Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: exactly what did the two "confrontations" entail? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Video will be released on Friday evening, January 27, and the nature of the confrontations will be clearer at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What’s the copyright status of the bodycam Videos and police telephone pole footage? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Does the footage show the first "confrontation"? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There were no good reasons for the traffic stop in the first place... New hordak from 2018 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The only current media reports about their confrontation so far has been these two incidents that are on film, the earliest being the stop at the intersection. I also included a formal citation for the videos since before we just had hyperlinks.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

SCORPION unit success

I'll remove the following text: "The unit is very successful, with hundreds of arrests."

While the success of law enforcement is always a subjective matter, if one is to quantify it, the proxy should at least be convictions. Number of arrests include innocents, and cases where the police failed to gather sufficient evidence, neither of which is any way a success. EBusiness (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote is directly from the video source (timestamp: 3m13s) and although unattributed, it can be safely assumed to have originaly come from the Memphis PD. 2604:3D08:7386:200:E14F:F06D:9876:CB2D (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because a source write/say something doesn't mean it belong in the article. In this case it does seem plausible that the indirect source is the police department themselves, which is pretty much the worst imaginable source for a qualitative rating. EBusiness (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I think the fact that the officers were SCORPION officers is relevant, but I don't see how the overall performance of the SCORPION unit (success/failure, arrest rate, etc.) is relevant, as this isn't an article about SCORPION. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The idea behind inclusion of the quote was to demonstrate that SCORPION officers go hard on crime and basically hunt down and vacuum criminals off the streets, in direct opposition to the arrest rate of regular policemen in the same department. 2604:3D08:7386:200:E14F:F06D:9876:CB2D (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As already noted, we don't know who exactly they're "vacuuming" off the street -- "criminals"? Maybe, maybe not. EEng 20:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing seems nonsense anyway. According to Memphis Police Department it has 2081 or 2142 officers although 1950 employees, don't ask me but either way we can say close to 2000. The population of their jurisdiction is 650,632. It's reasonable to assume even the normal police are making hundreds of arrests per month, probably even per week. So even if all the arrests were of criminals "The unit is very successful, with hundreds of arrests" [1] is pretty meaningless without a time period or direct comparison. Even accepting the unit only has 50 officers, it does not tell us it has a higher arrest rate. And a higher arrest rate even if all the people arrested are criminals doesn't prove one is more 'successful' which is frankly a silly term. For example I'm guessing homicide units generally make far fewer arrests per officer-time than street units often dealing with more minor crimes. Try telling a population you want to get rid of units dealing with complicated crimes which may sometimes require length investigations because they're 'unsuccessful' compared to street units since they make so few arrests and see how well that goes down. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

i'd like to know why there is no charge of depraved indifference against these officers, considering that they left him, handcuffed, for twenty+ minutes after their savagery. seems logical. also, is there any URL for mr. nichols's website?

