Talk:Clackamas Town Center shooting

untitled

Is it of any interest for this article that this was posted on 4chan the day before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.93.97 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occured only 3 days later. It was cited on CNN that there is an escalation of copycat indedents in a feedback runnaway situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotten134 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Right now the Sandy Hook shooting is referenced in the See also section, though I imagine it will be incorporated into the article at some point. Right now I am holding off on updating the article myself since it is being discussed at AfD (for some reason...). --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"I am the shooter!"

This article cites a CNN article as the source for the statement that Roberts shouted "I am the shooter!" before opening fire. There is no information in that regard contained in the cited CNN article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.184.93 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Twenty to Sixty?

This is just horrible. That's like saying I own 2 to 6 cars, and I slept 4 to 12 hours last night. With such a perverse grasp on how many shots he fired before his weapons malfunction, the word "several" should be used. In the absence of more precision, the number of shots should be omitted. --Digitpuppet (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless, Daily Mail UK is quoting "as many as 60 shots". That's what I'm putting back in the article. 10stone5 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's fair, I suppose. I've seen more than one article reference that number. That will have to suffice until we have an official police report to cite that gives the actual number based on casings and magazines recovered. It's about being factual and neutral. In the absence of facts, we should be mute. --Digitpuppet (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Defenders

I'm adding this because someone removed the defender from the article under the argument that the defender never fired. Defense is an act that might or might not imply the expressed use of force. There is no requirement that a defender even be armed. It's the acts the person takes that places them apart into the defender category. In this case the defender states that he told his friends to get down, brandished a firearm and brought it to bear on the shooter, who then disengaged and stopped shooting people. The story is corroborated by two WP:RS sources and as such is noteworthy as a defender. Talk here to discuss and reach consensus for removal - please bring reliable sources if you disagree or if there are other reports out there. I found 2 supporting the existence of a defender - albeit one who did not discharge a firearm but who brandished one and brought it to bear. That qualifies as a defender --Justanonymous (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Reportedly, both the Clackamas and Sandyhook shooters killed themselves when an armed response was presented. No "defenders" discharged a firearm in either case. It was their presence and capability that was credited by the references with ending the assault. --Digitpuppet (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagee. There is no evidence that the shooter saw the "defender" nor is there any logical reason to assume so. There is only the hearsay of the person who had the gun. Secondly, adding the defender tag to the summary seems like a move with a very obvious agenda. It doesn't appear standard or generally accepted to have a 'defender' in the summary of a shooting event. I'm going to remove the defender tag in a couple days if there are no disagreements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.130.177 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. There is no proof, but it has been reported by reliable sources, and we qualify the statement to say it is the alleged defender's view of events. The category does not mean we are saying this is a defensive gun use - merely that this article is related to defensive gun use. It is. Even if it were definitively provable that the shooter did NOT see the defender, or that the defender did not even HAVE a gun, the category would still be applicable, because defensive gun use was discussed in reliable sources in relation to this topic, and this would serve as an example of when defensive gun use was incorrectly claimed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully 63.204.130.177, a first person account is not heresay, it is a first person account. Your logic has a fundamental flaw which I'll explain later. Further and to this argument the first person account in this case was is reported by reliable sources in at least two instances. Journalists are taught to verify their sources and their stories in a strict fashion so I'm going to assume in good faith that the reporter who reported the story followed the standard good practices required by their profession and that her editors, producers etc in two separate paths both agreed this had merit. They found the source verifiable and printed the story. At which point it became a WP:Reliable source and satisfied the Verifiability test. At least two separate reporters were able to corroborate the statements enough to convince their professional management of reputable journalistic integrity to print the story. Your assessment and logic is therefor flawed. Let me explain where your logic broke - there are countless situations in the world where crimes are committed where there is only the perpetrator and the victim. By your logic, the statements of the victim would always be heresay and inadmissible if no other evidence was found -- that is a gross flaw in logic. First person testimony is testimony and valid especially when corroborated by journalists and editors and television station producers and newspaper editors can corroborate enough to print. The First person testimony is the testimony of the person who was there, you were not and you have no WP:RS sources nor any logic backing your statement - only perhaps an agenda. Do not remove the entry. You need to come here with a much more substantial argument and reliable sources. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

63.204.130.177 I invite you to read heresay and then read testimony there is a profound difference. That will help shape your view on why Mr Miel's statement would not be considered heresay. He was a first person witness to the tragedy. Further through his actions he was a defender. This story aired on several news stations. Further regarding the infobox, the template specifically has a tag for defender. The fact other wikipedia articles are poorly written is no reason for this one to be poorly written. The existence of the defender tag and its purpose is clear. The definition of the word and term "defender" is also clear in the template for this type of infobox. Feel free to look it up. Please discuss with sound logic and WP:RS sources that are verifiable please. Again, do not remove the defender content without substantial discussion here.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Meli's actions and witnesses

Some anonymous IP editors are adding color to Mr. Meli's actions on the page claiming that there is no proof that Mr. Meli took the actions that he did and that there were no witnesses. These premises are patently false. Two independent newsreporters reported the story and two very reputable news agencies carried the story of Mr. Meli's actions. Per Wikipedia this makes the sources Reliable Sources and satisfy the requirement of Verifiability.

