Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Shooting incident section -- shall it be complete or riddled with omissions?

So my focus now is the Shooting Incident section, which for many weeks now has been quite devoid of crucial information. I have been making incremental additions to it, some of which are brought down from the lede, and was surprised when Mandruss reverted a statement that I added to the section on the ground that a similar statement figures in the Dorian Johnson account section. I would think that we would want a full accounting of what is believed to have occurred in the Shooting Incident section -- more complete than what is in the lede, which, if I understand correctly, should be a summary of more detailed information found in the body of the article. Are we really only to include information in the Shooting Incident section if said information does not figure in someone's account? Yes, I know the question sounds absurd. If the answer isn't yes, then would someone please kindly override the revert and put back my reference to Wilson's first failed attempt to exit the vehicle? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My take is that the bouncing door is too much detail for that section (and, yes, it is only one person's story). My takes have been known to be overridden by consensus. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
But that isn't the explanation you gave when you actually did the revert, Mandruss. You said that it was already in the Dorian Johnson section. Where is this mandate in Wikipedia that forces us to leave out key details of the 120-second encounter which ended the life of an unarmed man, yet obligates us all through the rest of the article to go on and on and on about things that are wholly tangential to the actual killing itself? I mean, isn't the title of the article, "The Shooting of Michael Brown?" Because as of yesterday, in the Shooting Incident section, there was one paltry paragraph. Pardon my boldness, but I believe that that needs to be addressed. If I am once again the odd man out on this kind of question, I will again be saddened by the ostracism that my apparently peculiar conscience will have backed me into yet again. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Michael-Ridgeway, have you considered the possibility that what sets you apart from other editors is not that you have a conscience and they don't, but that you're in fact colossally bad at editing WP and understanding its policies? I ask you this in part because if you said to my face that I lacked a conscience, my response would be nonverbal. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Centrify, I think that it would be awesome to actually meet you face to face, as long as I were wearing a body cam. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Items that were missing from the Shootiong Incident section roughly 48 hours ago, (not intended to be exhaustive):

  • Josie's "come on guys, can you walk on the sidewalk please" claim.
  • Dorian's "Get the f___ on the sidewalk" claim.
  • Possibility of words being exchanged.
  • Claim that Wilson started to go on down the road.
  • Claim that Wilson aggressively reversed course and came back to the two men.
  • Reports from Piaget and Tiffany that their attention was drawn to the encounter by the "squeaking" of the police car wheels when Wilson doubled back.
  • Police claim that Wilson's first attempt at exiting the vehicle was successful.
  • Johnson's claim that Wilson's first attempt at exiting the vehicle was unsuccessful.
  • Police claim that after successfully exiting the vehicle, Brown slammed Wilson back into the vehicle, assaulted him bruising his face, and went for his gun.

And yes, I'm just getting started. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the editsum. I remember thinking, it should have said, "too much detail for this section, and it's in johnson's account subsection". I wished there were a way to edit editsums. I considered doing a dummy edit to provide a better editsum. I could have started a talk section to clarify my faulty editsum. But I didn't do any of that, and I humbly apologize, noting that I just two days ago complained about an inadequate editsum.
You're good, Mandruss. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Michael-Ridgway: I am not in the mood to ignore your snark this time. I'll ask for an unequivocal apology for the implication that my apology was not sincere, or we're both going to learn what ANI is all about. I've had enough. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please, Mandruss. No snark. I'm from St. Louis, right? You're good, as in we're good, as in no problem as in apology accepted. Are we good now? (Goodness! :-) )
I don't claim any policy basis for my take. If I did, I would have cited it. This is a fuzzy gray area, and that's why I'm waiting for other opinions. I have sent you a pie and a beer, enjoy and let me know if you need more beer. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


I don't think everything does not belong in the shooting section. I think maybe three classes of stuff belong there, and the rest does belong in the witness accounts.

  1. Stuff universally agreed to (the basic facts)
  2. Johnson/Wilson (proxy) statements as those directly involved.
  3. Stuff discussed by multiple witnesses (at least 2, preferably 3 or 4) - stuff that is only mentioned by 1 person should not be here, and some stuff by 2 depending on how critical that bit of info is. (IE, if that information turned out to be false, does it significantly change the incident? If the answer is no, its trivia that can be moved into that witnesses account)
  4. #2 and #3 should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and not be stated in wiki-voice

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Very pleased I am to see two members of the not a team seeing things as I do and apparently giving me a green light to make a go of fleshing out the Shooting Incident section. And I congratulate all of you who have made the other sections as solid as they are.
A sandbox for the shooting incident might be in order. But the last time we did a sandbox, nobody visited but me. So ... Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Whoa there pard, slow down. This discussion has been open for 8 hours, for most of which everyone but you and I were sleeping. It's now Monday morning, and a lot of people are busy paying the bills. As much respect as I have for Gaijin42, he's only one person (who is the other?). That doesn't constitute a green light in my book, unless it's still all we have about 48 hours from now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
And I'd characterize my opinion as more of a yellow light. Proceed with caution. It would be easy to end up duplicating the witness sections into the overview and make it very complicated and unreadable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's my proposal for today:

1) We mention the drive-forward-drive-back detail

2) We mention that a possible reason for the drive back was possible notification from dispatch or another officer to Wilson that things had been stolen from Quik Trip along with a description matching Brown.

3) We acknowledge the wide divergence in the police version of what happened at the car from the Dorian and witnesses version of what happened at the car. (See, I'm not treating Dorian as a disinterested witness.)

4) We point out that multiple witnesses claim, and even a police spokesperson speaking to CNN admitted, that Wilson fired shots at Brown as he fled.

Thoughts? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

1) Are we sure about #1? I know its been talked about, but I don't remember how strongly that is attested. What is the source for actually driving away and then coming back, vs the car staying where it was for the initial stop (or vs just not knowing for sure really). (This is a 100% honest question, I don't remember the details of where this came from clearly enough)

See new subsection below where I attempt to answer this question as best I can for a, well, horribly bad editor and all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

2) Obviously depends on #1, in terms of "drive back", but either way certainly the encounter possibly changing from jaywalking to robbery suspect should be mentioned here 3) Definitely ok with saying there are discrepancies. unsure how much detail should go into what those discrepancies actually are. 3.1) With the exception of the main "running away" and "hands up" ones which are obviously crucial. 4) Per above I think this can be included, but needs to adhere to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there RS support for 2? If not, that's pretty clear synth/editorializing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The police chief has said the report and description went out, and that Wilson "may have" turned around as a result. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like he said Wilson "may have" seen the cigars and made the connection with the robbery? Should we be including all this "may have" suggestion? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims that Wilson drove forward then backed up

From the fake 1st person account that Breitbart.com broke.

I pulled further up and over. I was watching them and at that point I got the call in that there was a strong arm robbery. The description they gave was the same as the two and they had something in their hand that looked like it could be the cigars. I backed my car up and tried to get out of my car, but they slammed my door shut to prevent me from getting out.

From Josie in her radio call

“He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did.

Dorian Johnson through attorney as quoted in the Washington Post:

He told them, “Get on the f------ sidewalk,” Bosley said Johnson has told him. Johnson protested to Wilson that they were almost home.

The officer put his cruiser in reverse, Bosley said, and pulled up so close that when he opened the door, it bumped Johnson and Brown. “Through the window of his cruiser, he grabs Big Mike by the throat,” Bosley said. “Big Mike tries to move away. The officer grabs his shirt.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-three-minutes--and-two-lives-forever-changed/2014/08/16/f28f5bc0-2588-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Thomas Jackson being interviewed by CNN's Don Lemon:

LEMON: ... you said the officer who shot Brown, right, Officer Darren Wilson had no idea that Brown was the person who allegedly robbed this store?

JACKSON: You know, on their initial contact, their initial contact was simply he was coming from a sick case, saw two young men walking down the street in the road blocking, you know, traffic and he pulled up and asked them to get onto the sidewalk.

And then as he passed them, you know, I guess that's when he might have seen the evidence and connected it, but his initial contact was strictly pedestrian.

LEMON: What do you mean seen the evidence?

JACKSON: There was a broadcast that went out about a stealing, and there were cigars stolen, couple boxes of cigars.

LEMON: OK, but when he initially confronted him or encountered him, it was just to get out of the road?

JACKSON: Right.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/15/acd.01.html

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is probably sufficient to include #1 above. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wilson proxy accounts: Josie/Jill Meadows

It turns out that the original debunking of the Josie call has itself been debunked.

The call to the Dana Show by Josie was on 8/15. The fake Facebook posting was on 8/17:

"Update (Thanks to BeachDem) 8/15 Jill Meadows posts a story on Josie((sic?)) Meadows’ facebook page at 7:29 am

8/15 Josie goes on Dana’s show to spew

8/17 the fake Darren Wilson post goes up

So Josie was just recounting a different Facebook post than I originally thought."

[1]

I'm not sure yet what to make of the allegedly adequate substitute debunking.

