Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Video and police report where Wilson arrests citizen videographer for "Failure to Comply" to his demands that he cease videotaping

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/shock-video-darren-wilson-violates-1st-amendment-ill-lock-ass-up-arrests-man-filming/ Notable in that Wilson is clearly understood to threaten that if the individual takes one more picture of him, "I'm locking your ass up." Also notable is the full inclusion of the police report where Wilson gives his version of events and admits to arresting the individual for "Failure to Comply," the same infraction for which a large number of Ferguson protesteres have been arrested in the the months since the shooting. The article states that this story is an exclusive. I guess that means we can't use it, right? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian picked it up: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/16/ferguson-video-shows-darren-wilson-arresting-man-for-recording-him Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, a user Bdel555 added that about 13 hours after your comments. Some time after that, I removed it on NPOV grounds. If RS reported an incident two years ago when Brown shoved a girl, I would oppose inclusion of that for the same reason. I'm not 100% confident on this, which is why I encouraged the user to take it to talk. Btw, I don't see any reason why an exclusive from a reliable source would be prohibited, that fact wouldn't make it any less reliable. Btw #2, I note that the home page of thefreethoughtproject.com includes a convenient index to all their articles that have negative things to say about cops. "Police Throw 3-Year-Old in Jail Cell After Arresting Mother." Very impressive. I wouldn't want them and The Guardian to be my only sources for something like this. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay out. The facts about that earlier arrest are unclear (What was the cause of the incident? Are we sure the "failure to comply" was about filming as opposed to a lawful order?), and in any event, I don't see the relevance to the Michael Brown shooting or the question of whether Wilson was justified in using lethal force. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be left out. Has nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be added back in order for NPOV is to be maintained. "Wilson received a commendation for extraordinary effort in the line of duty'" also has "nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not" yet that bit of fluff is in the article, apparently in order to push on the reader the POV that Wilson is some sort of model officer. There are also paragraphs and paragraphs under "Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson" yet, as the Guardian clearly pointed out, Wilson's claim in the police report that he had a camera in his face, etc was not what everyone would call a full and accurate account of what actually happened. Readers are entitled to know what to make of the source's reliability when Wikipedia is using the source (Wilson) so extensively.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: So fix it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not about to add back material with three clear "votes" against, but I'm going to read your take, and that of the original poster, as partial to inclusion, so together with my own view (by the way, I'm the one who added Brown's theft to the "Shooting" section, so it's not like I think only one party's history here is notable) I take it as reasonable to re-add until there is another comment here addressing 1) exclusively having the "commendation" stuff and 2) the relevance of the question of how accurate Wilson's report about the video-ed incident was.
I'll add here that there's a lot more about Wilson that is still left unsaid, e.g. had an unstable childhood with his mother remarrying 3 times (and her being convicted of financial crimes), himself divorced last year, his former department, Jennings, was disbanded over race relations problems and a corruption scandal, many accusing felons are now walking right back into the community because Wilson has been a no show at any of their court appearances since the shooting, etc. Yet the Washington Post is reporting this stuff... and "old video surfaced of an officer who looked like Wilson threatening to arrest a man who was videotaping him" as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's called NPOV. You'll also note that we report that someone said Brown "didn't cause trouble" and was "a gentle giant", and that he was scheduled to start trade school in a few days, things that could also be called "fluff". There's a balance already there, and you don't balance a brief mention of a commendation with a 116-word paragraph on an unrelated incident from 2013. Your POV is showing here, clearly evident in your final paragraph, and you go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize adding the paragraph back (for example, "So fix it", without an accompanying argument, doesn't count for much, but you gave it full weight). Even after your rationalization, you still only have a 3-3 tie, which is not a consensus for change, and thus you rationalize twice. Frankly, it's stunning from someone at your level of experience. I'm not going to edit war with you, so I ask that you please remove this content again. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Usually I would have more patience on something like this. But I think it will be especially important to be as neutral as possible just after the no bill is announced. If I'm awake and around when that happens (I have irregular sleep hours), I will remove this content if it's still there. I hope Bdel555 does the responsible thing before then. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Noting consensus or the absence thereof is not "rationalization" in the pejorative way you use that term, it's a reason why it is unreasonable to take a "my way or the highway" take on this and imply another editor is being disruptive (or ir"responsible") by adding back well sourced material you deleted. Reasonable people can disagree about this, which is why I have given time for more community input. Reasonable people, however, provide reasons, not just opinions. I am not calling here for the inclusion of "gentle giant". That is not the issue here. The issue here is the continued lack of any substantive argument for suppressing material that the Guardian, the Washington Post, and others have found notable besides that it doesn't flatter the shooter in this incident as if that automatically means a NPOV violation. I should note that the other opinions calling for deletion are equally poorly substantiated in terms of actual argument as opposed to hand waving about "NPOV" where NPOV is defined to be whatever the hand waver claims it to be. To quote policy (always a good idea when there is a disagreement), "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments".

NPOV means we do not try to push any particular POV on the reader about this subject. We instead follow the lead of the Guardian and WaPo and we present the facts, and do not spin them because you perceive them as negative or unflattering. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform. I will now ask you again to address my concern that we have possible reason here to question Wilson's reliability and thus readers should be informed of that so that they can draw their own conclusions instead of Wikipedia editors deciding for them that Wilson's account should be presented very extensively (ie a LOT more than the 116 word limit you seem to see as a trigger threshold for excessive) without any hint that RS like the Guardian have questioned his credibility. Our job is provide accurate information to readers, not spin it, and to anyone arguing WP:RS to call for deletion, I would say it is unreasonable to contend that the scans of Wilson's report, or the video, are faked. You say this incident is "unrelated". No, it is not. It goes to both Wilson's credibility and how he reacts. It's certainly more related than how many people live in Crestwood, yet I don't see you complaining about that. If you want this material excluded, then explain just why it is that something deemed unflattering should be excluded instead of just defining NPOV as the inclusion of unflattering material. If the article was a giant hit piece against Wilson, we'd have a NPOV problem. We'd also have a NPOV problem if all reliably sourced material that Wilson would presumably want excluded was excluded. Is there anything else in this article Wilson would want removed? Unflattering material about Brown ("robbery" is mentioned 19 times in the article) is certainly not being excluded. Calling for the exclusion of negative material (by implying that having even just this 1.2% of the article referring to negative material about the shooter would be WP:UNDUE) is, in fact, the exact opposite of maintaining neutrality.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

From the police report, here is what the Failure to Comply was about.[1]

