Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Robbery prior to the shooting

The robbery incident should be mentioned before the shooting incident because the officer suspected Brown of carry the cigars stolen from the convenience store when he saw the cigars on him, according to the chief. Sy9045 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in the timeline article, that should be the case. Why not have a very abbreviated time line in this article with a link below it to the full time line article, making clear that the robbery preceded the confrontation. If I were trying to put the policeman in a good light, I would seize on the comment made the St Louis Post Dispatch that the officer, as he drove off, (my perhaps incorrect paraphrase) noticed cigars and thought he might be a suspect in the case. Need I say more??? I'd do it myself but this article grows new tentacles by the minute. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A video has been posted to youtube entitled "Michael Brown, Ferguson Victim Paid For His Rellos." The video shows security camera footage and alleges that Brown had paid for the cigars and was thus not guilty of robbery. This seems potentially relevant for the robbery section of the article.

The video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.62.246 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, it's covered in Daily Kos. Of course, we use "allegedly" here anyway. St Anselm (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to use this information (and I'm extremely skeptical that we should at the moment), it must be qualified to note that it is not an RS for interpreting the video (i.e., "According to the liberal Daily Kos, X."). Dyrnych (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The section which states "The owners of the convenience store told FOX 2 St. Louis that no employee or cashier of the store reported a robbery." is incomplete and misleading. The article referenced says that "The owner of the store dispute the claim that they or an employee called 911, saying a customer inside the store made the call." As it is written, the reader is left with the impression that police were not notified of the alleged robbery because the call did not come from the store owners or employees. This wording should be changed to reflect what the article actually states, a customer likely made the 911 call. (ScubaSharky (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC))

The event Mr Brown engaged in prior to his death should be referenced as a strong-arm robbery. The Ferguson police report indicates on the top of the page that it was Strong Arm, and the surveillance cameras recorded the incident, and images have been released to the public to do Freedom of Information Act. The event was a strong arm robbery, and should be referenced as such at the top of the page. I edited the page to include this verbiage and referenced Briebart and a direct link to the police report from LA Times which specifically reference the event as a strong arm robbery, and the verbiage was removed and the edit states the my source was not acceptable and to seek consensus. So, here I am, seeking consensus. Please advise. MeropeRiddle (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I see multiple reliable sources that say it was a strong-arm robbery, including Fox and the Washington Post. I don't think there's much RS dispute about that, so I don't see why there should be any objection to including it. I haven't looked into exactly how much RS support there is for the statement that Brown was in fact the robber. By the way, for anyone who thinks "strong-arm" makes the word robbery worse, I think you're mistaken. AFAIK, all robberies are either strong-arm or armed, strong-arm being the less serious of the two. Anything else is theft, not robbery. I think if you went up to a little old lady unarmed and said, "Give me your money or I'll hit you", that would be considered a strong-arm robbery because of the threat of violence. Mandruss |talk 03:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The are robberies which could be neither armed nor strong armed - but most of those would involve robbing an unoccupied building where no force of any kind was needed. At this point there is zero dispute it was him in the video. His family admits it, Johnson admits it, and he has been positively IDed by the police, and can be seen wearing the exact same clothes. There is a legal question of if it was actually a robbery or not, or if there was some mitigating defense,but both questions likely to remain a question forever since there won't be a trial for it. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no need to continually reference it as a strong-arm robbery, as long as we note in description of the incident itself that the police report indicates that it was a strong-arm robbery. It's highly unlikely that the average reader would know what "strong-arm robbery" is unless it's defined. That's why I've included a definition in the description of the robbery incident. I can't see that initially (and continually) calling it a strong-arm robbery would do anything but create confusion. General term + specifics later seems like the way to go to me.

As a quick aside, "strong-arm robbery" isn't even an actual offense under Missouri law. Let me be absolutely clear that I'm not advocating that this be placed in the article, but the offense that Brown allegedly committed was robbery in the second degree, per Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.030. Dyrnych (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From Robbery: "Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft (such as burglary, shoplifting or car theft) by its inherently violent nature (a violent crime)". Mandruss |talk 03:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Jury

There is no mention of the Grand Jury in the article, and something about it should be added. Source [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur. This is central to the story at this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014) article

y'all, I am about to start an article called Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014). Outline will have a timeline along the lines of the current "Aftermath in Ferguson" with hopefully additional sections on (1) the population of demonstrators (2) stated purposes of different demonstrators (3) the looting and lawlessness perpetrated by SOME (but not all) of the demonstrators (4) the various police and law enforcement organizations involved in patrolling and crowd control (5) the statements by law enforcement officials about the conditions of protests and unrest over time (6) criticisms of protestors (7) criticisms of law enforcement (8) reports of protestors and law enforcement working together (9) other external reactions to the violence (which may duplicate and expand on reactions from the main "shooting of Michael Brown" article. That is the basice intent. I wanted to get feedback from editors here before I start because I want to avoid a lengthy WP:AFD process. We can always argue about the name of the article later but I would like to ask your feedback about the existence of such an article here. Support? Oppose? Comments? Peace, MPS (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, although I think that "2014 protest and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri" sounds better as a title for purely aesthetic reasons. Dyrnych (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Support -- as long as you don't steal credit for coming up with the name. :-) So I cyber squatted all of the possible names. So sue me. ;-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Please do. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Support The article seems to be getting a bit unwieldy in its present form. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Just write a good summary for this article once you are done. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Boom! I just started it --> Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014) Peace, MPS (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

MPS why didn't you remove the sections you duplicated when you did this? I just added something to this article in an appropriate section, then saw this in the talk --- the problem is, unless the relevant part of THIS article is drastically cut back and summary style linked to the other one, you have two articles about the same thing. By the time a couple of days passes in this state it's going to be a tremendous headache to merge all the changes. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, all the content in the Aftermath section was copied but left in the article. I'm going to go ahead and delete it, leaving the first paragraph that gives a very brief overview of the aftermath. This paragraph needs to be expanded but all of the sub-headings don't belong, IMO. —Megiddo1013 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to summarize per WP:SUMMARY - Cwobeel (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So tell me again why the word "protest?" got left out of the title of the new article? That's grossly unfair to the thousands of people who are taking action, speaking out but who have committed no criminal acts. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My original title was "Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014)" but someone was bold and changed it. I am pretty much ambivalent. If you want to change the title I would suggest Talk:2014 Ferguson unrest first. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Police Department release of information vs. Investigations/Robbery incident report

