Talk:Killing of Adam Toledo

Discussion

I am concerned that this article is not promoting a neutral point of view with regard to the body cam video. The reference given about this video states that Toledo appeared to toss his gun behind a fence. When I added this to the article, however, it was reverted. The article currently reads as if the body cam video calls into question the entire police narrative about Toledo being armed, but neither the reference nor any other primary source I have seen does so. 73.222.34.100 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fast-developing story, and Wikipedia does not need to keep up (WP:NOTNEWS). Wait for reliable sources to analyze the video, then put what they say into the article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree -- that's why I added the same language that was used in the USA Today reference.73.222.34.100 (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added a bit about the fence. Best to not bother to attempt to influence the outcome of this tragic incident by editing Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 22:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User Jassihome1 added a clause to the Incident section claiming "body cam footage shows him with a gun for a split second before he turned around." Two of the three sources cited at the end of this sentence directly contradict this analysis. This breaks NPOV for stating a contested assertion as a fact, and giving undue weight to a particular view. I removed the clause for now, but feel free to edit with a fuller, more objective description capturing all relevant opinions on the footage as well as which parties are making which claims.

• The footage does not show Toledo point or raise a gun at Stillman at the end of the chase. Toledo does not appear to be holding the gun as the officer shot him.[1]

• The officer shouts for Adam to "stop it" or "drop it." Adam turned toward the officer and put his hands up. The footage is grainy, but he did not appear to have a gun in either hand at that moment. [2] Combefere (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a joke. The article is completely one sided. Why not mention the MS13 tattoos on Toledo's arm? That's a fact that you don't want people to know. What about the gun residue on his hands? Another fact. But make sure to mention prior use of force by Stillman, which is irrelevant to the conversation since the vast majority of officers have used force multiple times in their line of work. It's disgusting how people use platforms like this to promote agendas. Jimithing1980 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

These articles are filled out in time. If you have a reliable source which includes either of these two claims, have a go at adding them. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The irony here is palpable. Clearly you've got an agenda you're trying to promote. The complaints against Stillman (and more importantly, the fact that the police department initially lied about them) are relevant, which is why they're brought up in multiple reliable sources which are all cited in the article. Any tattoos that the victim had are not relevant; the officer didn't see the tattoo before shooting him, and it wouldn't be somehow acceptable to shoot someone because they have a tattoo anyway... which is why most reliable sources aren't including this detail. This is an online encyclopedia. Our job is to summarize and organize data from reliable sources, not to editorialize them. Combefere (talk)

I would agree that the article fails to be neutral. Waiting for reliable sources (in the face of bodycam footage that shows an armed suspect), ALSO means waiting for sources that report the incident in a more unbiased way OR synthesizing the best truth from multiple biased sources to create an article that is informational rather than persuasive. It is better to be slow and leave information out rather than be biased. -- Avanu (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu: for the purpose of verifiability, it is important that citations are correct. Your change has resulted in an inline citation (to USA Today) appearing to support a statement that it does not at all support (that the body cam footage partly supports the department's initial claims - nowhere in the USA Today article can I find a statement to that effect). If you want to say that, you'll have to find a reliable source which says that. But please make sure you do not misrepresent sources in such a way. Please self-revert for now. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu It's unclear what your complaints are. If you think any of the RSs cited in the article are biased, state which sources you think are biased and why. If you take issue with any of the facts or analysis published by the RSs, explain which ones and why you take issue with them. Without any specifics, you're not contributing anything to the discussion. It seems like you're not even sure what you want and would just like to put the article on hold until some news outlet publishes your preferred talking points (whatever they are). Combefere (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP regarding officer name + strobe

Hello. This article from Block Club Chicago gives a name for the officer, citing Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability. I am not very familiar with the practical application of the WP:BLP policy; I don't know if the source is reliable enough, whether WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPCRIME matter (I would think both not much?)...

