I think you're confusing a number of things. You're confusing conflict of interest with the prosecuting attorney actually not prosecuting the case fairly. Conflict of interest isn't something that is arbitrarily determined. As I showed you the Missouri Court Rule which dictates what is a conflict of interest. There clearly was a conflict of interest for the prosecuting attorney in the Michael Brown case. Now just because there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean the prosecuting attorney didn't prosecute the case to the fullest of his abilities. He absolutely could have (Although from what I have seen this isn't true and if you want me to explain why I'd be more then happy to explain) prosecuted Darren Wilson to the fullest of his abilities while still having a conflict of interest.
The statement of legal standing doesn't make any sense from a legal perspective. You're using the term legal standing incorrectly. Further conflict of interest isn't a criminal matter where you are innocent until proven guilty. It's a procedural matter, and procedural matters are viewed under a far different light. Procedural rules are what lead to appeals from a lawyers perspective. The conflict of interest exists far before a judge makes a ruling on the matter. In this case no judge had the opportunity to rule on that matter and never will.
And there is no justification for the lawless actions of some in St. Louis. It saddens me that anyone who doesn't side with Darren Wilson gets grouped in with looters and people who burn down buildings.