These two sections contain essentially the same information. They should be merged. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting police reports

Robbery incident report says police released two reports on the shooting on August 15. This WashPost op-ed, dated yesterday, confirms the report numbers but asks why the reports haven't been released yet. Why the discrepancy? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reports released are of the robbery. No reports on the shooting have been released, but there have been a number of strategic leaks in past days. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Christine Byers says an unnamed police department employee says that more than a dozen witnesses agree with some aspects of the police officer's version of what happened

https://twitter.com/ChristineDByers/statuses/501556693382094848

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/boom-reporter-a-dozen-witnesses-confirm-ferguson-cops-version-of-brown-shooting/

173.75.159.115 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze and The Daily Caller and Breitbart are all running this story as well. It shouldn't be long till Fox News picks it up. Curious though, I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere on the STLP website anywhere. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If this were true, would they really let her tweet it out to the world? In a neighborhood where people graffitied the Quik Trip with the expression "Snitches Get Stitches," the same night it was gutted by fire, in a neighborhood where the Ferguson Market and Liquor got ransacked and emptied the night after the surveillance tape from that store was publicized, giving testimony that could help clear Officer Wilson could result in similar retaliation or worse. It's not every day you see witnesses for the defendant put into a witness protection program, you know? But would they have any other choice? - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don;t know what kind of journalism is that. We don't have yet Wilson's testimony or the police report he filed on the shooting, and we have sources that say "Over A Dozen Witnesses Back Darren Wilson’s Story", when all they have is hearsay from a person that called into a radio station saying that she hear from Wilson's wife. Unbelievable they call themselves journalists. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

She isn't reporting it as fact - she is quoting unnamed "police sources." I shouldn't have to explain why that's problematic. This amounts to "police say police officer did nothing wrong." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Until this develops into something, it isn't something. (Note, I was listening to the local news reporters giving live coverage in St Louis last night talk at length about how they have longstanding relationships with the police officers in this region and hearing that got me thinking about how their friendships with the police might color subtle biases as they report this story. St Louis is one of those "if it bleeds it leads" kinds of markets where tragic killings, mostly in more "inner city" parts of the region are an almost daily occurrence. These police officers are their sources for much of the work that they do which earns them their livelihood. I think that should be borne in mind as one assesses whether there is any truth to the statement purportedly made by a police department employee who probably isn't someone she had never met before, but rather a department employee who has been a source for her for a very long time now.) - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

To further update this, per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Christine Byers has been on FMLA leave since March and the paper has essentially disavowed any connection to her tweet, describing them as "personal." Byers herself stated that her earlier tweet does not meet the standard for publication. Dyrnych (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Reactions of Governor Jay Nixon

Governor Jay ~~Smith~~ Nixon stated publicly that "we need to have an aggressive prosecution in this case" (or words to that effect). His comments were met with widespread criticism, claiming that he was prejudging, prejudicing, and trying to sway the case by calling for a prosecution in the absence of even an indictment. And it is claimed that he did so simply for political pandering. I can list sources. Does this belong in the article? I believe so. Perhaps one or two sentences. He is the Governor of the state in question. And he is the state's top executive officer. So, clearly, his reaction is relevant. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

After the widespread criticism, he tried to back track. He said: Well, I really didn't mean "prosecution". When I used the word "prosecution", I really meant "the process". Or he gave some political rhetoric and BS along those lines. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be Jay Nixon, not Jay Smith. That said, it would be nice to have a source for both his initial statement and his later comments. Dyrnych (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It is Nixon. No idea why I typed "Smith". I have corrected that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm for it assuming the sources are good ones. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will find them. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Two more witnesses

There are at two more identified witnesses not included in the page, that might warrant inclusion:

1. James McKnight: "James McKnight, who also said he saw the shooting, said that Mr. Brown’s hands were up right after he turned around to face the officer. “I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him,” Mr. McKnight said in a brief interview. “The officer was about six or seven feet away from him.” Source: Shooting Accounts Differ as Holder Schedules Visit

2. Emmanuel Freeman, who tweeted about seeing the shooting immediately after it happened. You can see the tweets in question at the source. Source: 5 Eyewitness Accounts of Michael Brown Shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeranv (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I added McKnight, since your source for him is a New York Times article that we're already using. I don't know about Freeman. For starters, is the identity of a tweeter verifiable? If so, did anyone verify it? Presumably the Times were able to somehow verify McKnight's identity before they quoted him, and he agreed to stand behind his statement by letting them report his name. Otherwise there would be tons of people calling the Times, and giving false names, to report that they witnessed the shooting.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I looked around and can't find anything that verifies Emmanuel Freeman so I think he would be an alleged witness at this point. 99.236.73.138 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent articles

I dont know how reliable, may be a biased source,

Dorian Johnson recants

Predictably (given the source), this seems to be inaccurate, per Johnson's attorney. Dyrnych (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dorian Johnson Arrest Warrant

I'm not sure this is relevant to the article, but does anyone see a reason to include it? Source [2](ScubaSharky (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC))

It depends on whether it's related to the shooting.Mattnad (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As that source is written, I don't think there is anything there. If multiple sources run with this and draw attention to the false police report as possibly calling into question the reliability of his account, maybe. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "false police report"? There are many police reports/statements, are you talking about a specific one? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's in linked article and the report is not related to this case. The possibility is that someone who's filed false reports in the past has credibility issues. Reading it now, it's not as strong of a statement as I thought it was. Apparently, Johnson was charged in 2011 with filing a false police report. The weakness is that the article only says "charged", nothing else. I have no idea if the charges are dropped, still pending or were decided. Given that, and with nothing in the article directly raising credibility issues regarding his statements for this situation (so a WP:SYNTH issue), I don't see anything useful in this source to add to the article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in the Cole County Jail, SES, placed on 2 years unsupervised probation. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to the Brown shooting incident. It goes to his credibility (or lack thereof) as a witness in the case. It goes to his (alleged) willingness to lie to the authorities (police). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As Ravensfire mentioned above, it's SYNTH for us to say that it calls into question his credibility in this issue unless a reliable source makes that claim. You can see how this is the case: Johnson's statement (source A) + Johnson's prior charge (source B, which I would also note is not a conviction as far as we know) = Johnson could be lying (a claim found in neither source). Additionally, there are WP:BLPCRIME issues with US reporting this when, again, we don't know if there was a conviction. Dyrnych (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I said it's relevant to the article. I didn't say that we needed to make the "leap" from one fact ("A") to another conclusion ("B"). The readers can read the facts and leap to whatever conclusions they want. As long as the facts are supported by reliable sources. But, yes, it's relevant to this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Adult arrest/criminal record