Requested move 27 January 2023

Death of Tyre Nichols → Killing of Tyre Nichols – This seems like a clear example of where WP:DEATHS can be used to provide some helpful guidance. The death was due to homicide (killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional), but there isn't a murder conviction, so "Killing" is the most appropriate, clear, and accurate title to use. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the autopsy hasn't been released (yet, or at least, as far as I know it hasn't been released yet), and so we have no official determination that this was a homicide, which is what WP:DEATHS requires for "killing of...". I'm not sure why the autopsy hasn't been released, but there is no official cause of death yet (see e.g. [2], [3]), and the family's autopsy is not official. I don't see a lot of news reports refer to this as a "killing"; "death" seems more common. We have no source that says this was a homicide, even though it seems to very obviously be a homicide. I'm pretty close to an WP:IAR support here, but what's holding me back is RS support for this being a homicide aka a killing. I don't personally doubt it, but my personal opinions aren't an RS. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Perhaps this is a little early, since the official cause of death would make it rock solid. Though on the other hand it is well established and reported he "succumbed to his injuries" after being severely beaten, which is the definition of a homicide, and there are plenty of sources that do say killing, including the AP and the headline of the NYT's ongoing coverage. I lean towards still moving to "Killing", but your point is well taken. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh! That changes my mind. My overriding concern is WP:V, that we can verify that this was a 'killing' and not just a 'death', and the AP and NYT calling it a 'killing' in their own voice satisfies WP:V in my opinion. Support. Also I'd point out that there is very little chance that they would be charged with 2nd-degree murder if there wasn't an autopsy that said the cause of death was homicide, even if said autopsy report hasn't been publicly released yet. RMs last 7 days, so I'm pretty sure we'll have either an autopsy report, or a lot more RS calling it a 'killing', before a week has passed. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - it should remain "death" until we know that the cause of death is homicide, then it can be changed to "killing." We will know this when the autopsy report is released. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to add, just for clarity, that if an autopsy report is released confirming that he died by homicide before this RM is closed, I support. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unless an autopsy says his death was a homicide. If it does, then I will support a name change. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support due to the AP and NY Times sources cited above, and assuming more media report the death as a killing in the coming days. Once the video is made public (as well as autopsy results), we'll see how this changes the language in news coverage. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support the man was clearly killed as a result of physical violence. Spudst3r (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose of now - Let's until the cause of death is determined.Cwater1 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now or perhaps more accurately, Wait. This is a developing situation and I feel the next days/weeks will probably give us more clarity about what's going on here. Not A Superhero (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Waiting was very prudent. However, they are now charged with murder.[4] Homicide determination is a prerequisite of murder charges. We should in an orderly manner move this page before the release of the video. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose until it is legally determined one or more of the five cops killed him. Until then, it is a death. Innocent until otherwise proven in a court of law, and all that. XavierItzm (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's the wrong logic. See WP:DEATHS. EEng 22:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:DEATHS when the cause of death is unknown, the name is "Death of". Damar Hamlin, a top athlete in the prime of health is 24 and almost died a few weeks ago of cardiac arrest. People die all the time and the reason is not necessarily the exact last thing you did. People are jumping to conclusions here, based on an emotional response.XavierItzm (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fun Fact: Cardiac arrest is a sign of death, common to all, not a cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as a waste of time right now. It's not critical that this be exactly right at the earliest possible moment. Let's wait a bit until the answer is clear (e.g. an official cause of death is available) and we don't have to dissect sources and argue about it. In the meantime we can spend out time doing useful things. EEng 20:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but would support once we get an autopsy, given that his death happened after the encounter. If the cops are convicted, of course, should be moved to "Murder of", but we shouldn't jump the gun on any of this. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because we don't know it was a homicide so we don't know it was a "killing." It's extremely unlikely that Nichols died of a heart attack before he was hit but WP:DEATHS (or at least the part of it that guides this situation) was created because such a scenario isn't 100% impossible. I bet I'll switch to support shortly but you didn't hear me say that. CityOfSilver 00:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because realistically 'killing' vs 'death' is honestly not the debate. Regardless of an autopsy and a court outcome, we've all seen the video and KNOW he was killed. The real debate is 'killing' vs 'murder' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.41.91.234 (talk)
• Oppose because the death could be a combination of multiple causes. I always wish Wikipedia is the source of information and fact but not opinion. Keep the title neutral and provide as mush information as we can would be better. The readers can blend the information with theirs knowledge. Seinlin (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Point of fact - autopsies don't determine the status of a death as a homicide. That's done in a court of law. Autopsy results are certainly relevant, but "homicide" is a legal term, not a medical one.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:3887:3041:8289:B0D7 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Actually at least with regards to most of the US that's incorrect. Autopsies are often the only thing which determines if something is a homicide especially in the case of police killings. Courts only generally get involved in determining if something is an illegal or unjustified homicide. They don't generally concern themselves whether something is a homicide except at a prerequisite for any case which requires something is a homicide. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely correct. We better brace ourselves for the onslaught of ill-informed amateur legal experts. EEng 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  (EC) Besides police killings to give another obvious example, every successful use of capital punishment involves a homicide but after death courts if they do get involved only generally get involved in other things like whether the killing appeared excessively prolonged or traumatic so may be cruel and unusual punishment, not whether the death was a homicide. This implicitly or explicitly means the courts are accepting the death as a homicide but the lack of any court action doesn't make other such deaths not homicides. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Move - I just watched the video. I don't really feel like engaging in Wikilawyering over something you can see with your own eyes in a video released by the police. Courts may determine that police actions were justified, but whatever they conclude in the end, there is no doubt now that Nichols was killed. -Darouet (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Also note that Cerebral726 above (at the top of this section) cites links from the NYT and AP where those agencies describe Nichols' death as a killing. -Darouet (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Move due to released footages. If he was not beaten he was alive home now. Talking about "multiple causes: he was beaten multiple times, tasered, got head injuries and died after injuries. Gharouni ^Talk 01:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The COD is still open, the death may have been (partly) due to natural causes. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Cerebral726. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. I implore anybody who opposes to simply watch the video. It is disgusting. This person was killed. Jackstraw97 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. As per WP:DEATHS flowchart, and reliable sources stating he was killed:

1. "Fatal Beating" https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-memphis
2. "Deadly beating" https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/officers-charged-tyre-nichols-death-96711213
3. "Fatal beating" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/27/tyre-nichols-protest-video-release

I do not understand why we need a coroner's report, Wikipedia is not run on the basis of legal certification, it is run on the basis of citing reliable sources.

