Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Jayland Walker/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Black man"

Please stop being racist, you could barely tell the skin color of this man, human is human, yall makin it seem like man's was targeted when he prolly wasn't. Bringing race into tragic topic like this just hurts my community more than it helps cuz this man ran from cops who was just finna pull him over and sped through neighborhoods at double the speed risking his own life and many others just to get put of a ticket, stop white knighting this man he was a criminal and while this is tragic and maybe not justified, he was a criminal either way and race shouldn't be important yalls including of him being black fr just doing more damage to us 2600:4040:11C3:3500:A9D9:1BBD:7E72:861A (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the warning that was left on your user talk page here. You're currently engaged in an edit war, which is not allowed and can lead to being blocked from editing should you continue to repeatedly revert the changes made by other users. You need to resolve this dispute by using proper dispute resolution protocols and by working things out civilly with the other involved editors - not by repeatedly restoring the version of the article that you feel is correct and in a back-and-forth fashion as you've been doing today. Please do not make further edits to this article until the dispute is resolved through discussion and consensus. Otherwise, you will be blocked from editing this page in order to put a stop to the disruption and the violation of policy. Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"the family's attorney Bobby DiCello has raised concerns about this version of events"

Bobby DiCello's statements are directly contradicted by the pursuing officers' reports of gunfire made during the chase along with the highway CCTV. This entire line just needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.226.134 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Is a blurry CCTV video definitive proof? The attorney makes the point in the New York Times article that all windows in Walker's vehicle are intact, which is a factual statement as far as we know. NPOV means taking accounts from all relevant angles with reliable sources! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"suspected gun"

The source says that a gun was found in his car. Seems like the gun is more than suspected. SEWilco (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I think we should give it a little more time before changing anything about this issue. I'd like to see BCI's statement on the presence of a gun in Walker's car. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Police Brutality"

There is no evidence yet of police brutality and the case is not police brutality until proven otherwise, this should be classified as a police shooting until police brutality is determined Afroman420 (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Race controversy

Stop removing that he is “black” because it is his biography, so it is important to keep it. Please refrain from making the article more irrelevant because it is important to this case and it is unfortunate that this is the way it was. 2605:8D80:625:5B3B:198E:41A:30BC:956 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. 5 of the first six references mention him being Black (and not African American, FWIW). I will note that I've only seen one source mention the races of the officers (WKYC) so at the moment I think it would be UNDUE to include it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Page needs protection ASAP!

The article is getting vandalized repeatedly by multiple accounts, and the talk page is being trolled.

Please help! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected. Please note that the reverts you made to the article with the edit summaries stating that the other user was adding "vandalism" were, in fact, referring to edits that were not vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with what is and what is not vandalism before you make any more edits with a claim in the edit summary that you're removing or reverting vandalism, as your edit summaries in your reverts to this article were not correct. Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Title would be "Death of Jayland Walker" or "Attempted Arrest of Jayland Walker"

I realize this is a sensitive subject, but the title goes too far. Within a minute of police attempting to pull him over - with valid reason to do so - Walker shot out of the window of his car into traffic. Should the police have allowed this to continue? No, he had to be stopped. As we have seen in recent events - Newtown, Uvalde, the Colorado movie theater - shooters are usually armed to the teeth. Police had reason to consider him armed, dangerous, and a threat to public safety. I have no problem with condemning police when they are in the wrong. Eric Garner and George Floyd were MURDERED, plain and simple. They did not "die being taken into custody". They were murdered in cold blood. This is not the same situation. Titling this article "Killing of Jayland Walker" implies there was no reason for firing upon him and that his own actions played no role in his death. I realize this is not a popular opinion, and I thank you for hearing me out and reconsidering the title of this article. 96.228.55.112 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The title says nothing about whether there was any reason for the killing. And there's no question he was killed. To be clear, a justifiable homicide is still killing someone. (Note this isn't intended to comment whether this was a justifiable homicide, simply pointing out it doesn't matter.) We only title articles "death of" when the cause of not homicide or when it's unclear. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) for more. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Note also that BLP applies throughout Wikipedia. While for the purposes of Wikipedia there's no longer any problem stating that George Floyd was murdered with the conviction of Derek Chauvin per Murder of George Floyd, the situation for Eric Garner is different. As no one has ever been convicted of murder, per Killing of Eric Garner, please refrain from calling it a murder on Wikipedia. What you do elsewhere is of course not our concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

60 shots

It is 60 gun shots, not 90 209.169.91.63 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