”Arman was then escorted to my patrol vehicle, #108, where he was seated in the rear seat. I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And whether this is true or not is disputed since there is reason to believe that the "request" was to stop recording and that stopping recording was not, in fact, "needed in order to complete the summons process.” One can deliver a summons while being recorded. But no one associated with Wikipedia need to come to a conclusion one way or another about that as readers inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value are free to do so. We should not be denying readers not inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value the opportunity to become skeptical. Skepticism about Wilson's claims would not be an issue if Wilson's claims about another event were not being repeated in the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that The Guardian article is getting from the police report the information about what Arman was charged with. The article says, "Arman, 30, was charged with failing to comply with Wilson’s orders." It is consistent with what was in the police report, "I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob, where the Guardian questions Wilson's credibility is the paragraph "Despite being shown at the other end of Arman’s garden path, Wilson wrote in his report that he told Arman 'to remove the camera from my face'. He [also] claimed to have asked Arman to place his hands behind his back, [but this] is not visible or audible from the recording. 'I was forced to grab his wrists one at a time and secure them into handcuffs,' Wilson wrote."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We were discussing what Arman was charged with. Let's try to finish that before continuing on another aspect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, Just a reminder of my above response to you. Did you want to continue our discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. What question would you like me to answer? May I first ask just what edit to the article you would like to see? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shooting of Michael Brown article." Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re your comment "Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?” — No because your edit implied that Arman was charged with failure to comply for not stopping his video recording. Here's the excerpt from your edit:[2] "A video later emerged of Wilson standing near his vehicle telling the resident on his front porch, 'If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up.' Wilson subsequently advanced to the porch to arrest the resident while insisting that the resident did not have a right to record.” --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not necessarily imply that. Wilson could be of the view that there was a "failure to comply" with some other instruction of his that was off camera. The edit does not rule out this possibility so why are you? If, in your view, something between those quotes must, as matter of logical necessity, be factually false because something is necessarily implied that is indisputably false, please spell out for us just what it is that is indisputably false. If your contention is rather (the more comprehensible objection) that I am misrepresenting the Guardian by creating an implication the Guardian did not, I already addressed that above (but you called that off topic).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose your edit because it has a false implication per my previous remarks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're saying, if A then B, but not B, therefore not A, right? First of all, where's your proof of "not B"? I would advise you to keep WP:NOR in mind when attempting to assemble that proof. Secondly, it isn't necessarily an if A then B situation anyway, because if could be if A then C.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I think people here will attest to the fact that I tend to get a little "pejorative" with editors who ignore the controls, the checks and balances, that make this encyclopedia work (somewhat), when they don't have inexperience as an excuse. You didn't have consensus for that edit, and you knew it, but you did it anyway. I'll try to stay out of any further discussions with you. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation of bad faith on my part is completely bogus. You reverted me and declined to raise the matter on the Talk page for discussion before you reverted me. It is not true that I was editing against consensus while you were editing consistent with consensus. You did not know what consensus was when you reverted me. And consensus remains disputed, in my view. I do have some experience, yes, experience with editors who take a "consensus" of the sort you called a "3-3 tie" and then manipulate that into something they think is solid enough and strong enough to just start shoving on instead of addressing the pros and cons of the edit in question. The ball is in the court of those calling for exclusion, and absent a Talk page response that addresses the specific reasons for inclusion that have been given, editors should not be intimidated into not editing by other editors who are not engaging in discussion. This page is for discussion of the edit, and in your last response here, you've refused to engage in that discussion, or answer the specific points I put to you, instead trying to make this about an editor instead of about the edit in question. if you don't have the time or the inclination to discuss this, then you don't have the time to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of the concept of de facto consensus? De facto consensus before you showed up was without that content. It remained for 6 hours before I removed it, and 6 hours does not establish a new de facto consensus. That's less than a decent night's sleep for most of us. I'm sorry, but you're playing a very weak hand here, Brian. I couldn't count the number of times I've had to just give up on something because I couldn't force anyone to talk to me about it. It sucks, but it's Wikipedia. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I previously complained about your defining NPOV to suit your purposes but the way you've just defined consensus is self-serving in spades. I presume this is why you just now deleted this, yet again, a mere TWO MINUTES after it was added. Because every minute that goes by strengthens the "de facto consensus" in favour of keeping it? And you clearly can't have that! How about giving it a chance to find "de facto consensus" like I've been giving your edits? ie 24 hours. If no one else removes it during that time, maybe Wikipedia doesn't need your deletion services as badly as you think they do. For the record, I'll note that another editor appeared on your user Talk page to question your deletion of this material, an inclusion opinion you have not disclosed here in your claims about what the consensus is.

I take it that "the number of times I've had to just give up on something" doesn't include many cases of edit warring because you don't seem to be at all willing to stop THAT (and instead address, substantively, why we should not include what the WaPo, the Guardian, FOX News,, USA Today, etc all include. What else about Wilson is not notable, in your books? You disagree with Erik Wemple that "That Wilson would be absenting himself from official court testimony while shopping his story around to TV network types is enormous news"? If we can't nention that either just what are we allowed to say about this guy?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We clearly have very different ideas about what's correct procedure, so I'll bow out and let you resolve this with others. If they feel less strongly about it, fine. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time you've brought up the fact that Wilson hasn't appeared to testify as the arresting officer in other cases he's been involved with. I don't see how that is relevant in any way to the Michael Brown incident, especially given the facts that Wilson is the subject of a criminal homicide investigation and also some death threats. That and a whole host of really tangential points you mentioned previously, like Wilson's mother's marital status, only serves to question your NPOV further IMHO. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:NOCONSENSUS inclusion of material for BLPs requires positive consensus. There does not appear to be consensus at this time. Therefore, the material is correctly not included in the article at this time. If you would like to get a wider audience to develop that consensus, the next step would be to create a concise and neutral RFC to more formally gauge consensus and get a wider input. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As an FYI, Brian has created a thread advocating policy changes as a result of this discussion that may be of interest to editors here Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#An_example_of_the_absurdity_of_this_policy Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that in this case the text (as opposed to one of the citations) was deleted because of a "BLP objection". At least I do not recall BLP being cited as the reason. My comments about BLP were more about a hypothetical than anything.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this piece should be added back in to maintain a NPOV for the article. It is relevant to the shooter's background and has been reported in the news as a presumably relevant event. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking newspaper names, etc, in cites