CT55555(talk) 02:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. If we have an autopsy which concluded the death was a homicide then sure.If we have the official autopsy results and it concluded the death was a homicide then sure. This case is somewhat unusual compared to most other high profile cases of a similar nature I recall given that we've had the videos releases and the officers indicted but don't yet have even a summary of the autopsy. However I think we need to wait for it at a minimum. If the autopsy is released without finding the death was a homicide, we can reasses based on the sources that emerge but I suspect the result will be us keeping 'death of'. While I don't know much about Tennessee law, I'd note that in general especially given that AFAIK (for some reason our article doesn't mention this) the charges came from a grand jury indictment, there's no guarantee the autopsy ruled the death was a homicide. Death of Elijah McClain is one notable case where there are charges relating to a homicide despite an undetermined cause of death and I seem to recall others. (Outside police killings, this also happens a lot e.g. Death of Caylee Anthony. I'd also note in plenty of these cases, we have people who insist we should call them killings or more based on some RS but we rightfully stick with 'death of'.) We obviously cannot OR based on viewing the videos and I don't think even what RS say based on assessment of less than 3 hours is very meaningful either. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think the concept of "reliable sources" is that we have deemed them to be reliable, rather than conditionally reliable. I think that editors have reached a clear consensus that the sources I mention above are reliable. CT55555(talk) 02:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yet in every other article, we do the same thing as here. If they say something which contradicts other RSes we do not take one as sancrosact because some editor feels it is. We are neutral and where necesssary mention both PoVs and otherwise use wording which applies to both PoVs. If you want to change policy so we take certain RS as sancosanct and ignore other PoVs, you're welcome to start a policy proposal in an appropriate place. I would add "deadly beating" is a terrible term to express the PoV that a beating caused a death since it's a term sometimes used when someone does not die Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would find this more complicated if a reliable source said his death was caused by something other than the police officers, but I've not seen any do that. So I see no contradiction.

  I consider "deadly" to be very widely understood to mean "causing death". CT55555(talk) 03:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's ridiculous. There's no requirement that sources need to directly contradict something if they do not state the same conclusion and especially if they say we do not know. And you can consider whatever you want. The fact remains plenty of reliable sources do not use it in that manner, whatever you want to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  If there are reliable sources that reach other conclusions? If so, please share. If not, please stop suggesting that alternative theories of his cause of death have been reported.

  The reality seems to be that some reliable sources say he was killed (see above) and some imply the same without stating it categorically and some are vague.

  I was being polite. "deadly" means "causing death"