90 rounds were fired; 60 hit Walker. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Is it just that one local news report that gives the number 90 shots? If so, it probably isn't WP:DUE for inclusion or at the least should be attributed. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen 90 reported in top-tier news reports. NPR says "at least 60", for example. Soon enough there will be an official report issues with the official number of rounds fired. Levivich[block] 16:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime should it be edited to reflect this ie "the suspect was hit approximately 60 times" until a report on how many shots were fired is officially released Afroman420 (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

During the Akron press conference, the police chief clearly stated that: "The ME’s report indicates more than 60 wounds to Mr. Walker’s body. However, they’re still working to determine entrance and exit wounds, and this investigation on their end will take time." It's possible for a single round to make two — or even more — wounds to a body. Indeed, it would be extraordinarily unusual for someone to be hit by 60 rounds and have all them remain in his body—almost certainly many would have exited. I think many sources may have misreported this, but that's no justification for us including obvious speculation or misinformation in the article. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 17:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The lawyer's biased version of events

I removed the biased opinion of the family lawyer from the official version of events, but User:Lard Almighty put them back together again. The sentence again reads: "Less than a minute into the vehicular chase, pursuing officers allege there was gunfire coming from the vehicle, although the family's attorney has questioned whether shots were fired." Of course the family lawyer will say the opposite of everything the police say. What's the family lawyer going to say, "yup, that's pretty much what happened!" This is why this biased and unofficial opinion was moved to the section called "reactions". The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Because "official" opinions and police narratives are never wrong? : ) Hmm. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Because family and attorney claims are never wrong?
A few examples:
  • Supposed eyewitnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown claimed that he was trying to surrender, and/or on his knees begging for mercy when Officer Wilson shot him. These were proved to be false; Brown was actually charging at Wilson when he was shot.
  • In the immediate aftermath of the death of Freddie Gray, alleged eyewitnesses claimed they had seen police beating him with batons before placing him in the back of the police transporter; claims which were later proven false.
    • I could cite many more examples of such cases. So if you're determined to play the "cops lie" card, I can easily supply its counterpart. Bricology (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    The lawyer has questioned a specific part of the account (not stating the opposite of everything the police say). It makes much more sense to have that where the particular event is mentioned rather than further down in the article. Whether or not the lawyer is correct is irrelevant; he has questioned it, it has been reported in WP:RS and is therefore worth a mention in the correct context. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Compare to Killing of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams where the police also said there was gunfire, went on a high speed chase, and shot 137 times. Until the facts of the case are settled in court or RS widely claim a fact (in a legal sense) to be accurate, then we can state it as such. Until then, if there is a dispute between two parties to a legal case, it's better to state that dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    There is no legal case between two parties here. There is no legal case at all (one of the parties is dead). The family may sue, but they haven't yet, and they may not, depending on the results of this investigation. So I think it's too soon to treat this as a dispute between two parties to a legal case. Right now, this is an investigation, not a dispute -- we don't even have an autopsy report yet. Levivich[block] 17:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    I agree including it in the factual narrative part is WP:FALSEBALANCE. First, I disagree that RS is reporting that the "attorney has questioned whether shots were fired". RS reports that he said he has questions, not that he "questioned", which implies that he is stating it didn't happen. It'd be weird for him to suggest it didn't happen when it's on video, and police recovered a gun in the car and a shell casing in the road. Second, it's a WP:MANDY. Third, it's citing sources from July 2 or earlier, which is before the video was publicly released on July 3 (the attorney had seen it prior to July 3, but not the press). In my view, any source published before July 3 is now outdated and shouldn't be used at all. Fourth, the attorney's comment is a reaction and should be in the reactions section. It's not like the attorney is saying he did any investigation of his own, he is literally and purely reacting to what he was told/shown by the police. Levivich[block] 17:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    OK, I have changed it to "although the family's attorney said he has questions about that part of the police account." I do think it belongs there, because that is where it is in context. It's not a "reaction" in the same way that the other things mentioned in that section are. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for making that change. But now it's even clearer that it's a reaction. The article should have a part that says "what happened" and a part that talks about "what happened after". The attorney having questions about the police narrative is something that happened after. I'm sure the attorney has questions about every part of the police narrative--not just the car shot, but the stun gun, the alleged firing position, the handcuffing, the reason for the initial stop... I'm 100% sure the family attorney has questions about all of it. He's said as much in interviews. Are we going to write "although the family's attorney said he has questions about that part" after every part? Just one sentence in the investigation section (if not reactions -- I hate reactions sections anyway) saying the attorney has raised questions is sufficient, IMO. Levivich[block] 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    The "Reactions" section is about reactions to the shooting, ie "because of the shooting X happened or Y didn't happen". What this is a reaction to the police's statement about the shooting, not the shooting itself. There is a difference. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Which is why it should be in the investigation part. There are three investigations going on: the local police department, the state, and the attorney's. The attorney's questions are part of the attorney's investigation. In the factual narrative section, we say "the police said" because the police were a witness and we're relating an eyewitness report; the attorney wasn't there and isn't a witness. We don't need to (and shouldn't) in the same breath convey the witness report and also what other people later said about those witness reports. Levivich[block] 17:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Disagree. Doesn't matter if DiCello was there or not. The attorney can make a factual statement about the car windows being fully intact without having been there during the night of the shooting, obviously. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    100% agree with Levivich. There are any number of people who may have any number of questions about an event, but those unanswered questions do not belong in the factual recitation of that event, which should be based on sourced facts. The police allege that Walker fired, and they have provided evidence to corroborate that. If someone credibly and specifically alleged that did not happen, or that their evidence was flawed, then we might include it. But a plaintiff attorney's general "questioning" of a police narrative is not the basis for any factual reportage of the underlying incident. ElleTheBelle 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Is there support to divide the sections like Killing of Andrew Brown Jr.: "Police statement" and "Statements by Brown family lawyers"? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    As in any such story, we should expect further evidence which is not released deliberately by the authorities to change our understanding of what happened. I don't think, by itself, the fact that the police have "provided evidence" in the form of video snippets and stills should mean that we don't mention the lawyer's comments, just because he hasn't provided evidence, when so far no one other than the police has had access to any evidence and the police haven't been compelled to release anything against interest. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Right, I think some folks are also missing a bit of the nuance of the lawyer's statement. Mr. DiCello mentions that car windows have no bullet holes and are intact, perhaps pointing to a limitation on directionality of any gunfire from Walker, if any did occur. Police make no statement on where their vehicles are positioned in the CCTV footage, though I assume they are all behind Walker's vehicle, but this is obviously an assumption, and I'm not trying to push original research.
    All we know for a fact, from the lawyer's statement, is that Walker's car windows are intact, which I think is an important point. If we are to include factual evidence and statements from police, then factual evidence from other sources is just as important as well. This is why we rely on what reliable sources say! We don't get to pick and choose.
    I think it is an unsettled question whether Walker "shot at police" or simply shot out of his window, or even if he fired a shot at all. Lots to be answered by follow-up forensics, especially if the shell casing the police alleged to have found matches with the handgun. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    I've gone ahead and removed all mentions of DiCello for now. I fully agree with Levivich that including his opinions in the article would be a case of MANDY; since he represents a dead client (Walker), his various denials should be treated as if they came from Walker himself. The "fact" that the car's windows were intact is questionable at best as long as it's coming from DiCello. Philroc (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    Just seems strange to favor the official police narrative because as GordonGlottal (talk · contribs) mentions above: "the police haven't been compelled to release anything against [their] interest." For example, why is audio excluded from numerous body-cam footages that were released? Some of the officers' camera footage includes all of the audio, while other clips only reveal partial audio.
    I strongly disagree with making assumptions about the veracity of DiCello's statement. How can you assume this? Seems like WP:OR to jump to this conclusion. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    Also, just to point out the obvious: DiCello's statement was shared by The New York Times and they have fact-checkers. That's not our job & that's why we trust reputable sources. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    DiCello is an attorney who was paid to defend Walker and his family, so of course he's going to be biased towards them. I'm not trying to say that his claim about the car's windows is unfactual, just that we should leave it out of the article until it's corroborated by a third party. Philroc (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    It was printed in The New York Times and they have professional fact-checkers. If it is found to be incorrect, they will make an update to the story. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    And couldn't we say the same thing about information coming from the police and the police union? That "we should leave it out of the article until it's corroborated by a third party"? That's not how it works. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Philroc It is not our job to judge the accuracy of factual statements for ourselves, or to decide when they're "corroborated" enough. If the NYT frames it as he-said-she-said then that's how we have to frame it, even if editors personally disagree. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    The NYT is a reliable source for stating the Lawyer said X, it does not mean the NYT confirms the veracity of the lawyer's statements. Just as we distinguish Wikivoice and attribution, so does NYT. Slywriter (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    True, but if The New York Times later finds his statements are false or not factual (like about the car windows being intact), they will likely then print an update or correction about that point. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Oppose including what applies here is WP:BLP both about Walker (as recently deceased) and about the law enforcement officers involved. The statements given by law enforcement are backed by physical and video evidence, the statements made by DiCello are not and amount to WP:BLPGOSSIP. If we're going to include anything, a non-specific "An attorney for Walkers family has challenged the police version of events" which is WP:OBV. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
      DiCello's statement about car windows being intact is physically verifiable to anyone who has been able to have had access to his car, or to anyone who has seen photos of the vehicle following the incident, etc. Nothing about that is "gossip" or "obvious" so I'm not really sure what you're arguing here or what your point is? This is based on physical evidence, it's a comment about the condition of the car, geez. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
      Until DiCello has physical access to the vehicle or detailed photos are released, it's DiCello looking at bodycam footage and making a determination. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
      You don't know that he hasn't had access. Now you're just making stuff up at this point. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
      No one knows if he has or hasn't and since the information is suspect and because WP:BLP applies its not to be included --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
      Fundamentally we are required to present these issues in the way that RS do, not to make our own determinations. If the NYT etc. included the quote prominently, it doesn't matter that you wouldn't have. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