Many editors like to wikilink things like St. Louis Post-Dispatch in cites, wherever possible. These links are functional both from the citation tooltips and from within the References section. This is not currently part of the local standard in this article, but it could be. Does anyone have an opinion one way or the other? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No objection, but also seems like a lot of work for not a ton of payoff. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course the additional work would be all mine, as part of the refs standardization that I already do, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm harboring fantasies of a future GA nomination, and I'll do anything that might improve the chances of success there. I just don't care to do it unless it would improve the chances of GA, or would significantly benefit readers, and I'm not a good judge of either. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss Thank you very much for the standardization work you do. I feel bad I just created a bunch more for you. I wish the tooling like reflinks or ProveIt supported that method of citation. In regards to GA, it may be tough to do it until quite a bit of time has passed. Although I do think we are doing a decent job of keeping things neutral in the article, when it comes time for a stamp of approval, its going to become nitpick city on every bit of info and how its presented. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Never feel bad about that, you're just giving me an opportunity to make a contribution, and I'm not that good at much else yet. Re GA, the same nitpicking must apply to any GA nomination, and some of them are successful. So I'd think this article would have as much chance as any, unless there is some bias against articles of this type. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I just meant that due to the politically charged nature of this topic, that nitpicking is likely to be worse. Regarding contributions, Be WP:BOLD if you think something is missing, or eneds to be changed do it. The worst thing that happens is that you get site banned :) (just kidding). Really the worst thing that happens is that you get reverted and someone calls you a bad name in talk, which isn't all that bad. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Shawn Parcells

This can be for general discussion of Parcells content (the earlier thread was archived already, and I have increased the archive age from 4 to 10 days).

To kick it off, Bob K31416, the content before this edit went to Parcells' integrity as well as his qualifications and competence. It directly juxtaposed his claim that he trained under Young with Young's denial of that. In other words, it made it clear that, regarding himself, he is either very careless about the truth or delusional. You have removed Parcells' claim, leaving only a vague sentence about Young's statements. Is it your contention that the content should not go to integrity? Over all, I liked the content better before that edit. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When I compared the space taken up by the original version to the part about the autopsy, I thought it was too much of a digression about the shortcomings of an assistant. What remains has the essential points that Parcells isn't qualified to give medical forensics opinions, the concern about his participation in the autopsy, and Parcells response about the extent of his participation in the autopsy for NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the older sources because I think there is a risk of this being perceived as a he said/she said or swiftboating-style attack on his credentials due to the political nature of the case. The older investigations indicate that this is an ongoing issue with Parcells, not specifically related to this case. I do see the risk of getting WP:UNDUE with this info, but I think some of the content removed should go back. I have already re-added the washed bit with additional sources that make the impact analysis (Baden himself primarily) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The re-added washed bit and sources are fine. I stand by my previous comment regarding the Parcells part and don't think it should be expanded. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

lead citations

I was going to revert this edit [3] and point them at WP:LEADCITE but as I re-read it, it seems we may not be in good compliance.

Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

seems like it may cover quite a bit of the info that we have in the lead. Perhaps we should restore the citations? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't point to a guideline offhand, but it seems intuitive that anything of significance should be sourced somewhere in the article. I.e., the cite could be omitted in the lead for statements that summarize sourced information below. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the guideline I linked is the only relevant one. It covers the principle of what you suggest (and that I agree with in general), but then explicitly says that certain things need to be cited no matter what. I was just raising the issue that maybe a decent portion of our lede falls into that category. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no direct quotations, and "some material including" is a fairly useless phrase in a guideline, so I assume you're referring to "contentious material about living persons". If contentious is the same as controversial, you may be right, although we don't say anything controversial in Wikipedia's voice. Btw, I see that's in MOS, which makes no sense; that's not about style. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

Just a question. How big is Wilson?

72.47.182.59 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No request. Interesting question though. If you have a reliable source that does describe his size, it could be worth discussing that addition - Brown's size is in the article. Cannolis (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why and when did this get semied and for how long?. That it will likely need such protection soon is irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

See [4]. These logs are easily accessible. Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

[5] I know this is daily mail and we can't use it but unless everyone else in that picture is abnormally short, Darren Wilson is a definitely a big guy. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some from NBC. [6]. I don't know what the point is of NBC just posting pictures without any other info. I'm surprised no news outlet has found this out because it's clear he's no midget. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

From the grand jury testimony, Wilson is about 6'4", weighs 210 or 220 (I forget which). So he's a pretty big guy, but Brown had 60-80 pounds on him. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why this would matter in the case. Even if they were the same size, or Brown was smaller, the grand jury evidence indicates that Wilson claimed he feared for his safety, and credible witnesses indicated that Brown was moving towards and possibly charging at Wilson. That's the key element here and is what reliable sources are reporting.68.39.32.188 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It matters because if the two are of comparable size, then the fact that a lot of sources play up Brown's physical advantage is rather POV pushing. It comes of as a David vs Goliath kind of thing, with language like Brown being a "Gentle Giant" and shit like that. [7] Wilson addresses it directly in this interview on the BBC. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Majority?

Sorry not doing this right but it says the usa is majority black? We are 11% black by population. The place where this happened is only 4% black when I looked it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.225.84.149 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, 67.4% is considered a majority. 2600:1006:B12E:AF89:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to the first sentence of the first message, I made this edit [8]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably superfluous, as no one refers to the U.S. as a "community". Whatever. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

St. Louis County director of judicial administration, Paul Fox vs. St. Louis Post-Dispatch

I'm starting to have my doubts as to whether we can continue, in good conscience, to consider the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to be a reliable source.

"The quote attributed to me in the Post-Dispatch this morning is not accurate," Fox said.

Records in Michael Brown Grand Jury Not Been Approved for Release

Purported graphic of Fox's memorandum here: https://twitter.com/mollyrosestl/status/536586167257694211/photo/1 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

KSDK is live reporting that there is nothing in the law that would block Bob McCulloch from releasing any information or evidence that his office gathered in the course of their investigation. Here's an earlier report from the same source that includes a facsimile of Paul Fax's letter. That report doesn't make mention of what they are now referring to as a possible "end run" by McCulloch. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At 6:12 PM CST, Nov. 24, 2014, KSDK St. Louis reported that Bob McCulloch withdrew his motion to disclose the evidence, this on his realization that he doesn't need the judge's permission to do so. The prosecutor, they claim, is not restrained by Missouri law from revealing anything. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

sources are all over the place on this. Ive seen some saying that it is a criminal for grand jurors themselves to give interviews about what the votes were or what the decision making process is. The sources abov eyou mention saying he can do it himself, and everywhere in between. Due to the discrepancies I think we should probably avoid prognosticating much on what is or is not allowed until something more official/final comes out. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Brown Family Attorney criticizes grand jury process as carried out by prosecutor's office

