Talk:Killing of Walter Scott/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Factual inaccuracies, unsupported claims, and/or mushy language[edit]

“Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes that he had just bought from a neighbor and was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped, according to his brother....”

No RS has confirmed whether Scott had bought the car, for a very simple reason: No LE or criminal justice agency has informed the media, as to the ownership status of the vehicle. Scott had no paper work showing that he owned the car.

“Slager pursued Scott to a lot behind a pawn shop at 5654 Rivers Avenue,[15] where a scuffle ensued.”

“Scuffle” is mushy language. Scuffles don't just "ensue." Someone has to start one. Slager sought to arrest Scott, who resisted arrest.

“Scott then fled again, and Slager drew his handgun and fired eight rounds at him from behind.”

According to Slager’s attorney, Andrew Savage, Slager fired his gun ten times. SLED found eight spent rounds (five in the victim, and three that had missed him in the vicinity), but Savage reports that his investigators found two more at the crime scene.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited says his brother said he just bought the car. That's exactly what we say, that his brother said that. I think it's clear that he had either just bought the car or was about to close the deal, and the difference is so minor that it's probably not worth much more attention. If you disagree, find some reliable sources.
Re "scuffle ensued", again, if you can find reliable sources to support "Slager sought to arrest Scott, who resisted arrest," feel free to provide links and editors will evaluate them.
Re number of rounds, I have added the citation of a New York Times article. The shots are clearly heard on the video, no one has asserted that the video has been altered in any way, and one needs only good hearing and the ability to count to 8 to know that the New York Times is correct on this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
think and know, opinions and facts, are total polar opposites. Please leave opinions out of the article. If there aren't solid facts to the total rounds fired then asserting that multiple shots were fired is the only course of action.Hawtpeppers (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
scott resisted arrest, its been stated multiple times by countless media outlets. I will gather links and bring them to the discussion. Once a person flees they are resisting arrest. Once scott fled from the car and slager requested scott to stop, from that point on scott was resisting arrest.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scuffle was started by scott. Slager attempted to arrest Scott, Scott struggled against such actions- that is the scuffle, which was started by scott refusing arrest. Article needs to be clear about this.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? - MrX 00:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for what? be more specific. What are you disputing? The fact that 'scuffling' with police is not resisting arrest? Seriously, what are you disputing?Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing sources for:
  • "Scott resisted arrest"
  • "The scuffle was started by Scott"
  • "Once Scott fled from the car and Slager requested Scott to stop, from that point on Scott was resisting arrest"
- MrX 00:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are asserting that resisting arrest is not scuffling with police? correct? If so- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/scuffle. Please read the definition, then the example usage.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are asserting that fleeing from police is not resisting arrest? If so- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrestHawtpeppers (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asserting that we follow reliable sources according to our verifiability policy. We're not allowed to conduct original research.- MrX 01:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't assert anything, we don't make our own conclusions, we just add the facts to the article without bias or assessment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did I, the claim was made that there was no scuffle. I gave detailed information from reliable sources that scuffle was used correctly in this context. Is was disputed. I rebutted with resources.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So are you asserting that Slager did NOT request Scott to stop? I will find audio of the pursuit.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to back off a bit in the confrontation-department. Discussion is fine, asking questions with a neutral, non-hostile tone is fine, but being so confrontational in your tone isn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one being confrontational. You need to stop trying to intimidate people you disagree with. 2604:2000:9046:800:8509:D858:2904:8E3F (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only asking that those posting be less vague. I'm re-asking the questions I think is being asked and requesting they confirm that I understand. Tone is a bit hard to convey through text. You just might be taking offense to what you think was but isn't. Try not to be so defensive.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking the questions that need to be asked, so when it comes time that I edit the article, those disputing my changes know that I opened that discussion. And I ask that when those that edit my contribution that they discuss it here like I did.
There are a few editors of this page not discussing changes to the article before doing so. Some are flagrantly reverting material regarding facts and adding material regarding opinions. The integrity of the article hangs in the balance.Hawtpeppers (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawtpeppers, please discuss edits, not editors. Thank you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing how and why I am editing the talk page. You made claims that I am being aggressive. I am merely talking about my discussions on the talk page before I make edits. The previous comment is stating that other editors aren't doing this, but you have a problem with the so-called tone of my text, yet flagrant edits are of no concern to you.Hawtpeppers (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background > Walter Scott section[edit]