Andyvphil (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. No, Josie's account has not been debunked, but an alternate proxy has turned up. (Or "Josie" may be "Jill Meadows") The claim that this alternative Facebook posting debunk's Josie's account is false. The "Darren Wilson" posting (8/17) was a confirmed fake, so if Josie's had been based on it then her account was fake as well. But the "Jill Meadows" account is nowhere alleged to be fake, so just because it appeared earlier in the day (7:29 am 8/15) than the "Josie" call (somewhere 12-3pm 8/15) it in no way debunks "Josie", on present evidence. Andyvphil (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. In any case, this is third-hand account without a clear provenance, so we will have to wait until we have a direct testimony from Wilson. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't. The accuracy of Josie's retelling of Wilson's account is attested to by police sources "extremely familiar with the investigation" as reported by CNN, and it is also relied upon by CNN in its comparison of the competing narratives. Which is accordingly a much better account of what happened than appears in Wikipedia's article, which has for over a month failed to elucidate the two-part sequence of events in the encounter. That the "editors" of Wikipedia are just now evaluating "Claims that Wilson drove forward then backed up" makes them justifiably a laughingstock, as that has been obvious from the beginning. Andyvphil (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, you're trying to exclude this account from the WP article solely because you're interested in maintaining an encyclopedic tone -- RIGHT, BRO? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Claims that Wilson fired on fleeing Brown

As to (4), you misquote the CNN reporter. He (she?) did not say one police source admitted that Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown, he (she?) claimed that multiple police sources said so. He (she?) showed no awareness that this was a scoop, and no one else seems to have noticed that no other reporter got this admission or that Wilson's having done so would constitute a violation of Brown's civil rights per the relevant SCOTUS ruling, and that the admission was therefor important. We've discussed this before, and my conclusion was that this sentence was probably a brainfart no better than a CNN reporter's statement that multiple witnesses say Brown assaulted Wilson, assuming (and it is not impossible) that there are in fact no such witnesses. Andyvphil (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody point me to this CNN source. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
If you look in the "round 3" section below, I think I have the article in question linked, but there are many articles, so who knows. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not finding that in #When is a witness not a witness (Episode 3). Two article links, both CNN, but neither appears to contain the reporting we're talking about here. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You are correct. I cannot find a CNN article with anything like this, but there is a brief mention in the NYT [2] "Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer." and "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials." It may be that the other editors just mixed up the source from NYT to CNN. I think I remember seeing a video of this statement, either from Belmar or Jackson, but that could be a false memory, since google is not bringing up any hits and I would think it would have gotten more widely discussed and disseminated. (Vs this article I just linked, which is discussed in Kos, LGF and other lefty blogs quite a bit). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so if we only use the above statement, that LE said he fired but didn't hit, then Andy shouldn't have any objection unless that's a clear civil rights violation. Am I correct, Andy? That could describe firing straight up. Also, if the above is all the reporting there is on this, I'm curious where Mr. Ridgway got the language for his #4, specifically the words "at Brown". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

beginning of section subject to attempted censorship

Somebody inserted "collapsetop|WP:OR and WP:FORUM here, a type of attempted censorship of which I am getting extremely tired. For the umpteenth time, OR is NOT FORBIDDEN ON A TALK PAGE and WP:FORUM has NOTHING to do staying on what someone imagines to be the proper topic. The next step is to investigate who is doing this, put a warning on their talk page, and request that they be BANNED for egregious and repeated disruptive behavior in violation of [WP:TPG]. STOP! Andyvphil (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Ok, the "vandal", in this case at least, is Gaijin42[3]. And it's his own stuff. My advice: Strike it if you wish, don't collapse it. Or at least supply better reasons. And, Mandruss, try to accomplish what you want without using the revert button. Andyvphil (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the collapse was to (1) provide some additional information which might be of interest to only a few, (2) make that information easily viewable and readable (which striking does not do), and (3) save space. A contributor here should be allowed to collapse his own comments without interference. As for my revert, what I wished to accomplish was saving you egg on face, but you were determined to put it there. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't ever delete anything I've written to "save me" from anything. Got that?
Whether Gaijin42 should collapse his own comments goes unaddressed at WP:TPG. It is clear that are not free to do with your past comments what you will. Your speculation as to why he did so is unfounded. He stated his reasons: "WP:OR and WP:FORUM", neither of which make any sense, but they have nothing to do with what you suggested. This is not the first time I have uncollapsed comments on this page. Whether they were self-collapsed not I do not know, but that was not my impression. Anyway, I have followed up on his comments below and I do not want my comments or the comments to which they are a reply, collapsed. Andyvphil (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I had already given up on trying to fix the collapse. Your explanations are extremely thin, but I'm not going to EW with you over someone else's collapse. If you ever uncollapse my self-collapsed comments without far better reasons than you've given above, that's a different matter. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that gets us deep into WP:OR and WP:FORUM but either shooting to hit and having bad aim, or shooting upward are probably not significantly better for Wilson than if he had hit.

  • Bad aim
    • Ruled under Missouri law 563.046 and SCOTUS Fleeing felon rule standards
      • If Justified, no further logic needed
      • If not justified under those two laws/standards = attempted murder
        • vs the shots that actually hit/killed, which could be murder, or could be justified depending on what was going on during those moments) (The missed shots could be attempted murder while simultaneously the kill shots are justified if Brown's actions changed significantly, or the reverse scenario too)
          • For a similar issue see the original Shooting of Jordan Davis convictions where the attempted murders came back guilty, but the murder came back deadlocked (guilty on the second try)
  • Shooting upwards

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"collapsebottom" - end of censorship vandalism. Andyvphil (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

end of section subject to attempted censorship

OK, sorry to be so slow to respond here.

Michael-Ridgway wrote, "4) We point out that multiple witnesses claim, and even a police spokesperson speaking to CNN admitted, that Wilson fired shots at Brown as he fled." I thought he was correct, except for the use of the singular and oddly-pc "spokesperson" for multiple police sources who we have no reason to think were designated spokesmen. The statement was in the article, and cited, for a long time. If it's not there now, good riddance. But yes, it might have been the NYT's "The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials." My repeated used of "he/she" indicated and meant to indicate that I was unsure of some details.

I certainly assume that when Wilson fired his weapon it was at Brown. The discussion above, that someone attempted to obscure, of 563.046 and SCOTUS(Garner) is on point. Also see [4] and the question (by "Gandydancer", not to be confused with Wikipedia editor "Gandydancer") that I've just added to that blog post. Andyvphil (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the drama. I should have indicated that I collapsed the section myself. I think it is WP:OR as its my own analysis, although I think there is similar WP:RS analysis around somewhere. My point of adding it was as background to other editors but I collapsed it to indicate I was not suggesting that we should be including it in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You were not the cause of said drama, so no need to apologize as far as I'm concerned. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin/Brown Fed Civil Rights Charges

Story is about Zimmerman probably not getting civil rights charges, but story directly brings up brown case too and possibility (or lack thereof) of civil rights charges

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/george-zimmerman-not-expected-to-face-civil-rights-charges-in-trayvon-martin-death/2014/10/01/4cd2ebd2-498e-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous that the Fed case against Zimmerman is still open, still more that DOJ Civil Rights Div just got a warrant to search GZ's computer even though they admit they don't expect to find anything. Isn't a search warrant supposed to require probable cause? Of course, you're also not supposed to bring someone to trial if you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Law in this country is going to hell.
That said... they need actual malice to Fed indict Wilson? What more do they need than that he shot at a fleeing Brown, who wasn't armed? Andyvphil (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally, if stuff like murder happens in one state or not as a serial situattion, the feds do not touch it. So its state charges or nothing for the simple stuff. The fed charge that would be most likely is a civil rights violation, which has a lot more to it than just "unarmed and dead". To prove a hate crime or civil rights violation is going to be pretty tough. Certainly there is a lot to point at that Wilson may have done wrong, but where is the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this was done as an intentional hate crime or with the specific intent of depriving him of his civil rights. If they had gotten together a posse and hunted him down, or Wilson had a bunch of facebook posts saying it was his goal to kill some black folks, that would be a different matter, but this is going to be almost impossible to prove at the fed level. (On the other hand, if there is a pattern at the city level for the fines, and patterns of arrests/shootings thats a different matter, but probably wouldn't be directly targeted at Wilson either. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "simple vs. not simple". Virtually all murders are subject to exclusive state jurisdiction. A multi-state serial killer is guilty of multiple state crimes. The FBI is legally allowed to help investigate a serial killer iff state law enforcement agencies request it. You are right that the chances of a civil rights charge being applicable are scant. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The WaPo article says, in effect, that a Fed hate crime prosecution would require a racial motivation. But if Brown had been white shooting at him when fleeing would still have been an intentional attempt to deprive him of his civil rights, per Garner. Are you saying there is no Federal statute that allows the DOJ to prosecute him for this, despite the Constitutional violation? Andyvphil (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure there are definitely federal murder statutes (US 18-1111 [5]) but under the "Petite policy" they tend to defer to the local authority (in this case the grand jury hypothetically refusing to indict). There are exceptions to the policy, some which people may argue apply here (incompetence, corruption, nullification) but its still unlikely to go federal. Timothy McVeigh and Jared Lee Loughner were convicted under the federal murder charges, but both of those involved attacks against the federal government. As a good counter example Lee Boyd Malvo had his federal charges dropped in favor of state charges. For a more similar cases (cops as hypothetical criminal) maybe Oscar Grant Amadou Diallo which were local prosecutions only. Rodney King being the easy to point to counter example where they went for the civil rights charges after the locals acquitted. As I said above I think for Wilson whatever happens at the local level is going to be the end of it. But It would not surprise me to see something done (and gain traction) at department/city/state level based on the allegations of a sustained pattern (possibly civil suit only though). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Police Account: Irrelevant ACLU Opinion Was Deleted

The ACLU lady's opinion is irrelevant. She is a witness of nothing. Thus I deleted it. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC))

We have comments from many people who are not witnesses. The ACLU is certainly a notable voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The subject is the Police Account; not speculations as to what was the motive for turning in a nearly blank incident report. There is no reliable source saying that it was "lack of transparency." It should be obvious that Wilson's attorney would tell him not to say anything -- standard procedure for potential defendants in criminal cases. The insertion of some sinister "lack of transparency," is just an NPOV opinion. That opinion does not belong in the article there. Perhaps one wishes to make a section on "Opinions." (EnochBethany (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC))
NPOV is a rule for us, not a rule for the world. We are required to report the views and sources neutrally, even when those sources are themselves not neutral. Yes, there are perhaps justifications for what the police did and it is certainly wise for Wilson to clam up. Find a reliable source discussing that, and add it in. But that does not detract from the ACLU being a major voice and having a notable opinion. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. " Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Inserting a judgmental opinion serves as a sock puppet to insert one's own judgment. This section is not on opinions. The statement should not be there. It violates NPOV on the subject, which is not a paragraph on opinions. The ACLU is a partisan in a cultural war. I am not going to create a section on opinions, nor document them. I am interested in facts in this situation, not unfounded prejudicial speculations. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC))
You have had 2 editors revert you (And Cwobeel and I generally come at this topic from different directions, so this is not a bias issue. If you think this needs to happen build consensus, and don't edit war about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. (Sorry this took forever, but we have few editors/admins closing and a large backlog.) Three options to represent statements about Brown's background in the article were discussed in this RfC. "No criminal record" came from phrasing from USA Today and the police. That said, some argued that "no criminal record" is uninformative for someone who recently became an adult, even if many sources have said as much. It also suggests Brown was never charged with any crime ever, which was a claim that could not be properly evaluated at the time. (An AP article later revealed that Brown never faced any juvenile charges during the course of this RfC, but for better or for worse, was not the subject of much discussion). Similar problems exist for the more specific "no adult criminal record." While accurate and used in recent and reliable sources, it also uninformative for the same reasons, and some editors are concerned that readers may conclude that Brown did/was likely to have a juvenile record. Our goal is to avoiding phrasing that would result in these conclusions and consider options that support biographical considerations for the recently deceased. Omitting a statement on Brown's criminal record was argued to be the best way to avoid these problems; there were also few strong arguments stating why it was important to maintain a statement on Brown's criminal record in the context of the article.
Consensus was therefore in favor of omitting statements describing Brown's criminal record. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: There was an attempt to compromise and create acceptable phrasing toward the end of this RfC, but as it is inconsistent with the outcome here, I will be removing it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Should this article say that Michael Brown had "no adult criminal record" or should it say "no criminal record" or should it be "left out" entirely? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • NOTE: The article currently states: Brown had no criminal record as an adult, and had no pending charges, or serious felony convictions as a juvenile.