[Ferguson Grand Jury 'Unfair,' Michael Brown Family Lawyer Says http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-grand-jury-unfair-michael-brown-family-lawyer/story?id=27117993] If we are as encyclopedic as we claim, then I would think that in the final analysis, a great deal of focus should be applied to the how the prosecutor managed the grand jury proceedings. I believe that this attorney speaks for many in the African American community. Criticism of the process with attribution tied to notable critics such as this one is completely fair game, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT the "great deal" should be in proportion the the amount of coverage other secondary and tertiary sources give it. But certainly it should be looked at some. however, basing that critique on the statements of the Browns' lawyer is probably not the way to go. We should use neutral parties who are experts. Which is certainly not to say that Crump can't be a voice of criticism, but we shouldn't base the section on him. For example, the Dan Abrams quote from the same source sees much more valuable to me than Crumps (or McCulloch's) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Was Grand Jury the Best Option in Ferguson Case of Michael Brown? I don't think lack of attention to this matter is going to be a problem, G42. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

On the likelihood of a wrongful death civil suit

CNN: "Brown's family will probably file a wrongful death lawsuit against Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department, Callan and O'Mara said." What if? ... Potential fates of Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

could be, but WP:CRYSTAL until it happens (Note that a similar suit has not been filed against Zimmerman, where the MArtin family is represented by the same legal team). If they do file suit we should certainly cover at that time though. Such a suit is going to face a couple of hurdles. If the grand jury does not indict, presumably that means either they thought it was valid self defense, or at a minumum there wasn't enough proof to prosecute. That kicks in 563.074 [9] which grants civil immunity and all attorneys fees and expenses if a suit is brought (and ultimately determined to be self defense at that point). That's a risk the Brown family (and their lawyers) might not want to take.[10] A suit against the city/department as a whole however, saying that they have some bad policies, or training, or procedures or whatnot might be easier to get somewhere (and would have deeper pockets to go after too) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The races of both Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are not relevant and should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.

The races of both Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are not relevant to what actually happened and should not be mentioned in the first paragraph. Their races are relevant only in the sense that this event is causing racial tension, so they should only be mentioned in the paragraph about reactions to the shooting.

Sure. Thanks for your opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a warning template for being a troll. Myopia123 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

STL Post-Dispatch: Prosecutor McCulloch insists he will release evidence if no indictment

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: St. Louis County prosecutor will release records if no indictment Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Full testimony for the grand jury can be found here vvvv

graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf

Wesley Lowery of Washington Post endorses Shaun King's distance research refuting Belmar's distance claims

Tweets from Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post post no-indict announcement.

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 6m6 minutes ago

Crucial is distance of Brown's body and - as we hear now for first time - any evidence that his blood trail circled back toward Wilson.

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 4m4 minutes ago

On day 2, police said body was 35 feet away from Wilson's vehicle. As @ShaunKing proved and McCulloch now says, was really 150 feet away.

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 3m3 minutes ago

That said McCulloch suggests in presser that blood trail doubles back toward vehicle -which Wilson will say supports "he charged me" defense

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"No indictment" should be in lead

At the end of the lead, please replace "The events surrounding the shooting are under investigation by a county grand jury, which will decide whether there is probable cause to indict Wilson for his actions." with "The shooting was investigated by a county grand jury, which decided not to indict Wilson for his actions." This reflects current information which has sources later in the article. Thanks. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am certain that you will see it in no time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Isaidnoway (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for move

Title should be "2014 Ferguson Riots" given the massive amount of damage, this is FAAAR from "unrest".2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:747C:4CF:F28D:A672 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have added a section heading, as this has nothing to do with the "No indictment" section that you added it to.

• I think you're in the wrong article, and that you wanted 2014 Ferguson unrest.

• You are free to request a move (rename) of the other article, using the instructions at WP:RM. You would need to do this on the talk page for the other article. However, I think your request would fail as the other article is about a lot more than riots. The title is intended to encompass everything in the article, and "unrest" encompasses "riots" in addition to the other events. To stand a chance, you would have to present a far stronger case than you have done here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Documents from the grand jury

Documents Released in the Ferguson Case via The New York Times, 25 Nov 2014

CNN has posted the documents released from the grand jury.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice find! Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read all of Officer Wilson's testimony now. It was interesting seeing how that whole process worked. It also seems very likely that the earlier leak of his testimony was, in fact, genuine. Was there anything worthwhile or usable that anyone else found in anything? Remember, testimony from an eyewitness is generally going to be a primary source, whereas we treat expert testimony a bit differently. I'd recommend to anyone going through these with an eye towards adding stuff to the article to review WP:RS and WP:V guidelines before they do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

> CNN > credible source

Earlier I had added an external link to Darren Wilson's testimony. I replaced it with the above link to all the released Grand Jury documents. – JBarta (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to archive a couple of the individual PDFs at archive.org. It accepted the request, but it didn't work. The request "completes" in just a few seconds, far too quickly for a PDF of that size, and then all I get is a blank window with the word "Loading". Is documentcloud.org an adequate long-term host for these files? It might be worth someone else trying it to see if the problem is unique to my configuration. I use Firefox 33 with its built-in PDF reader. I'd suggest trying Volume 4 or or higher to avoid the ones I've already tried, so my failure doesn't affect your results. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research, however I doubt there will be a dearth of RS that will analyze the documents for us very soon.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

CNN has something about it here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

KSDK Channel 5 analysis of the new information has been very good. Hopefully, some of it will be referenceable and not just dissipate into the radio ether forever never to be seen again. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence of "shot in the back" claims + apparent autopsy contradictions

I can only recall ever hearing one interview (one of the ones with Dorian Johnson) stating that Brown was shot "in the back". What people have been saying, what Johnson has said in all other accounts, is that Brown was shot at and hit "from behind", a possibility which is not contradicted by any autopsy. The statement that "some witnesses" reported he was hit in the back is rather misleading in light of how often that claim seems to have actually occurred. I also think the line in Johnson's section implies that that being shot in the back is a core and consistent part of Johnson's testimony, rather than a one-time claim that is easily explainable by him making a (natural, if not unconscious) assumption arising from seeing Brown being shot at from behind and then reacting as if hit. Unless anyone has more sources of eyewitnesses claiming Brown was shot in the back, I propose the following changes (or similar) be made to paint a more accurate picture:

• Some witnesses reported that Brown was shot several times in the back although all three autopsies showed that Brown was not shot in the back. -> Some witnesses reported that Brown was hit with several shots from behind. All three autopsies showed that no shots hit him in the back, though at least one of the shots in his arm may have come from behind.
• Wilson exited the vehicle, after which he fired several rounds at the fleeing Brown, hitting him once in the back. -> Wilson exited the vehicle, after which he fired several rounds at the fleeing Brown, hitting him once. In one interview, Johnson claims Brown was hit in the back.
• At least two commentators have noted that the autopsy contradicts some aspects of some eyewitness accounts, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back and that Wilson shot Brown while holding Brown's neck. -> At least two commentators have noted that the autopsy contradicts some aspects of some eyewitness accounts, including one account by Dorian Johnson that Wilson shot Brown in the back, though in all other accounts Johnson simply says Brown was hit by a shot from behind.