I recently changed Shooting of Walter Scott#Walter Scott to Shooting of Walter Scott#Victim per MOS:HEAD bullet point #1. The apparent convention for similar articles is to use "Victim" as they are victims of shootings. There does not seem to be a standard practice among Shooting of FOOBAR articles. Shooting of Philando Castile, for example, does use Victim. Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott repeats the name like this article does. Others have "Involved parties" sections. Talk:Shooting_of_Philando_Castile/Archive_2#Victim.3F_or_just_use_Philando.27s_name.3F does have a lengthy discussion about using "Victim" but that's local consensus.

My question is where do we go from here? MOS suggests not using the current format on this article. But this seems to be a wider problem and perhaps needs a wider discussion? Pinging Mandruss to invite them to discuss per BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I'm not too concerned with inter-article consistency for consistency's sake, per WP:OSE. No two situtations are alike, so let's take each case separately. I certainly don't think we need an RfC to establish a standard way of referring to cop shooting victims in article headings, but that's what it would take for me to observe a consistency argument. If MOS is a big concern for you, how would you feel about using only the surnames, per WP:SURNAME? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, MOS:HEAD bullet 1 does not apply to this situation, as there is a need to distinguish Scott's background from Slager's background, thus this does not "refer redundantly to the subject of the article". The subject of the article is a shooting, not a person, in any case; this is not a bio of Walter Scott. So your MOS argument fails anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the MOS is clear that it's undesirable for us to repeat the article title in the section titles, even if in part. The subject is both the shooting and the victim (Walter Lamer Scott redirects here after all). Curious if others have an appetite of an RfC about inter-article consistency. I'd prefer consistency and some consensus given the contentious nature of these articles. It's nice to point to something and say "we decided on this". But for this article... surname alone seems too non-descriptive. I'd prefer the full name between the two. If "victim" is too disagreeable, perhaps make the level 3 header "involved parties" so it's clear we're listing parties? Or we can just eliminate the level 4 headings like on Shooting of Michael Brown? Just spitballing ideas. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, we need to rename the "Shooting" section in this article, since that is without question the article subject. I don't think that is the intent of that MOS guideline, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... fair point. There are easy alternatives for that section title, but I think your point is that such changes are unnecessary. And I'm ambivalent on that at the moment. Curious what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the cop shot him[edit]

Current lead says . . .

  • following a daytime traffic stop for a non-functioning brake light. Scott, an unarmed black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer.

Huh? This makes it sound like the cop punished a driver with death for having something wrong with his car.

At least say that - according to the cop - the driver resisted arrest.

Not that I'm saying deadly force was justified - far from it! Even if the cop thought that the suspect was trying to get hold of the Taser and might try to use it on the cop. (Who knows what thoughts go through your head?) An unarmed man, running away after having successfully resisted arrest is one heck of an annoyance - but is not a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to anyone.

That being said, the lede still needs to say more than Slager shot Scott "following a ... traffic stop". That smacks too much of an all-too-familiar narrative, and doesn't help the reader understand what happened.

I propose something like:

  • The driver tried to get away from the cop, who pursued him on foot and attempted to arrest (subdue?) him by use of a Taser. When this failed, and the subject again tried to get away ... [insert criminally stupid cop action here]. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty plea in federal case[edit]

New York Times, today: Officer Who Shot Walter Scott to Plead Guilty in Charleston

1. It hasn't happened yet. Unnamed sources. 2. Nothing about the details of the plea agreement, or even what charge(s) he is supposedly going to plead guilty to.

