Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

In the last paragraph of the introduction, change "wordlwide" to "nation-wide." 73.232.16.170 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: George_Floyd_protests#International the protests were not limited to the U.S. RudolfRed (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong label on closed discussion

I am all in favor of the decision to close the above discussion, but it should have a different label. Not only did I not do anything disruptive (what I stated was very constructive), but I fully understand all points made to me. I even responded them. And there is no consensus on the topic I mentioned if you consult the entire country - nor consensus among editors. Nor do any reliable sources have a consensus on the matter. All reliable sources (left wing and right wing and otherwise) admit that there was more than one autopsy. Instead, the topic should be closed for a different reason. I'm not sure what this should fall under, but something along the lines of the discussion not getting anywhere.

Thanks, Logosrecieved

I disagree, all of your points were addressed and you refused to listen. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not true. What was state was that the courts made their decision. I responded to that by pointing out that the court's opinion a) does not determine reality and b) was determined with a jury made up of jurors whose names were released before the decsion -- and who were subsequently threatened. I never recieved a response back to any of that. Logosrecieved (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"stated" I meant to say "What was stated was..." Logosrecieved (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

So, not only did I listen, but I proved that I listend by responding to what was said to me. There was no response to my response. Logosrecieved (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I was accused of making an "apples to oranges" comparison on an issue where I was not comparing things at all. No comparison happened. Logosrecieved (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I brought up an instance of a situation where what the courts ruled might not have been actually true -- and I did that merely to point out that courts aren't always right -- so in an encyclopedia, there must be an effort toward neutrality on a hotly contested issue. However, I was then accused of claiming that the situation I brought up was the same as the George Floyd situation -- when I never said that. Never ever ever. The record is right above. So, no, my points were not responded to. They were dismissed. And I proved I was listening by responding to the arrogant and rude dismissals of my points. That's the reality. That's the truth. Anybody can literally scroll up and see that. It's right there! Logosrecieved (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, but it determines what something legally is. Nore do you get to say that is not the case, leaave to the law what is the laws business. Ohh and you compared rape cases to this, did you not "Just because the courts ruled it a murder does not make it a murder -- courts do not determine reality. In the Deep South, white women used to accuse black men of rape, at times when they did no such thing", that is a comparison. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the courts do not determine "what something legally is," rather, they determine how an action is to be treated and considered under existing law. The determination about "what something legally is" is made ahead of time in the parameters of the law itself.

And your quote proves that I did *not* compare rape cases to this. If you read the quote that you literally just quoted, it says that "Just because the courts ruled it a murder does not make it a murder -- courts do not determine reality." As a "proof," of that point, I brought up an example of how the courts do not determine reality. That is literally not a comparison. No comparison there, whatsoever. If you look up the dictionary definition of a compariosn, you will discover that a comparison shows how two things are similar or alike. That is not what I said. The example of rape cases in the deep south was an example of how the courts do not determine reality. It was not an example of "what happened in the George Floyd case." After all, it could be claimed that the George Floyd case was ruled correctly. I'm open to that. So, there's no comparison.

Please stop arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me. This is not constructive. Logosrecieved (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Could somebody please close this discussion? I know that I'm the one who started this discussion. But I did not start it to be blindly attacked. I'm tired. I merely posted it so that the user who wrongly labeled the earlier discussion could re-visit the label -- or that somebody else could re-visit that label. I did not post this to be accused of saying things that I did not actually say. Please close this due to aggressive behavior of other users who refuse to listen. Thanks. Logosrecieved (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

|}

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The title of the article needs to be changed to "The Death of George Floyd." Here are the reasons: 1) As the article itself states in the second paragraph, Floyd was already having troubles breathing before Chauvin kneeled on him. 2) There were conflicting autopsy reports, and the original autopsy claimed the Chauvin's kneeling did not impact Floyd's death -- this was then retracted by the doctor -- but one dispute in such a critical matter is important. 3) Chauvin demonstrated no intent to kill Floyd - he was restraining Floyd (rightly or wrong -- properly or improperly) until the paramedics came. Murder requires intent. Just because the courts ruled it a murder does not make it a murder -- courts do not determine reality. In the Deep South, white women used to accuse black men of rape, at times when they did no such thing. The courts would agree with the women. That didn't make it true.

Given how controversial it is to state that Chauvin actually murdered George Floyd -- and given how controversial it is to claim that Chauvin even killed Floyd, since the first autopsy stated otherwise -- the neutral-point-of-view title should be "The Death of George Floyd." Personal feelings on this matter cannot override an encyclopedia's neutrality. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logosrecieved (talk • contribs) 17:26, May 25, 2024 (UTC)

The murderer was convicted and lost all appeals. Period.O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What you just typed has nothing to do with what I wrote. Seriously. You just brought up an entirely different topic for no reason. I even addressed how that was a separate topic. Please stay on topic, thank you. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you are the one who denied my request, I then request that you send this to a superior, since you failed to engage with what I brought up -- and instead brought up something unrelated that was off-topic. Thanks. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You're the one bringing up white women accusing black men of rape in the Deep South, which is "an entirely different topic" from this page. Chauvin was convicted of murder and lost all appeals. The only neutral way to refer to Floyd's death is as a murder, as per the courts. Failing to do so omits vital information. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