As for the part about the autopsy findings apparently contradicting reports that Wilson was holding Brown around the neck when he first shot him, that can simply be removed. The [Washington Post source] makes this claim, but says nothing about these lines in [the very article it links to]:

The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.

...

“We need more information; for example, the police should be examining the automobile to see if there is gunshot residue in the police car,” he said.

It's clear Dr. Baden still considered it very possible that Brown was shot at close range inside the police car. The WashPo claim is outright contradicted by information in the NYTimes article they link to, information that is actually stated earlier in the paragraph on this very wiki page. There's no excuse for referencing it. Sxizzor (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the present news reports, a number of people apparently changed their claims about what happened or said that they didn't even witness the incident, which is a bit problematic. I think at this point we should probably try and get organized and figure out what we're going to be doing with this article in the long run, as we're likely going to be editing it pretty heavily and trying to get it to be more coherent now that we know more about what happened, what with all this evidence being thrown out at the press and the general public. We should try and work on including factual information, and probably condensing down the eyewitness stuff, especially given just how many of them there were - we've got the ones in the media, and the ones who testified to the grand jury, and because the names of the witnesses in the grand jury stuff have been redacted we don't even know if there is overlap. There's some amount of WP:UNDUE at work here.

I'm quite concerned about the eyewitness testimony section in general. As was noted here:

Many of the witness statements — some shared with the media — were contradictory, and during the grand jury process, many witnesses admitted they didn’t see the shooting or heard about it from others, McCulloch said. There were also conflicting witness accounts of whether Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot, the prosecuting attorney said.

After the autopsy of Michael Brown was released, no additional witnesses came forward to say Brown was shot in the back as he ran, and “several witnesses” who claimed this version adjusted their story in subsequent statements, McCulloch said.

Italics are my own. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should move from a play-by-play of media reports that documented speculation or falsehoods to more factual details from the published grand jury evidence.68.39.32.188 (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree. I think most of the witness accounts should be removed and the speculative material should be condensed. We should remove these sections as WP:UNDUE: Michael Brady, Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, James McKnight, Phillip Walker, Emanuel Freeman, (anonymous) Grand jury witnesses and Bystander heard on video.- MrX 14:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The amount of witness accounts that claim Michael was shot in the back while running away seem to bias the whole article and mislead the reader. 1ragincajun (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)1ragincajun

Autopsy reference

http://www.stltoday.com/online/pdf-autopsy-report-for-michael-brown/pdf_ce018d0c-5998-11e4-b700-001a4bcf6878.html --98.252.228.87 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this confirmed my suspicions about the other head wound; both the fatal gunshot wound to Brown's scalp and the non-fatal one to his forehead were at a downward angle, with the bullet that struck his forehead going through his right eye before exiting through his jaw. The chest wounds were "downward and backward", which could be consistent with his body being at an angle as well. The wound on his upper ventral right arm had a track of upward, backward, and leftward, and the dorsal right forearm had a upward, forward, and leftward track. All of the wounds were noted as lacking stippling and soot save the hand wound, which was lacking stippling but they noted the presence of "a focal area of discoloration near the ventral surface of the base of the right thumb". Interestingly, the toxicology report at the end indicates the presence of 12 ng/mL of Delta-9-THC in his blood (but not his urine), which earned the note "Delta-9-THC dectection in the blood defines impairment." Delta-9-THC is the active psychoactive ingredient in marijuana; 11-nor-delta-9-THC-COOH is the secondary metabolite of THC (which can linger in the body for days) and 11-hydroxy-THC is the primary metabolite (which doesn't last as long). There wasn't any 11-hydroxy-THC in his blood, which is interesting because there is Delta-9-THC. This study suggests that the psychomotor effects of THC are present at as low as 3-5 ng/mL of THC in the blood, but that is far from conclusive, unfortunately, as the article notes elsewhere. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's injuries

Currently the article describes Wilson's injuries as minor. The one photo, viewing his chin from below, appears to be a pretty harsh bruise. I also suspect some areas of the face are not prone to bruising very much and they often take some time to show up. I think the "minor" term needs rewording.

Do you know of any sources that say his injuries were something other than minor? Looking at a picture would be original research.- MrX 14:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the given source did not make the statement about minor injuries, it only presented tweets with the comment, "On Twitter, reaction was less than sympathetic".[11] The tweets were the basis for the Wikipedia editor's contribution about minor injuries.[12]. I think it should be deleted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: The text and source were changed.[13][14] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure how useful those photographs are anyway. According to testimony, the reason he was taken to the hospital was because his supervisor thought he needed to go there, which implies that the swelling must have been pretty noticeable. I suspect that it would be easier to tell how messed up he was if we knew what his face looked like normally. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of that could be addressed by giving both profiles since it appears that the primary injury is just to that one cheek. Certainly the injuries were not as severe as say George Zimmermans. No broken bones, cuts, bleeding, etc. That of course doesn't mean that at that time Wilson did not have a reasonable fear that life threatening injuries were happening or would happen shortly. But I think we should present to the readers the physical evidence of what did happen. Certainly we should not be doing our own analysis of the injuries (in mainspace). If the medical report was released in the evidence that description would be best. Otherwise descriptions from medical experts. Pundit opinions I think we should largely discount. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Image of testimony?

What is the purpose of having an image of the document that links to a PDF file of Darren Wilson's testimony? I've never seen such an image in a Wikipedia article. A simple link would suffice. In fact, all of the grand jury documents are linked in the External Links section. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Noticed a phrase with some typos and missing words: "She claimed in an Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell that never said that the autopsy supported Only Wilson's version of events." should probably be changed to "She claimed in an interview with Lawrence O'Donnell that she never said that the autopsy supported only Wilson's version of events." Thanks! 96.227.116.225 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson didn't know Brown was involved In the robbery

I want to clear up a dispute that I've had with Titanium dragon. He says that's now clear that Wilson knew Brown was a suspect in the robbery. I say this is false because Wilson did not claim this until he spoke to the grand jury, which was well after the shooting and after the police chief said the robbery had nothing to do with the shooting.