Do we have a source that says that Brown had a juvenile arrest/criminal record? If not, then we should stop suggesting that he did by saying that he had no adult criminal record. To my knowledge, the adult criminal record language comes from a police statement that neither confirmed nor denied that Brown had a juvenile criminal record. We have a source that states that he had NO criminal record--no qualification at all. Other sources that say that he had no adult criminal record are consistent with that source, because if he had no criminal record at all then by definition he had no adult criminal record. Until a source suggests that he had a juvenile record, we should stop implying that he did. Dyrnych (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"An 18-year-old shot and killed near a Ferguson apartment complex Saturday afternoon had no criminal record, according to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office." [3] Additional qualifiers are not necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would question the notability of a statement that he had no adult arrest record, being as he had been an adult for about 2.5 months. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I originally argued for "adult", but it really doesn't make any difference anymore, one can easily look at the video of the robbery and come to their own conclusions. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, User:Isaidnoway. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that having no criminal record having been 18 a short time is not surprising. I'd remove it out of the lede and only mention it in the body. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made the edit, as it looks like there's a general consensus for it. Dyrnych (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Having Dorian Johnson in a separate section?

There seems to be no good reason for having "Dorian Johnson's account" and "Other eyewitness accounts" as separate sections - they should be merged into a single "Eyewitness accounts" section. Having him separately would be privileging his testimony above that of others - and that would be OK if that's what was in reliable sources, but I don't think it is. St Anselm (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it gives undue weight to his account, as if his is the most reliable account and it really doesn't seem to be at this point. His account should be with the other witness accounts. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved Johnson's account into the eyewitness account section. I don't really think that there are undue weight concerns in having it separate, but it seems organizationally correct to place it there. Dyrnych (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You snooze you lose, not that my input would have changed the outcome. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, my revert hasn't been reverted yet, so I'll give it a shot. He is the only eyewitness who saw the whole thing up close, hence he is the prosecution's star witness. End of justification. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly invested in Johnson's account being separate or being contained in the eyewitness accounts beyond thinking that it makes organizational sense. His account is an eyewitness account, and I think that it serves just as well to place his account first among the eyewitness accounts. Dyrnych (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so nobody else wants to respond. After all, consensus was already reached, so why bother. Whatever. I'll self-revert. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that my edit meant that consensus was reached, which is why I'm fine with you reverting my bold edit. BRD, right? Dyrnych (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that your edit had anything to do with it. The "consensus" was reached in 19 minutes and I failed to see the new section in time, and none of the other prior participants felt compelled to respond to my argument, so I lose. That's WikiLife. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with slowing things down a bit. I probably did jump the gun on editing with a discussion still in progress. Dyrnych (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Worth a (nuther) try. I don't think Isaid's argument holds any water at all, since we shouldn't be making judgments about the relative reliabilities of the various accounts. The fact that Johnson had by far the best look at what went down is not a matter of judgment. He did, period. Anselm makes a fair RS point, and I guess it comes down to whether we think it's enough. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think there would be conflicting views in secondary sources regarding Johnson's reliability - naturally so, since although he was in the best position, he was also the most personally involved. That's not a reflection on his honesty - the more involved you are, the more skewed your interpretation and memory of an event is going to be. He saw his friend get shot before his eyes! Anyway, we need to be strictly neutral about his reliability. Mandruss, would you be interested in hunting up some sources which suggest he might be the "key" witness, or some such thing? St Anselm (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment was based on this content that was in the article and reported by reliable sources, which has been inserted and removed several times: The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back and that Wilson shot Brown while holding Brown's neck, refs for passage being NYT and WaPo. And on a final note, if the prosecutor is counting on Johnson to be the "star witness", then it's quite doubtful he'll get a true bill returned from the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Key witness in Ferguson wanted in Jefferson City

Key witness Dorian Johnson now admits that Michael Brown ATTACKED Officer Wilson

Key Ferguson Witness Dorian Johnson Changes Story, Admits Brown Attacked Officer Wilson And Tried To Take His Gun

Michael Brown Shooting Key Witness Charged With Filing False Police Report: Dorian Johnson

Key Ferguson Witness Dorian Johnson Previously Pled Guilty to Filing False Police Report

Key witness meets with authorities to discuss Brown shooting

REPORT: Key witness Dorian Johnson now admits that Michael Brown ATTACKED Officer Wilson

COLLAPSE? Radio Station Claims Primary Witness Will Admit Michael Brown Charged Officer Darren Wilson
‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"dorian johnson" "key witness" -wikipedia - 26,400 hits ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

They sure do all say key witness, but those sources seem to cast doubt on his credibility rather than bolster the belief that he has any credibility as a key witness to the shooting. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether Johnson is a credible witness is a separate question from whether he is the key witness. Also, amusingly, many of these sources are repeating a discredited report that Johnson changed his story. They're certainly relevant for perceptions about the role of Johnson's testimony, though. Dyrnych (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You could be correct, Johnson may be the key witness that convinces the grand jury to return no indictment, I guess I didn't look at it that way. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Key witness for the defense. Isn't that what I said?? ;) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a cursory look into these sources, and these that assert that Johnson has changed his tune, seem to be quite fringe. Am I wrong? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Quoting from myself above: "Predictably (given the source), this seems to be inaccurate, per Johnson's attorney." Dyrnych (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting using any of the above sources, are we? Anyway, User:Mandruss is correct that Johnson will be a key witness, this basically will boil down to the most significant evidence - That will be Wilson's version of the events, the forensic and physical evidence, and an eyewitness who was "right there" and his version of the events. Having said that, I still don't think he warrants his own section yet. It's certainly possible to expand upon the possibility of him being a key witness, if there is support for that. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

At a glance, none of those sources appear to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Read what Isaidnoway said. The sources aren't being offered for inclusion in the article; they're being offered to show that Dorian Johnson's account is considered more important than some of the other accounts. Dyrnych (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would you want to use an unreliable source to make that determination? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak for Mandruss, but I assume that the sources listed are a small subset of the sources referring to Johnson as a "key witness." Also, this certainly seems like a reliable source. Dyrnych (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think I reached the end of the "key witness" with the above, and had entered "primary witness" territory before I stopped. As far as article titles, that is. I don't know about body text. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead is very biased.

