. If you are surrendering, you do what the cop says, and only what he says. If Wilson had told Brown "Come here" before shooting him, that would be one thing. But no one told him that. A confrontation with an armed police officer is not a game of "Red Light, Green Light". You don't get to throw up your hands after repeatedly ignoring his orders, both fleeing and then approaching the cop and suddenly claim immunity from the consequences of your behavior.