False. What I brought up was merely a proof that the courts do not determine reality. And I'm glad I did given the reply from User O3000 and yours. The idea that he was convicted by the courts has literally nothing to do with whether or not it was murder. I demand that this be taken to a higher-up person at Wikipedia for furhter consideration. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that my bringing up of that Deep South issue was meant to show that "What the courts say" isn't the ultimate truth? If you do, then I'm sure you can understand how your decision to then bring up what the courts say not only proves the relevance of what I wrote -- but you'll also understand that it is an entirely different topic from the issue of "neutrality" of the title. Stating that the Death of George Floyd was a murder is not a neutral view. Period. I demand that someone higher up than you look at this. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be a place to advocate for a partisan agenda in either direction. Period. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

And no -- you can state right in the opening paragraph that the courts ruled Floyd's death a murder -- and in that way, you will not be ommitting vital information. So, everything you are saying is false. I need to speak to someone higher up than you. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realized what you were going for with that apples-and-oranges comparison. And yet, the courts are the only authority on what is or is not a murder, not your personal feelings. And no, there are no "higher ups" for you to talk to. I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia and we'll all tell you the same thing. Have a nice day. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, my personal feelings are that Chauvin may have very well murdered Floyd. After all, he could have lifted his knee earlier, right? Maybe he intentionally killed him. That's not the issue here. The issue is that the courts never -- ever -- determined reality. And I know that you are an admiistrator. I already looked at your page. But your inability to comprehend my points in the slightest is why I need to speak to a more intelligent administrator than yourself. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean the fact that you think the courts determine reality is utterly terrifying. And the fact that you view disputes about reality as "final" once courts weigh in is equally terrifying. You clearly have an agenda. I need to speak to somebody more objective and more intelligent. Period. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, Karen, you do not get to speak to the manager just because you don't get what you want. Chauvin is guilty of murder, reliable sources describe him that way, and that's all there is to it. Be mindful not to make any more personal attacks or you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You just made a personal attack on me. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah good point, I did. Unlike you, I'll strike it before I move on with my day. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You just attacked me again. I don't even know how to strike things. To assume that I do and adopt a condescending attitude toward me -- again -- for the umpteenth time -- makes your retraction of your personal attack seem disingenuous. If you tell me how to strike what I wrote, then I will. In addition, I do apologize for implying that you are not intelligent. Could you do me the courtesy of apologizing for your horrendous attitude -- where you ignored my points repeatedly? If you will, then we can consider this water under the bridge. Though I would still very much like to speak to another administrator, someday (so if anybody else sees this and can respond to what I wrote point-by-point, then that would be appreciated). Logosrecieved (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

And I now discovered the "s" command with "<>" around the "s" (I phrased it that way to not accidentally strike-through anything in this post). I believed I have now struck-through all the parts of my text that could be personally offensive to you. I really think, however, that even if you disagree with someone, you ought to go through each of their points as if you had no prior bias -- to test them perfectly. In addition, before you edited my edits on the actual page, you should note that I had already undone an edit -- I had changed the title-box to be "The Death of George Floyd," because I was trying to change the title. When I realize that that couldn't be done, I undid that edit and reverted it back to "Murder of George Floyd," to be in line with the article. You see, I'm trying to do things properly, here. I care about truth, accuracy, and consistancy. If your page is correct, you care about those same things. I urge you to go through what I wrote and respond to my claim -- or cite me the relevant part of Wikipedia's policies -- rather than just telling me I'm wrong. And typing what I just typed reminded me that I need to strike-through one more thing below -- the part where I claim you haven't demonstrated a care for truth here. It's dawning on me that you obviously do care about truth, otherwise, you probably wouldn't have engaged me so much in debate. So, I will strike that through, as well. I am merely asking you to care a little more about pure objectivity for the sake of an encyclopedia. That is all. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You state on your page that you care about spreading truth. But you have not demonstrated that care here. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If you notice, I stated that Chuavin "demonstrated no intent to kill Floyd." I did not say that he didn't actually intend to kill him. Maybe he did, and maybe his knee was the cause. Therefore, he may be a murderer. But you know that the jury list was leaked to the public before the ruling in the court -- not an objective process. So, Wikipedia *has* to be more careful on issues like this. You seem unable to understand subtelty. I need to speak to someone who does. Logosrecieved (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't understand our policies. Chauvin is guilty of murder, and so that's how we say it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Then explain your policies instead of condescending to me. Is it wikipedia policy to entitle articles of disputed cases in line with the official court ruling, no matter what? If so, then you could have said that and saved us both much time. And you could point out to me precisely where it states that policy in Wikipedia's rules. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

