Was the Investigation Into the Killing of Bernardo Palacios One-Sided?

  District Attorney Sim Gill this past week ruled that the police officers who killed Bernardo Palacios should not be brought to trial. A little bit of rioting resulted, and the governor called a state of emergency.
   I do not agree with the rioters for rioting. I appreciate that many of them were carted off to jail.
   But, I have not let go of the notion that it was wrong to kill Bernardo. I am still considering that, but so far I hold to the opinion the killing was wrongful.
   I have also come to believe Gill did not look at what happened through both the lens of both sides of the story. This conclusion I draw from having listened to his press conference, when he announced his verdict, announced his decision.
   He showed the videos of the shooting, taking us step-by-step through what the officers were doing, and why they were doing it. With each movement of the officers, he explains what their thinking was. He drew on them for his explanations, having interviewed Officer Iversen and such. Officer Iversen was even allowed to have his legal counsel involved.
   But, Gill doesn't even conjecture on what might have been going through Bernardo's mind. He doesn't conjecture to say, "In his defense, Mr. Palacios might have been thinking (thus and such)."
   If he examines the thinking behind what the officers' each movement was, should he not also consider the reasoning that might have been in Bernardo's mind as he fled, and as he tripped and fell, and as he picked the gun up again, and as he moved his arms while lying on the ground after being shot?
   Do we consider that all Bernardo's motives were bad -- do we assume that? -- or do we consider both sides of the story?
   I have said, just above, that Gill even allowed an attorney for Iversen to have some involvement in the case. What about legal representation for the other side of the case, then? Was an attorney for the family of Bernardo Palacios brought into the case?
    Sim Gill is the prosecutor, not the defense attorney. His first obligation is to fully consider the merits of prosecuting, as opposed to just gathering evidence for the defense.