I think the edit should wait until we have more, one or two days. WP:NOTNEWS. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NYT/AP, today: Ex-Officer to Plead Guilty in Fleeing Black Motorist's Death

More details, still unofficial, still no hurry to add. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Scott Was Shot?![edit]

Or do we need a disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a dab page: Walter Scott (disambiguation). It is linked in the hatnote at the top of Walter Scott, and it links to this article. This is correct setup for this situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Resisting arrest" in the first paragraph[edit]

Re: [1][2][3][4]

@NickCT: The "Then" in your last edit summary, "Ok. Then let's not include it at all", suggests that you see that edit as somehow following from my reasoning; it does not. I said that "the 'resisting arrest' element also warrants inclusion in the first paragraph." Before your last revert, we had the three most important elements in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Now we have only the two elements that favor Scott and condemn Slager. How do you justify that?

Scott was fleeing for some time before the physical altercation, but Slager didn't fire his gun then. It was only after the scuffle (resisting arrest) that Slager did, and that fact is significant enough for the first two three sentences. Placing it there does not imply that the shooting was justified. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: - I'm against the term "resisting arrest" simply b/c it's vague and non-specific. Most people don't really know what it means. Case in point, you seemed to infer that Scott fleeing didn't itself constitute resisting arrest, which is odd as our own article on the subject says it is.
It's not that I think it's necessarily wrong as much as it's unnecessarily ambiguous. What does it add that isn't encapsulated in the next sentences? NickCT (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. He resisted arrest before the scuffle as well, making the words even more true.
What "next sentences"? That point isn't explained until you get to the Shooting section.
As you have it worded, Slager fired only because Scott was fleeing. How is that less misleading than an ambiguous reference to resisting arrest? If you can find a way to remove the ambiguity without being too wordy for the first paragraph, I'm open to suggestion; otherwise the article is better off with those 3 words than without them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: - Technically Scott was shot immediately after fleeing. He wasn't shot immediately after the scuffle. The sequence was scuffle -> flee -> shot.
Anyways, I think we can probably come up with concise wording that describes both the scuffle and the flight. Give me a second to ponder. Appreciate the discussion. NickCT (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss - Ok. How bout "Slager was charged with murder after a video surfaced which called his actions into question. In the video, Slager and Scott are seen to briefly scuffle, after which Scott breaks free of Slager and turns to flee. Slager is then seen to unholster his handgun and shoot Scott in the back as he's running away."? NickCT (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT:
1. The video shows no physical contact until after the shooting, so that's inaccurate. We get the scuffle from Slager's report and Santana's partial corroboration of it.
2. I remember discussion about "in the back". It's inaccurate, as only 3 of 5 hits were in the back. That's mainly why we ended up with "from behind".
3. You've omitted that the video contradicted Slager's report.
All things considered, I would prefer the following compromise: Same as what we had before your last revert, but replacing "after resisting arrest" with "after a foot pursuit and a scuffle". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: - 1) You're right. I hadn't watched the video in a while. I mis-remembered it showing more of the scuffle. 2) Happy with either "from behind" or "in the back". 3) It would be nice if we moved the "contradicted Slager's report" to another sentence. I'm a little concerned having read through the body of the article, that we're not clearly explain how the video contradicted the report.
I think you're compromise proposal is definitely better (given that it removes the term "resisting arrest"). I'd still like to find wording that makes it clear that Scott was shot while running away (i.e. not while scuffling), which I think is the key element of the story. NickCT (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is already in my proposal, right there in the third sentence. I am not going to try to cram all important points into the first two sentences, or support that done by anybody else. (Counting the first, your version requires four sentences to convey essentially the same information as mine does in three, by the way.) In any case, the first thing a reader will do upon seeing this article for the first time is look at the photo. They will know he was shot while running before they read a single word.
If the contradiction needs further explanation in the body, do it. That's a separate issue.
The current wording is the product of lots of discussion among maybe six experienced and quite competent editors. I don't think it makes sense for two editors to come along later and throw all that work out and start over; if that can happen, what's the point of all that effort in the beginning? Small tweaks I can live with. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re "six experienced and quite competent editors." - To err is human. To really screw stuff up usually takes a group.
Looking at your wording "was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer, after a foot pursuit and a scuffle" - Is it clear from that that Slager was shot while running away? I could read that and think he was shot in a scuffle. I'm happy with a small tweak, but let it be one that makes the important circumstances clear. NickCT (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not clear from that. As I said, it's clear from the following sentence: "a video surfaced which showed him shooting Scott from behind while Scott was fleeing". And from the photo. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that. I just think we should be able to either make it clear in the first sentence and or not describe it at all. Why make an ambiguous statement then clarify? Why not just not make the ambiguous statement? NickCT (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, or tried very hard to say, a minor ambiguity clarified in the following sentence is preferable to being seriously misleading until you get to the Shooting section. According to the current first three sentences, Slager stopped Scott for a non-functioning brake light, Scott fled, and Slager shot him from behind. This discussion is becoming circular. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused how saying nothing is more misleading than inserting ambiguity. NickCT (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the current first three sentences, Slager stopped Scott for a non-functioning brake light, Scott fled, and Slager shot him from behind. That is seriously misleading, and it's not clarified until you get to the Shooting section. To avoid that, I'm more than happy to insert a minor ambiguity that's clarified in the following sentence. I am not going to spend a lot of energy to accommodate the theoretical but unlikely reader who reads the first two sentences and quits. No professional writer does so. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Slager was charged with murder after a video surfaced which showed him shooting Scott from behind while Scott was fleeing after the two had scuffled"? NickCT (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee v. Garner commentary is inaccurate[edit]