Second thing: the news article also mentions that the officer pointed a strobe flashlight at Toledo. This can be seen in the bodycam footage. I figure that the use in such a situation would be to disorient? Our article on strobe lights does not mention such a use of strobe lights - it does mention law enforcement, but only concerning the light on top of a police car. I think I will try to find some sources about such use by police. Anyway, I will go ahead and mention the strobe flashlight in the description of the incident, as that seems like relevant enough information. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 00:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Without a reliable source on why the strobe function was used, it is best to leave it out. The flashlight is most likely multi-function, and has the option to strobe or not. It could have been entirely accidental. I didn't see any flashlight active for most of the video. He did activate it later to show where the gun was thrown and it was just a normal non-flashing light. -- Avanu (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu I do wonder why the strobe light was used, but I don't see why we would need to know why to include the information. I've seen the fact mentioned in multiple reliable sources' account of the incident. I don't see how the points that you make give reason to remove this information. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Page to "Shooting of Adam Toledo"

Undecided- The name on this page doesn't match precedent with other certain Wikipedia pages on police shootings, such as the one for Breonna Taylor, and the name could appear somewhat biased. May not be necessary, but certainly worth discussion.aaronneallucas (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Support - Problem right now is that Article "Shooting of Adam Toledo" also exist and is currently nominated for Deletion (or better merged). CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

oppose as per our dozens of other articles on similar matters, he was killed. See Killing of George Floyd, Killing of Aiyana Jones, Killing of Greg Gunn, Killing of Ahmaud Arbery which is our current standard. TAXIDICAE💰 16:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a great explanation of why: Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ, point 4. TAXIDICAE💰 16:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - he was killed, the sources say he was killed, there is no doubt his cause of death was homicide, and the idea that killing is somewhat biased is based on nothing at all. nableezy - 16:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - See WP:DEATHS. The Cook County Medical Examiner's Officer ruled the death a homicide ([3]) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - per TAXIDICAE💰's comment, the claim that this title name breaks precedent is unfounded. There are plenty of articles titled "the killing of..." Killing of Rayshard Brooks, Killing of Eric Garner, Killing of Duante Wright just to add to the list. This is a made up problem. Combefere (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DEATHS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral "Shooting death of Adam Toledo" would be ideal. 108.53.222.173 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Alternate Pages about these types of incidents, especially active ones which have not had a trial or for which the trial isn't concluded, and thus it has not yet been ruled a crime or not, should be called "The death of…" Saying "the killing of" is a loaded weasel word/phrase which is biased and implies a crime and is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV. Saying "the death of" is neutral and doesn't prime readers before they've even read the article.

  In my understanding, a "killing" is merely when human kills human, without implying wrongdoing or a crime. In other words, the word "killing" is rather different from the word "murder". I would consider "death" more appropriate for simple accidents, not incidents where someone was shot dead with a gun. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Does this exact same argument really need to be hashed out again and again after every police killing? We could follow the advice at WP:DEATHS, or understand that deaths ruled to be homicides are accurately and in fact neutrally described as "killings", or follow the existing consensus implied by the naming convention used in every other article of this nature, Killing of. It's silly to rehash this debate over and over again when the result is always the same for articles of this nature. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose — He was killed. It's not a loaded word and doesn't violate NPOV. "Killing" is used so matter-of-factly in the article and the English language in general that I fail to see how it "implies a crime", as an above editor has noted. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral on changing to "shooting of", but it's better than "killing of". Agreed with other comments that this topic shouldn’t need to be covered on every discussion about these events. However, aspects seem unaddressed, like that most discussion on this topic interchanges the concepts of being “killed” and “the killing of” as the same thing. But they are different. Consider that “the killing of” implies more in terms of intent or culpability, than being "killed". As a thought experiment, if I title an article/webpage/blog “the killing of the cat”, my family would surely initially conclude “what the hell have you done?!” and likely assume I purposefully killed the cat (or wanted the cat killed). As opposed to using the other less implicating versions like “the cat was killed” or “the death of the cat”. Additionally, most dictionaries include further qualifications in their definitions of “killing” with things like “especially deliberately”, “the act of” , “causing”, “caused by”, etc., all seeming to imply more than is warranted before a thorough determination is made in a legal proceeding. Wikipedian’s first instincts with the myriad of other similar articles over time titled “the death of” seems more objective and correct than this latest trend of implying any level of intent in the title. Even when it might seem obvious. Digihoe (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Adam Toledo was killed. This article is about that killing (i.e., the killing of Adam Toledo). Doctormatt (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• support Adam Toledo died. Its common knowledge that waving a handguns while of after being chased by police can result in getting shot. We should use a neutral encyclopedic tone, instead of trying to be activist or sensationalists journalists. Francis1867 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If the police officer fired the strobe, the article should say so, and the Vimeo link should include a seizure warning.