I present into evidence this VOX article by Ezra Klein http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side. In the article there's a link to an interview Wilson did with the police on August 10, the day after the shooting. While Wilson was aware of the robbery, no where in the interview does he state that he realized Brown matched the description of the suspect, much less say he saw a case of cigars sticking out of his pocket. So the claim that Wilson was a aware that Brown was a robber is at best dubious and at worse outright false.

I really hate getting involved in long edit wars and therefore am not interested in a long back in forth with Titanium Dragon. I hope that other editors will take the information I've provided and use it to improve the article.annoynmous 19:41, 25 November

I've looked at the interview at appears that Wilson did mention the cigarillos. However this is after the confrontation had already begun. Wilson claims that he told Brown and Dorian Johnson to get on the sidewalk and after that Brown got defensive and began yelling obscenities at him and that's when the struggle started. Wilson claims he didn't notice the cigarillos until after brown had already hit him and then handed them to Dorian Johnson. Also Wilson says he called for backup because of Browns behavior, not because he matched the description of a suspect. This doesn't mean that Wilson's version of events is true. The conflict could have still been started by him and only during there initial confrontation did Wilson suspect Brown was the robber. Wilson certainly didn't stop them because he thought they were robbers and didn't call for help because of that either.annoynmous 20:20, 25 November

Actually, if you go to page 14 of the interview, where the interviewer does a re-sweep of the story to include intention and thoughts (not just actions), D. Wilson says: "...then after he made his comments I realized cigarillos ya know, then I was like well I gotta stop and talk to the guy."71.185.69.178 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He's asked by the interviewer to say that again and Wilson then says that he stopped to confront Brown because of Brown's comments, "and" the cigarillos "as well". The cigarillos are thus tacked on as a reason for confronting Brown, and they are not tacked on until late in the interview when Wilson is reaching for reasons to justify the confrontation. Just before what you quote there Wilson is practically pleading, "I downplayed the whole issue because I didn't want a confrontation." If Wilson had truly recognized Brown as the thief before the altercation began, he'd be leading with that reason from the beginning since that's easily the best argument. There's be no need to talk about how "very non-confrontational" the situation ever was if he'd IDed Brown as the suspect early on since he would not be doing his job if he did not confront in that case.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he said that towards the end of the interview, but that doesn't change the fact that he initially stopped them because they were walking in the street and because of Browns alleged comments. It also contradicts his grand jury testimony where he said that he realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect physically after Brown made his comments which he doesn't mention at all in the original police interview. This says to me that the question of whether or not he initially knew brown is a suspect is still an open question.annoynmous 22:12, 25 November 2014 (UTVC)

under your scenario, why did he call for backup for a guy Jaywalking? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Because he knew that he was about to physically confront the guy who had just showed him some verbal attitude and that might possibly escalate. Readers would know that WIlson isn't afraid to get tough from the October 2013 incident (and then write up a report making him sound like he was a lot more polite than he really was) if you weren't deleting that incident from the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe he didn't like Browns attitude and wanted to teach him a lesson. All I know is that in the initial run through of the interview he doesn't mention suspecting Brown was a robber, only later when he's asked to clarify. annoynmous 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

6-foot-4 300-lb guy mouthing off while black. I saw police racism up close and personal just once, almost 40 years ago, and that was enough to change my perspective. Not that much has changed in 40 years, except superficial things. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that Wilson said that he had "heard a brief description of a black male with a black t-shirt." In fact, the dispatcher had described someone with a WHITE t-shirt. Wilson then says "I said, 'Okay, but what's wrong with the sidewalk.' ... as they were passing my window the second subject said, 'Fuck what you have to say.' And, then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up.... Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said '...send me another car.'" I'd say it's pretty clear from this that Wilson called for backup because he knew there would be a confrontation, NOT because he recognized Brown as a suspect prior to that call. Had he truly recognized Brown before making that radio call, he surely would have identified that in his day-after interview as being a greater issue than Brown telling him off.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Extent of damage

Have any reliable sources indicated a dollar value estimate as to the damage caused by the riots, looting, vandalism, etc.? If so, it should be included. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful in 2014 Ferguson unrest. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It would also be useful here. Since the damage directly flowed from the "shooting of Michael Brown". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Economist

A sober and neutral presentation at The Economist [15] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Worthwhile read, but there's no such thing as a neutral editorial piece. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A good read. One bit they missed (that most have missed) is that self defense significantly skews how probable cause works. We KNOW Wilson shot Brown. The elements of the crime are stipulated. The issue is, "was it justified". Therefore the preponderance of the evidence needs to show that it was not. At the real trial, its even harder. You have to prove that it was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats a tricky thing to do since you essentially have to evaluate Wilson's thoughts at the time. (Actual threat vs reasonable interpretation of threat etc). Maybe thats a bad standard and we should change it, but it is what the standard is. Nobody is going to change the law mid-case (nor if they did would it apply). Therefore the evaluation under that standard isn't very surprising. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown committed Robbery 2nd Degree (Strong-Arm Robbery), not simple theft/stealing/shoplifting

Brown was caught on video not only taking an item from a store without paying for it, which by itself would simply be a low-grade Misdemeanor at the price/value level of the item in question (some cigarillos), but when you intimidate & push the clerk around when confronted, you are then taking the item not quietly & passively like a typical thief or shoplifter, but by the use of force, and that act then becomes Robbery 2nd Degree (a "strong-arm" robbery), that per the Missouri statutes at this link. It would have been Robbery 1st Degree if he had beaten the man up or threatened him with an object or weapon. Robbery 2nd Degree carries a sentence of 5 to 15 years. This is not my opinion --- it's a fact as proven by the excellent Missouri State Government citation I provided. So at every place in the article when it refers to the criminal act in question, it should be updated to say "Strong-Arm Robbery suspect", or a "Robbery suspect", not that he was "stealing" or a "thief" or a "shoplifter" & you should use that link as a citation. So the police weren't hunting for a thief/shoplifting suspect --- they were hunting a STRONG-ARM ROBBERY suspect. The NY Times did a great job of laying out the entire case evidence and all the witness accounts at this link.PhilOSophocle (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your concern is misplaced. The article unequivocally refers to the event as a robbery except when tracking sources that refer to "stealing" or "thieves." There's little point in repeatedly referring to the event as a "strong-arm robbery," because it's a subset of robbery that specifically means larceny + force (robbery) without the use of a weapon (i.e., not "armed robbery"). Perhaps you could point out the particular passages you're objecting to? Dyrnych (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Try the second paragraph: "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, shortly after stealing a box of cigarillos from a convenience store..." He didn't steal them. He robbed them.