1 - No adult criminal record

2 - No criminal record

3 - Left out entirely

RFC Survey — no (adult) criminal record

  • No criminal record, per preponderance of sources. Just do some basic research on the sources available. ( 126,000 for "no criminal record" vs 1,250 for "adult criminal record") - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No criminal record, which is consistent with both sources. If it emerges that Brown has a juvenile record, we can qualify the statement. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out Entirely. (1) There seems to be only one credible source, USA Today, which mentioned "no criminal record" as a quote from the Police Department three weeks ago, but the Police and Prosecutors have now backed away from the definitive statement; however, other blogs and editorials continue to quote USA Today. Other sources quote the Brown Family statement about "no criminal record". (2) Since MB had only been an adult for 3 months and it takes longer than that to get a criminal conviction, and the criterion being used to define the term "criminal record", seems to be a conviction for a crime committed as an adult, this is a moot point. Thus there is no reason to include a meaningless piece of data which has no bearing on the Shooting of Michael Brown. If he had a record of minor criminal convictions, I don't see this as pertinent to the Lede either. Nor do I see the point in discussing Wilson's record of no disciplinary actions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Left out entirely. Not the correct solution, but the best of the three choices given here. More in discussion. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No criminal record, use the sources. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No criminal record as per the reliable sources. As per Dyrnych, if there is a juvenile record, we can discuss it when that becomes a public matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out utterly Few people have adult criminal records in the span of three months, thus it is a "d'oh" comment at best. Collect (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave it our entirely - There's no reason to state what should be the default assumption of anyone reading the article. There's no content to support the notion that the officer stopped Brown, or shot Brown, because of a prior criminal record. In the future, if sources reveal that Brown had a juvenile criminal record, then that may be worth mentioning.- MrX 23:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Left out entirely or No adult criminal record — There isn't sufficient support in the reliable sources for "no criminal record". See threaded discussion below. If the question of whether Brown has a juvenile criminal record is answered through the pending court case, we can then make appropriate modifications, either including a juvenile criminal record or stating that Brown has no criminal record. [Update: judge ruled Sep 9 against release of such information.] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • leave out entirely or no adult criminal record or no adult criminal record and no serious juvenile convictions Its very obvious the original statement was loose and that they were not commenting on the presence or absence of a juvenile record. I agree with the concerns about implications, but WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV win out. if its a WP:BDP issue, then it can be left out all together, but making a statement that we know is not accurate to what the sources say is just plain wrong.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • no adult criminal record. I'm weak on this however. While the preponderance of sources does not use "adult", the latest source apparently do. They should be given far more weight.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely if there is no criminal record, then there is no point in added it to the page. Fraulein451 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely from the lead, possibly include "no adult" and "no serious juvenile" in the body This is not a significant point in the body and per WP:LEAD it doesn't belong in the lead regardless of what the sources say. While the preponderance of the sources use "no criminal record", the latest sources have started using "no adult". Since these newer sources are working from newer information, and have been fact-checked, they should take precedence over the older ones.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 04:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No criminal record should be mentioned because the rumors flying around have attempted to claim that Brown was a criminal (otherwise of course we wouldn't mention a lack of any given peculiarity). Saying "no adult criminal record" implies that there is a juvenile criminal record, so we shouldn't say "adult" unless at least one source establishes that there was a juvenile record. Does any source establish that Brown had a juvenile record? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Would also accept "no known criminal record," reasons below. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Left Out Entirely as he only recently turned 18 and therefore it's not significant that someone who just recently turned 18 has no criminal record. Leave Out Entirely any mention of a juvenile record that does not exist. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely If there is no record, then it should probably be left out. Wikipedia can't be used as a control for potential rumors, that's what snopes is for. -- xcuref1endx (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely from the lede and if it is relevant in the body insert no adult criminal record. I can't find any sources adequately referring to juvenile record. SPACKlick (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out Entirely. If sources at a later time have something definitive and articulate to say on this or a related point, such material can be added at that time. We are discussing a "bald fact" at this point. It may be premature to make a definitive statement about this at this time, and ultimately commentary on this may have to be nuanced as it may not be 100% clear what constitutes a "criminal record". Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely. (I found this RFC through a random invitation left on a user talkpage I watch.) I find persuasive the fact that (A) there is such sketchy sourcing for mentioning it at all; and (B) he was only an adult for 3 months, making it a moot point to mention that he had "no adult criminal record." Also, saying "no criminal record" implies something we can't know for certain: that he had no juvenile record. Since records of many juvenile offenses are sealed, there's simply no way to know that, so implying it is wrong. Thus, in my view, saying nothing regarding "a criminal record" at all is the best option. LHMask me a question 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely One other thing to note is that the term "criminal record" is an ambiguous term and a juvenile record can be considered a criminal record in some states, even if disclosure of that information is restricted or treated differently. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely. Summoned here by bot. What is the point of this criminal-record text? He was not charged with any crime prior to his death. Coretheapple (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely as unnecessary and potentially misleading. Instaurare (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave out entirely as per Xcuref1endx DocumentError (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Results

At the request of the originator (see comments below), I am closing this RfC. The results are that what was originally added in good faith and WP:V, has now been refuted by more current sources. No replacement comment has been agreed to which succinctly summarizes the information in reliable sources. The statement No criminal record has been removed reflecting the best interpretation of consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • NOTE: This RfC is NOT closed, please feel free to leave a comment. The statement no criminal record has only been removed from the lede. The content has been moved to his bio section and NOW the article states: Brown had no criminal record as an adult, and had no pending charges, or serious felony convictions as a juvenile. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This has now been open 21 days, with the last !vote 7 days ago. Anyone think this is going to close as something other than "leave out" ? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I only noticed this because Isaidnoway changed his date, and I don't know that anyone else is aware that the closed RFC has been "reopened", or even if that can be done or done in the way it was "done". For my part, the current text where it is is fine. If you want to change it, I object. Andyvphil (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC was never closed, so therefore it was never "reopened". There is a request on the admin noticeboard to close this RfC, the consensus looks like to me to remove the info. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion — no (adult) criminal record

"No criminal record" doesn't work because it's not true. No twist of logic can justify taking "no criminal record that has been revealed" and presenting it as "no criminal record". "No adult criminal record" is true, but it implies the unstated existence of a juvenile record, which is not NPOV. If we say anything at all about his record, adult or juvenile, we need to go all the way and say everything that is known, neutrally and dispassionately. The only argument I've seen against doing that is that it's somehow not neutral to say that it is not known whether he had a juvenile record involving non-serious offenses. Really bad argument imo. Since "tell the whole truth" is not one of the options, I'm left with only "left out entirely". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a tough one, but I am inclined to follow the sources rather than my opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds bit like "I was just following orders." A historically flawed strategy in defending wrong actions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is only Wikipedia, Kevin Murray. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
So you don't respect the WP project enough to avoid wrong actions here? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sources:
Aug 14 USA Today[6]
"Michael Brown had no criminal record, police say"
”An 18-year-old [Brown] shot and killed near a Ferguson apartment complex Saturday afternoon had no criminal record, according to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office.”
Aug 15 NY Times[7]
“He [Brown] had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile.”
Aug 17 Christian Science Monitor[8]
“The black teenager [Brown] had no adult criminal record, according to the St. Louis County prosecutor.”
Sep 3 Associated Press/ABC News[9]
”The 45-minute hearing before a St. Louis County family court judge didn't reveal whether Brown had ever been charged with lesser offenses as a juvenile, or charged with a more serious crime that resulted in a finding of delinquency — the juvenile court equivalent of a conviction.”
[another source added on Sep 11:]
Sep 9 USA Today[10] (note same author as Aug 14 USA Today)
"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Good cherry pick, Bob. There is an overwhelming number of sources countering these few. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well bring it, then. Bob brought hard facts, you brought your own words. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
and thousand more sources using “no criminal record” - Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? I looked at your source list, no wonder you are so confused:
• Washington Post [38] – Clearly an editorial piece - this is not neutral nor pretending to be.
• St Louis Business Journal [39] – bad link – goes to KERA News not the Business Journal.
• KSDK [40] - August 18, 2014 quoting Prosecutors who have since changed statement
• VOX [41] “Brown had no criminal record at the time of his death, according to police.” That doesn’t seem to be consistent with current statements.
• The Strait Times [42] – direct quote from Brown’s parents in what seems to be a fairly biased piece
• St. Louis American [43] - say confirmed no criminal record, but no source mentioned
• Al Jazeera [44] – Are you kidding me? Again a direct quote from Brown's family --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Also note that,
• KSDK article was written by the same author as the USA Today article and repeats it.
• VOX article has inline text link to its source, the USA Today article, “Brown had no criminal record at the time of his death, according to police.”
--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's the corrected link for the St Louis Business Journal [18] . --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What is the problem with Al Jazeera? Please explain. Once you do I will respond to your other comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(A) Read the article and tell us if there is any bias in the style. (B) They pander to a readership that likes to see the US embarrassed, and (C) it is a direct quote from Brown's family. I think that you have demonstrated either an extreme bias or a lack of capacity to evaluate the difference between reported facts and editorial hyperbole. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
By that measure we should not be citing Fox News which "panders" to certain group, or MSNBC for the same reason. FYI, Al Jazeera is a news outlet, a WP:RS, and Al Jazeera America is becoming one of the top news channels in the USA, if you have not noted. And before you say you are confused to others, look in the mirror, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't answer the question(s). I've seen your tactics here for a week or more. I can't see any benefit to continue dialog with you. I'll let your comments stand to demonstrate your abilities. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
My tactics, sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
So Bob, the last three sources seem to be hedging away from an unequivocal "no criminal record. USA Today doesn't say that Brown has no criminal record. They quote that "police say" he has no record. And it seems that the authorities have since backed away from that definite of a statement. So considering the changing statements the more recent sources may be the most reliable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Authorities backed away where and when? Source? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read Bob's post above. It's pretty clear that they no longer support an unequivocal "no criminal record." --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I did. There is nothing there to support your contention that authorities have backed away from their original statement. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
See Gaijin42's recent comment in the Survey section, "Its very obvious the original statement was loose and that they were not commenting on the presence or absence of a juvenile record. ..." --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Though more sources use "no criminal record", the latest sources appear to use "no adult criminal record". I would give greater deference to the latest sources.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sep 9 update from the same author and same news organization for the Aug 14 source that our article uses for "no criminal record",
"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."[19]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the original objection listed in this thread, how about "Brown had no known criminal record"? Unlike "no adult" it doesn't imply "yes juvenile." "No known" is generally understood to mean "none that anyone knows of and probably none at all but not 100% certainly none at all." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. While I think that no mention is best, too much time is being spent here on this one issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not he has a juvenile criminal record is known to Family Court, who aren't releasing that information. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • All Wikipedia articles should operate in a vacuum; they should stand on their own, independent of all sources except those we as editors choose to include. Other reliable sources that we don't use don't matter. Other non-reliable sources (eg rumors) also don't matter. Those who are say that by using "no adult record" we are implying a juvenile record exists are making a fallacious argument. We make no implication whatsoever. If your doctor took a a fluid sample and reported that you did not have gonorrhea, that does not imply you are not a virgin. If we stated Brown had an adult criminal record, would anyone be complaining that we are implying Brown did not have a juvenile record? I should hope not.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Side topics