  My comment was not "ridiculous" please be civil. CT55555(talk) 18:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a source which contradicts the claim that Tyre Nichols was killed? --Jannes Althoff (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: - I'm a bit perplexed by this focus on a coroner's report or an autopsy. The assumption seems to be that those are more reliable than the slew of sources that have already indicated this was homicide. Is your insistence on the autopsy report something that comes out of policy, or just your own personal guideline? NickCT (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are many issues include WP:BLP which mean we have to be very careful about declaring something is a homicide based solely on the fact a few sources say it has. While a homicide can be lawful, in cases where the existence of a homicide may be in dispute, we have to be absolutely sure there is no reasonable dispute. While coroner verdicts are not perfect, they are far better than relying on what some sources have said based solely on non expert analyses of very limited evidence. (I'd note many of the sources people were referring to existed before the videos were released so they weren't even based on viewing these videos but instead third party reports from lawyers, family and the police. But these are precisely the sort of things people will say we have to be very careful with relying on when the alleged killing was not carried out by the police.) Coroners are supposed to be independent medical experts who look into the available medical evidence and determine whether the actions of one or more other humans directly caused the death of the person. While this doesn't always play out in practice, at least in most developed countries their verdicts are generally well accepted such that there's normally far less dispute in reliable sources and we have a BLP compliant reason to say something in Wikipedia voice. Note that we already mention the charges etc, so it's not like people reading the article will be in any doubt that some people say thay Nichols was killed, it's simply a matter of whether we should effectively say it's undisputed by saying in wiki voice that Nichols was killed. As I mentioned below, this doesn't mean coroners verdicts may not be disputed by defences (or sometimes in part prosecutions) but ultimately we have to draw the line somewhere and so provided there does not appear to be obviousy dispute in RS, we generally go by such verdicts. While this case involving a beating seems a case where there is less likely to be a dispute (although I'd also have said that of Rachel Nickell or even Death of Elliott Williams, Death of Darren Rainey and Death of Marcia Powell so what do I know?) than something more complicated, but it does seem more complicated than a shooting. Still even in the case of a shooting coroners help to rule out any complications e.g. if it turns out the deceased had actually taken a significant overdose or poison which it's found was the actual cause of death and almost definitely would have caused death even with the shooting. I'd note that if we went solely by what a few sources say, we'd be calling Casey Anthony a murderer, and also those involved in the killings of Killing of Natalie Connolly and Killing of Rachel Nickell and as I already mentioned Elijah McClain (which we still call death) likewise as murderers. For good reason we do not do so. Yet we do call Killing of Eric Garner a killing although it's my understanding lawyer for those involved still dispute that it was, and I think even some parts of the police union again based on the fact that the coroner's verdict is widely accepted in RS no matter what these other parties say. Additional, we have to take reasonable care with early reporting, and especially for analyses of the video but frankly for anything in this case (since although it has been nearly 20 days since the death a lot of the stuff is quite recent), as later reporting relying on more evidence and without the time pressures of early reporting can be more nuanced and balanced. Remember that by saying "death of" this doesn't mean it wasn't a killing, as I mentioned early on in we already go into detail and are likely to more over time over such things in the article. We are simply avoiding saying it definitely in wiki voice. Again BLP means we have to get things right so we should always defer to caution about being wrong when saying anything involving living persons. A final note probably my last in this entire discussion, I generally avoid them because while they matter for BLP reasons, I find them silly. I've already spent probably an hour or more discussing this and I'm sure when take other editors time it's been many hours and this is over something which is probably going to be resolved in a week or two at most. IIRC we had a similar issue with Murder of George Floyd where after the video came out there a strong push by some to name the article killing of but we waited until the autopsy summary. (My memory seems correct Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 1#Requested move 27 May 2020. Indeed it came out before the RM was due for closure which could even happen here.) I've never understood why people feel it's so urgent we risk violating BLP by saying something which we ultimately cannot take back when when if they're right and there is no dispute it's very likely we can say it in a week or two at most and where as I already noted, we do already provide the context and it's only a matter of whether we say it in wiki voice. Admittedly this case seems a little different gives the charges have happened but there's still not even a summary, however I haven't read anything to suggest it's going to take that long. If it turns out the autopsy verdict isn't as clear as we'd like well then as I said, we can assess what sources say at the time. It may be like with Elijah McClain they accept there's dispute and so are nuanced in what they say. Or maybe they'll won't be. We can deal with that if we come to it. (Likewise if it's a month later and there's still no autopsy, we can deal with that at the time.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. I think that, even though the autopsy has not been released (to my knowledge), the video of his death is evidence enough that this was a homicide. Technicalrestrictionadjustment (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - My "gut" is to go w/ "Death of.." until there's a conviction. That said, as User:CT55555 astutely notes, the policy illustrated by the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths)#Flowchart seems to clearly indicate that when one person kills another, it's "Killing of..". I haven't really delved into the sources, but it seems pretty clear that this guy was killed by others at this point. NickCT (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  @NickCT: Can you further explain how following the flow chart leads to that conclusion? The flow chart says "What was the manner of death?" There's no direct explanation for what this means in the flowchart itself but in the "How to use the flowchart" section it says: "A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization. This determination becomes eligible for use on this flowchart only after it is reported by a secondary source.". Who is the official authority here? The grand jury? The prosecutor? The police chief? The editors of the NYT? Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: - I think the answer is the editors at the NYT. The basis for WP is that we defer to reliable sources. If a bunch of RS's say someone was killed, we defer to that. We don't second guess or question whether the folks at NYT are smart enough to figure when someone was killed. We just assume they're smarter than us. They actually get paid to write.... Good work citing the "should be made by some official authority". I think that's probably generally true (that's why it's a "should" rule). Certainly in cases where there's ambiguity. But in this case, the RS's are pretty overwhelming. As is the face-value evidence. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support he was killed by police, see bodycam videos DefendingFree (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support he was clearly killed. Body cam footage helps support that. Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support he was literally beat to death in the video

Chicken4War (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support--We do not need a conviction or an autopsy to rule this a killing. There is a video of this man being beaten to death. He was killed. Natural causes did not claim his life and the technicalities of how he died don't matter. He was put into critical condition by five people who quite frankly didn't care if he died but he did. He was killed. Settlementboa (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I support once there is more reliable confirmation (of the obvious): that the actions of the police were the "but for" cause of his death. SecretName101 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per CT55555; the flowchart on WP:DEATHS clearly indicates "killing" at this time. (due to the absence of a murder conviction) Aaryan ^{📬 • 🥰} 06:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This is a killing, there is no doubt. The article may later be changed to "homicide" after a murder conviction is obtained, until then we have more than enough evidence to call this a killing and not a death. 47.145.248.81 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.248.81 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

One alternate option could be something along the lines of "Beating and death of Tyree Nichols" SecretName101 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Homocide requires a "but for" act (either an action or act of omission) by another individual. We all know there was one. Problem is, we don't verifiably know it (in the sense that a source has outright declared it to be the case in writing).