Shooting of Michael Brown

or Fatal shooting of Michael Brown ? Thank you for your opinion. Trackteur (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind is looking at Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States shows the vast majority simply title the article with the person's name. A very few, such as as ours here, begin the name with "Shooting of" or "Death of". I see none that use "Fatal shooting of". I have to ask, why do you believe this article in particular warrants such unusual treatment? – JBarta (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Between a simple shooting and a fatal shooting, I think the difference is very important and should be reported. Trackteur (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is reported, beginning in the first sentence of the article. How many readers are going to read the title but not the first sentence? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In the category I mention they were ALL fatal shootings. – JBarta (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

grand jury vote

Is the number of votes by the grand jury public record or withheld? If it is withheld, this should be noted. If ti is public, then the numbers should be given.211.225.33.104 (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the voting specifics are withheld. And I don't think that necessarily needs to be mentioned in this article. I'd imagine our grand jury article covers the specifics of how grand juries work. – JBarta (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight on grand juries

The statement from FiveThirtyEight about the tendencies of grand juries is way off topic - this isn't about the grand jury process. Worse, it smacks of POV hinting that grand jury processes in general are flawed/biased towards cops. It needs to go. The Dissident Aggressor 12:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You should offer a diff so others can see what you're talking about without hunting. On the statement you dislike, I've read that sort of thing as well. Maybe the wording can be tweaked? Well sourced I see no problem including it. And while you can say it's part of grand juries in general, that aspect specifically is quite germane here. – JBarta (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is POV, duh; all opinions are. This is an opinion made by a reliable source, and we are attributing the opinion fully. Read WP:NPOV which states that we report significant opinions about a subject as described in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk)

{request edit} re darren wilson background

From the article:

He was 28 years old at the time of his fatal shooting.[22][23]

Darren wilson was not fatally shot

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewording -->at the time of the fatal shooting in which he killed Brown. Trackteur (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The context is already quite clear. using the anvil to repeat it is not needed. (and besides its clunky) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Darren Wilson, is the only participant in this fatal shooting, this dramatic event it's not an exchange of gunfire between DW et MB. Trackteur (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody reading the sentence about "at the time of the shooting" is going to wonder who was shot and who did the shooting. That is the purpose of this entire article.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More simple; --> ...at the time where Michael Brown is killed. Trackteur (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The time where? When place did its happening in? ... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury controversy

As the evidence and testimony released by the prosecutor is being studied by media and legal analysts, a substantial amount of sources are now covering what is being described as a controversy related to the presentation of the evidence and the unusual manner the grand jury process was managed. I intend to develop an entire sub section with these sources which I am currently compiling. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a controversy section. I've read several articles where the evidence has shown a lot of 'eyewitness' testimony to be incorrect or downright misleading, I read that during the grand jury Johnson recanted his story and said that Brown had attacked the cop. There was also an issue where a few news outlets printed the actual address of where the cop lives. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I also read the Johnson recant rumor, but it was just a rumor. His grand jury testimony is available http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2014/11/24/dorian-johnsons-testimony-before-the-grand-jury.html Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started that section, but there is more to add. Will resume working on this later, but feel free to expand. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the end of the physical evidence section to cover the crime scene details that were presented to the grand jury. Not sure if that should be integrated into your efforts, but where it is now is appropriate to the current shape of the article since there are already other discussions about the physical evidence based on other accounts. Z22 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: This deletion [16] was unnecessary and disruptive; it is from impeccable sources and highly relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fatal

is not the main signification of the death ? Trackteur (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed one instance of "fatal shooting" to simply "shooting" because I thought it read better. I agree that there is no reason to keep mentioning "fatal" or "killed" as if trying to hammer an elusive point home. The shooting was a relatively simple affair with the main points (that it was a fatal shooting being one of them) understood quickly by the reader. Reading through, I don't think we've quite reached a point of excess, but editors should keep in mind that it could get excessive if we don't exercise some restraint and judgement. – JBarta (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the fatality is the most significant aspect of the story. But that fact does not need to be repeated again and again, wherever the word "shooting" occurs. To say "shooting" without saying "fatal" does not imply that the shooting was not fatal. The word "fatal" is significant in some places, such as when discussing that the final shot was the fatal one. It need not and should not be included where it is not pertinent to the context. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see Trayvon Martin. The first sentence states that the shooting was fatal. The word "shooting" then occurs 13 times in the article, and none of those are preceded by the word "fatal". The fatality is already stated and is known by the reader, so it is not necessary to repeat it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2014

There is punctuation adjustments with quotations necessary under the 5.1 Controversy section.

The first line currently reads: Legal experts asserted that McCulloch deflected responsibility for failing to indict Wilson, and created conditions in which the grand jury would not indict him either. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University, said that "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result, and called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."

Though, it should be: Legal experts asserted that McCulloch deflected responsibility for failing to indict Wilson, and created conditions in which the grand jury would not indict him either. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University, said that "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result," and called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."

There should be an end-quote after 'result,' and before 'and called the case'. Tai.nalewajko (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Hinmatóowyalahtqit (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Trackteur is disrupting editing by edit warring and adding unnecessary wiki-links, as well as modifiyng content that took a lot of effort to arrive to consensus. Please stop the nonsense, and engage in discussions. Note that you have breached 3RR already. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Already warned multiple times on their user talk page today alone, disruptive editing continues. Long history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Added this article to See also in Shooting, ignoring the fact that there are no other articles like this listed there. Confidence greatly exceeds judgment. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as necessarily disruptive, just energetic and sometimes a little misguided. To Trackteur I would suggest slow down a bit and review some of the Wiki guidelines that have been pointed out to you recently. – JBarta (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated reverts contrary to talk page consensus, ignoring repeated user talk page warnings by multiple editors, is the definition of disruptive editing. As evident on their user talk page, this user has had ample time to learn how to be a collaborative editor, so the inescapable conclusion is that they just don't care to. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the edit-warring, but I agree there is excessive wiki-linking, I don't think "black student" or "white police officer" should be wl'ed. I'm going to remove at least those two instances of wiki-links. If someone wants to revert it back, I won't challenge it. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree. I earlier reverted the first link you mention above, saying (in what I thought would be understood to be an ironic comment) that it shouldn't be there unless "white police officer" was also linked to White people. The editor proceeded to replace the link I reverted and also to do exactly that. ::sigh:: Dwpaul ^Talk 23:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Violence after the grand jury decision