Alleged convenience store robbery and video

WP:alleged WP:FRINGE Andyvphil (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Since my addition of Ferguson's response to criticism of its release of the surveillance video to the lede left the assertion of his lack of a criminal record looking both prominent and lonely I added a mention of the ongoing suit that explicitly mentions that he might have no juvenile record at all (incl the truancy his family attorney denied would be significant, iirc), nevermind the suit. I didn't bother Wikifying it as the local claque will probably remove it. If any mention is to be in the lede there ought to be maintext that it is a summary of. There are lots of relevant text and links in this section for a section on the suit and various claims, there, and if someone in favor of inclusion of something adds that it will help their case. Andyvphil (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That does not go into the lede, but feel free to develop the material into the article first. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If you were paying any attention you would have noticed that I had already rewritten the relevant maintext to, among other things, include the explanation the Ferguson City Atty gave for releasing the video that I then included in shortened form in the lede. It is really annoying to to have ones work reverted by someone who imagines they own the article and have the right to use simple reverts to keep it the way they like it. Your airy assertion, "That does not go into the lede...", without feeling any need to address my point, is offensive. My argument, AGAIN, is that that (a) if the POV-pushing twaddle that is the criticism of FPD's release of the video is given prominence, then (b) the fact that the FPD has demonstrated that it was legally required to do so ought to be mentioned as well. See WP:NPOV. What is your counterargument, if you have one? And, other than that you are too lazy to pay attention, why did you restore the redundant adjectives, both "controversial" AND "criticized"? Andyvphil (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy, I support that you are trying to achieve a balance, but I'd rather see the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the Lede modified, than to add more on top of this already troubled paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (
Ferguson has established to my satisfaction that since the robbery case was "exceptionally closed" and that the city has no more than three business days to respond a Sunshine Law request (though it has more to actually provide the material IF it must take more time to accomplish), so that it needed to release the robbery report which included the tape. This is covered to my satisfaction, pretty much, in the maintext. Why the unremarkable and unjustified wingeing about it doing so merits mention in the lede of this article I cannot imagine. So I deleted it. But that was reverted. NPOV requires the city's answer be mentioned IF the accusation is. That's the way it is right now, and I can live with it. Andyvphil (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree the part about the sunshine law is lead worthy material. I'm not so sure about the 2nd part discussing the pending lawsuit for the juvineille records. Please ratchet the language back a bit (eg "lazy"). We've had too much of that here already. ThanksTwo kinds of pork (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
On the evidence I saw and provided the revert was clearly lazy. I'll stop calling attention to it when it stops happening. Andyvphil (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

AFAIU the law [20], there was no more obligation to release the video than there is to release the police reports. --Japarthur (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The police report on the robbery was released. But "Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records... if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized." [21] Since the video was incident to a closed investigation it had to be released. Any police reports incident to the shooting need not be until that investigation, too, is closed. Andyvphil (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
How convenient. Even the DOJ ask them not to release it, but they choose otherwise for reasons that we can all speculate about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that Missouri law required it, speculation about other reasons the FPD might have had to release the video is puerile. The DOJ's statement that it requested that the Ferguson PD ignore Missouri law is, even if true, which I doubt, neither here nor there. Not every law enforcement agency is as lawless as Holder's DOJ. Andyvphil (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Holder is lawless, Obama is lawless. FPD follows the law by the letter. Yes, sure, whatever. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC Results

It seems that there is more support for removing than keeping. While not fully conclusive, I think that, for now, the Lede should begin to reflect the emerging consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not how RfCs work, Kevin. You're prematurely assuming that your viewpoint has won out when the RfC has been open for what, a day? There is no "emerging consensus" just because slightly more editors are currently in favor of leaving it out than keeping it in. That's the hallmark of a lack of consensus, in which case: "[i]n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Please revert your edit and let the RfC run its course. Dyrnych (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the statement is a magnet for editing controversy, where people keep trying to sanitize it rather than remove it. You could always put it back if the RfC changes direction. Interpreting consensus should not just be counting votes, but also measuring the discussion leading to the RfC and considering the activity in editing the article during the RfC. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That's why we're having the RfC: because it's controversial. Let it run its course and we'll all abide by the outcome. Dyrnych (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it's barely been 24 hours since the RfC was opened. We need to let this run for several days to try and get some community input, this debate has been ongoing for a couple of weeks now and the content in question should be left in the article. If we just remove it now, new editor's may not want to comment if they see it has already been removed before the RfC is completed. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm so happy with the other changes in that paragraph, that I'm less concerned about the Criminal Record standing for now. I don't like the Adult Criminal Record as it implies a juvenile record, which may be unfair. I'm OK for now. Thanks Dyrnych for your cleanup of my "fix". Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

— Verifiability policy, section Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I support removal at this time, but don't want to start the struggle. I'm happier to gain the support of those seeing inclusion, on other cleanup of the Lede. The POV issues here work collectively and no individual component is as egregious as the negative synergy which had developed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll second that. Don't make me quote Rodney King. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be done. There are four votes out of twelve (33%) for maintaining the status quo:No criminal record, including a drop-in editor with a weak explanation for their "vote", not convincing me that much consideration was really given. Analysis of consensus should not just be about vote counting, but considering the comments and weighting the value of the arguments. I ask Mr X to fairly access and explain to us how we should proceed in evaluating these results.--Kevin Murray (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC's are usually closed by an uninvolved admin who will evaluate the !votes and arguments. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs - Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to this. Can you find one? I felt that asking a respected member from the minority to close this could be a good solution. Frankly, I'd be comfortable with you demonstrating your fair and unbiased nature by closing this for us. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Note the excerpt here from the link you reference: "However, if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable..." --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
For an administrator to close, see Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a note, I am a regular at WP:ANRFC and there is generally a long backlog. Stuff sits there sometimes for a month or more without being handled. If we can set aside our personal opinions and !votes and come to an agreement as to what the RFC result was it will save a lot of time and headache. (And we would likely only have an uninvolved editor handle the request, not an admin in any case) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. It looks like a minority wants to screw around with process and filibuster while keeping inaccurate text in place. I'm less worried about the text than the game playing. Also I noticed that the Neutrality Tag came down without any process and/or consensus. Quid pro quo. And by the onus of demonstrating inclusion per WP:V, it's time to fix the problem. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's been an improvement in relations between editors with different positions. Not perfect, but an improvement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

by my count there is almost 2 to 1 (7 to 4) support for leaving out entirely vs vanilla "no record" with "no adult" a very distant third. While consensus is not a vote, generally when the !vote is so lopsided, the reasoning is something along the lines of "are the opinions on one side so exceptionally strong, or on the other side so exceptionally weak, to override the obvious answer" In my opinion the arguments on both sides are equally based on policy with it basically coming down to some people prefering one set of sources, and others preferring other sources. If those who !voted exclusively for no adult could perhaps say which they prefer of the two lead options, it may help resolve the issue. However, I have no objection to holding off and see if the RFC bot notifies some people and we get some outside opinions. We could also neutrally notify some noticeboards or wikiprojects, or even a random notification of some users to try and get more inputGaijin42 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality tag coming off, that was a good decision as it is a minor aspect in the overall context of a long and well NPOVed article, in particular when there are constructive discussions going on. As for the closure of the RFC, I don't see we are getting any closer amongst us to reach an agreement, so we should be patient until someone uninvolved comes to close it. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have notified BLPN, RSN, and NPOVN about this RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, In a Sep 9 update from the same author and same news organization for the Aug 14 source that our article uses for "no criminal record",

"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."[22]

With this new info in mind, could you reconsider your !vote for "no criminal record"? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The judge's decision does not change anything, as we don't know what records, if any, he had as a juvenile. What we know if that if there is such juvenile record, that was not serious not even a misdemeanor, so I stand by "no criminal record". - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

With the shifting of a vote this morning and per Bob's post above (a) this RfC is now concluded, and (b) Per WP:V the contested information should not have remained in place during the RfC. This is closed, moot, and the information has been removed. Returning it will be just obstinate edit warring. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