Us declaring, "well, we know it based off of the conclusions we've reached ourselves watching the video" probably violates to "no original research" principle at Wikipedia. SecretName101 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but that's simply incorrect. If it's a killing it a homicide as the flow chart says, that's what we mean by killing, a person was killed by one or more other people whether legally or illegally i.e. a homicide. There's no such thing as a killing which is not a homicide. As I explained above, if it's a homicide, the court case ultimately only deals with whether it's a legal homicide. (Of course a defence in a court case can also dispute whether something is a homicide, an autopsy is not treated as a sacrosanct decision that cannot be overruled either way. However at least in the US, while juries and judges may decide this, it's not generally directly part of their ultimate verdict as that only deals with the entire case including whether it's unlawful. For decisions by judges, the decision may sometimes include an explanatory which discuss the aspect however for juries there is generally no such thing and instead you only have comments later made by individual jurors which are not in any way part of the actual verdict.) Therefore coroners are often the only official party to make a verdict on whether something is a homicide. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support He was killed. WP:DEATHS TarkusAB^talk/contrib 07:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose wp:nor - two ambulance tech workers were fired because..., blood loss was fatal because... wp:npov - police intentions were...Createangelos (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, when 5 men step on a bug, and it dies, they can't just remove themselves from the equation because it was an accident, or because the bug tried to run away, or because the bug did something wrong, or because the bug has unhealthy habits. The death would not have happened the way that it did without their involvement. They killed him.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Support There now exists 4 separate video angles of Tyre Nichols being severely beaten. As one of the officers involved stated, immediately after removing his body camera and pointing it at the sky: "I was hitting him with straight haymakers, dog." Tyre Nichols didn't punch, kick, or bat himself in the head. He would not have died the way that he did if he were not beaten as severely as he was. I think the officers' behavior immediately after the incident, including their characterization of the confrontation, including the claim that he reached for their weapons, implies that they knew they went too far and were trying to create an excuse for how far they went.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support It's a matter of fact. Per above and RS stating he was killed. Shouldn't be a point of contention. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support WP:DEATHS says that the title should be "Killing of" when the cause of death is known, not that a specific document is required. RS clearly say he was killed. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Everyone knows it was a killing, everyone is calling it a killing.★Trekker (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support As per WP:DEATHS. "Death of" is pseudoneutrality which arguably shifts agency away from those who killed him.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 15:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the video footage that has been released, reliable sources such as (but not limited to) The New York Times quote an independent autopsy that says Nichols died from "extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating". It's clear that the word "killing" is both more accurate and less ambiguous than "death" and the title should be changed accordingly. — Hunter Kahn 16:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The vast majority of reliable sources attribute the death to the actions of the police officers. Regards SoWhy 16:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Per the flowchart in WP:DEATHS, the more appropriate title would be Murder of Tyre Nichols, since all officers have been charged with murder. MaterialWorks _(talk) 16:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Charged does not mean convicted. The presumption of innocence still applies. Which is why the flowchart also asks "Is there a murder conviction in the case?" (emphasis added). Regards SoWhy 16:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with SoWhy. For example, we didn't change "Killing of George Floyd" to "Murder of George Floyd until Chauvin was convicted of murder. We didn't change it when he was charged. Labeling the killing a "murder" is the job of a court of law, and reputable outlets also wait for the conviction. DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support The flowchart at WP:DEATHS clearly leads to "Killing". As for reliable sources....are the videos of the killing considered reliable sources? So many of the videos, photographs and news stories that we see these days are are manipulated, fiction is the new reality. Can we trust the videos? I put that out there as a rhetorical question. If you answer "yes" then the evidence before your eyes leads inevitably to "Killing". Captain Infinity (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the independent autopsy, at least the part released, said he died from extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating. There is 0 chance this is not a homicide, and the passive death is silly here. nableezy - 18:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - For all reasons given above. MainePatriot (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The flowchart on WP:DEATHS should also be updated, if there is consensus for the update, that if someone has been arrested and charged for the death, then it's "Killing of." Fishermansworf (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Unequivocally support – "Come on, guys, can we really conclude JFK was killed? I mean sure he had his brains blown out on live TV in front of millions, but I think we should just stick to misleading euphemisms until Bethesda Naval is done with the autopsy. What's that? An autopsy revealed that he died from 'extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating?' 'extensive intracranial hematoma caused by a bullet wound'? Well gee, who knows? Could be anything." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Reliable sources are reporting that he was killed by the officers, so that is the appropriate title for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as his cause of death was homicide. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per BBC News, the autopsy finds that Nichols died due to "extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating", and all the sources agree that the beating was by the police. This was a killing by police. Boud (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Support per Boud. DecafPotato (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