The lead states that the officer shoots Brown. The very next words say "Brown was unarmed and he has no criminal record." Then, it says some other stuff. Then it gives the officer's brief history. Why doesn't the lead state that the officer shoots Brown. Then, immediately, state the officer's clean history and the fact that he won an award and the fact that he sustained an injury. And then mention that Brown was unarmed and has no record. It is very biased, either way. It needs some cleaning up. Right now, the clear implication is that Brown was unjustifiably shot. As soon as we read that there was a shooting, the very next statement says "Brown is unarmed and has no criminal record". Why is Brown's good, clean record listed first? Why not the officer's good, clean record first? Either way, it's biased and needs some fix. Perhaps give a few more neutral facts. And then state the clean records of both parties. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would revert you if you did as you suggest, provided the "neutral facts" are suitable for the lead. Mandruss |talk 21:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any proposed text. I am not that involved with this article. I am suggesting the idea, not the specific text. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Brown is the one who is dead and is not here to defend himself. The article is about Brown, not Wilson. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is most certainly not about Brown. It's about a shooting that occurred. Furthermore, his being dead and unable to defend himself is relevant (to this discussion) how exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

It's about the shooting of a person named Michael Brown, who was killed. Your attempt to dehumanize the victim is noted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment speaks for itself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're being very harsh there, :NorthBySouthBaranof. The article is about the shooting of Michael Brown, and the shooting of Michael Brown is not a person, but an event. No one is trying to "dehumanize" anyone, as far as I can tell. Popcornduff (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we all drop this, as it can only escalate from here. There is no need for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that the article's lead is biased. It states facts as reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it states facts as reported. Did you read my post? It's the order of how these facts are delivered that has a POV implication. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a dead person, who was unarmed, shot by a police officer. I don't see the need to "defend" anyone, we let the facts speak for themselves. And if you believe that the order in which this is presented has a POV implication, then you are splitting hairs indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I just re-read the lede, and I don't see any issues there. If you think you can do better, then go for it. If your edit is good it will stay, if it is not, it will be deleted; welcome to collaborative editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. It's still the exact same facts as reported. Just in a different order. Which, as you already opined, is not relevant to POV. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Undone, per WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please address the issue at hand. You stated that order is not POV. And "it's facts as reported". What changed? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Which seems to be not the way you behave, preferring to revert instead of discuss. I'll let others weight in. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? You did the revert. I am the one who brought this to the Talk Page (i.e., to discuss). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. You did a bold edit to a version that was defacto consensus, I reverted. You reverted again instead of discussing. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, your "defacto consensus" has changed, given the activity that this post has generated. And that change is due to me discussing this on the Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what BRD means, Joseph. Bold edit = defacto consensus UNLESS someone reverts. Then you discuss until consensus is established. Hopefully the point is moot, though. Dyrnych (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I can also cite Wikipedia rules, chapter and verse. One of them is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. At the end of the day, what I did here led to the article being improved. You're welcome. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to wikilawyer you here. I'm trying to clarify the rule and saying that, in the future, BRD is the appropriate thing to do. It looks like my edit is consensus at the moment, but I actually should have discussed it here before making it given that there was dispute. So I handled that inappropriately too. And citing "ignore all rules" to justify a handling a content dispute inappropriately isn't going to get you much of anywhere. It's not a trump card. Dyrnych (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You missed my point. No one is asking for – or claiming – a "trump card". Some editors want to get "bogged down" in the minutiae of a million different – often, contradictory – rules. And, of course, they pick a rule that is self-serving to their interest at the moment. And they miss the big picture of the main objective: improving the article. Some other editor wanted to cite a bunch of rules and keep the article in an "unimproved" state (i.e., which he referred to as "defacto consensus") by citing some rules. Not to mention, in the next breath, he cites the "but he can be BOLD about making his change" rule. So, once again: At the end of the day, what I did here led to the article being improved. And, once again: You're welcome. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph, it's biased towards Brown by immediately stating that Brown was unarmed and had no criminal convictions. The first paragraph, second sentence should state that the shooting sparked protests and riots and the civil unrest we are still seeing to this day. That's certainly more notable and relevant than detailing their past actions - good or bad. The rest can be moved down to the second paragraph. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The riots more relevant? This is an article about the shooting of Michael Brown, and we have a separate article for the civil unrest, linked at the top. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the lead in a way that I hope resolves this conflict. I moved "unarmed" to the first sentence and the material about Brown's criminal history immediately before the information about Wilson. Dyrnych (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Man v/s teen

Brown was eighteen when he was shot dead, I ain't no English professor but eighteen or nineteen is teenage and Brown was a teenager when he was shot dead, why revert to man as done by User talk:Mandruss Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to point you to the answer to your question in my editsum, but I'll do it again here and even quote the relevant passage. The link: Age_of_emancipation#Emancipation_in_the_United_States. The quote:

Minors are under the control of their parents or legal guardians, until they attain the age of majority, at which point they become legal adults. In most states this is upon turning 18 years of age. However, in special circumstances, minors can be freed from control by their guardian before turning 18.

For our purposes, (male) legal adult = man. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User Mandruss. The word "man" is the more appropriate term in this case. While the word "teen" is technically accurate, it is the less appropriate choice. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

This is a bit of a false dichotomy in that someone can be both a teenager and an adult. But as Mandruss correctly points out, in the US, 18 is considered an adult. "Man" is the most commonly used term for an 18-year-old male, even if he is also technically a teenager. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy contradicting Johnson

I'm concerned about the inclusion of the statement:

"The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back and that Wilson shot Brown while holding Brown's neck."

This seems to, in turn, be contradicted by other claims in the same section. At the moment we say:

Brown couldn't have been shot from behind ("The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back")
Brown could have been shot from behind ("... the wounds to the right arm were consistent with Brown either having his back to the officer ...")
We can't determine what happened anyway ("Right now there is too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting").