My wording was confusing. I meant: Is it wikipedia policy to always title articles in line with official court rulings -- even when the proceedings were controversial (such as a situation leaked jury names and threatened jurors)? And if so, could you point me to that policy? Logosrecieved (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

edit: "(such as a situation with leaked juror names..." I left off the word "with" and should have used the word "jurors" both times. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder is a legal term. Murders are adjudicated by trials. It is a murder because the courts say it is. Our opinions are irrelevant. Everyone's opinions are irrelevant, until and unless an appeals court rules otherwise. Rather unlikely since appeals have been exhausted. Can someone fold this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder is not only a legal term. It is a metaphysical term. A term descriptive of reality. Murders are committed that don't get declared murders in the courts. Please stop arguing with me for no reason. Please. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Logosrecieved (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More unnecessary disruption. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fentanyl George died of a fentanyl overdose 2600:1014:B054:D65E:5852:9ACF:9DF0:5F7 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Not according to the court. Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) No, he died from being murdered. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) There has been new reports shown, he had prior heart difficulties and died from a cardiopulmonary arrest, not from suffocation. I believe it should therefore, be renamed as to not define it as murder but instead manslaughter or similar. Dingus1233 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) We do not overrule courts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, but I do believe that our language could be a little less offensive, dont you think? Dingus1233 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Cardiopulmonary arrest means the heart stops beating and the lungs stop moving. That happens when you die. He was murdered. So we say he was murdered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, but that happens in a similar way to cardiac arrest, not from choking or the inability to breathe. Dingus1233 (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Which is why the death certificate lists "complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression", or (as RS put it "choking or the inability to breathe"). Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Couldn't the drugs in his body also have had a noticeable effect? Dingus1233 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) We don't speculate here. There was a trial and several appeals. It was determined a murder. It's over. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Alright, but shouldnt it be mentioned atleast? Dingus1233 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) It is mentioned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Please cite the reports. —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Please see Talk:Murder of George Floyd/FAQ#Q4. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Do we need to add this to the FAQ? Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) It appears so. Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia entry: Murder of George Floyd Incontrovertible proof from the coroner proved Mr. FLoyd died of a drug overdose and not homicide. Mr Chauvin is in prison on charges brought by a tainted prosecutor who refused autopsy finding. 165.225.59.88 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Not according to the courts. By the way, a Jury found Chauvin guilty, not the prosecutor. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC) You're talking to the wrong people, you should be bringing your concerns to major media. Remember, Wikipedians aren't journalists, we're honestly a little closer to stenographers. We just pass on shorthand summaries of what the "Reliable Sources" are saying. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Chauvin has also lost all his appeals. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Murder vs Killing? This article talks extensively about the death of Floyd as "murder", yet the associated article about Justine Damond uses the term "killing". Justine's murderer was convicted of 3rd Degree murder, and Floyd's murder was also convicted of 3rd degree (as well as 2nd and manslaughter). Why is Justine's death called a "killing" and not "murder"? Is it because she is white? I'll post this on Justine's page, too. There needs to be unbiased uniformity at Wikipedia. Grimlocale (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC) As Q4 of the FAQ states, this article calls it a murder because that's what it was, as determined by a court of law. As for Justine Damond: On September 15, 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Noor's third-degree murder conviction on the basis that the state failed to prove that he committed murder with a "depraved mind" which is a "generalized indifference to human life" as required for the offense of third-degree murder. As the conduct in this case did not meet that standard, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to vacate the conviction of third-degree murder and sentence Noor for the lesser offense of second-degree manslaughter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC) We don't do "uniformity" just because. We document what independent reliable sources state. You are free to disagree with the conclusion of the jury, but that doesn't change how it is reported here. There is no such thing as "unbiased", as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can see and evaluate them for themselves when determining what they think. Wikipedia does claim to have a neutral point of view, which is different. It is a neutral point of view to call this case a murder because that's what a jury determined. If you think the jury got it wrong, go help Derek Chauvin and the others with his appeals (which I think have been exhausted). 331dot (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC) @Grimlocale, Damond's killer is convicted of manslaughter. The previous 3rd-degree murder convictions was overturned. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC) And we therefore have "unbiased uniformity". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC) We do have info surrounding this at WP:DEATHS, but it's not exactly unbiased uniformity across all articles. Consensus at a particular article trumps, and of course bias can creep into those discussions. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Maybe, which is why we go by the courts verdicts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Well, even then it's not always uniform. Killing of Walter Scott was created at Shooting of Walter Scott, even though the victim was dead. That was fairly common pre-Floyd subconscious bias when a cop shoots someone to death, especially if the cop is white and the victim black and doing anything except putting out their hands to be cuffed. It was only moved to Killing of in 2021 after two attempts to move it to Murder of, even though the perpetrator pled guilty to second-degree murder. So it's still at Killing of, where I'm not actually sure it should be. But at least it's not still at Shooting of. Valereee (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC) As far as I can tell there was not conviction for murder in that case, the charges were dropped. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC) There was a plea to second degree murder, but yeah, it's arguable either way. If it had been a plea to 1st degree, we'd be on firmer ground for Murder of. If it had been a plea to manslaughter, we would be on firmer ground for Killing of. We refer to it as a murder in the lead, but we don't have it at Murder of. It's a pretty fair example of why consensus at the talk can always overrule the need for strict consistency. Valereee (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)