The section on Tennessee v. Garner is misleading and inaccurate. Tennessee v. Garner applies to federal Section 1983 civil liability regarding police shootings. It does not comment on criminal liability of police officers. There has been no case Law adjudicating what to do if state law contravenes Tennessee v. Garner. New York is an example of one state that still legally allows the police to shoot felons, for example.

I suspect the putting of the ex post facto clause and the 5th Amendment against the protections of the 14th Amendment under Tennessee v. Garner would make for a very interesting hypothetical Supreme Court case, but as Wikipedia editors we are not here to debate that. This article needs to make clear that Tennessee v. Garner applies to civil liability and needs to refrain from inaccurate original research or synthesis. 2606:A000:6443:6800:DC35:2E80:F366:9C71 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a source for that? Xyaena 01:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‘Murder of Walter Scott‘ instead of ‘Shooting of Walter Scott’[edit]

Shouldn’t the article be titled ‘Murder of Walter Scott‘ instead of ‘Shooting of Walter Scott’ for consistency with other similar articles?DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case could be made. I would strongly oppose a move without going through the 7-day WP:RM#CM process. And I'm too dang lazy and apathetic to start it myself, perhaps someone else would care to. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved No consensus to move, but possible alternatives were raised. Anyone wanting to support a new RM for "Killing of..." is welcome to do so. (non-admin closure) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Shooting of Walter Scott → Murder of Walter Scott – Shouldn’t the article be titled ‘Murder of Walter Scott‘ instead of ‘Shooting of Walter Scott’ for consistency with other similar articles? DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose since he was never convicted of murder, but I would support moving it to "Killing of Walter Scott", since he did plead guilty to a criminal charge that involved the unlawful death of someone. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Killing of Walter Scott because he did plead guilty to a criminal charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.1.234.197 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I misread it originally. He didn’t plead guilty to murder. Rather the judge found the "appropriate underlying offense" was second-degree murder.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @DonkeyPunchResin: In that case, I suggest you remove the {{requested move}} template and start over with a move proposal for what you actually propose. Or, remove the {{requested move}} template and move on, as it would be far from the first "Shooting of" article where the victim died (Shooting of Michael Brown, etc). I don't get the reasoning he did plead guilty to a criminal charge since killing is no more an inherently criminal offense than shooting is. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shooting can be by accident. Killing implies intent. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not so. Many people are killed accidentally. If somebody is shot by accident and subsequently dies from their wounds, their dying does not change it to intentional. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • ’Killed’ accidentally - sure. ‘Killing’ accidentally - not so much.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I suggest you remove the {{requested move}} template and start over with a move proposal for what you actually propose. The RM process is for specific move proposals, not open "What do you think this article's title should be?" discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose moving it to Killing of Walter Scott. There is a very consistent usage of "Shooting of" rather than "Killing of" for articles on Wikipedia that are about non-murder shootings, and we should not do something different for this one article, per BD2412. See, for example, the prevailing usage in Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States and similar categories for other countries. I also agree with DonkeyPunchResin that "Killing of" has certain connotations. Most of the "Shooting of" articles are about fatal shootings. I don't really see a problem here that needs action. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • After reading that a judge ruled that a second-degree murder was committed (even though that was not the crime that the perpetrator was directly convicted of, thanks to a plea agreement), I am not necessarily opposed to the original proposal ("Murder of"). I don't see a very strong need, but I'm not opposed to it. However, I remain opposed to the "Killing of" title. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose based on WP:TITLECON with a number of other similarly situated cases involving fatal shootings by police. Most appear to be at "Shooting of..." titles. If we are going to change this, it should be a broad-based project-wide change. BD2412 T 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Killing of Walter Scott and oppose moving to murder until a clear case for COMMONNAME can be made since the murder trial ended in a mistrial and he was not convicted of even second-degree or third-degree murder. However, we do not need any conviction to call it a killing. That simply means he was killed by someone who intended to kill him, even if that intent was or was not criminal. Police in the US, by policy, practice and training, shoot to kill and do not shoot to wound. The autopsy report, the fact that he was shot and died, the filing of charges is enough to call it a killing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BarrelProof, BD2412 and WP:CONSISTENCY. If the police officer was indeed convicted of murder, rather than "the underlying offense was second-degree murder", then my vote would certainly be "support". Hopefully, we will soon reach some form of consensus regarding the "Killing of..."/"Shooting of..." dilemma. Until then, however, in the absence of the form "Fatal shooting of...", the standard header for delineating killing through the use of a firearm, remains "Shooting of..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are a few options, I'll rate each:
Shooting of Walter Scott 5/10. OK, but I read a shooting as an incident that does not necessarily result in death. A "person was shot" implies wounded. "400 people were shot", and I expect a proportion but not all to have died. If it was an execution, I would not use the word "shooting".
Murder of Walter Scott. 5/10. An unqualified murder is first degree murder, and is a question of judgement afterwards on intent. This one doesn't qualifiy.
Killing of Water Scott. 8/10. He was killed. That's the first and most important fact. The definition of "killing" fits this sort of crime best. If it was death by taser, or death by baton, it would be the same. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 21 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Killing of Walter Scott. While the originally proposed "murder" has good reasons to apply, there is a general compromise that "killing" is the least common denominator, and is an option supported by WP:DEATHS. No such user (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Shooting of Walter Scott → Murder of Walter Scott – There appears to be more consensus recently that convictions for murder should result in an article about a killing being moved to "Murder of ...". Per WP:RM#CM, I am requesting that we move this page to conform to that new norm. Previously, there was no consensus on the move but I believe the overall position on this changed this. Recently, BLM-related articles have necessitated a standardization in article titles and that norm is laid out in WP:DEATHS. As of today, we now have Murder of George Floyd (moved from "Killing of George Floyd"). We should change this title as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Killing of Walter Scott. I also believe WP:DEATHS should be followed, and in this case it points us to "Killing". The only conviction in this case was "deprivation of rights under color of law". Now, as noted in the article, in his sentencing, Judge Norton noted that the "appropriate underlying offense" was second-degree murder. However, this sentencing was not part of any murder trial. When Slager was charged with murder, that trial ended in a mistrial, with the charges ultimately being dropped. So, as per the flowchart, we ask the question: Is there a conviction for murder in the case? There is not, and therefore "Killing" is the correct descriptor for this article. 162 etc. (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: Good point. Killing would be appropriate, you're correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Banana Republic: because he plead guilty to 2nd degree murder and was sentenced to 20 years in prison ([5]). That's also explicitly said in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that was the underlying offense. Okay, I'd be fine with Killing instead per WP:DEATH EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. The officially filed charge by the district attorney's office was murder and the fact that the jury was deadlocked on conviction does not mean that the perpetrator was innocent of the murder of Walter Scott or that the shooting of Walter Scott no longer constituted murder. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as he was never convicted of murder, but I support move to "killing of..." Rreagan007 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "Murder of". It was not a clear common meaning of "murder", and sources do not support this strong and nuanced (regarding premeditated intent) word.