    Ruled a homicide

    I've removed this statement. Two of the three sources do not mention "homicide" and I can't find any others that do. The only mention is in the third reference from USA Today and it seems unlikely because all that's been released is a preliminary report. If there are other reliable sources stating that the ME office ruled it a homicide then fine, but until then it seems more likely to be an error at USA Today for which a retraction will never be published. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    Soft-reverted with a new CNN source. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    CNN source is fine, adds context. Please get rid of the other two, they make not mention. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    What's interesting to me is that a CNN article after having reviewed the preliminary report makes no mention of "homicide" [1] --LaserLegs (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, but it doesn't contradict and our policy is to trust CNN that they'd correct. I agree with @Levivich btw, probably the reason why they don't bother to note it again is that it doesn't add much except that it rules out him being dead before they shot him, which no one has ever claimed. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah it's fine I'm no longer calling for it's removal you found other sources since the first two made no mention of "homicide". Seems reasonable to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    LL, it's a fatal shooting. That's always a homicide (even an accidental fatal shooting is a homicide), by definition, unless it's a suicide. And with 60 wounds, it's obviously not a suicide. Not to mention the body cam footage showing eight people shooting at him. "Homicide" means a person killing another person. I'm really surprised that you would question "homicide"; this is the world's most obvious homicide. Anyway, the Washington Post, among many other top sources, have noted that the ME ruled it a homicide. Levivich[block] 18:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    I go with what reliable sources report not my feelings or opinion and GordonGlottal has provided a better ref so I can stand for now till the ME report is released. The number of rounds fired is totally irrelevant, by the way, as one is enough to be fatal. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    It's not really feelings or opinions, it's the definition of the word "homicide". One cannot seriously question that someone who was shot ~60 times was the victim of a "homicide". Of course that's going to be in the sources; a simple Google search for "jaylen walker homicide" confirms that. I'm all about providing sources, even for the obvious, but this is a case where the sources were already cited inline (to USA today), other sources in the article also verified it, more sources are easily found should anyone question it, and the underlying content is sky-is-blue level of obvious. In other words, removing this statement and questioning its veracity is WP:POINTY and disruptive--it makes needless work for the rest of us. If you wanted to improve the sourcing -- add something in addition to USA Today, or remove the two-out-of-three that didn't say "homicide" -- that would have been cool; removing the sentence and questioning its veracity was not cool. Levivich[block] 18:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    Well I looked for other sources confirming the same and couldn't find any (as I said) which is why I ultimately removed it believing it to be an error on the part of USA Today. There was nothing POINTY or disruptive about it, and GordonGlottal quickly reverted my removal with improved sources. We're talking about a WP:BLP here and I was just following the guidelines therein. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Right, but who are we to declare a reliable source is in error without good evidence of that from other sources? Seems like WP:OR on your part, and would probably be best to bring stuff like that to the talk page for consensus in the future. I easily found the two sources that are posted below no problem. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

    Here are two more sources!
    Akron Beacon Journal: 'Everybody loses,' Akron chief says of police shootings; family says 'That's not Jayland - June 29, 2022

    "The Summit County Medical Examiner’s Office said in a news release Wednesday that Walker, 25, died from multiple gunshot wounds and gave the manner of death as homicide."

    CNN: Ohio police officers on paid administrative leave after fatal shooting of Jayland Walker - July 1, 2022

    "The Summit County Medical Examiner's Office did not release the autopsy record to CNN but confirmed Walker's death 'is ruled a homicide and is considered a confidential law enforcement investigatory record.' "

    Hopefully that helps. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    Relatives Of Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake Arrested At Jayland Walker Protests

    This seems notable. Can we add this information to the article please, under the reactions section?