I will assume good faith and that people just don't understand what journlaists (newsreporters do). It's a profession and they are required to corroborate their stories. When a reporter first arrives at the scene of a crime or a newsworthy story they start talking to people and when somebody makes a claim, the journalist will then seek to corroborate the story by asking other people present whether the story is true or not. If the reporter can corroborate the story, s/he might print it. If the reporter is not able to get a consistent story, they will very likely not print it.

Example, as newsreporter shows up on the scene of a tragic mass shooting. He asks a shaken Person A what happened, Person A replies that he told everyone to get down and drew his firearm and pointed it at the perpetrator. What does the newsreporter do next:

A) Labels Person A a hero and rushes off to print the story immediately without talking to anyone else. B) Assumes Person A is lying and goes on to get the real story by talking to the police C) Asks numerous other people at the scene to corroborate Person A's story before printing it and then her management checks her facts just to be sure by spot interviewing some of the other people present D) Starts picking up shell casings for the police

If you answered C, you are correct. And that's what happened with Mr. Meli's case. By the time a reporter publishes a story, not only has the reporter vetted the story to be true but so has the management of the reporter's company. The fact the story is coming from a reputable news agency means that it has been corroborated as fact. So please, we have two independent news reporters from very reputable news agencies reporting on the actions of Mr. Meli. Per Wikipedia standards, this meets Reliable Sources, Verifiabiliy, and Notability. His actions align with those of a defender. Please do not embelish the facts. They are facts regardless of political inclinations.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you be willing to list a synopsis of those sources, with links here on this Talk page. Early on, it appeared that there was only a single statement by Mr. Meli himself. If you, indeed, have multiple reliable sources in standard media (not blogs) documenting the claims, that would seem to change the situation and support the Wikipedia article potentially presenting it a bit differently than the way the article does presently. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It never appeared that it was only his statement. If it were only his statement and his word, most reporters would not have published the story because the story would have failed the corroboration test under the journalism profession. Any guy can say that they were a hero but if the people around the guy say that he was cowering on the ground, no reporter is going to publish the claim. No, it was never just him saying it. He said it, and the reporter did his job and verified the story through corroboration. The two references are on the page itself supporting the statements from two distinct WP:RS sources which satisfy the requirement CBS and NBC affiliates, not blogs. As a matter of course, each reporter corroborated his & her story in accordance with their professional ethics and with the requirement of their employer which is a pretty stringent test. If you're asking for the reporters to surrender their corroborative work and show their homework, well that's categorically unequal to demand that the reporters only in this case provide all of his corroboration, while no other article in Wikipedia is held to that standard. That's why we have the policy, once a reporter reports the story and publishes it, it becomes WP:RS and satisfies the test of Verifiability. That's why we have the WP:RS, Verifiability, and Notability policies - so we don't need a mountain of evidence and words to get something inserted into the Wiki. It's WP:RS because it comes from a reliable source, the reporter and his company - that should suffice. Here are the two links from very credible RSes.

• Mike Benner of KGW, the NBC affiliate did a piece on this.
• Kacey Montoya of KOIN 6, the CBS affiliate also did a story on this as well.

NBC and CBS both doing pieces on this man clearly means these people did their homework and this man materially did what he said he did as corroborated by the people the reporters interviewed as part of their work. It's WP:RS, can we stop making the bar inordinately high on this. It's tiresome. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're seriously mistaken if you think reporters have such a high standard to report on a story. Even the people (his friends) with him at the time have not spoken of the indecent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.237.7 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's WP:RS. If you have a WP:RS contradicting, post it here to gain consensus. This not a forum so don't care about your personal views, respectfully. I invite you to read the standards. If you vandalize the page, I'll have you blocked.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think whether or not it's relevant at all is a question worth having. Had the CCW-holder fired, or had he and the shooter interacted in anyway, it might be a different story. But literally nothing happened, and it had zero bearing on the events of the night; whether or not it contributed to his suicide is a matter of speculation from the CCW-holder himself. It's presence seems to suggest a paragraph flirting with the neutrality boundary in its implied intent. 71.59.147.83 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

violation of WP:synth. It's fact, it happened, it's WP:RS. It's notable.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The POV/opinions of people involve in the event are not subject to WP:NPOV policy. He states his opinion as to what effect it may have had. We quote him and state it is his opinion. We are not making a claim of fact that it DID have an effect. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But what is the relevance of Mr Meli opinion about what transpired? As far as we know, he's not a criminologist or clinician and he has zero leg to claim that his actions pushed the shooter to commit suicide. Nowhere man (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Meli OBSERVED the incident, and told the news media about it. WP cites those Reliable sources. Aeroview854 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Weapon photo

I placed a (more or less) generic photo of an AR-15 at an appropriate location in the article. An editor objected that a generic photo wasn't good enough, and removed the photo. I've updated the photo label to reflect that it's not the exact model used. It still gives a reader the info that it's semi-automatic and not the specific model used, which wasn't revealed by media accounts. It's still informative, showing that it has a military type clip, and that it's not a flinklock. The reader can see roughly what it looks like, even if it's not the exact model. Cheers. Tapered (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)