    Support "Killing of". "Shooting" does not imply a death, and indeed is often used generally without reference to killing. Shootings may kill, not every shot needs to kill, and a shooting may not even involve anyone being hit. I thought we had a long running RfC on this at WT:AT. I thought it was clear that "shooting" resulting in death should be "killing", at least. I argued that in cases like this, where the killing is only arguably murder, the title should be conservative. All murders involve killing, and so "killing" is correct for all murder cases, but not vice versa. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support At the end of the day, Slager was convicted and is currently serving 20 years for second-degree murder. Multiple RSs cited in the article quote Judge David Norton who directly identifies the offense as second-degree murder. Slager was convicted of violating Scott's civil rights by murdering him, so spoke the judge who made the ruling. Being convicted of a crime that explicitly includes murder is being convicted of murder. Some of the arguments on here are just silly. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent the last hour or so looking into this, I feel compelled to make a number of other points:
1. The original RFC for the WP:DEATHS flowchart had 23 votes in support, 13 in opposition (including yourself), 3 neutral or comments.
2. You made the same argument on the original RFC for the flowchart - suggesting a discrimination between "qualified" and "unqualified" murders - in your words first degree murders and second or third degree murders - going as far as to make your own alternative flowchart. Zero commenters on the RFC supported this sentiment. Of the 12 other no votes, none of them used this reasoning.
3. After a brief search, I could find absolutely no support for the legal nor common use discrimination of first degree murders as "unqualified" murders and second or third degree murders as "qualified" murders. The vast majority of google hits for "qualified murder" are 'find a qualified murder attorney' or some such. Legal definitions of murder vary by state, but the only legal definition I could find for "qualified murder" was in New York State and the basis was on deliberate or careless killing - not on first or second degree. The explanation included explicitly that it was possible to have a qualified first-degree murder, which contradicts your definitions. I am not a legal expert, but your repeated and casual use of these words appear to me to imply a legal or common-use discrimination that does not exist common English in the terminology that you are using. Happy to be proven wrong on this point.
4. The unanimous consensus this week was to rename the page to Murder of George Floyd following a second-degree murder conviction
5. Given all of the above, it seems to me that there is a broad community consensus that second-degree murders are murders, and that you are trying to overrepresent your own very singular opinion in opposition to that common-sense consensus. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The strong support for the flowchart was driven by a desire to improve, and specifically by reserving “shooting” for where there was no death. I agreed strongly with that, I am not sure anyone disagreed. The lack of support for my nuanced position on murders it out down to it being swamped by the main thrust. I am not sure there was any actual disagreement with my position on a more restrictive use of “murder”. My use of “qualified” is simply word use. In “greenish blue”, “greenish” qualifies “blue”. It’s like an adjective, but more so, as it changes the meaning. No technical meaning is implied, indeed I mean to argue that titling decisions should NOT be based on technicalities. I’m not sure about George Floyd, maybe that will be a COMMONNAME “murder” topic. It is slight different to Walter Scott, where sources DO NOT describe the event as a murder. You might say “not yet”, but I would say “wait for the new sources to see what they say”. In other words, I am arguing that COMMONNAME comes first, and that COMMONNAME does not (yet) support “murder” for the description of the event. And even less so for the third degree murder case. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make two points: first that your own explanation of second-degree murder as "qualified murder" is pedantic and useless in this discussion. By your definition, first-degree murder is also "qualified murder" - "first-degree" qualifies "murder." The second point is that COMMONNAME supports murder for the case of Walter Scott, as shown in the examples below - and that the use of the unqualified word "murder" in these sources to describe second-degree murder should be proof enough that the unqualified word "murder" is a completely appropriate description of second-degree murder.