    Here are a few sources:

    ABC News CBS News Cleveland Plain Dealer The Columbus Dispatch (reprinted from paywalled Akron Beacon Journal) Democracy Now! Huffington Post NBC News

    Thanks everyone! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

    There are no other details about any sort of protests the article, I see no reason to include a single WP:PROSELINE about these two individuals without any sort of context. If there were riots, where people including Bianca Austin were charged with "riot, disorderly conduct and failure to disperse" that's notable and worthy of inclusion. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    You are correct sir, more details need to be added about the peaceful protests and community upset, good points! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

    Removed image

    I removed the image added to the infobox it's tagged non-free and about to be deleted --LaserLegs (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    I fixed the common license and restored the image. It's pd-ineligible per DR precedent at Commons (see the lead image of Killing of Rayshard Brooks and it's DR at Commons). Bodycam footage, surveillance video, dashcam, and the like, are not eligible for copyright because they're not creative works. Btw the image isn't great and I wouldn't oppose it being changed to a new one, but there is no copyright or licensing issue with using bodycam stills, or even uploading the entire bodycam video (commons has an entire category for it). Levivich[block] 14:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    I originally planned to remove it for being of poor quality but I expected to be insulted for doing so and when I saw the license figured that took precedent anyway. Your call, I dare not make content mods to this article, but agree it's adding nothing. If it stays, we can add the muzzle flash still to the incident section I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    Nah, you're right, that image adds nothing (and you're not the first person to say so); I just removed it again. Somebody can grab a better still. I think the "muzzle flash" still is a better image, worth including in the article, but not as a lead image or as the only image, for NPOV reasons. If someone wants to they can grab a better image for the lead image (maybe a better screencap from one of the bodycam videos). Levivich[block] 15:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    I found the same frame in the video on YouTube it looks like the official video is just poor quality. Once the investigation is concluded, NPOV or not we can add the muzzle flash, I'm fine leaving it out for now as everything law enforcement has said is "alleged". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    Hi, so it looks like WikiWikiWayne (talk · contribs) slapped a massive box on top of the article that claims some sort of copyright violation has occurred in the article, without reference to anything specific? Huh? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC) ː The statement in question isː "Officers who pursued and eventually shot Walker the next day were aware of this incident." I can't find where that is written elsewhere, online or offline. Fimbriata (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

    Yeah, and I left a message for @WikiWikiWayne: on their talk page, but so far no reply or clarification about the issue. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, I found this from the cited Akron Beacon Journal article:
    "DiCello also confirmed that New Franklin police tried to stop Walker the night before he died, which Clay Cozart, president of the police union in Akron, said officers were aware of when they pursued Walker the next night."
    vs. what we have in the Wikipedia article:
    "Officers who pursued and eventually shot Walker the next day were aware of this incident."
    It's similar, but not plagiarism, eh? Not a big deal to change a word or two there if it makes WikiWikiWayne happy. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    Tagging and scarring this article is bizarre. Just edit the copyvio and move on. WWGB (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    No copyright concern, I'm marking the listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2022 July 16 as resolved. A rewording will suffice, but I didn't find the current thing too closely paraphrased that it would be a copyright violation. In the future, when listing things at Copyright Problems, please explain why it is a copyright violation (URLs will suffice) @WikiWkiWayne. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

    Intro

    I know this gets written in a hurry but I added some clarification and internal links to the intro. Slow down, breathe and enjoy the writingǃ ~~~~ Fimbriata (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks, part of the issue is that some editors are hitting up this page to alter the lede, insistent on removing the widely reported fact that Walker is black, for example. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

    Black was not removed, it was moved into the 2nd sentence of the lead.

    Race is not the prima facia reason that Walker was shot at. It is a demographic. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 06:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

    Nobody here said that was the reason he was shot. It's a factual descriptor, and that is how reliable sources are reporting on it. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

    Why is this noteworthy?

