On August 9th, a police shooting occurred in the small town of Ferguson, Missouri that forever change the landscape of civilian-law enforcement interaction and how we regulate the behavior of our nation’s police officers. After Officer Darren Wilson and his partner got the call of a robbery at a convenient store, the officers responded and began heading towards the convenient store mentioned in the dispatch.

Michael Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street towards the Quick Trip convenient store as the officers approached the site of the robbery. When Michael Brown was scouted by Officer Wilson as matching the description of the wanted person in the dispatch, he approached Brown as his friend. An altercation ensued and Officer Wilson’s service weapon was discharged. Much of the discrepancy that has arisen over this case is regarding whether or not the service weapon was intentionally discharged.

In the three months since the shooting Ferguson, Missouri has erupted into a protest-ridden combat zone where community members, academics, religious figures, and many other stakeholders involved in this extremely intricate situation have begun a fight against the city’s law enforcement and government bodies.

Nine days after the shooting, President Obama sent the Attorney General Eric Holder to monitor the unrest in Ferguson as protests escalated past the point of civil unrest and into violence.

On November 13th, Michael Brown’s parents partnered with the U.S. Human Rights Network to travel to Switzerland and testify before the United Nations Committee against torture. The human rights implication of this case among many other police shootings in the U.S. are strong. There has been increased tension between law enforcement and underserved communities for some time since the flood of police shootings that have plagued 2014 thus far.

Many are concerned with the apparent militarization of the nation’s law enforcement network and have seen the increased capabilities of police forces all across the country become more threatening when events like the Michael Brown shooting occur. Assault weapons, enhanced riot gear, highly armed officers handling peaceful protest, and many other offenses that human rights advocates deem unacceptable have been more common in law enforcement units, and the handling of the Ferguson protests specifically have raised questions of police brutality.

The grand jury began deliberating the verdict on whether or not Office Wilson should be charged for this offense on November 14th, and since then unrest in Ferguson has accelerated feverishly. A main factor in the grand jury’s decision is video evidence that has surfaced regarding what Officer Wilson did in the minutes and hours after the shooting occurred and whether or not he handled protocol correctly and effectively.

If the grand jury decides that no charges should be brought against the officer, there is almost a guarantee that protests will continue to rage on. Sociological experts are worried that the protests could become too chaotic, overshadowing the events of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots over Rodney King’s death.

The evidence seems to convey a sense of urgency in Officer Wilson’s protocol. The immediate radio call after the shooting occurred offers insight into Officer Wilson’s immediate actions and will be used as a key piece of evidence for the grand jury hearings moving forward.

With civil rights advocates and sociologists expressing serious concern over Ferguson if the grand decision is not in favor of the protestors, the nation is bracing itself for one of the most catastrophic protest efforts to turn into conditions likened to civil war. While everyone involved in the legal process is trying to deliberate what the fate of Office Wilson should be, everyone on the outside looking in is hoping for a resolution that will not end in riots and complete breakdown of rule of law.