Talk:2011 Seal Beach shooting

Victims

Dekraai's ex-wife Michelle Fournier is reportedly one of the victims, but police have not confirmed this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Time of incident

The police responded at 1:21 pm [1]. This is not strictly the same as the time of the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Background of Dekraai

There is some good background material here, but it may be best to wait until charges are brought.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Former marine?

Dekraai apparently told his neighbors that he was a former marine and had been honorably discharged.[2] This appeared in some media coverage, but is contradicted by investigations over several days since the shooting.[3]. His career seems to have been mostly spent on boats in California.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To do list

• What was the weapon used? Apparently all the shooting inside the salon was with a handgun, but no word on the make.
• Who was Lucia Bernice Kondas? Probably a customer in the salon, but no details as yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The press has asked for more information on her too via Facebook. Here is what they have so far. 72Dino (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The guns used may be a HS2000 (Springfield Armory XD), Heckler & Koch HK45 and a Smith & Wesson Model 29. The first two are unclear from the source.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See also User_talk:ROG5728#2011_Seal_Beach_shooting. The guns are shown here at the DA's press conference, but it is unclear whether these are the actual guns or general illustrations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Executed versus killed

The original wording was "The victims were shot in the chest and head" which seemed neutral and factual. The media sometimes talks about "execution-style slayings", but it seemed best to avoid this type of drama and to use a NPOV form of wording.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The "execution" description came from the District Attorney, and the source in question is used throughout the article (the DA is even treated as a reliable source in the preceding sentence, which repeats his claim that the shooting lasted two minutes). It's certainly possible that that was just dramatic wording on the DA's part, but (as long as we're guessing) the unusually high fatality rate (8 of 9 dead) would seem to indicate the killer did indeed execute his victims. As for neutrality, we could just directly quote the DA for the sentence in question, thereby shedding responsibility and giving readers the original description (accurate or not, we can't really say). ROG5728 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that as state prosecutor, the DA is not a neutral figure. The two minute timing is fairly uncontroversial, as is the statement that the victims were shot in the chest and head. I would prefer to avoid the use of the word "executed" unless it was in the context of a direct quote from the DA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with that. The first clue about the non neutrality of the statement should have been its source, the DA. Wikipedia should only state the facts of the situations and shouldn't report someone's opinion as fact. Chest and head seems fine and is factual and not one persons opinion.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you have explained what exactly is "controversial" or "non-neutral" about stating that victims in a shooting rampage were executed, especially when you both apparently think it's not controversial or non-neutral to state that the victims were murdered with shots to the chest and head. Furthermore, the "chest and head" statement in its entirety came from that source (the DA's "opinion"), as did many other statements made in this article. He is either a reliable source or his statements are "one person's opinion"; but it can't go both ways. ROG5728 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

First, the opinion of the DA is being stated in the article as fact. Second, execution implies something more ominous and planned out, which may or may not have been the case. Just the facts, that's all we need to deal with, nothing more. It could also be a possible WP:BLP problem by calling the killings executions as well, because the alleged shooter (and yes in my opinion, he obviously did it, according to all the sources), has not been convicted of this crime, but he is being perceived as an executioner, by the wording of the statement. Like I said before, its not the DA's job to be neutral, but Wikipedia must abide by WP:NPOV. Considering that the wording you chose to insert is being challenged by others at the moment, it's best to revert back to the original wording for now, until or unless consensus dictates otherwise.