    On average in the US, law enforcement officers kill (by shooting) about 3 people every day. Why is this shooting noteworthy enough to warrant its own article? Is the standard now going to be that every time a person is shot by police in the US they should have their own article? -or only if they happen to be black? That would mean about 300 more articles per year. Thus far there is no evidence that the shooting of Mr. Walker was due to racism, or indeed anything other than his attempt to flee, and his possession of a firearm; both of which have led to non-black suspects likewise being shot, but not resulting in their own WP article. And before anyone invokes the fact that it has received some media attention: it is receiving media attention because the media knows that the shootings of black Americans are sensational, and it chooses to focus upon them, but largely ignore their equivalents among non-black decedents. Cf. the killing of Joseph Hutcheson, who died in exactly the same manner as George Floyd, but Hutcheson was white, whereas the officer who knelt on his neck was black. Otherwise there were no differences between the killings, and yet unlike Floyd, Hutcheson's death got no media attention outside of Texas (where it happened), his family got no settlement, the officers who caused his death were not even reprimanded (much less tried and convicted of murder), and Hutcheson certainly got no WP article devoted to his death. So it seems to me that the phenomenon we are seeing is people prejudging an incident's notability simply because of the color of the decedent's skin -- perhaps even eagerly so. This should not be happening. Unless there is actual notability involved, Wikipedians should take a more circumspect position when it comes to creating new articles in immediate response to a death for which we have no reason to presume notability. Bricology (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    Umm hi, I think you need to check yourself. Is it common for officers to fire 90+ rounds at a suspect unless they are heavily armed to the teeth? This seems notable in itself, the extreme and disproportionate response by law enforcement. How often does this kinda thing happen? Fortunately it is the exception rather than the rule.
    Either way, I don't understand your grievances here. If you don't want to contribute to the page, then don't, and feel free to create & edit the article about Joseph Hutcheson and the stuff that interests you! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Also, just a reminder that WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    He's right though - this is just sensationalism, not noteworthiness. 101.167.226.134 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    An unsigned commenter whose IP address resolves to Hilo, HI wrote "Umm hi, I think you need to check yourself." What are you -- 15? That isn't the way adults speak. "Is it common for officers to fire 90+ rounds at a suspect unless they are heavily armed to the teeth?" There is no way of knowing whether or not it is "common" since the actual number of rounds fired by LEOs is almost NEVER stated in news reports. "This seems notable in itself, the extreme and disproportionate response by law enforcement." NO. The number of rounds fired by LEOs absolutely does NOT meet WP:N; it wouldn't confer notability even if they had fired 900 rounds. You might want to actually read those guidelines before making such a nonsensical claim. Bricology (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Blah Blah Blah @Bricology: Please remember this is WP:NOTFORUM and act accordingly. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Bricology: This talk page is not a soapbox for you to vent your irrelevant opinions. You have the option to nominate the article for a deletion discussion at any time. Spare us the off-topic ranting. ––FormalDude talk 02:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Because it is a high-profile killing involving someone who was supposedly unarmed and media coverage is high. Should we delete all other articles related to high profile killings then, like Amir Rice? It is notable, so it can stay in my opinion. 2605:8D80:625:5B3B:198E:41A:30BC:956 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    "Because it is a high-profile killing involving someone who was supposedly unarmed and media coverage is high. You seem to be making a circular argument, since the "high-profile" nature of the shooting is precisely because "media coverage is high", not due to Mr. Walker's actual "profile", nor due to the circumstances around him being shot. Also "supposedly unarmed" is utterly useless. To cite just one example: according to the wife of Keith Lamont Scott, he too was unarmed, before police shot him. Of course that turned out to be false; he absolutely was armed, and the shooting was ruled justified. So "supposedly" doesn't mean jack, especially since law enforcement officers who actually saw Walker assert that he was armed, and fired on them from his car. A handgun was found on the driver's seat in Walker's car, spent shell casings were found on the ground near where police say that Walker fired on them, and they match the caliber of that handgun. So the evidence shows that Walker was the opposite of "unarmed", further negating your justification for the shooting being notable, and this article existing. Was Walker carrying the handgun at the time he was shot? Apparently not. Nor was there any way for the police to have known that, when he fled on foot; they only knew that he had fired upon them while driving. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/video-will-show-ohio-officers-kill-fleeing-black-man-hail-bullets-family-lawyer-2022-07-03/ Bricology (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Bricology: Also not WP:SOAP. You've already been warned by several other editors about this. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    I've made many thousands of successful edits on WP over the past 16 years and not once have I been subjected to any kind of disciplinary action, so "warnings" from anons do nothing but add to my day's mirth. Bricology (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • It's not notable, the media is just in it's usual state of hysteria. You can take it to WP:AFD where your nomination will go down in flames. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
      Hi LaserLegs (talk · contribs), of course it's notable. You didn't seem to think this was a homicide or a killing either! Are you struggling a bit with the facts of the incident? Maybe watch the bodycam footage that was released by the police. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
      Yeah I saw the dashcam footage of him fleeing the scene, the areal still of him discharging a firearm wildly during a highspeed pursuit, the body cam footage of him refusing to get on the ground after exiting his vehicle and being tased and then being shot a lethal number of times. Seems routine crime blotter to me. "Man shot by police after firing at them during high speed pursuit" doesn't make headlines like "unarmed man shot 60 times" but of course the former is as accurate as the later. "Killing" and "homicide" both carry the connotation of being deliberate and illegal but I concede that WP:DEATHS has a different guideline. Let me know if you require any further clarification. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
      Ahem. The discharge of the firearm by walker is alleged. And where does the adjective "wildly" come from? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
      Sure it's as alleged as the police shooting him 60 times is alleged in that its obvious for anyone with eyes who watched the video what happened but no formal determination has been made in a court of law. Wildly in a way that lacks discipline or restraint or to a ridiculous or extreme degree; seem like accurate descriptions for discharging a firearm on public roads while evading law enforcement at high speeds. Perhaps you're the one struggling with definition? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
      Is it obvious? The CCTV footage that may or may not show a muzzle flash coming from Walker's car is blurry & from many hundreds of feet away. The police bodycamera footage is incredibly definitive. Big difference there.
      And I don't understand why you repeatedly want to characterize things in a specific way, saying that this wasn't a killing, or a homicide, etc. and claiming that Walker's potential use of a firearm was done in a "wild" manner rather than just stating the facts. Your opinion of this or that version of events in which he may have behaved isn't really relevant here. That's why we stick to credible sources for our information. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
      Yep the CCTV footage, the firearm recovered from the vehicle the shell casing found at the scene near where the shot was fired. Pretty clear cut. I don't understand why you repeatedly want to characterize things in a specific way, using the word homicide (the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder), or that firing a weapon out of a moving vehicle while evading law enforcement is somehow not "to a ridiculous or extreme degree". Your opinion of this or that version of events in which he and the police behaved isn't really relevant here. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
      That is not the definition of homicide, look the word up in another dictionary. A homicide is one person killing another. It need not be deliberate nor unlawful. It does not mean the same thing as murder. Also, this conversation is treading too far into foruming/soapboxing/blpvio. Let's remember this isn't the place to debate about what happened. Levivich[block] 00:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
      Google and Bing both get their definitions from Oxford but yeah, I guess that makes sense when a definition doesn't fit for POV find one that does. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
      Enough with the shocking ummm dog whistles, please and thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