The text currently reads that:

The officer points a strobe flashlight at him[17] and yells "Show me your fucking hands." Toledo then turns around with his hands up. As he does so, the officer yells "drop it," and Toledo is shot by the officer.[17][18][19]

I've heard and read that the police officer fired the strobe, as well as speculation that this may have made it harder for the officer to see what happened, but I can't check the video because if he did fire it, then I'd risk a seizure. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not our job to analyze the video, we summarize what sources say. TAXIDICAE💰 21:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

In the video, the flickering light is turned on during the last part of the chase. The source used for the statement says he "flashes a strobe flashlight at Toledo", so we can definitely clarify in the text that the strobe is turned on. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made this change. Of course, the speculation you mention cannot be in the article until a reliable secondary source says that as part of their analysis of what happened.

About your suggestion that the Vimeo link should come with a seizure warning... I'm not sure. I am reminded of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, but crucially the warning here would not be for Wikipedia content but external content, and watching it might result in physical harm for people with photosensitive epilepsy, which is something else than just a warning that the content is "graphic", "shocking" &c (which are also expected for a video of a shooting, whereas the strobe is not expected). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Split second

I added that Toledo was armed a "split second" before the shooting. WWGB removed this, saying it "is an exaggeration" and replaced it with "just prior". I won't revert this, but I think it's wrong. If you looked at timestamps, there is less than a second between Toledo having the weapon and being shot—hence "split second". And "just prior", to me, is vague and doesn't communicate to the reader the timeframe. It could mean 5 seconds, 20 seconds, a minute, a minute and a half. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking time stamps is WP:OR. We should use a term from a RS. WWGB (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Viewed as the totality of the sources provided in that line of the article, which indicate there was a gun in hand at some point in the encounter and the encounter was less than a second, I think it's fair to sum it up as a split-second difference between armed and unarmed. We don't have to use an exact quote from RSs, as this isn't Wikiquote. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not your job to provide an analysis of the footage, as that breaks the No Original Research policy. The reliable sources which are cited in this section directly contradict the evaluation that Toledo was armed either "a split second" or "just prior" to the shooting, and you are misquoting them by adding that information to the article under those citations.

• The footage does not show Toledo point or raise a gun at Stillman at the end of the chase. Toledo does not appear to be holding the gun as the officer shot him.
• That's when the officer ordered Adam to show his hands, according to his bodycam video. The officer shouts for Adam to "stop it" or "drop it." Adam turned toward the officer and put his hands up. The footage is grainy, but he did not appear to have a gun in either hand at that moment. The officer fired his weapon less than a second after Adam turned around to face him with his hands raised.

Combefere (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What the Block Club Chicago article does say is that he appears to toss the gun "moments before" being shot, in discussing the other video evidence. PJvanMill)talk( 13:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to go with "moments before" over complete removal. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I edited to include "moments before" in the sentence where they talk about him tossing the gun behind the fence, which is the same context as the Book Club Chicago article. Happy with that if you are.

• I added: "In footage taken from another angle, Toledo appears to throw a pistol behind a fence moments before turning to face the officer."
• Book Club Chicago verbiage: "Video from a different angle appears to show Toledo tossing the gun behind the fence moments before he is shot."

Combefere (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To correctly inform the public, the page should include the following two pictures. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzMHjJIVEAQL5tA?format=jpg&name=900x900 and https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzMHqOwVcAgmo2W?format=jpg&name=large Oathed (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oathed In the first image, the text is basically entirely separate from the actual picture. The number of milliseconds in the text needs a source or it's WP:OR, and the text does not seem very neutral: the information is presented outside the context of the sequence of events; it says only that it was a "single shot" and leaves out, for example, that it was a fatal shot... The second image is an uncropped screenshot from a video where the original footage and the same footage zoomed in are side by side, with a big red arrow with text on it... all not very professional. Better would be just a screenshot without progress bar of the original footage, with a red circle highlighting the apparent firearm. But then again, there is the concern of WP:OR.