An RFC is not a !vote. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTUNANIMITY , WP:GAME, WP:POINT - Are your arguments more than twice as strong as the other side?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but considering the votes is part of the process. You have criticized me over belaboring issues. Please consider that you might be doing the same. I am really impressed by some of the quality and commitment that you show here, but I don't understand some of your fervor on particular issues. Clinging to this point appears inconsistent with your finer contributions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The RfC should not be closed until there has been no activity for a least a couple of days. It should then be closed by an admin or experienced editor, unless there is near near-unanimous agreement here as to the result.- MrX 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
What is your opinion of the current result (assuming no additional activity occurs). To be clear, that is a very different question that what is your opinion of the "right answer" for the RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
My opinion of this three day old RfC is that comments are roughly spit between the three choices, with some commentors choosing more than one, or responding outside of the scope of the question. If I closed it now, it would be as no consensus.I believe more input is needed. - MrX 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr X, you seem to be a very fair minded person who follows policy. Please read the policy cited above regarding closing RfCs. The issue has not been contentious in itself. Only the closing of the RfC has become a contentious point, and I think unfairly so by people trying to use lawyering tactics to postpone the inevitable. I don't see any precedent at this page to drag-out the recognition of an RfC. Besides, as Bob has pointed out above, the onus falls upon those who wish to include disputed material to demonstrate the need for inclusion. Continuing this charade is counter to policy and counter to veracity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know what policy you're referring to. Could you clarify? RfC is structured processes so that consensus can be better determined. They don't end after three days, or a few hours after the last comment. I've created many RfCs and commented in many more. This is how they work. When editors have stopped commenting, someone can post a close request at WP:ANRFC.- MrX 15:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got an idea, maybe we should start an RfC on how to close this RfC. ;-) --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have waited for 30 days for RFCs to close. Why not focus on other aspects of this or other articles in the meantime? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to delay the close of the RfC, but in the mean time this should not be used as an excuse to continue to post information which is no longer accurate. I believe that it was originally posted in good faith and in compliance with WP:V, but new information has refuted the original source. This process is now bringing shame on WP as a credible source of information. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions, and consensus

Let me remind people that this article is twice over under the scrutiny of ArbCom, and has discretionary sanctions applied. Disruption of all types can lead to sanctions. Edit warring requires (at least) two to tango. On the other hand stonewalling a 2 to 1 consensus because you demand someone else close the RFC is also disruptive. The "worst case" scenario for this RFC is "no consensus" and this article is still under the protection of WP:BLP a no consensus result will result in removal per policy

  • "to ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"
  • WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Well said, but in this case BLP also applies to Brown even if he is deceased. And in this case the contentious issue is not to include the fact that he had no criminal record. And yes, the previous consensus was the current version with "no criminal record". Also WP:BURDEN has been plentifully established already- Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The policies specifically say that removal is the default where there is not a consensus. There may have been a consensus before. At this time there is either no consensus, or a consensus to remove. Either way its going to get removed, don't be disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. We can disagree without calling each other names. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You have notified BLPN, RSN, and NPOVN about this RFC. So let's wait and see what uninvolved editors have to say. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my thinking: We know that Brown had no adult criminal record. We also know from a judge, that as a juvenile he did not have any serious violations. Per WP:BLP, that means that we can't say that he had a criminal record, and omitting information about his criminal record is the same as saying he had one and that violates WP:BLP. Maybe splitting hairs, but this is crucial as the politics of this tragedy is making some observers try and cast Brown as a criminal, and we should disallow that per WP:BLP. Brown may be dead, but BLP extends to the recently deceased. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel to the extent that BLP applies here. I don't think that implying that he had a juvenile record by stating "he had no adult record" is acceptable. But per recent sources, stating that he had "no criminal record" is just wrong per WP:V. We are breaking two core rules at WP, by including any statement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(To clarify what judge I am referring to: A juvenile court system lawyer said at a hearing last week that Brown did not face any juvenile charges at the time of his death and was never convicted of a serious felony. (Associated press Sept 9) - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Brown had no adult criminal record.
  • We know from a court officer (not the judge) that he had no serious convictions, nor was he facing any charges. We have to be accurate in to what the source actually said. There could have been previous dismissed/plead down/diverted charges in the past (though the article cannot comment on those possibilities for obvious reasons)
  • I agree we absolutely cannot say he had a criminal record
  • Omitting this is not the same thing as saying it he has a record, otherwise EVERY BLP would need to say "X has no criminal record"
  • The accurate statement (which is much too long for the lede, and possibly too long for the body is)
    • Brown had no adult record in the three months since he turned 18. He had no convictions or pending charges for serious (A or B) felonies as a juvenile. He may or may not have had lesser offenses as a juvenile but the records have not been released.
  • Both our statements are essentially re-arguing the RFC which is not super productive.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not being convicted of a serious felony is not at all the same as "no criminal record" Do you want to get into the subjectivity of saying "no serious criminal record" Are w going to do OR to demonstrate that misdemeanors are not "serious"? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a BOLD attempt to resolve this. May not satisfy all of our concerns, but may be a good compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Please revert your bold edit. The RfC is still in progress so it is very inappropriate to add disputed content, especially to the lead.- MrX 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We have BRD, so if this BOLD attempt is not welcome, it can be reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have removed your bold addition, per WP:BRD.- MrX 17:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I support Cwobeel in an excellent step toward meeting WP:V. Thank you! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a shame that you were reverted. I would actively repost your text, but I've already put myself in jeopardy this morning, ironically for reverting you. I encourage another editor to replace Cwobeels excellent compromise. He/she speaks the TRUTH --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, now at least the section on Brown has wording that is factually correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the point of having a RfC and asking editor's to comment on article content when that content has already been removed? You've boldy removed the material, why not just go all the fucking way and boldly close the RfC (after 72 hours) and call it a day. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree I'll close it per your request. You opened this with the best of intentions, but it has become an abomination of mendacity, game-playing and stall tactics. What is clear is that what was originally posted in good faith was later refuted by subsequent information. This is too fast moving of topic to expect static processes to work. I oppose the use of future RfCs in this article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I opened this with the intention of leaving it open for the process to work, and for the community to have a chance to comment. But it seems some would rather just bully their way into getting what they want, remove the material while the RfC is ongoing and then close the RfC just as fast as they can. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have undone my archive so that the process can continue and we can get more outside input. As the matter is disputed and a BLP issue, I thiink removal until there is consensus for inclusion is appropriate, but there is no harm in waiting for additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42, thanks for the revert, but the disputed BLP issue was only edit-warred from the lede, the disputed BLP issue is still in article space with the juvenile record added. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2014 (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.

media for shooting of Venderrit D. Myers

If someone wants to make a new article I have pictures from last night's protests. Might also put videos up soon as well. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Loavesofbread&ilshowall=1 Loavesofbread (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos. I'm going to add one to Ferguson October. - MrX 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

ACLU comment

This [23] was removed on grounds that the ACLU is not a notable voice. Care to explain your rationale, Gaijin42? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel Learn to read.;) that diff shows me restoring the content. Also see the discussion above. Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Police_Account:_Irrelevant_ACLU_Opinion_Was_Deleted Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ooops! Thanks :) - Cwobeel (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

why isn't this in the article

I just stumbled across some very important information on some players in the michael brown case. Jeff Roorda(the man behind the fundraising of Darren Wilson) was convicted of FALSIFYING police reports yet continues to work in St. Louis county. He's supported cops in quite a few cases, including one where he got video evidence thrown out and is working on a law that would prohibit the releasing of the name of a police officer involved in any shooting. Jeff Roorda is a Democrat

Darren Wilson's car was at LEAST 108 ft away from Mike Brown's body(meaning he chased him for some time) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/03/1333925/-Is-it-a-coverup-House-of-Cards-level-corruption-in-Ferguson-and-beyond the ferguson police have said they will not be releasing any reports regarding the shooting of Mike Brown. https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/517355146884300800 Turtire (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the DailyKos is not a reliable source. It's utter garbage. If there is any merit to these claims, the real RS will be falling over themselves to get this verified. So relax. If it's true, its coming.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Roordra's involvement seems pretty tangental. Has nothing to do with the actual shooting or people involved. The 108 thing is probably true, but has not been reported (and more importantly nobody has said why its important or what it may mean, even though its probably true) by reliable sources. The Kos post by Shaun King essentially a reprint of Shaun Kings twitter which we previously discussed here Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_15#Shaun_King. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That report is pretty devastating and great investigative journalism. When it is picked up by other sources, we can add material from it. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Its been out for months now, between ConservativeTreehouse and Shaun King making basically the same distance analysis. I think the media has largely moved on except for coverage of protests. It will likely stay that way until the next official step (either charges or not). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

I don't think that a map of of Ferguson is the best image to illustrate the article in the infobox. Any suggestions are welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a google maps (or some free alternative) view of the neighborhood where it happened? (I would go further and say with notable locations pointed out, but that might get too deep into the non-RS OR weeds). On the other hand, the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article also has the high level map like we do currently. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that what we have now is OK. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

major new witness - apparently one of many witnesses that haven't talked to the press before.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/witness-adds-new-perspective-to-ferguson-shooting/article_ab6e1e03-c49a-5c7f-8786-b0e88ec79349.html?mobile_touch=true Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Article also discusses Rashomon_effect which may be useful in our intro duction to the witness section, as we have discussed how to include reliability of witness statements before. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily describe him as being "major", we don't know that his testimony was considered by the grand jurors as being major. I would agree though that he is one of many witnesses that didn't talk to the media, can't blame them for that. I agree that the rashomon effect is useful for education purposes about the credibility of eyewitnesses and their statements. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I meant major not in that he was groundbreaking, but just that it was a "tier 1" witness (IE someone who (at least claims to have) personally saw the entire event). In terms of what impact he has, I suppose that depends on what he said to the jury, and which parts they focused on. Some of the things in the interview support the defense, some support prosecution. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Huffington compost is not an RS

Collapsing comment per WP:TPO

What the hell is this garbage doing on wikipedia. Something like a dozen links to that racist, garbage, agitprop site. Feel free to replace any of its links with valid RS links, but don't feel too bad when i flush this deminazi trash from the toiletbowl of wikipedia.68.117.88.143 (talk)

Blanket assertions against HuffPo are not going to go anywhere. If you have problems with a particular source (specific article) backing a particular statement, then bring it up, but do so without the over the top drama. You are accusing the authors of those pieces of being racists and nazis, which is itself an actual specific BLP violation. Do not restore the comment again or I will take it to WP:AE Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Flash hider