‘’’Support’’’ - Death of… was appropriate until the autopsy report was released. Now the language should be Killing of… then once the officers are convicted in court it should be changed to Murder of… just my two cents Michael-Moates (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Unmarked police cruiser image

@EEng:, I saw you removed the image of the unmarked cruiser. I added the photo because it was of a type of vehicle the police officers specifically used: an unmarked Memphis police cruiser, as used by SCORPION: seen in this video, and mentioned to be of relevance in this article. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, where in that source is that particular style of vehicle described as being the one used in this incident? And even if it is, how would the reader's understanding of the incident be enhanced by their seeing that one or more of the cars was (I dunno) a Chevy versus a Dodge -- in a random photo from 10 years ago? And were they all the cars the same? EEng 20:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Benjamin Crump

@EEng:, I'm a little confused while you think it's not worth noting the family hired Benjamin Crump, the attorney for the families of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Jacob Blake. That is highly publicized and notable. Regardless, with the number of sources stating he has joined the case, it is at least worth mentioning in a single sentence. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this could be better phrased as something like "Benjamin Crump, an attorney with past experience representing the families of police brutality victims." To readers who might have zero familiarity or poor recollection of the other cases, that list of names is meaningless/provides zero context. SecretName101 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the presence of protests is part of what makes the case notable. It is very odd to not include even a single sentence mentioning that they have already started. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• If sources on Nichols say that Crump was the attorney in those other cases, then it's definitely worth reporting that "The family hired attorney BC, who had represented X, Y, and Z." Just saying they hired an attorney is not surprising.
• The article's text said, literally, nothing more than that "there were protests" -- nothing about where, when, how extensive, anything. WP:DUH! That tells the reader nothing. In a few minutes, no doubt there will be something far more substantial to report, so let's just wait a bit and there will be plenty of sources with lots of detail.

EEng 00:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

While the fact that they hired an attorney isn't surprising, given that the particular attorney is notable there is no reason to not include a mention of who they are. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Including the race of Nichols and the officers

Ponyo and WWGB have both removed text from the article indicating that Nichols and the officers involved were all African American, with WWGB arguing that "ethnicity is irrelevant". I disagree with this because reliable sources have chosen to mention the race of the people involved here, for example the first sentence of a NY Times article mentions Nichols's race: The death of Tyre Nichols has provoked outrage and prompted state and federal investigations in the weeks since Mr. Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, died after being pulled over by the police in Memphis.. Another article also mentions the race of the police: The police, in an initial statement, said that a “confrontation occurred” as the officers, all of whom are also Black, approached Mr. Nichols’s vehicle on the evening of Jan. 7 and he ran away.

Since reliable sources include this information, and therefore deem it relevant enough to the event to include, there is not a valid justification to exclude it here. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed. These are factual statements (supported my many reliable sources). Both Tyre Nichols and all five of the officers involved are black. Simple. No commentary necessary. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• I added the race of Nichols and the officers given that it is pertinent to understanding the significance of the topic. Readers may assume that the officers are white (as I did).

This discussion has happened plenty of times before, but the ultimate deciding factor is how reliable sources treat this topic. Here's a compilation of reliable sources highlighting the race of Nichols and the officers:

CNN: 1, 2, 3.