In addition, the coroner stated that he didn't test the clothing or car for residue, and therefore couldn't be sure that Brown wasn't shot at close range. Given this, it seems like a much better to avoid including any interpretation of the coroner's findings unless they are made by the coroner in his official capacity - just make the statement of what he found, and leave it to the reader to determine the strength of the witness statements on their own. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment. I also found it troubling that the article seemed to state multiple conflicting views as fact. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Please watch the following from CNN: Why witnesses are often wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that eyewitness accounts are unreliable - of course they always are. :) But we can't insert commentary about the reliability of any given witness statement, especially when we contradict ourselves by doing so. We need to drop any interpretation, and only report the facts of the autopsy. This has nothing to do with how reliable witnesses are. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First, the autopsy we report is the one performed at Brown's parents' request by Dr. Michael Baden, not the one performed by the SLC medical examiner (and not the coroner's report).

Second, we summarize from reliable sources, giving due weight based on their proportion. If suddenly, 90% of the world's publications said that the moon was actually made of green cheese, we would report it as a fact (and the other theories, like the moon is made of rock, as outdated ideas), regardless of our personal opinions.

I note that your first example (The autopsy appears...holding Brown's neck) is taken from two reliable sources (NY Times and WashPost). If they disagree, so be it. Technically we are not allowed to mention this contradiction unless we find a discussion in a third reliable source. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We can choose whether or not to include this claim - that's what we do. Stating that the autopsy contradicts Johnson's account, and then stating both that the autopsy can't reconstruct the shooting and that it is compatible with Johnson's account, is foolish. If the doctor conducting the autopsy had made the claim that his findings contradict the witness statements, then fine, we add them. But as Baden didn't, we're surmising based on an opinion from an unknown source (presumably the reporters), and it makes a lot more sense to leave that claim out. - Bilby (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Police accounts in the middle of eyewitness accounts

Immanuel Thoughtmaker feels that the Police accounts subsection needs to be in the middle of the subsections for the eyewitness accounts, for "neutrality", he said. In other words, it would fail NPOV to put them either first or last. My take on it can be summed up as follows: That is patently absurd. Thoughts? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's alphabetized so it's not subjective. No importance should be assigned to any of the accounts until the courts and the press have ruled in finality. That's true neutrality. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Not patently absurd, IMO. I agree with the alpha sort. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And there is no need to edit war over this. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) It's not an eyewitness account. Why would we place it in the eyewitness accounts?

(2) I agree that this is a weak argument, as are most arguments about placement of text being NPOV. We assign the police report no additional importance by placing it in a separate section. Dyrnych (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit war. Never have, never will. I reverted once. K? But it boggles my tired old mind that we're making a telephone directory out of the Accounts section. Tell me, which would be the favored position, first or last? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The police are eyewitness accounts. They have eyes, they are human beings, they are just as fallible and corruptible. The courts needs to decide. To say they are not equal to eyewitness accounts in fallibility is to pretend the police aren't equal human beings. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) We are not a court and are not presenting evidence to a court. I'm not claiming that the police aren't fallible or that the police account represents "the truth." But it's manifestly different from an eyewitness account. Dyrnych (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My argument for the police to have their own section would be because eventually it will be required, or it will start taking over the other accounts. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, Mr. Thoghtmaker, isn't Bystander heard on video out of sequence? Aren't you violating NPOV there? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Obviously I agree that we shouldn't alphabetize the accounts. I don't care if we put the police account at the top or bottom, or in its own section, but inserting it in the middle is poor organization. Since there are objections to the bold edit by Immanuel Thoughtmaker, the status quo ante version should be restored until such time that consensus is reached for changing it.- Mr X 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so we've all said our piece and it looks like 4-to-2 against the telephone directory. Now what? Wait for more? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Pull both Johnson and the police out into a separate sections called "Involved witnesses" or something. Then the ostensibly neutral, uninvolved eyewitnesses separately. If they are going to stay all together, then I would say the "involved" ones should go at the top, as the most important.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Been there, lost that. Well maybe not. See #Having Dorian Johnson in a separate section?, above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Eventually it will look like the yellow pages. I hate to make predictions, but, we still have a boatload of eyewitnessess/witnessess that we still don't know about yet. There was a boatload of police officers on the scene afterwards as well, every single one of them wrote an incident report - which are relevant as to what they observed upon their arrival at the scene. For instance, did they observe an injury on Wilson's face, the position/distance of the body, shell casings they observed, witness names/statements they gathered at the scene, was an ambulance called, etc. It's not necessary yet I don't think, but eventually that wall of text is gonna get hard to navigate. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

~~I don't think we're gonna try the case in this article. Think about 2014 IVK - we didn't do that sort of thing there.~~ Are you talking about the size of the Police section in Accounts? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all those police incident reports are being introduced as evidence to the grand jury. What those police officers observed upon their arrival to the scene is relevant to this shooting. Obviously, we don't have them yet as they chose the grand jury route, but eventually those reports will be released. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Then you're right, it would have to be moved out then anyway. But I think patently absurd is the stronger argument for moving it out now. It's what MrX more tactfully called "poor organization". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, Gaijin42 made a good point above, when he referred to Johnson as "involved". Johnson's role in the incident was completely different from that of the other eyewitnesses. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I like patently absurd and poor organization, sounds good to me. Do it. I support boldness. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for coming! ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I also believe that it makes little sense to put the police in the middle of the other actual on the ground eyewitness accounts. The police should be the first listed for the simple fact that the prosecution always goes first. Police are attempting to prosecute Michael Brown. Then you give the claims of those who say that they saw what happened, starting with Dorian Johnson as he was the witness the closest to Michael Brown. If you want to do the rest after that in alphabetical order fine. But can we make that alphabetical by last name, and state at the top that that is why they are arranged as they are? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

simple fact that the prosecution always goes first. Police are attempting to prosecute Michael Brown - The only flaw with that argument is that the State of Missouri is attempting to prosecute Darren Wilson. Be careful not to use arguments that can be turned around and used very effectively against you. :)
After Police, Dorian Johnson needs to be first among the eyewitnesses. I wanted him separate from the rest of the eyewitnesses, but I lost that one. Also "Bystander heard on video" clearly needs to be last. So you're left with the question of how to arrange the remaining four eyewitnesses, and I think it makes sense to have Crenshaw and Mitchell adjacent since they're related (Mitchell was picking up co-worker Crenshaw). That pretty much kills any alphabetization, unless you want to say that the remaining four are in order by first name (which itself will fail when we add an eyewitness named Ramona, as she would separate Crenshaw and Mitchell). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A troubling interchange between Sean Hannity, Juan Williams, and who knows who