I was wondering what was on the end of this weapon. It's a flash hider. Which makes me wonder: why have a flash hider on a rifle in that situation. What would excuse hiding evidence of a shooting? What legitimate justification could explain it?--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 17:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Elvey Flash hiders are commonly misunderstood. They are not for concealment as much as saving the shooters night vision. Additionally, the depending on how the hider is made it can also serve as a Muzzle_brake (although it does not appear to me as if the one in question is so-designed).non-gun-people think of them like a Suppressor/Silencer except for light. That is not really what they do. They are now pretty much standard issue/use for all Military and Police carbines (the shorter length of a carbine increases the flash problem since all the powder is not consumed). For civilian use they were covered by the AWB (and some remaining state AWBs) but are now legal most places you can have an AR (although they are not super common). That being said, in daylight, the device is serving minimal-to-no purpose. On the other hand, It could be permanently attached. Even if not permanently attached, it could be just left on the rifle for convenience (or because the guy is expected to sit there through the night). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Great answer. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It can also help protect the muzzle crown from damage or if the barrel is threaded to accept other attachments then the flash suppressor can be used to protect the threads themselves rather than using a thread protector. The flash hider linked above is for an M-14 (which is pinned quasi-permanently on the weapon) but the officer in the photo has an AR-15 which is usually threaded but can be mounted permanently. The AR-15 flash hider is also necessary for mounting the blank-firing adaptor which is used in training situations.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

False claim of fractured eye socket

@Mandruss: — From the above-linked article: "Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck." We now have direct confirmation from grand jury testimony what Wilson's injuries were, and we no longer need to include accounts solely based upon anonymous rumormongering that have been exposed as falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

For starters, as you know, it's BRD, not BRRD. But I'll let that pass. For the record, the existing consensus was content in.
Secondly, your editsum "I already discussed this on the talk page" is absurd. Posting a statement three minutes after you make the change is hardly "discussing" anything. Spare me.
We've known for some time that the claim was false, that's nothing new. That information was part of what you removed. The content was left in because the leaking of false information was deemed noteworthy. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, we didn't really "know" it was false — we had the claims on one side and then the claims on the other. I wanted to get the false ones out ASAP so that we can present better facts... I'm totally not averse to reinserting a rewritten version that emphasizes the false nature of the rumors. My thought was to get correct info in first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"The following day, CNN's Don Lemon reported that an unnamed source with the Ferguson police stated that x-rays taken after the incident "came back negative" for a fractured eye socket, noting that Wilson was treated for facial swelling and then released." There is nothing ambiguous about that: Ferguson police admitted it was false. Yes, we really knew. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't the way I read it... to me, it felt like we had two unnamed sources dueling with each other, and we actually gave the false claim more space than the true claim. My concern was to get rid of the false claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Now, do you feel like writing the replacement content, or are you requesting someone else to do that? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been an hour, so I guess NBSB has walked away and left this broken. I'm returning the article to the existing consensus, and people are free to clarify the existing language if they feel it needs clarifying. I'm personally ok with it as is. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I condensed it and removed some excessive detail. I wouldn't necessarily call it rumor mongering, because reliable sources use anonymous sources all the time. From a historical perspective, I don't see this as being significant or notable, that would require quite the excessive detail in coverage of it, so I condensed it. I'm sure new information about his injuries and other evidence will be coming forthwith. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel that government agencies lying anonymously to the people who pay their salaries, especially for the purpose of covering their own asses, is always significant and notable. But I'm ok with the reduced version we have now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Times' reporting: Wilson's account / FBI says Brown's blood found

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html?_r=0 02:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Also ,According to FBI fired twice while in car, one shot hitting arm. Blood in car and on gun. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing we'll be using that reference, so I added it to the reflist as NYTimes.Recount, commented out. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm so confused. Dorian says one shot was fired and that the bullet hit Brown in the upper chest. Chief Jon Belmar at the news conference says one shot was fired in the vehicle but gave no indication that the bullet hit anyone. Josie talks about one shot being fired in the vehicle but doesn't mention anyone being hit by that bullet. Shaun King's analysis is that the bullet fired from the vehicle is the one that was retrieved from a building located adjacent to Canfield Road, i.e., the shot traveled at a right angle to the road rather than along the road as all other shots appear to have traveled. The nonhomicidal witnesses who mention a shot at all at the vehicle describe it as being a single shot. And that has been our collective understanding for 9 weeks. So now, 9 weeks into this, someone illegally leaks secret testimony from a secret grand jury hearing stating that two shots were fired in the vehicle.
How could Jon Belmar have gotten this so wrong? He got the information directly from Wilson, did he not? His department had custody of the vehicle. How could Belmar not have known that there were two casings in or at the vehicle? How could he have forgotten to tell the world on August 10 that the first shot fired hit Wilson in the arm? How could there be no gunshot residue on Wilson's body as Dr. Baden reports based on his autopsy? Why wouldn't Belmar and company make Brown's clothing available to Baden for his forensic review? Why have we never seen the T-shirt that would make it pretty clear whether there was or wasn't a bullet hole in the arm pit and whether there was or wan't gunshot residue to go with it, establishing whether the shot was sustained at close range or at a distance? Why am I asking all of these questions? Because I believe that a carte blanche definitive statement by Wikipedia that two shots were fired in the car is inappropriate at this point. On that basis, I respectfully request reconsideration of the wording of said sentence. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
the information we have now does not contradict the information we have before really, though it may contradict our (and other's) interpretationof the prior information. Dorian says upper chest. Upper arm is a reasonable mistake. "Shot in the car" - I don't remember anyone saying "exactly one shot, definitely not two" -. King's analysis is absolutely not contradictory. He did his analysis of the shot that missed and didn't know about the first one (everything he said is conjecture really, so even if he was contradicted, thats not an issue). Belmar saying shot at the car as before - if you think he said "exactly one shot" or something that precludes two shots i'd like to have that source pointed out. Other stuff he may have known and not released - SOP IMO. No access to the shirt makes perfect sense - the shirt is evidence, no reason a private individual would be given access to it, especially not for running tests on which could contaminate its value as evidence. In any case, its normal that new informatino corrects old information. If it wasn't that way there would be no such thing as new information. Regarding your end concern We could certainly say "according to the FBI analysis" Gaijin42 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Per the account, the claims that Wilson suffered a "fractured eye socket" are false and I have removed them. We don't need to give credence to false rumormongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph one from the above cited New York Times article: 

 WASHINGTON — The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators 
 that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, 
 according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

Can anyone tell me who these "investigators" are? Can anyone tell me who the "government officials" are? Can anyone tell me what level of "government" these leaking officials come from, federal, state, or municipal? Can anyone propose a theory as to why these statements are being made by individuals who do not want disclosed their names, their titles, or the organizations for whom they work? If this is an article from a reliable source, then I guess I must ask, a source of what? Verifiable fact it is not, can we agree? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

CNN drives home my point with this sentence in their reporting on the Times article:
 CNN cannot confirm the details of The Times' report.
 http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/ Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Crump's response to the claim that Wilson feared for his life: 

 “He was definitely not in fear of threat when Michael Brown was running away from him,” Crump said.
 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-darren-wilson-michael-brown-20141018-story.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Second attorney's response:

Brown’s attorney, Anthony Gray, said that the new details won’t make much of a difference because they are from early in the confrontation.

“When you’re raising your arms to surrender, it hits a reset button,” says Gray, referring to witness accounts that Brown, 18, raised his hands after the struggle at the car.

Gray said he doesn’t dispute that something happened between Brown and Wilson at the police vehicle. But he wonders why Wilson would go after Brown and perceive him as a threat outside the vehicle, even knowing that Brown had been shot.

“His actions contradict the presence of fear,” Gray said. “You’re fearful, a guy’s running, but you’re going to get out and chase him? How many people do you know chase something that you’re fearful of?”

Al Sharpton response: 

 The Rev. Al Sharpton, who met with Brown's parents and performed his eulogy, on Saturday 
 dismissed Wilson's reported testimony that he had been afraid for his life before shooting Brown.
 "If you stopped him, Michael Brown and his friend, walking down the street, what led to the scuffle?" 
 Sharpton asked the crowd during his weekly National Action Network rally in Harlem. Ibid.

FBI: Brown's blood found in vehicle, etc.

Non-reliable sources don't get any respect: This from 100.7 THE VIPER as posted on their Facebook page on August 28. 

 Interesting info from our sources....who were 100% accurate on the autopsy info.
 Mike Browns DNA was found on Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson's gun, face and hands. 
 Ferguson officer Darren Wilson's DNA found on Mike Browns hands and arms.
 https://www.facebook.com/1007TheViper/photos/a.705808446145699.1073741838.456908911035655/758057110920832/

Kudos to "stateoftheinternet" for documenting the same in a YouTube video published the same day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn81f93NfMs Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek identifies Wilson's vehicle as a Chevy Tahoe

Finally. 

 He halted his vehicle and told them to get on the sidewalk. 
 It soon escalated into an altercation, with Brown and the officer fighting through the Chevy Tahoe window. 
 Johnson told reporters that Wilson initiated the scuffle and tried to choke Brown. 
 He also said that Brown never reached for Wilson’s gun. http://www.newsweek.com/officer-darren-wilsons-testimony-michael-brown-shooting-report-278364