If the article was about the court case or the court conviction, then “murder” matches the sources. However, this article is not primarily about the court case, it is primarily about the killing, and sources for the killing, even/especially later secondary sources, describe a “killing” not a “murder”. There is an abundance of sources, COMMONNAME applies, not the new flowchart which is supposedly for when there are not sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What an arbitrary, patently self-serving way to prioritize RSs. The objective way to evaluate the sources is to understand that sources which were published prior to the murder conviction called it a "killing" and sources that were published after the murder conviction called it a "murder." Our job with ongoing stories is to take new information and update the article - your suggestion is to throw out a major development of the story under the false pretense that it's not relevant to the article. See WP:OLDSOURCES Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 03:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Self serving? Are you accusing me of a COI.
Where are the new sources that describe the event as a murder? Wikipedia should follow the sources, not lead.
WP:COMMONNAME is not arbitrary. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the sources above. Murder is COMMONNAME for this case. Ever since Slager was convicted of murder, RSs published about the murder of Walter Scott have all used murder as the COMMONNAME for this case. You don't get to dismiss RSs out of hand because you don't like them. You have not listed any sources. You are, by my estimate, the only Wikipedian and perhaps the only human alive who doesn't think that second-degree murder should be classified as murder, and you take it upon yourself to travel from article to article putting forth this assertion and falsely claiming that it represents common use English language. It does not. You are not the only person on the planet, and your opinions do not carry the weight of universal global consensus behind them. If you want to participate on Wikipedia, then be open to hearing different perspectives and be humble about your opinions when they have no support from RSs or the community at large. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You listed sources. eg. It confirms the verdict and sentence, and yet it still continues to introduce the event with the words “ in 2015 fatally shot an unarmed Black man who was running away from him”. Ongoing sources looking back are not describing the event simply as “murder”. Also, the article existing sources, they do not describe the event as a murder. I can see that this looks odd, but go by the sources in introducing the event, and the word used is shoot shot killed or killing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a contradiction. If a source says that that Slager was convicted of murder for fatally shooting Scott, then the source is saying that Slager murdered Scott. The fatal shooting is the murder, and the source is explicitly identifying it as the murder; the words "fatal shooting" provide additional detail, they obviously don't contradict the classification as a murder. This type of word manipulation is childish. Zero of the sources claim that Slager did not murder Scott, which is your claim. All the sources I listed describe it as a murder - unqualified in your own words - which you claimed they did not. Both of your claims about RSs on this topic are patently false. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Show a source that describes the shooting as a murder. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I showed four. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 02:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see, they don’t. “ for fatally shooting unarmed Black man Walter Scott five times in the back in 2015 ”; “ a police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott, a 50-year-old unarmed Black man in South Carolina, and argued it was "time to call the killing what it really was -- a murder.". Close that fourth one, but not. The introductory descriptions use forms of “kill” not “murder”. This is not an argument about the fact of the charge and conviction, but of synonym choice in a title. How to best introduce? Follow the sources. The sources use “kill”, and only then go on to describe fact of “murder”, with the necessary detail and nuance that a title cannot. This topic should be introduced as a killing, correct without question, and then in the detail explain that the killing met the test for “murder”, because that’s how reliable reputable secondary sources introduce