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/21/diametrically-opposed-stories-hannity-examines-varying-ferguson-accounts Which I post as a reminder that we should all be careful not to be duped into reporting stuff like the orbital socket fracture baloney as though it's established fact. ('cause you wouldn't want people to think you're as gullible as Sean Hannity, would you?) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I wrote a somewhat lengthy essay in response, and then cancelled because it's not what an article talk page is for. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, eye socket injuries would not necessarily show up on a cell phone video. [4]. Hospital records, if and when presented, would be what is needed for any rejection of such a claim. IIRC, we do not have photos of the officer involved. Collect (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

List-defined references

I am going to boldly begin converting this article to use list-defined references, since I believe its benefits greatly outweigh its costs when it comes to ease of editing.

The benefits: For an example of the end result, edit 2014 Isla Vista killings and note how much less cluttered the body of the article is. Then look at the References section and note how it's so much easier to read the refs. Anything you need to do to a large number of existing refs, such as adding archive parameters, making the format of author names consistent, etc., is vastly easier when they are together in one place and well organized.

The costs:

Every ref needs a refname.
Every new ref requires (1) a change to the References section, to add the ref, and (2) a change to the body where you want to invoke the ref, as <ref name=refname/>. In a busy article like this one, where edit conflicts are more common, I do this by editing sections rather than the entire article. I update the References section first, which creates a red error due to the unused ref, and then do the body edit(s), which eliminates the error. In some cases the ref you need will already exist in the References section, so you can skip that step.

LDR isn't an all-or-none deal. Putting a ref in the body won't break the article. If doing refs this new way is too much to handle, then don't. Someone else will come along and move any body refs to the References section.

If anyone strongly objects, I will immediately cease being bold and we can discuss it. Fair? Mandruss |talk 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! I strongly support that (and wish you luck). It makes editing text much easier. It will result in orphaned refs, but fortunately a bot comes around pretty frequently to clean them up. I would only ask that you do not use (deprecated) quotation marks around ref names unless they have a space (or better yet, just don't use a space) and that the ref names be descriptive (not ref1, ref 2, ref3).- Mr X 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

MrX, the naming convention that I'm bringing over from 2014 IVK provides for no spaces and no quotation marks. As for your orphaned refs comment, I don't think they're inevitable and I'll do my best to avoid them! If I create any, I'll fix them in short order. Re the deprecated quotation marks, is that deprecation in writing somewhere? I had an editor who tried to mass change 2014 IVK to use quotes and spaces because he thought they were more user-friendly. I'd like to have something to point to. Mandruss |talk 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't find it now, but I'll keep trying.- Mr X 18:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me also not that I greatly appreciate this as well. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(dummy activity to prevent archive for 48 hours, as that would break all of my related editsums) Mandruss |talk 15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to combine these edits so that the article history isn't so cluttered? Going back to yesterday is literally hundreds of edits due to this. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean combine the history for the edits already done? If so, I don't know of any way to do that. If you're talking about doing more than one ref in each edit, I can do that when I'm working on it while everyone else is sleeping. Otherwise there would be too many edit conflicts. Mandruss |talk 23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant the latter, combining the edits so there weren't so many in the history, moving forward. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Beginning refs cleanup. Mandruss |talk 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No incident report, according to Lawrence O'Donnell

On tonight's episode of The Last Word on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell is reporting that Wilson did not file an incident report about his role in the shooting, on the advice of his union's lawyer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN International reported on this a couple of nights ago, they said he had already been interviewed twice by detectives about the shooting, once on the day of the shooting, in what they described as a "soft interview", then another more detailed interview a couple of days later. So they already have his statement on his version of how it happened. His lawyer is wise to advise him to stop talking, in light of a grand jury investigation into his conduct. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So the fifth amendment trumps a police officer's responsibility to file an incident report after killing a man??? This gets sicker by the minute. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not actually sick, no matter what you think about the Brown shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes - the US Constitution is actually valid. And one ought draw zero inferences from a person abiding by it. Collect (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that police statements draw a whole slew of inferences about Michael Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I remove the LOD report. This is little more than his opinion. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have replaced it. He is a notable journalist and commentator making statements on an indisputable reliable source TV network, and his reported statements are at least as reliable (when attributed) as claims by The Daily Caller, which we also use. It is not "his opinion," he reported them as factual statements. Readers can decide whether they believe him or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we put a bias header on this article until the investigations are done?

As is, it seems anything relating to injuries suffered by the officer, or the twelve witnesses supporting the police version of events, is downplayed and relegated to parts of the article that are unlikely to be read by the casual visitor. I don't dispute that there's plenty of racism all over the US and the world, but it's not in the interest of Wikipedia to be part of a hate machine, as it stands the article only emphasizes the stories told by the deceased's friends and family, including a possible accessory to robbery. I sincerely hope the truth comes out about what bullet was fired exactly when while Mr. Brown was doing exactly what, and let the chips fall where they may.Oathed (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is reliably-sourced information available which is not in this article, feel free to add it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Oathed: Wikipedia being part of the hate machine? As you seem to be a a relatively new user, I'd suggest you read our basic content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. A summary is available at WP:NUTSHELL. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Been here for about 4-5 years now. Had to change username due to PII in it. The bias accusation on this article still stands. See documentation on injuries to the officer was removed from high-profile position in article. As it stands, this is a one-sided and partisan article not up to Wikipedia standards.Oathed (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What "documentation of injuries to the officer?" There is no such documentation publicly available, there are two competing accounts of his injuries and no proof that one is right and the other wrong. We are reporting both competing claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(ce) If you believed that, then fix it. Just remember that we work here to achieve consensus, and we don't engage in edit wars - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there are twelve witnesses supporting the police version of events. If they are eyewitnesses, and they are as well sourced (WP:RS) as what we already have, then I agree that the article needs more balance. So go for it, it will be good editing experience. (Add: The only thing I might have a problem with is anonymous eyewitnesses, as I prefer people who are willing to stand behind their claims. Others may disagree with me.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. You would have been aware if partisans with a clear agenda hadn't been reverting good-faith edits. Google it and you'll find it easily. As is, it's either not on this page, or hidden way down in the paragraphs of a large and unwieldy article the average busy Wikipedia consumer is highly unlikely to read straight through.Oathed (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge no reliable source has reported this information, probably because it's sourced to a tweet that has been discredited even by its own author. "It shows up when you Google it" does not mean "reliable sources report it." Dyrnych (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Oathed is likely referring to this. You can see the discussion up there, but suffice to say that the claim is not sourced to an RS. Dyrnych (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Never mind.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Euphemism