I know that you were only quoting from the original source, and that the source is used elsewhere in the article, but we must be careful only to use the facts from the sources, and not report the opinions from those same sources as facts as well. There is a very defined difference.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily his opinion; you came up with that idea. He very clearly states it as fact that they were executed, and he has been treated as a reliable source throughout the rest of the article, so there is no reason to treat him as "opinion" in this case. You can't pick and choose what to accept from his quote, and it's absurd to say that executing people is more "ominous" than intentionally shooting and murdering people with shots to the chest and head. It is most definitely not a BLP issue, either, because both versions of the wording implicated the man as an alleged murderer. ROG5728 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The shooter may have shot the victims in the chest to disable them, then shot them in the head. This could be seen as an execution-style killing, but the original wording simply said that that the victims were shot in the chest and head.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The "original wording" was actually the DA's wording, which said the victims were executed with shots to the chest and head. To my knowledge, no individual has stated any of that information (including the "chest and head" description) except for the DA. ROG5728 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you don't like the answer, then stop asking the questions. The DA also calls him a "Coward" in the citation as well. Is that also a fact or just anopinion?--JOJ ^Hutton 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That is clearly an opinion. It is not analogous to his statement that the victims in a shooting rampage were executed. ROG5728 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

At the television press conference, Tony Rackauckas broke down in tears and said: "While Dekraai rampaged through a hair salon shooting at innocent victims, the son that he professed to love was sitting in the Principal's office... waiting for his mom or dad to pick him up... that little boy is a victim." here at 2:28 There is a WP:ALLEGED issue here, so the wording should be neutral.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

How is the statement by Rackauckas pertinent? Dekraai is currently an alleged killer, yes. That doesn't mean the DA's statement was opinion, nor does it mean that it must be discarded as such. You didn't treat the rest of the DA's quote (the "chest and head" part) as opinion; you stated it in the article as fact, even though the DA is the only individual that has stated that information publicly. Victims of mass shootings are very commonly executed, in the literally meaning of the word (put to death), i.e. they are shot and fall to the ground wounded, and then they are executed while lying on the ground. In light of that fact, there is nothing suspect about stating that these victims suffered the same fate. The fatality rate, after all, was unusually high (8 of 9 dead) for an incident of this sort. ROG5728 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably time for a WP:RFC on this issue. The number of dead does not seem to be an issue. Shooting people in the head to ensure that they are dead is a feature of shooting sprees (eg the Walk of Death or Port Arthur massacre).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just about any mass shooting of this sort has involved some number of people being executed (like you said, shot in the head to make sure they're dead). In the Virginia Tech massacre, for example, all of the victims were shot at least three times each (some as many as seven times each), and yet 28 of the 30 deceased victims at Norris Hall were also shot in the head (referenced in the wikilinked article). It is definitely not suspect to say that the victims in this shooting were executed as well; especially when the cited individual has been treated as a reliable source throughout the rest of the article. ROG5728 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Both of you stopped responding to the discussion, so your recent revert (JOJ) is completely inappropriate. If you won't continue discussing it, leave it alone. You still seem to have the idea that the "original wording" simply said that the victims were shot in the chest and head, and that the "execution" bit was tacked on by the DA. That is not correct. The entire statement (including the preceding sentence) originated 100% from the DA, and that information has not been stated publicly by any other individual. If it's somehow "controversial" for him to say that the victims of a shooting massacre were executed (shot in the head while down), it's equally "controversial" for him to say that the victims were shot in the chest and head. Really, neither statement is even slightly "non-neutral" or "controversial" but my point is that the double standard you are trying to apply here is ridiculous. The DA is either a reliable, neutral source or he is not. The "coward" statement, by the way, came from Seal Beach Police Department Capt. Tim Olson, not the DA (as was incorrectly stated by JOJ earlier in this discussion). ROG5728 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My preference for the original wording has been expressed; I'm disinclined to edit war over the change that has been made.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing obviously is going to change your mind, but as you are the "only" one is support of the wording that you inserted, you will not be allowed to highjack the page. Your insertions were reverted the next day, it is you who must leave the original wording alone, not us. The original wording of the page must stay unless you are able to get support for the POV edit. So far, no one has been convinced. We must error on the side of caution when BLP and POV issues are raised. Read WP:BRD on how this is really done.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You all but abandoned the discussion, so stop changing the article. My version agrees with the source, yours agrees with you (and one other editor?). You cannot (and will not) throw away statements from reliable sources without better rationale. So far, all you have come up with is "it sounds ominous" (as if shooting people in the chest and head is not "ominous"), and "the DA also called him a coward" (erroneously attributed to the DA when it was actually said by the police captain), and "the DA is not neutral" (even though you were happy to keep everything else that came from his statement, including his allegation that the man shot these people in the chest and head). You will have to do better. Everything you have stated here has been shown to be invalid, and it's quite clear both of you have reached a dead end in your rationale for not including what the source says. It's absolutely absurd that you would find it "controversial" to state that victims of a shooting massacre were executed by the killer; especially when the source in question has been treated as a reliable, neutral source throughout the article. As for it being a BLP or POV issue, your version is no more neutral; it still implicates the man as an alleged mass murderer. I keep pointing that out, and you keep sidestepping it. Apparently you didn't read WP:BRD very thoroughly, either, because it clearly advises the BRD editor with the following:

• There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.
• Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay.

See also: WP:DRNC. ROG5728 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I seriously suggest that you self revert your last edit before I am forced to make a report to WP:ANI for your tendentious editing, not adhering to WP:BRD, POV pushing, and a serious violation of WP:BLP, which is strictly enforced.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have given no explanation as to why it would be either a POV or BLP issue; I have clearly explained to you why it is not. To repeat that explanation: my change simply says what the source says, and the source has been treated as a neutral, reliable source throughout the article. Again, your version is no more neutral; it still cites the DA, it still quotes most of his statement, it still quotes his claim that the victims were shot in the chest and head, and it still implicates the man as an alleged mass murderer. You apparently have no interest in actually discussing the content issue with me (edit summaries in your reverts don't qualify as discussion), so if anything, it is you who is being tendentious here. I think it's apparent you have reached a dead end in your rationale for not including what the source says. You've reverted twice in the last 12 hours and you haven't even made an attempt to discuss the content you're reverting. Your accusations of tendentious editing and "POV pushing" do not qualify as discussion, either; you're sidestepping the discussion and being inflammatory in the process. ROG5728 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, self revert. You do not want to have this discussed at WP:ANI. Secondly, it is extremely a violation of WP:BLP because the suspect has not been convicted of a crime, and you are stating the DA's opinion in the case as fact in the article. The DA has to think the suspect is guilty, that is why the DA can use those words, but on wikipedia we must adhere to the policy on WP:BLP. This is strictly enforced, and major violations of WP:BLP should be removed. You have to recognize the differences between actual facts and reporting opinions as facts. Also read over WP:BRD very very carefully, as it is a really good guide in how consensus is built on wikipedia. Usually we don't let one single person highjack a page over the objections of others. Thats not how its done. Otherwise you are acting tendentious.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation to say that the crime itself was committed in this or that manner (you will notice the sentence doesn't name names, just says what happened to the victims). Like you said, it may not be a fact that the victims were executed, but it is a fact that they were allegedly executed, and BLP does not prevent us from saying that. An ideal compromise would probably be to say that the victims were allegedly executed with shots to the chest and head (addition in bold). The detail would be preserved, but the wording would be completely neutral. If you object to that proposition, then we might as well open a request for comment on this issue and gather more opinions; at the moment we have a couple opinions and no consensus (which does not give your version a free pass, as WP:BRD notes). I did read WP:BRD carefully, by the way, and it states the following:

• BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
• BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

ROG5728 (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Another possible compromise would be to just move the details (or a direct quote) to the Prosecution section of the article (which already exists), and simply state what is alleged by the prosecution and other officials. Here is yet another source that supports the content, with the following line: All of the victims were shot execution style, either in the head or chest, officials said. The source also mentions that the gunman used at least two of his three handguns in the attack, and stopped to reload at least once—details that are not currently included in this Wiki article. ROG5728 (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No objections to this, as "execution style" is a turn of phrase and is best sourced directly to the DA. The phrase "He used at least two of the three weapons in the attack" is a bit weird - either he used all three guns or he did not. It is also worth mentioning the reloading.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I will go ahead and move the DA's detail (in the form of a direct quote) to the Prosecution section. The phrase "He used at least two of the three weapons in the attack" is poorly worded, but presumably means the attack was done using at least two of the three weapons that he was carrying on his person (meaning the third weapon was probably not fired, or "used," during the attack). ROG5728 (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NoWP:BRD is not an official guideline, but either is WP:DRNC which you so conveniently wanted me to read earlier.