I believe that this is an important piece of information to add as I have heard some, assuming that the vehicle is more like a Crown Victoria, express skepticism that Wilson could have reached out of the vehicle and gotten to the neck of a man 6' 4" tall. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been harboring similar thoughts ever since we knew it was an SUV. I went along with the use of "car" since the dictionary definition supported it. According to m-w.com, "car" is "automobile", and "automobile" is "a usually four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation". By that definition, a pickup is a car. Not where I come from. And SUV is only slightly closer to car, since it doesn't have a bed. In this case, I think the foot or two of height difference is significant in terms of one's understanding of the window scuffle. I'd support changing most "car" to "SUV", with a few "vehicle" thrown in to avoid being repetitive. I wouldn't use Chevy Tahoe, since I don't think that many readers know what a Chevy Tahoe is. Females, in particular, generally wouldn't know a Tahoe from a big toe, unless they have owned one or known someone who did. (A Tahoe, that is.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer, the following comment is not intended to be offensive to Mandruss in any way, shape, or form. Okay, here we go.
About that Tahoe problem, uh, this is Wikipedia, right, and so if we put these: [[ to the left of Chevrolet Tahoe and these: ]] to the right, shouldn't hapless females and the men who mirror them be able to catch a clue? :-) Further, there are pictures of the actual vehicle that are out there. At one point I thought that Wilson drove the vehicle away before anyone could get pictures but I have since realized that this is not true. The vehicle he drove away immediately after the shooting was not the one he was in during the altercation. Video actually shows that Wilson's vehicle was later removed from the scene on a flatbed tow truck. My impression was that the Tahoe was towed while Brown's body still lay in the street, but I could be mistaken. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm so offended that it's difficult to find the words ... and hurt ... humiliated ... etc ... but, yes, that could be done on the first reference, with SUV or vehicle on the rest. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
For that matter, find us a source for the year model and we'll link right to the appropriate section of the Tahoe article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It took 9 weeks to get a source saying it was an SUV. So I think we got all we're going to get. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No other comments in 30 hours, and this seems uncontroversial to me, so I'll do these changes. Phase B of BRD. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 17:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No objection to stating the make/model of the vehicle. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I started this as per above, but it wasn't working. "SUV" sounded unnatural in most places. I'm using "SUV" and "Chevrolet Tahoe" in the first reference, and "vehicle" everywhere else. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 18:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This may not be super important, but I just noticed that Newsweek is basically citing the recent NYTimes article as its source, and that article also says Tahoe, so it may be better to cite to the original source rather than the telephone game. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑Mandruss (t) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Brown v United States

Collapsing own comment pointing out SCOTUS precedent that may be of interest to editors. Not for consideration in the article

Just came across this 1921 case, which other editors may find of interest. Obviously cannot be used for the article at this time, but it could have an effect on future legal proceedings in this case. Numerous parts of the case appear to be relevant IF there was a reasonable self defense at some point during the incident particularly the following quote.

"Moreover, if the last shot was intentional and may seem to have been unnecessary when considered in cold blood, the defendant would not necessarily lose his immunity if it followed close upon the others while the heat of the conflict was on, and if the defendant believed that he was fighting for his life."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/335/case.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criminal record RfC outcome

I've closed the RfC on statements surrounding Brown's criminal record here as consensus to omit statements on his criminal record. I realize that some time has passed since this RfC however, and I noted that the phrasing of his record has remained stable over the past month, perhaps on the basis of sources like the AP one regarding no charges on his juvenile record, but also perhaps because of discretionary sanctions and a reluctance to challenge controversial matters like this one. I don't think another RfC is appropriate at this time, if only because editors here are probably tired of them. At a later time however, it might be good to revisit this because I didn't feel like the soruce inre: "no juvenile charges" was evaluated well just because it came out later during the RfC. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I JethroBT Thank you for closing a contentious RFC, having it done by a completely uninvolved party is quite helpful. I think we were all aware of that hearing/report for the whole of the RFC. My !vote specifically addressed that option and I !voted on the first day. Note that to be 100% accurate to the sourecs it would be something along the lines of "No adult criminal record. No convictions or pending charges for felonies serious misdemeanors" (Leaving unstated unknown lesser misdemeanors, or charges for more felonies and serious misdemeanors that were acquitted/dismissed/diverted/plead down etc, which would still be part of a "record" but that aren't convictions or pending charges) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hands up reporting: Washington Post shows us how it's done

Here's what we say in very problematic fashion: 

 Witness reports differ as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, 
 and whether he was moving toward Wilson, when the final shots were fired.

Here's what the Washington Post says: 

 Exactly how high Brown’s hands were has been inconsistent in the accounts, 
 and at least one witness said that after Brown was shot, he appeared to take a step toward Wilson. 
 That witness said, however, Brown had his arms around his stomach before hitting the ground.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/authorities-say-michael-browns-blood-found-on-gun-inside-police-car/2014/10/18/577e1a9a-56f2-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html

As they omit the very important fact that Brady was transitioning from his bedroom to his front door at the time that the other witnesses claim to have seen Brown's hands raised, I am not very happy about the final sentence. But, please, for the love of factual reporting, can we please flush our sentence and replace it with a facsimile of their first sentence that will satisfy all that we don't just plagiarize word for word, (which I very much wish we could do in this case)? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I hear no one saying no. But I'll ask again a different way. If I use the first sentence above as the basis for a rewrite of the sentence in the lede that I am referencing here, will I have the agreement of all to let it stand? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I object to any wording that excludes the possibility that his hands were not raised. NYTimes most recent article (discussed several sections above) says "Some witnesses have said that he appeared to be surrendering with his hands in the air as he was hit with the fatal gunshots." We have many many sources saying there is ambiguity on if his hands were raised or not. Picking the one source that words things the way you like and running with it is not WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Kinda depends on what you're calling the "fatal gunshots", I think. Only the last one is generally considered fatal. I don't think I could keep my hands raised after receiving five gunshot wounds—nor would I see much reason to do so. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the entire recorded sequence is only seconds, and the second volley is even shorter, I don't think its materially different. If it was 4 shots followed by 30 seconds and then the final shot you might have more of a point though. But in any case, its a distinction not being made by the sources. As I said we have many many sources describing ambiguity of the hands position. We should WP:STICKTOSOURCE and not second guess them. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So we're not to second guess journalists who second guess witnesses -- because in Wikipedia, a source isn't a witness speaking for himself or herself, a source is what the journalists twist what the witnesses say into. And even if one journalist finally does a summary which is eminently supported by what the witnesses actually said in reliable sources, we can't use that one because it wouldn't be neutral point of view. Alice is not amused. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Alice ate too many magic mushrooms. Yes, Analysis and comparison of WP:PRIMARY sources is reserved for WP:SECONDARY sources. We have listed every witness and faithfully presented what they said. Nobody is hiding anything. When there are 10+ sources describing that meta-analysis one way, and a single source describing it another way, yes, neutrality says we must follow the herd. You really think the NYTimes, LA times and SLT are so biased or inept that Michael Ridgeway is scooping them? The first two at least are well known as VERY liberal sources. There is a lot unknown in this case. There is a lot we will NEVER know. Picking a version and saying "this is the truth, its what we must say" is a fantasy, and not an encyclopedic (or journalistic) one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
^^^^ Somebody post that on the bulletin board. Last sentence underlined. ^^^^ ‑‑Mandruss (t) 01:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A smattering of the highly reliable sources all describing the hands in essentially the same terms

  • CNN "She said the report addressed only the initial encounter and not the subsequent fatal shooting, when some witnesses said Brown was surrendering with his hands up. But police said Wilson shot Brown after the teen attacked him and tried to take his gun." [24]
  • STLToday "The autopsy couldn’t say, however, whether the unarmed teenager was retreating, charging or if he had his hands up when he was killed, a claim that has become a central rallying cry of protesters demanding justice in cities across the United States." [25]
  • stlToday 2 "Some have said Brown raised his arms high in surrender, giving rise to a common protesters’ chant of “Hands up, don’t shoot” while mimicking the move." [26]
  • nytimes "But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed." [27]
  • ibtimes "Some witnesses claim that Brown had his hands up and was gunned down. Wilson, and reportedly some witnesses, claim that Brown charged him, forcing him to fire." [28]
  • latimes "Witnesses differ at almost every crucial turn of the story, raising several questions for the jury to answer. Did Brown have his hands up?" [29]

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Salon - Wilson’s defense entirely hangs on what happened next, and witnesses seem to be divided. The best-known account goes that Brown turned back toward Wilson and put his hands in the air in the universal sign of surrender, when Wilson shot the teen in cold blood. Others say that Brown moved toward Wilson, possibly in an aggressive way, leading Wilson to believe that his life was in danger. It was then, some say, that Wilson decided to shoot Brown in self-defense. [30] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The official county autopsy has been leaked, along with Officer Wilson's testimony, and the two agree with each other. The direction of the gunshot wound on Brown's forearm is inconsistent with him holding his palms in the direction of Officer Wilson (which is the standard position of surrender), and the gunshot wound on top of his head is consistent with him either lunging or falling in Wilson's direction and was, apparently, instantly fatal (the rest were, apparently, possibly survivable). It also appears that he was shot in the hand from point-blank range and that there was blood inside Wilson's vehicle and on Wilson's gun and the outside of the door. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anon IP Changes

@66.191.99.158: Welcome to the article.

  • Fleeing/pursuit - if you want to clarify that at the end he was no longer fleeing, thats fine. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a fleeing/pursit at all. The way it reads now looks like everything happened right at the car
  • You changed when to if, but the sentences already read "whether or when" which covers the "if". But if you want to change whether to if for clarity thats ok.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-keeper Thanks for your fix. I would have changed that back too, but I am already nearing 3rr (so early in the morning too!) I tink you left it with a grammar problem though - Witness reports differ as to whether and if so when Brown had his hands raised Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the grammar but I thought better bad grammar then being reverted again. It should be changed back to how it was before the IP's edit. Will do so later if nobody else does it.TMCk (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Overview article source for new developments

Overview, more analysis of why new developments may be important. A few bits I hadn't seen elsewhere (or at least not emphasized elsewhere)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

A few points in particular that popped out at me that I hadn't seen other places

  • Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none of them have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety
  • In interviews with The Washington Post, sources said blood spatter evidence shows that Brown was heading toward the officer during their face-off, but analysis of the evidence did not reveal how fast Brown was moving.

Also a few tweets from Crump responding to the recent revelations (Not sure if these would qualify as RS)

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Gaijin42: It is a primary source with a conflict of interest. The only thing it is useful for is quoting him about his/the family's response, but I think we've already got stuff in there from them. Did you feel there was anything here that was added which was especially pertinent? I did add the note about the seven or eight unnamed African-American eyewitnesses to the witnesses section. Where do you think that the blood spatter stuff should go? Maybe we should create a physical evidence section? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Certainly its a primary source, but saying thats what the family's opinion is can be valid. WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed - we just can't interpret them. But a straight quote doesn't need much of that. I advocated for an evidence section before, where the audio recording, and autopsies would go. I still think that's appropriate, but there was some resistance before. We should see what the wider group thinks. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I added a "physical evidence" section under the investigation heading; I think that's legitimate, as it is part of the investigation, as were the autopsies. I'd be good with spinning that stuff out into an evidence section, but I'm not sure if it is a huge deal.
And I agree that the family's response is possibly relevant (though it might belong in the Ferguson unrest article instead; I believe there is some information about the family's response there), but I'm not sure that the present response really differs from their previous responses to unfavorable revelations. That was why I was asking if you felt there was anything from this particular response which was especially pertinent to note. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Police account

This section is kind of a jumbled mess and not really very encyclopedic. Really, all of the eyewitness accounts don't really feel right to me, but the police section is probably the worst, with a bunch of random dates thrown in along with repetitive comments about it and some criticism.