    Established consensus

    Has there ever been a community discussion about articles for these officer involved shootings? I don't see an article for every shooting, I'm not sure what the criteria is for inclusion, nor have I ever seen an article for a police officer murdered in the line of duty (there is barely a list). Some of these might make sense as a WP:SPINOUT from the 2020 riots but most feel like WP:BLP1E, WP:RGW and WP:MEMORIAL. Instead of going 1 by 1 marking for deletion I'm thinking to kick off an RFC on the subject but I'm wondering if one has taken place previously. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

    @LaserLegs: BLP1E only applies to biographies of living people. Notability is most commonly determined by the standards of WP:GNG, which this article easily passes as it is widely covered in diverse sources. ––FormalDude talk 10:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    @FormalDude: WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased as well, which is the only reason this individual is being discussed. Look I'm just wondering if it's been discussed as a topic before in general. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    But it cannot possibly violate BLP1E because this is not a biography. And we already have existing guidelines that dictate inclusion criteria of these articles, specifically WP:NCRIME. ––FormalDude talk 10:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Uhhhh WP:BLP1E says "should not have an article" says nothing about it being a biography and most of these shootings clear all 3 criteria. Look, I'm going to kick off the discussion, if you know about one which took place previously I'll review it, else thanks for your input. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Oh I see the article is about the event, not the individual. Ok, fine. Thanks. Still probably gonna kick off the same --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that it would be a good thing to have a RFC on the matter, @LaserLegs. Otherwise we will see more and more examples of this slippery slope towards the wholesale disregard of WP:NOTNEWS.
    Were it not for the color of Mr. Walker's skin and the number of bullets expended, there is not one notable thing about this incident. And the argument being raised here -- that it satisfies WP:N because "it is widely covered in diverse sources" -- falls prey to media canarding. The media sensationalizes incidents like this, and it rushes to judgment that they are in some way a racialized (whether or not there is any evidence of it), because they understand that stories of black people being killed by cops emotionally manipulate their viewership/readership which, in turn, boost their ad revenue. Again, were the decedent white, the incident would in no way meet WP:N, and yet so far there is no evidence that Mr. Walker's ethnicity was relevant to his death; it is merely implied at every turn. If it wasn't a factor, then the article would surely not meet WP:N.
    This lack of clarity about which such incidents rise to the level of being fit for an encyclopedia, forces WP editors to try to disprove a negative; to demonstrate that an incident isn't notable, rather than the burden of proof resting where it does in every other domain: upon the claimant. A typical example of this is the article on the Killing of Antonio Martin in which the decedent, who had been shoplifting with an accomplice, pulled a gun and pointed it an a responding police officer, who shot Martin, who then died. The gun was recovered and proved to have been Martin's, and security camera footage documented the rest of the police/DA's assertions. The officer was exonerated. What made that incident "noteworthy"? The presumption that it must have been a racist white cop shooting an innocent, unarmed black youth. This was the narrative implied by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch news who put the story on their front page within 12 hours of the incident. The WP article was created the next day, and over the next few days, mobs of protestors set fire to buildings, looted stores, etc. We see that exact same dynamic playing-out here.
    Instead of following WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NSUSTAINED, etc., when an incident occurs, the media immediately exploits it (instead of waiting for evidence if racial animus is a factor), someone starts a WP article, and it all feeds the mob who is primed to believe the worst. This produces the predictable results (protests, riots, looting, etc.) which again, the media sensationalizes, adding more justification for it ostensibly being a "noteworthy" incident and therefore deserving of its own article. We have no control over how the media exploits, sensationalizes and elides the evidence. But we do have some control over how WP is being instrumentalized by people who are gaming the system by including every potential example of racialized killings by police, contributing to the social unrest that results from its dissemination, and using both to support a biased narrative. Bricology (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    Let me be the next editor to remind you about WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This is not the place to discuss what's wrong with the media today. Here we can talk about things like whether this article meets WP:N or WP:NEVENT. If you want to change those guidelines because of media bias or sensationalism, write about that on those talk pages, not on the talk page of an article about a recently deceased person. Levivich[block] 04:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't recall any discussions about the notability of these types of articles. The relevant guideline is WP:NEVENT and its various subsections, which I think already provide pretty good guidance about when to create/not create these kinds of articles, e.g. WP:NCRIME, WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:COVERAGE, WP:PERSISTENT, etc.