WP:BRD is and has been for a while, a community agreed way of forming a consensus. Its not a guideline, but it should be respected, which in this case it was not. Your second changes were not a bold effort, but you were just reverting back to the same version, your preferred version.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you should start by adhering to WP:BRD yourself (not to mention the related essays like WP:DRNC). As was explained to you earlier, WP:BRD clearly notes that it is not a valid excuse for reverting valid good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes, nor is it something to be forced on others or invoked as an excuse for reverting any change more than once. In this case, you were not only the first editor to revert, you also performed the largest number of reverts and made the least effort to actually discuss the content you were reverting; on top of that, much of your "discussion" consisted of inflammatory accusations and ridiculous ANI threats, and you never proposed a single compromise of any sort, whereas a compromise I proposed led to an eventual resolution. Anyway, the content dispute has been settled and the article is better off than it was before; it's time to move on. ROG5728 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

More information

This news article has some additional information that may be of use in this article. 72Dino (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, because Dekraai says that he shot his ex-wife first, contradicting the view of eyewitnesses that salon owner Randy Fannin was the first victim. Everything that Dekraai says in this interview is his viewpoint, so if added to the article it would be necessary to make this clear. According to another source: "The witnesses who gathered in Sesler's restaurant, many of them longtime friends, said Dekraai first took aim at the salon owner, Randy Fannin, and shot him once in the head and then turned to his own ex-wife, shooting her three times."[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That difference was the first thing I noticed, too. We should note both versions and who stated them. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ya noting the difference between eyewitness reports and his own report would be a solid addition. MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Dekraai was in court on January 18, 2012. He pleaded not guilty again.Scott Dekraai pleads not guilty to Seal Beach salon killings--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A transcript of the grand jury proceeding has been released. This offers considerable new detail about the shooting, and gives the sequence of events as "Witnesses said Dekraai shot and killed Fournier first – at near point-blank range – and then her friend and co-worker Christy Lynn Wilson, 47, and then salon owner Randy Fannin, 61."[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Penalty phase/sentencing

Is there any fresh news on when this may be, or why there seems to be a delay? Despite looking around, I can't find anything new since August 2014.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This may be what is causing the delay in the penalty phase: Judge reconsiders ruling against Seal Beach mass shooter Scott Dekraai as deputies face perjury allegations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Tony Rackauckas was removed from the case [8] but this may not be notable enough for a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been added to the article, because the long delay in the sentencing (it was supposed to start in August 2014) has become notable and picked up media coverage. As things stand, the court case has degenerated into a feud between the judge and the District Attorney's office, with no prospect of a sentence in sight. This has led to criticism from the victims' families.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fourth anniversary

Today marks the fourth anniversary of the shooting. There is an excellent piece in the Orange County Register [10] which could be worked into the article here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification

In the Prosecution section it says, "The trial was postponed again until March 24, 2014. Dekraai pleaded guilty to the shooting on May 2. The trial was postponed again until March 24, 2014. Dekraai pleaded guilty to the shooting on May 2." So does that mean that the trial actually began on March 24, 2014? And that the defendant ended the guilt phase by pleading guilty on May 2nd of that same year? A bit of clarification here would also clarify the article from the beginning where it is mentioned amidst all the talk of a trial that the perpetrator "pleaded guilty." Thank you for considering this. CousinJohn (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)