ABC News: 1

CBS News: 1

The New York Times: 1

BBC: 1

NBC News: 1

Reuters: 1

Associated Press: 1

The Washington Post: 1 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately without an explicit mention of race/ethnicity, "whiteness" may often be assumed as the default. And I agree that how reliable sources treat the topic should be the deciding factor. Thanks for the breakdown, with links. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include although not for the same reason as the first two editors here seem to have. (Are they both prepared to add this information to every single person on Wikipedia whose ethnicity can be reliably sourced?) Instead, I'm beyond bewildered that, in 2023, anyone still believes "'ethnicity is irrelevant, this is not a race-based matter'" when the subject at hand is another unarmed Black man dying after violence from police. Is this whole situation really being reported and really affecting people exactly the same as it would have if all the officers had been white? Come on. CityOfSilver 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Include. Anyone who thinks that because the cops and the corpse have the same skin color, there can't be a racial element, doesn't know what he's talking about. EEng 00:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Cite a source. In other words, prove that you know what you're talking about.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:640C:6C8C:CC5C:68A0 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here you go: The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black. But they might still have been driven by racism ― CNN, Jan. 27, 2023 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include obviously.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Include, given the racial dynamics of policing in the United States. -Darouet (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude. The names of the victim and officers are clearly minority. Plus by excluding the racial descriptions along with the obvious national interest by the media it's a "wink wink, nod nod" as to which minority that all the actors and victim belong. Let's not mimic the sensationalistic media but instead take the high road and leave race out of the equation. Otherwise the trolls will appear and criticize the fitness of the police officers based on.. well.. race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.251.100.160 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying we don't need to mention the ethnicity of the involved because they have Black names like "Justin Smith." Wow. CityOfSilver 03:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. This is a matter of WP:RELEVANCE. This was a black-on-black issue, and there is no evidence that race played any part in the incident. Deaths like Murder of Jared Lakey, which was a white man's death by white police, does not mention ethnicity anywhere in the article. To include ethnicity in a black-on-black issue has a racist undertone. And WP:NOTEVERYTHING in the media needs to find its way into Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of racism is not a particularly good high-note to what you're attempting to state. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include because all the RS include it, which means we do include it, because we do in fact include everything -- all significant information -- that's in the RS. Suggesting race isn't relevant because it's black-on-black betrays a misunderstanding of how systemic racism works. Readers will obviously want to know the races of the police and the victim in any American police brutality case--that's why all the RS give that detail. To suggest race isn't relevant is just ignorant. That the victim is black is an important detail regardless of the race of the cops. That the cops aren't white is also an important detail.

  Also, I'm tired of fighting WWBG on this issue on every article. Race will be included in every article about police killing an unarmed person in the US, because it's always highly relevant to the topic. WWBG loses this argument every time. At some point, it become tendentious to push this issue at every new article about this topic. Levivich (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @Levivich: Oh, really? We fight "this issue on every article"? And I "lose this argument every time"? I would REALLY like to see evidence of these assertions. Come on, show us what you've got! WWGB (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    Friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry WWGB, I owe you an apology, I was confusing editor names, my comment was unwarranted. Levivich (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. Every reliable source that I have read has noted that the victim and attackers are Black. If reliable sources widely consider it relevant, I think that is the indicator we need to look for. CT55555(talk) 02:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include - This is a fact noted by RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include - it's clear from RS this is a major issue in this case, and even both the family and police chief talked about it in some way. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Include This is noted in reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. Prominent WP:RS including CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC, NBC, Reuters, AP, etc., all have noted that the victim and attackers are black. When reliable sources widely consider it relevant, that's your clue. XavierItzm (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. We lose context to understanding. We cause no harm or misrepresentation by including it.

For George Floyd’s murder we mention Chauvin’s race within the first sentence of the lead. SecretName101 (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include Reliable sources have made mention of it.★Trekker (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include. Multiple reliable sources have not only mentioned it but stressed that the fact that all involved were black demonstrates that police brutality is a problem that transcends the racism often associated with it. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include. Reliable sources are routinely including the race of the officers and the victim as relevant facts in this case, so they should be included in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

facts based article

since this is an ongoing issue at the moment, I think there's a need for fact-checkers to support reliable references. and perhaps anyone writing on this could hopefully spare themselves sentimental or emotional tones in their writing. 158.140.162.238 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Go for it! Although you should probably get an account first since this article is probably going to be put under protection and anonymous editors won't be able to change it. CityOfSilver 04:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Falsely accused of reckless driving?

"On January 10, 2023, Tyre Nichols[a] died three days after five Memphis Police Department officers falsely claiming to have observed reckless driving stopped him."

The source merely says that the probable cause wasn't substantiated. It could have occurred, but off camera. Schierbecker (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Schierbecker: - wording is gone now. starship.paint (exalt) 05:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: The current wording is still problematic. "The Memphis Police Department initially stated on January 8 that the traffic stop of Nichols was due to reckless driving, 'but' later on January 27 the Memphis police chief stated that footage showed no evidence of probable cause for the traffic stop." The two statements are not in conflict with one another. It's possible that he was initially stopped for reckless driving, AND the footage showed no evidence of it. The body camera perspective does not show the officer's point of view especially when sitting in the car. Baller McGee (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The lede

The lede is currently very awkwardly written. It needs to be restructured and clarified. I added one comma and was reverted because someone thought it made the attack and Tyre Nichols' death sound separate, so I need some help here. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Be bold. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 06:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a minor edit; hopefully this works. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: The comma makes the beating and Nichols' death sound separate. RS connect the two events, so there shouldn't be a comma. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