    I would caution against looking at this one article as any kind of indicator of anything broader. These articles tend to each have some unique facts that make broad generalizations difficult.
    Another caution: officer involved shootings is way too broad. A better and narrower description would be, "articles, about police in the USA, especially white police, killing an unarmed person, especially a black person", or "suspected unlawful killing by police". Levivich[block] 16:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    FWIW, my personal rubric for analyzing the notability of these -- and I'm not claiming this is consensus, it's just what I do -- is this:
    1. It must have national coverage and not just local coverage. I look for three top national sources, like Washington Post, NYTimes, NBC News. International wire services and international media are even better. If possible (and for this article, it's possible), I'd go with AP, Reuters, and BBC. That's WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. It's important that each source is independent of the others; i.e, one AP wire story being republished in three national media sources doesn't count. I prefer to cite three bylined stories whenever possible, though they don't always have bylines.
    2. It must be covered in multiple news cycles, a news cycle being 24hrs. So if it's all over the international media but just for one day and the nobody writes about it again, it's not WP:PERSISTENT. I look for three separate national or international sources, with bylines, and with different datelines. Often they're on consecutive days or within the same week, which is fine.
    3. To try and predict WP:LASTING (which is impossible to definitively determine shortly after a recent event), I look at the facts of the case and the public response. It matters if the video has been released, it matters if there are protests, it matters if, e.g., the deceased was armed or unarmed, fighting or running, if it happened quickly or was drawn out, if it was nighttime or daytime, etc., it matters how the police responded. The more shocking or egregious the facts, the more likely it is that there will be protests. In the case of George Floyd, the police were caught lying about what happened; bystander video released on the internet contradicted the initial official report; and anyone who watched that video and read the initial police statements could have predicted the massive protests that followed and the WP:LASTING effects of that event. In these kinds of cases, if there are protests, and if they're large and sustained, that basically demonstrates WP:LASTING.
    For this particular article, given the persistent international coverage, I would doubt it would be deleted at AFD. It might not meet WP:LASTING, but I think it's too soon to tell. Levivich[block] 16:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    George Floyd is the reference for all these discussions and sure, given the widespread rioting and canonization it makes sense for the subject to have a WP:SPINOUT article to cover details like his previous imprisonment for robbing a woman at gunpoint but consider the Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant who was shot while attempting to stab another woman to death there is absolutely no notability there. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps there is a more appropriate place on Wikipedia where this conversation could be continued, if so desired? I'm not sure this is the right place to be talking about notability of other articles and "spinout" stories about George Floyd, eh? Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

    WikiWikiWayne's repeated edits to the lede

    @WikiWikiWayne: has repeatedly made disruptive changes to the lede, including language that does not appear in any of the cited sources.

    I have already asked this editor on their talk page, and in comments on the edit history to please stop using phrases like "hot pursuit" and "high-risk traffic stop" which do not appear anywhere in reliable sources. Why is this stuff being constantly added back into the lede? It is absolutely not appropriate here, and this is a WP:BLP as I explained on your talk page, so extra care and caution is necessary. Please discuss further here before continuing to revert without consensus. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

    WikiWikiWayne, can you please show which sources use that specific language and that it's WP:DUE to use those terms? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

    ANI notice - August 2022

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jayland_Walker/Archive_1&oldid=1149975503"