Please remove non-cited text that calls Mike Brown a victim, when it's obvious by now that he was killed in self defense. --154.69.0.97 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is an edit request, please use the edit request template. However, I doubt that you will get a positive response to that edit request given that it is certainly not "obvious by now that [Brown] was killed in self defense." Dyrnych (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No. See victim.- Mr X 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We have an official report from Ferguson police

Obtained by the ACLU. Only that it says absolutely nothing, but there are some very notable aspects to it.

HuffPo article [5]

Report [6]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's at least worth mentioning.- Mr X 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Independent autopsy

In the section for "Independent autopsy", it offers the words of Michael Baden. In discussing the bullets, this section states: with some of the bullets entering and exiting several times. Is this even possible? That a bullet can enter the body, then exit, then enter again, then exit again? And, so on, "several times"? Or is this passage simply worded incorrectly? I don't know the first thing about autopsies and ballistics, etc. But, I never imagined that a bullet can keep going in and out of the body even once, let alone "several times". Am I wrong? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, bullets can enter and exit the body multiple times. See our handy article on ballistic trauma for a quick primer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, I did not know that this could happen. Nonetheless, I read that article. It didn't say anything at all about this issue. Was there something in there, and I missed it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tenth graf: "Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds." Dyrnych (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But how does that answer what I am asking? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were questioning whether the source itself made that claim. As to whether it's possible, it is for multiple reasons. In this case, according to the autopsy "[o]ne of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone." So entry wound, exit wound, another entry wound, and possibly another exit wound. Dyrnych (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, see the articles about the JFK assassination and the multiple wounds (indeed, multiple victims) from a single bullet. Collect (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

~~Oh my gosh, that's true!!!~~ [humor intended, though rarely achieved. Tough audience.] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

New witness all over everywhere: Michael Brady

I need to get some sleep but I've transcribed some of what he said and tried to make it in order of events. I'm pasting it here for now. Anyone want to help prepare this for final insertion into the main article under a heading somewhere up top?

~~First pass attempt at a transcript. Sorry for all the things that need fixing still.~~

"I was actually in my bedroom" at the outset of the encounter between Officer Wilson, Brown and Johnson. According to Brady, the altercation "was already happening" when he first looked out the window to observe what was going on. When asked by O'Donnell if he could see Brown's hands, Brady answered, "Yes." "They were, most likely, through the window, and maybe the cops arms --" When asked if he could see the officer's arms at that time as well, Brady replied, Yeah, I [saw] his arms moving also. "He took off running from the vehicle. "They both just took off after the little tussle at the window" "The officer just immediately gets out of the vehicle and he just started shooting in a shooting position. "When he started shooting, he's taking large steps to him. He wasn't shooting at [Johnson]." He passed the officer's cruiser and he passed the vehicle that his friend was hiding behind. Brady indicates that at that point he left the bedroom to go outside, taking about five seconds to make get out of the apartment. "When I gets outside, Brown was actually balled up, like he was hit in the stomach, is what I thought." So, as he was kind of balled up, he was going down actually. And the cop actually shot out about four or five shots, he hit the ground, and that was it.

~~http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11044383/Eyewitnesses-describe-Michael-Brown-killing-as-new-footage-released.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)~~

That source is about as tabloid as it gets. Avoid at all costs. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a tabloid? You may be confused with the Daily Telegraph? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

At least one of us is confused. The Daily Telegraph shows the "official website" as telegraph.co.uk. At the bottom of the home page for telegraph.co.uk is a copyright notice for Telegraph Media Group, which owns the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph, and no other "Telegraph", according to its article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

:) - In any case, the newspaper in question is hardly a "tabloid" as we have here in the US, being one of the top daily newspapers in the UK. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I remember two or three UK sites "reporting" on 2014 Isla Vista killings in a manner that I wouldn't call journalism, and I thought the word "telegraph" was in there somewhere. I went looking for that in archived talk, and found where I complained about them being used as sources, but I was referring to edits I had just made and didn't mention their specific names in the talk. Ah well. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for creating unnecessary controversy by using a Telegraph URL that actually had the MSNBC interview embedded. I had relied on it because of the reference to Kenna Lewis, which, according to Google News, can only be found on the Telegraph article, as of about 24 hours ago at least. It's her video. Michael Brady appears in the video as well described primarily as "her fiancé." Then I later saw that the whole thing was up on MSNBC as a long-form interview with Lawrence O'Donnell, followed up by an analyst who does a very good job of pointing out why we have to take seriously what the "non-thug" [not my term] witnesses are saying about who Michael Brown was killed. You'll note that the link I included in the External Links page goes directly to the interview with O'Donnell. But the cites to his comments in the article omit any mention of the O'Donnell interview, instead pointing to CNN and Anderson Cooper. So many witness statement[S] So little time. How do you guys keep up? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone plan to make mention of Kajieme Powell in this article?

Day 1 Aug 19: Crickets. Day 2 Aug 20: Crickets. Day 3 Aug 21: Crickets. Day 4 Aug 22: Mike Ridgway nudges with intended humor. >> You all know who Kajieme Powell is, I presume. If not, I'd suggest you Wikipedia him. Oh wait, that's not going to work. [intended as humor] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Crickets. Crickets. Crickets.

~~Discussion of an ongoing and patently obvious hole in our article so this is not out of bounds. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)~~

Where is the missing video of the shooting.

WP:NOTFORUM

I was watching the news that day. I think it was CNN that showed a video of the attack and shooting. This is what I saw. Mike was attacking the officer inside the police cruiser. He was using his bulk to hold the officer in place. The other guy was holding the officer's leg so the officer could not move. The other guy jumped up and ran away. Mike pushed himself off of the officer and stood up. He pulled up his pants, turned, and ran away.

