The Importance of Context

homeagain wrote: I miss typed....altho it was PARTIALLY covered,it still remained UNshielded for a long time,NOT removed.DISRESPECT for the deceased...re-read the article.

www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/us/michael-br...son-street.html?_r=0

If you read that article, really read that article, you would understand that part of the reason the thug's body was in the street for 4 hours and was unshielded for the length of time it was had a lot to do with the people of Ferguson themselves. Had they allowed the police to do their work instead of creating chaos that consumed the time of not only patrol officers, but the investigating officers as well, the investigation would not have taken as long. Not only were members of the community trying to get into the secured area, there were gun shots that required the officers to tend to the safety of the living of the Looky Lou's, and themselves, before worrying about the dead.
From your link:

And officials were contending with what they described as “sheer chaos” on Canfield Drive, where bystanders, including at least one of Mr. Brown’s relatives, frequently stepped inside the yellow tape, hindering investigators. Gunshots were heard at the scene, further disrupting the officers’ work.

“Usually they go straight to their jobs,” Officer Brian Schellman, a county police spokesman, said of the detectives who process crime scenes for evidence. “They couldn’t do that right away because there weren’t enough police there to quiet the situation.”

and

As the crowd on Canfield Drive grew, the police, including officers from St. Louis County and Ferguson, tried to restore order. At one point, they called in a Code 1000, an urgent summons to nearby police officers to help bring order to a scene, police officials said.

Even homicide detectives, who do not ordinarily handle such tasks, “were trying to get the scene under control,” said Officer Rick Eckhard, another spokesman for the St. Louis County police.

To lay the delays solely at the feet of the police ignores the role the community played in causing the delays and the disrespect they showed to both the deceased and the police officers.

Some of the delay had to do with having St Louis County investigate the death. How far away from the location are those resources located home? Do you even know that or give it any consideration before emoting your outrage over how disrespectful the thug's body and the community were treated? And you didn't simply mistype. Your assertion was in all caps, emphasized by you, that the body was uncovered for four and a half hours. That's not mistyping, that's misrepresenting, intentionally or ignorantly, what occurred. What that tells me is that your outrage is more important to you than the facts are. I don't see your outrage being directed to all parties responsible for the delays, only some of them. I don't see any outrage directed towards mistakes made by anyone or anything other than the police or the DA.

Fact of the matter is that it is the thug's fault that he was lying dead in that street to begin with. The fact that he felt free to steal what didn't belong to him, felt free to assault a police officer. These are failures of the community and of his family to raise him to be a beneficial member of the society in which he lived. Where is your outrage regarding their failures?

Does this/should this factor into the overall equation regarding the Grand Jury's decision?

www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/134942...s-DA?detail=facebook

Not IMNTBHO. DailyKOS has a nasty habit of trying to pass opinion off as fact and that particular piece is chock full of examples of that practice. Fact of the matter is that it is the writer's opinion that the clarification provided by the prosecutor was "unclear" and "unexplained" as well as the AG of MO confirmed that the statute read was "misleading". I didn't see the AG of MO confirm that what the ADA of St Louis provided was "unexplained, "unclear" or "misleading".

With regard to "probable cause", anyone with a room temperature IQ quickly sees that it was satisfied in that Officer Wilson noted that Brown matched the description of a strong armed robbery suspect and that Brown had physically assaulted Officer Wilson while Officer Wilson was in his patrol vehicle. If that isn't "probable cause" to suspect Brown of committing a felony to the KOS writer I'm not sure what would be.

PrintSmith wrote: Not IMNTBHO. DailyKOS has a nasty habit of trying to pass opinion off as fact and that particular piece is chock full of examples of that practice. Fact of the matter is that it is the writer's opinion that the clarification provided by the prosecutor was "unclear" and "unexplained" as well as the AG of MO confirmed that the statute read was "misleading". I didn't see the AG of MO confirm that what the ADA of St Louis provided was "unexplained, "unclear" or "misleading".

With regard to "probable cause", anyone with a room temperature IQ quickly sees that it was satisfied in that Officer Wilson noted that Brown matched the description of a strong armed robbery suspect and that Brown had physically assaulted Officer Wilson while Officer Wilson was in his patrol vehicle. If that isn't "probable cause" to suspect Brown of committing a felony to the KOS writer I'm not sure what would be.

Did you watch the video?

www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/mo.-at...rce-law-366995011852

C'mon Z - I thought I was going above and beyond reasonable to visit the KOS site and you want me to voluntarily go lower into the gutter and visit MSNBC? Have you no compassion?

PrintSmith wrote: C'mon Z - I thought I was going above and beyond reasonable to visit the KOS site and you want me to voluntarily go lower into the gutter and visit MSNBC? Have you no compassion?

Nope. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil.

Well Z, just for you I lowered myself into the sewer that is MSNBC and watched the video, at least to the point where the talking head was getting ready to solicit the opinion of his guest. At no point did I see a statement from the AG of MO, either on video or in his written response to the talking head's question, that the ADA of St Louis County had provided was "unclear", "unexplained" or "misleading". And I'm sorry, I don't remember the talking head's name, or I would have used it instead of talking head, honest.

PrintSmith wrote: Well Z, just for you I lowered myself into the sewer that is MSNBC and watched the video, at least to the point where the talking head was getting ready to solicit the opinion of his guest. At no point did I see a statement from the AG of MO, either on video or in his written response to the talking head's question, that the ADA of St Louis County had provided was "unclear", "unexplained" or "misleading". And I'm sorry, I don't remember the talking head's name, or I would have used it instead of talking head, honest.

Thanks for at least looking at it, P. I'd encourage you to also watch what the guest had to say. You're correct in that the AG doesn't specifically state the ADA of St. Louis County had provided unclear, unexplained, or misleading information. However, given the statement of the AG of Missouri to Lawrence O'Donnel (the talking head), one could arguably infer that is exactly what is being talked about in an indirect fashion. That's my take on it, anyway.

www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-...ly-force-law-n261256

May I ask what MSM source is your "go-to" source for information? I know you have little to no respect for anything NBC, but you've also never indicated where you get your information.

Local news, radio, and community bulletin boards, if those qualify as MSM. If they don't, then I don't have a 'go-to' MSM source. When I wish to look a little deeper, I type the topic into the search box look at the results to see if something piques my interest further. If it does, I'll scan the first couple and last couple paragraphs. If I'm still interested I'll read it beginning to end to see what value, if any, may be found in the entire offering.

Most of the time I find myself thinking that I wish everyone would stop trying to tell me what I ought to think about something and concentrate on providing more information and less of their own observations and conclusions so that I have the ability to come to my own conclusions.

That's really why I stopped looking at the video when O'Donnell started looking for authentication from his chosen "legal expert". I was already bored with being told what I should think about what was happening and saw no need to see and hear more of the same.