Also, these images have been modified, creating a copyrightable work... I don't suppose you are their copyright owner? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, there is a difference between No Original Research and blindness. We can all watch the bodycam footage and it is clear that the kid tosses the weapon and turns toward the officer in nearly one motion. Obviously we are supposed to wait for RELIABLE sources, but that reliability is based on more than just brand-name. It is on a case by case basis as well as that source's historic accuracy. In this instance it would be UNreliable to include a source that contradicts obvious primary source information. -- Avanu (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Providing this type of commentary is exactly what the No Original Research policy prohibits.

• "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"

It's also unclear what your issue is with the verbiage. The text under incident mentions that he throws a gun behind a fence, turns around, puts his hands up, and gets shot. If you have an issue with this sequence of events, which is presented this way by multiple RSs, then state your complaint specifically. Combefere (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Change "Toledo appears to throw a pistol behind a fence moments before turning to face the officer" to "Toledo appears to throw a pistol behind a fence seconds before turning to face the officer". 108.53.222.173 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not seconds before, it's less than 1 second before. Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Lead paragraph

I suggest the lead paragraph should include these facts:

1. He had a gun
2. He threw the gun over the fence
3. He turned and put his empty hands up
4. The officer shot him
5. #1-4 happened "in a matter of seconds" or "over a few seconds" or similar
6. #1-4 is recorded in multiple videos

I think these six facts are crucial and basically supported by all the RS in total. Agree/disagree? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agree. The fundamental facts that are necessary to understand the article. You shouldn't have to read halfway through the article to understand we're talking about a tossed gun. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also broadly agree, though for #2-3 I've seen sources give the caveat that this is from interpretation of low-quality video in which everything happens very fast. I've previously reinstated some language like "the video appears to show that..." because I saw sources saying it similarly. Also, in #2 "over" should be "behind", I think. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The version in the article now, "dropping a handgun", seems fine – whether it's over or under or behind a fence or that there was even a fence at all is probably not particularly relevant for the lead. Regarding "appears to show", the video is indeed grainy it's hard to make out what's going on at first glance, but people have had time to look at it and it seems everyone is in agreement over what happened, the doubt introduced through "appearing to show" is probably not necessary anymore. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Toledo throwing the gun behind through the gap in the fence is important enough for the lead, because the police couldn't see that he'd done that until they looked for the gun after shooting Toledo. The fence obscured the cop's view of the gun from the alley, so he didn't know that Toledo would be empty handed when he turned round with his hands up about a second later. Jim Michael (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Jim Michael WP:OR. Combefere (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Bodycam "contradicting" statements

I do not think we should say (in the lead or body) that the bodycam "contradicted" (or "supported") police statements, at least without some RS that explicitly state that. The USA Today article cited in our article, which is the most in-depth RS I've personally seen so far about police statements, reports that the initial statement "armed confrontation" was changed only 12 hours after it was released. It also reports that multiple other statements, which say various different things, were issued, and some of them (like the prosecutor's initial statement that the victim was holding a gun when shot) were also later changed/corrected. We could lay all this detail out in the body, but in any event, we shouldn't just highlight the first police statement without also mentioning that it was changed 12 hrs later, and we shouldn't make it seem like there was only one statement. The bodycam footage contradicted some statements (that were later corrected), and supported others, but unless RSes say "contradict" or "support", we shouldn't say either in the body or the lead. So I suggest we remove this from the lead/body until/unless someone wants to write a full paragraph about all the statements reported in the RSes... so sort of an "all or nothing" approach is what I'm advocating for this. Thoughts? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's always neutral to say "X said Y", and then later say "the bodycam footage showed Z". It is also a WP:SYNTH issue to join the two with something like "however", as you're implying something novel about the conflict between the two facts. I think how the lead is now [4] avoids any of these problems and is fine in this regard. To whatever degree sources question/discuss the accuracy of the initial statements of police, such commentary may make sense somewhere in the body of the article, though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)