The officer stood up. He was holding the left side of his face. He went to walk towards Mike but staggered to the left and then to the right. His right hand swayed back and forth with gun in hand. His arm swayed up as if to aim but did not stop. Not sure if he fired.

Mike stopped running, turned around, and ran towards the officer. The officer shot two times. Mike went down slowly and fell on his side. The officer staggered over to Mike and shot three times. End of video

The video was shown many times over the next hour and then went poof. Never to be seen again. That was between 1PM to 2PM Cen USA.

Not sure if you are trolling, or just mistaken. Are you sure you aren't thinking of video of the other Missouri "suicide by cop" shooting? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is the truth.

Had such a thing really been on CNN for an hour, it would have been seen by millions of people, and its disappearance would be widely reported, and captured by peoples tivos and would be all over youtube by now.

I know what I saw.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Apparently the vast media conspiracy is at play here, since none of us has seen any word of this missing video in the news. I'm guessing troll, which is the more generous interpretation.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I will give my name if needed but I do not want the wold to know it. That video went poof for a reason.

Armchairnewsman, for the record.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that is me.

Waste of time. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Article from Edits

If the Article is Protected or Semi Protected from edits, which I believe it is, shouldn't it also have a tag explaining the status as such at the top of the article itself?Qwekfm (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not needed. The "lock" icon indicates it is locked and to what level.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this earlier when I was looking at the article initially. I'm used to the text box announcements of wikia style sites I guess. Also signing my comment from earlier which was sent before I registered my account.Qwekfm (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Michael Brown, Jr."

Original post removed after requesting that the same be done in my behalf. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No opinion, but if you do it please refer to this guideline. In other words, we omit the comma unless we can establish that he preferred it. A nit, to be sure, but nits are my specialty. ;) This is talking about article titles, but there's no reason it shouldn't apply everywhere else, too. Btw, you would always end with a period after Jr. Mandruss (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Original post removed after requesting that the same be done in my behalf. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Y done. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the comma being repeatedly omitted? Every other article I know doesn't omit it. CitiV (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an inconsistency. Due to inconsistent stylistic rules. The Wikipedia rule is to either keep or omit the comma, according to the individual's own preference. Without any clear preference, the comma is omitted. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This guideline (WP:FULLNAME#Child named for parent or predecessor) states: "Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

All because of some Facebook page omitting the comma? Proper usage of commas is underrated nowadays in the age of technology, just like spelling and punctuation. I'm not buying it. Anyone can easily omit a comma when it's necessitated. CitiV (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really because of the Facebook page, but because that was determined to be the Wikipedia policy. The one that I quoted above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

CitiV, the comma is traditional, but the modern trend is to omit. While other authoritative sources disagree, The Chicago Manual of Style has recommended omitting since 1993. I agree with them since I care less about tradition than what makes sense. Hardly anyone would write, Michael Brown, II, and yet tradition says we need to add a comma if we change the II to Jr.. Tradition offers no explanation or reasoning for that. In any case, how we feel about it doesn't matter much since the community consensus is as stated in the guideline, but knowing the preceding information might make you feel better about doing so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Actually, tradition does offer an explanation and reasoning for inclusion of the comma. As far as I understand it, at least. The word "Junior" was considered an appositive. Appositives (describing a noun) are always set off by commas from the noun described. An example might be: John, my neighbor, purchased a new car. The phrase "my neighbor" is an appositive to describe the noun "John". Therefore, the appositive ("my neighbor") is set off by commas. So, under the traditional way of thinking, "Junior" is an appositive to describe (modify) the person's name. Example: Martin Luther King, Jr., was born in 1929. The appositive "Junior" describes (modifies) the noun "Martin Luther King". Thus, the appositive is set off by commas. That is my understanding of the traditional rule. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well blow me down. I sit corrected! :D ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So, we're gonna do this according to "the modern trend"? That's complete bull! CitiV (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I also dislike the modern trend; I like the traditional inclusion of the comma in the case of "Junior". The article excludes the comma not really due to the modern trend, but due to the Wikipedia policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and that's what I said. But I hope and assume that the guideline stems from the trend. If we clung to tradition despite trend, we would be using words like mayhap, somewhither, and betimes in Wikipedia articles. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You're free to try to change the community consensus. In the meantime, we respect it and don't engage in article activism. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the missing video of the shooting.

WP:NOTFORUM

I was watching the news that day. I think it was CNN that showed a video of the attack and shooting. This is what I saw. Mike was attacking the officer inside the police cruiser. He was using his bulk to hold the officer in place. The other guy was holding the officer's leg so the officer could not move. The other guy jumped up and ran away. Mike pushed himself off of the officer and stood up. He pulled up his pants, turned, and ran away.

The officer stood up. He was holding the left side of his face. He went to walk towards Mike but staggered to the left and then to the right. His right hand swayed back and forth with gun in hand. His arm swayed up as if to aim but did not stop. Not sure if he fired.

Mike stopped running, turned around, and ran towards the officer. The officer shot two times. Mike went down slowly and fell on his side. The officer staggered over to Mike and shot three times. End of video

The video was shown many times over the next hour and then went poof. Never to be seen again. That was between 1PM to 2PM Cen USA.

Not sure if you are trolling, or just mistaken. Are you sure you aren't thinking of video of the other Missouri "suicide by cop" shooting? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is the truth.

Had such a thing really been on CNN for an hour, it would have been seen by millions of people, and its disappearance would be widely reported, and captured by peoples tivos and would be all over youtube by now.

I know what I saw.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Apparently the vast media conspiracy is at play here, since none of us has seen any word of this missing video in the news. I'm guessing troll, which is the more generous interpretation.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I will give my name if needed but I do not want the wold to know it. That video went poof for a reason.

Armchairnewsman, for the record.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that is me.

Waste of time. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Making a clearer distinction among procedures ?

Point 4.1 is called "Procedure", but mentions two of them: police and FBI. IMHO, it would be clearer to change the title and put each one in a different section with a specific title. --Japarthur (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the change proposed 1 day ago. --Japarthur (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides, wouldn't it be helpful to clarify why many people are concerned about McCulloch's bias ? So far, the article mentions general reasons, but I mainly heard a specific one: his father was a police officer killed by an Afro-American man. --Japarthur (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)