Do we really need to list a bunch of random people's repetitive opinions on this in this section? It seems like we should note the salient facts:

  1. The police incident report was not filled out initially at the behest of a union lawyer.
  2. The police incident report was eventually filled out ten days later.
  3. The publicly released version of the incident report does not contain much information because it is the subject of an ongoing investigation, according to police.

We could possibly note that the ACLU complained about lack of transparency and information, but it feels a bit weird given that we didn't include criticism of the other eyewitness reports in their respective sections. I'm not sure where else to put it in the article, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think thats largely due to the fact that there hasn't been any criticism of the witnesses published in reliable sources, other than to note at a high level that there are many disagreements between them. The police section probably is the worst. Now that we have Wilson's account, we should move the police section out of the accounts section, and convert that into more of a "Police investigation/actions after the fact" section rather than a Wilson proxyGaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the large-scale removal of content; while there may be cause to reorganize it, there are significant sources, parts of the timeline and context which are told through the chronological accounting of police statements. Reorganization is not removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much of it still matters, to be honest; it was mostly just kind of a jumbled mess about how bits and pieces of evidence came out here and there. I mostly removed it, though I preserved the note about the lack of video footage of the incident and moved that up to the top of the accounts section.
It may or may not be worth pulling out the bit about the lack of an incident report written immediately by Wilson himself; I feel like some of that, plus the criticism from the video release section, belongs in some sort of "Criticism of police response" section or something. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, but the fact that information was released only in piecemeal, "jumbled mess" fashion is a significant part of the story in its own right; as a number of the sources note, much of the criticism came from a perceived lack of transparency into the police investigation and a perception that this meant the police were trying to cover up wrongdoing. The messy timeline is, in and of itself, part of the story of the shooting and the reaction to it.
How about we copy the section to the talk page here and try to come up with a consensus rewrite? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
To the degree that the jumbled mess is itself part of the story, we should just summarize "the story" directly, and not try to make the reader figure it out by reading a confusing timeline. I'm sure there are sources that adequately comment on the police actions that we could use. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

source for criticism of leaks

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-leaks-20141022-story.html#page=1 Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New Washington Post article

[31] should help us clean up the lead and stop waffling over attribution. If one had not heard of the shooting before, this article is an excellent primer . Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 03:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Explain "waffling over attribution"? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

someone explain to my how the blood is a bombshell

I'm sure most of us have read the news about the blood found in the car, but I can't see how this means Wilson is justified. Is there any of Wilson's blood anywhere(since he said he was scratched and punched)? What about Mike Brown's hands? I look at this and see many ways the blood gets in the car without him punching Darren Wilson Turtire (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, see the notice at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." This page is for discussion about improvements to the article. No doubt there are other places on the Web where you can ask questions like this. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 03:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The following excerpts are from a CNN article today Oct 21.[32]

"Brown's blood was found on the officer's uniform and inside his police car, law enforcement sources told CNN. Those sources corroborated details first reported by The New York Times."
" 'That tends to support any testimony that there was some kind of scuffle in the police car,' said CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos. 'And if so, that tends to support Officer Wilson's testimony and his justification for using deadly force.' "
" 'Ultimately, that officer will have to come up with justification not for firing his gun the first time, but for each and every bullet that came out of his firearm -- whether at the car or away from the car," he [Cevallos] said."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bob. Is it okay to continue this discussion briefly, if it aids in clarifying the article content to editors? I personally don't understand why this is a bombshell either, as Dorian Johnson also said there was a scuffle and Wilson shot Brown. Except in Johnson's story Wilson was the instigator. Why is this leak benefit Wilson account more than Johnson's account? Saeranv (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

collapsing own forum response with the things I've seen on the internet, in answer to the questions posted above
Here are a few things that have been said about it (mostly in blogs and forums) - I'm not saying I subscribe to all or any of these, just saying that this is why some people may think its a bombshell (and certainly none of this is reliably sourced to be includable in the article)
  • Diminishes reliability of those who claim to be direct eyewitnesses who say there was only one shot (some accusing them of being hearsay/tainted witnesses essentially, some saying they were not in a position to accurately see/describe things)
  • Dorian's claim is that Wilson grabbed Johnson by the neck. Doing so in a way that results in Brown's arm being significantly in the car, and Wilson still in a position to shoot him in the right arm is convoluted (but not impossible) (The scenario I read was Wilson reaching left arm out of drivers window. Right hand on gun. Brown's arm hits are all on his right arm. If Wilson is holding Brown's neck/shirt, Wilson's own left arm would be in the way of Brown's Right side)
  • In a similar vein, but from the POV not that Wilson Grabbed Brown, but that Brown was punching/attacking Wilson - depending on which arm hit (from wrist to armpit are options), and where the blood was in the car, that could tell quite a bit about Brown's body position and how far into the car he was.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


In addition to my comments above, this story has some more analysis from the NYT reporter that gives some insight (and is perhaps usable in the article to boot) http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/NYT-reporter-who-broke-story-about-federal-investigation-of-Brown-shooting-speaks-279846422.html Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me be clear, no one should ever have a problem with this kind of discussion for the purpose of improving the article. It was clear enough that the OP was asking the questions only for his own enlightenment—he wasn't going to stick around and work on the article with us—and this is not the Michael Brown Shooting Reference Desk. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 19:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I can help. I'm here with an intent of making this the best article possible. And I don't get how the blood in the car does anything other than bolster Dorian's claim that Wilson pointed a gun at him, shot him, that his blood was running everywhere, that they both were, as a result in fear for their lives, that they both ran away, that and that Michael Brown yelled out to Dorian when he hid behind a car, "Keep running, Bro." And it looks like a reliable source has found a criminonlogy expert who shares some of my questions, concerns, and analysis.
Criminology professor analyzes 'NYT' article on Mike Brown case
Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
he thinks it won't have an effect. Not so much on the "bolsters Dorian's claim" tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
A bunch of information has now been leaked, as noted below. To explain, briefly:
  • Lack of stippling on the gunshot wound, combined with the presence of gunshot residue in the wound, indicates that the gun was fired at point blank range - less than an inch away from his hand. This is consistent with a struggle for the officer's gun. Some blood was apparently found on Wilson's gun, further corroborating this.
  • The presence of blood inside the car indicates that Brown's hand was inside the car when he was shot.
  • The angle of the gunshot wound to Brown's forearm is inconsistent with his palms facing Officer Wilson.
  • None of the gunshot wounds occurred while Brown's back was turned to the officer.
  • The final, fatal gunshot wound to the top of Brown's head occurred either when Brown was falling or lunging towards the officer.
The narrative summary of the incident according to the office of the medical examiner matches Officer Wilson's leaked testimony, and the autopsy results contradict several elements of some of the eyewitness testimony (though, given that the eyewitness testimony has claimed just about everything - that Wilson was advancing, retreating, or standing still; that Brown was either standing still, falling forward, or charging; that Brown's arms were either up or down; and that Wilson was anywhere from 4 to 30 feet away, that was kind of inevitable). Brown also had apparently recently used marijuana according to the toxicology report, but they were unable to determine if his judgement was impaired at the time of the incident. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Could not all these factors still be explained by Wilson drawing his gun and shooting Brown during the scuffle as Dorian Johnson claims? It seems a leap of logic to go from confirming that there was a point-blank shooting of Brown's hand inside the vehicle, to saying this means Brown was going for the gun. Anyway, there's at least one forensic expert, cited here from the Washington Post that doesn't think the autopsy confirms Brown was going for the gun: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/experts-autopsy-shows-close-range-wound-for-brown/2014/10/22/0308154a-59fb-11e4-9d6c-756a229d8b18_story.html?tid=collaborative_1.0_strip_2 . Saeranv (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure. But if his hand was on the gun, regardless of why, Wilson's interpretation that he was going for it and therefore was a perceived reasonable threat, is a lot stronger. There are going to be a million ways to put this stuff together that are consistent with the facts we "know". Some of those scenarios are going to be favoring wilson, some of them will favor brown. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that only the ones that match are bad for Wilson? Thats a tough hill to climb. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I take your point. Saeranv (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New Information

According to the Daily Mail, there was a leak of Officer Wilson's testimony; maybe we should use that/add that as a new section? Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, apparently there's a significant amount of new information. One of the autopsy reports has been released and matches with Wilson's leaked testimony. It appears that Brown was shot in the hand and that there was gunpowder residue in the wound, suggesting that he was shot at point blank range for that shot. There was also blood and apparently skin in the car, further suggesting that an altercation in the police vehicle had taken place. It was also confirmed that Brown had recently used marijuana, but they cannot determine whether or not he was impaired at the time of his death. [33] [34] Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Added the information to the article. Good times. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Transponder? Even if that's the technically correct term, how many people know what it means? Even I have to deduce that it's the radio whose mike+speaker cops often have pinned to their shoulder. Should we call it call something else instead, like "radio"? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go with radio too. When I hear transponder I think of non-interactive telemetry. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
My only reservation would be that the vehicle also has a radio, so there could be some ambiguity in just "radio". On the other hand, I wouldn't know how to qualify it. Body radio? Portable radio? Neither sounds very good to me. Walkie-talkie is archaic, colloquial, and technically incorrect. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I found multiple online references to "shoulder radio". Although the shoulder part wasn't the part that was "knocked off-setting"—it's only the mike and speaker parts—I think it's an improvement over "transponder". Absent any other interest, I'll change to "shoulder radio" and see if it flies. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The article summarizing the report is already mentioned. Should we add a direct link to the report itself ?--Japarthur (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I had added one previously, a link to the material posted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. If there is a better, more permanent location for the material in question, change that reference to link to it. The reference is named StLouisNarrativeReport right now, because that's what I had seen. If you have a full copy of all the pages of the autopsy, link to it and feel free to change the reference and the reference name (it is referenced in the county autopsy section). Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The irony and meta-ness of this story is awesome.

An anonymous source says holder is annoyed by anonymous leaks :)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leaked-information-on-ferguson-probe-angers-attorney-general/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. Ileanadu (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)oi
I'm going to post this on FB. Ileanadu (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_16&oldid=1155492068"