it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The goalposts move and move and move. I'll remind you that we started this thread with your assertion that a second-degree murder cannot be written simply as "murder" without qualification in common English. You made this claim without any supporting evidence (although you funnily tried to pass off your own comment in another thread as a community consensus). I have shown definitively that multiple RSs do describe second-degree murder and in particular this second-degree murder as "murder." And now that you are being confronted with this evidence, you've moved off the topic... does this mean that we can finally abandon the very silly notion that the unqualified word "murder" cannot be used to describe second-degree murder? Can we agree that second-degree murder in legal terminology, in explicit English denotation, and in common-use English is a type of murder? I would hope so, but after all of this I'm not optimistic. Now - apparently - you're looking for RSs that show "murder" in the title, which I will point out is the first time that you've made this request in this very long thread. I disagree with this requirement on principle - RSs need not use the word "murder" in the title in order to identify a murder as a murder. But instead of getting into another fruitless argument, I'll just give you what you want - an RS that describes Walter Scott's murder as a murder, in the title, without what you would falsely call a qualifier: "Michael Slager sentenced to 20 years in prison for murdering Walter Scott" https://abcnews4.com/news/crime-news/michael-slager-sentenced-prison-walter-scott-shooting-death/ Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 03:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You frequently misquote me, and misrepresent what I am saying. I’ve tried to ignore. second-degree murder cannot be written simply as "murder" without qualification. Never said that, never believed that. looking for RSs that show "murder" in the title. No. Not “in the title” but “in introduction”. In the title would be good, but in introduction is sufficient. Does any reliable and reputable source introduce this event, the street shooting as opposed to the court verdict, as “murder”? If not, then Wikipedia absolutely should not be first. And even going further, does and reliable reputable source describe the verdict as “murder” without qualification? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did say 'Second degree murder cannot be written simply as "murder" without qualification.' Start of the thread, when I said "second-degree murder is murder" and you called that a mistake, and linked - as if to show a community consensus on the issue - to your own comment where you claimed "Second degree murder is not an unqualified murder." I'll point out again that you have claimed elsewhere that there is a factual (implied: legal) distinction between first degree murder as "unqualified murder" and second/third degree murders as "qualified murders" and that this claim of yours is false. However, in this particular thread, you went on to expound that your meaning in the phrase "second degree murder is not an unqualified murder" is that the unqualified word "murder" is not used to describe a second-degree murder in common English. This claim is also false. I'm not putting words in your mouth: you're just losing track of your false claims. Now you ask for a reliable source that describes the event, not the court verdict as a murder. I have already provided one in the comment that you are replying to "Michael Slager sentenced to 20 years in prison for murdering Walter Scott". The bolded clause "for murdering Walter Scott" is a description of the event - the street shooting - the murder - that took place, and the preceding clause explains the court verdict that was reached as a result of this event. It is not saying, as other sources said, that he is "charged with murder" (which again contradicts your false claim that "second degree murder is not unqualified murder"), it is saying directly that he is charged because he murdered. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 05:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Found guilty of murder, title should be murder. That simple. Anything less is an attempt to minimise the crime that took place in a violation of NPOV. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • “ murder charges were dropped.[5]”
      ”the underlying offense was second-degree murder.[6]”
      This is not “simple”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Ngram for reference. Sort of 2:1 shooting:murder, before and after the conviction, but we properly have rejected “shooting” for deaths. Killing:Murder is a time varying wash. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Walter_Scott/Archive_4&oldid=1142332212"