CJ-Moki, the comma serves to separate two statements. This doesn't mean they aren't related or one is not caused by the other. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: I suppose I just think it reads better and makes more logical sense without the comma, because the two events are inseparable according to RS. Perhaps the opening phrase On January 10, 2023, could be removed to make the first sentence more concise without a comma? CJ-Moki (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree that the comma makes the beating and Nichols' death sound separate. starship.paint (exalt) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"On January 10, 2023," and "Tyre Nichols died" and "three days after a traffic stop..." are three separate parts of the sentence. I added a comma between the second and third, simply because it sounds easier to read; less awkward-sounding somehow. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Using pronouns might help with some clunkiness. There's no need to repeat "Nichols" when he's the central figure. In most paragraphs, he's the only one who wouldn't be "they". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The early lives of the five former officers

According to details I just found, four out of the five arrested officers were originally Memphis-area citizens (including cities in Mississippi surrounding the Memphis area). But only one officer (Desmond Ainsworth Mills Jr.) is originally a resident of Bangor, Maine, Hartford, Connecticut, Bloomfield, Connecticut, and Charleston, West Virginia. Mills (B. 3/16/90 according to Shelby County inmate search) was notable for forming a local business called D&M Relations, LLC, registered in Memphis.

Various newspapers and outlets across Connecticut, including CBS station WFSB, FOX station WTIC-TV, and NBC station WVIT-TV, reported that Mills Jr. was a former graduate of Bloomfield High School in Bloomfield in 2008 before settling in West Virginia. However, it was unclear when he moved to Memphis but he did join law enforcement and the MPD in March 2017.

Olive Branch, Mississippi-native Tadarrius Bean (B. 9/18/98 according to Shelby County inmate search) joined MPD in 2020 at the age of 21 and was the youngest to be arrested out of the five involved it.

Does anybody have more information involving the five former officers? ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You have been asked repeatedly across many articles to stop delving into trivia and minutiae attached to an incident. Topics like the cops' place of birth and high school are irrelevant to this incident. We are not writing a biography on the accused. You are neither an investigative journalist not a commentator. Your contributions to Wikipedia will be better accepted if you stop this personal tesearch. Thanks, WWGB (talk)

Well yeah, having quality sources would definitely improve the chances for any of this stuff to be included. But certainly, what some may consider "minutae" or trivia probably has a slim chance for inclusion in this article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Media outlets reported that..."

Media occasionally get things wrong. We should not publish an assertion that is not verifiable with the qualification that "media outlets reported" it. This is in response to the statement "Media outlets reported that the footage did not show Nichols resisting [or appearing to provoke] officers during the beating." It is true that the BBC, a reputed source, reported that Nichols did not appear to resist officers. The statement by the BBC is not credible. Video is released and the consensus of sources is that the video shows Nichols resisting and fleeing. Baller McGee (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

why newsworthy? why Wikipedia article?

Killed by law enforcement does not seem to be a rare or extraordinary event, even if considering only the ones involving illegal actions by law enforcement. As evidenced by Wikipedia's own record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States So why is this one blown out of proprtion and treated in this sensational way? "why newsworth" is not controlled by Wikipedia, but the second question is --Felixkrull (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an article for all or even most police killings. But some police killings are high profile and receive significant coverage in reliable sources, such as this one and others like the murder of George Floyd. The same is true for civilian killings. Most don't have an article, but the ones that receive significant coverage do, such as the murder of Gabriel Fernandez and killing of JonBenét Ramsey Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 18:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This event has drawn coverage in reliable secondary sources that establishes long-term notability as an event. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not simply cover topics deemed a "rare or extraordinary event". We follow the reporting of reliable sources. There could likely be many more articles about officer involved killings, high profile or not, given enough coverage by media. That's simply up to editors to create said articles or not, and to justify WP:NOTABILITY etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP. Police beat people to death all the time so we might as well mind our own business and get used to it. EEng 20:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming that's sarcasm, heh. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sarcasm has a calming effect on Wikipedia. Use it frequently!

• WP:NOTFORUM. Regardless, the answer is because the video illustrates a murder with no justification whatsoever. A police officer who shoots someone can conceivably offer a justification for their actions, but there's no justification for five police officers brutally beating someone for no reason. A second reason is because reliable sources consider this newsworthy. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"Expletives"

• We should quote what was said in full. No need to pull punches (so to speak). EEng 20:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. If we know the expletives, we should include them. We have no problems at Wikipedia illustrating articles with graphic images (Murder of George Floyd, Lynching of Jesse Washington, Henry Smith (lynching victim), Omaha race riot of 1919, etc. etc.). Why would we wimp out over mere words? We don't censor here. SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources on protests?

@Cerebral726: If you have sources on protests, then feel free to list them here for other people to use in the article, or integrate the info into the article yourself. If there's enough for the body of the article, then a summary in the WP:LEAD will be better justified. Boud (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are actually two separate articles about the protests: Tyre Nichols protests and 2023 Memphis protests.

And there is an ongoing discussion about merging them. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)