After the grand jury decision, there was a certain amount of violence, arson, looting, etc., that ensued. I read that some male relative (step-father? or uncle?) of Michael Brown told a crowd of protesters something to the effect of "Let's all burn this city down!" Is that mentioned in this article? I didn't see it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A source from CNN: Michael Brown's stepfather at rally: 'Burn this bitch down!'. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See companion article 2014 Ferguson unrest. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to this article. Not the Ferguson unrest article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand. The stepfather's statement ("Burn this b*tch down!") that (some say) provoked the crowd to engage in violence is already discussed at that article, so it is unnecessary to also discuss it here, where the focus is on the events immediately before and after the shooting. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. It is clearly relevant to the shooting of Michael Brown. One of the critical events related to this article is (clearly) the grand jury process and, by extension, its "verdict" (so to speak) and the reaction to that verdict. Why are you suggesting that it's not relevant to this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The grand jury process is already covered here, along with its verdict and reactions to it. The stepfather's statement to the crowd assembled in the street in front of the Police Department was part of the aftermath of the grand jury's decision, more than three months after the shooting, and should be covered in the article that is the primary venue for discussion of that topic. It is not essential to understanding any aspect of the shooting or the grand jury's decision. Why would you duplicate it here? Dwpaul ^Talk 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything that happened after the verdict occurred more than three months after the shooting. So, that argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting we excise all of that stuff, also (i.e., all of the events that happened three months after the shooting incident)? This event (about the step father promoting arson and violence) is particularly relevant because it is the reaction of a member of the Brown family. Not just some random politician or talking head or legal analyst or whatever. It smacks of POV to specifically leave it out. Also, whether or not it duplicates material in the "generic" 2014 Ferguson unrest article is not relevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're saying you don't see any mention of the violence and unrest after the grand jury verdict here, see the end of the section Grand jury hearing. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not referring to arson and violence in general. I am referring specifically to the Brown family promoting violence (on live TV, no less). How is that not relevant to this article? The reaction of the Brown family to the verdict in a case in which their son was killed is not relevant to an article specifically about the killing of their son? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And, by the way, I noticed how it was so delicately worded in the "unrest" article. It couldn't get "cleaned up" (sanitized) any more than that! And I noticed it's "buried" in a long sentence describing the mother's grief. This is 100% POV. This is the statement verbatim: A member of the Brown family released a statement saying that "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want, it is very upsetting to me and my family." The statement also said, "Our family didn't ask for this but for justice and peace." On the night of the grand jury decision of a 'no true bill' the mother speaking to the crowd expressed disbelief and innocence, but after a brief silence and then sobbing was embraced by the step-father who promoted arson. That is truly laughable. And a clear attempt to sanitize (and skew) the actions of the step father. And, try to bury it, as well. We give a 32-word direct quote about the positive comments from the Brown family. And, in three clinically sanitized words, bury the negative actions. Why not use the direct quote "Hey, we need to burn this bitch down"? Indeed, I wonder why not. This is 100% POV. As is the attempt to not allow such information into this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

The unrest article says Michael Brown's stepfather Louis Head yelled to the crowd of protesters in front of the police department:"Burn this bitch down!". That doesn't seem sanitized to me. Am I mising something? – JBarta (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I see the sanitized part. The item is mentioned twice, and yes, "promoted arson" is certainly a nice way to interpret "Burn this bitch down!". That said, I don't think it's necessarily an attempt to "sanitize" anything. maybe that's just how the editor chose to add it. At any rate, I don't think it's all that big of a deal because the actual quote is in fact mentioned in the unrest article.– JBarta (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it was an attempt to sanitize is not the issue. The fact that indeed it is a sanitized statement is the issue. The sentences I cited above go on and on and on and on and on (let's say, 50-75 words, as I did not count) all describing the positive words of the family and describing their pain and grief. And, as a tiny after thought (asterisk), we bury three sanitized words to describe a highly inflammatory negative action of the family. You don't see a disparity? Honestly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making much out of nothing. My opinion. You asked. – JBarta (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I also think we are trying to follow the lead of most of our sources in not attributing a specific motive to the stepfather. Few of us can predict exactly how we would react if we had been through as much as this family has been through, and when they just received what they regard as highly unwelcome news. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What you say is true. But not relevant to the editing of this article. I am sure you would agree with that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Meaning you think the "burn this bitch down" quote should be in this article too? – JBarta (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not crafted the language of the edit. My initial proposal (met with resistance, which dumb founded me) was that the incident belonged in this article proper. I had not proposed any specific wording. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A tangential side note. The father said, quote, "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want". Didn't Mike himself just steal from the store only moments prior to the shooting? That tremendous irony just hit me. I am curious if any reliable sources commented on that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think the incident belongs in the unrest article, but this is not an exact science... editors will disagree. I will say it's probably not a good idea to think in terms of "POV pushing" or "sanitizing" on this issue. To me it seems merely an editorial difference. – JBarta (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. So, I did an exact count. A member of the Brown family released a statement saying that "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want, it is very upsetting to me and my family." The statement also said, "Our family didn't ask for this but for justice and peace." On the night of the grand jury decision of a 'no true bill' the mother speaking to the crowd expressed disbelief and innocence, but after a brief silence and then sobbing was embraced by the step-father who promoted arson. A total of 86 words. Exactly 80 (which is 93%) describing in sentimental detail the positive words and actions of the family and describing their grief and pain. Exactly 6 words (which is 7%) (extremely clinical and sanitized) describing the family's promotion of violence (i.e., "step-father who promoted arson"). This is the very definition of POV and the very definition of sanitizing. How about we devote 80 words describing the step-father's inciting of arson and rioting and go on and on and on and on about that (for 80 words); and in 6 words clinically say "the parents also made a statement at the demonstration" ... ? Does that work just as well? That, also, would be a simple matter of "editorial difference", correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No one else seems to feel as strongly about this as you do. If you want to draft the 80 words or more to correct what you see as an imbalance, go for it, but make sure you get it right, meaning that it reflects NPOV, does not give this aspect undue weight and is fully sourced. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no one"? You will notice that this thread was only posted a few short hours ago. And a grand total of three people have participated in the discussion as of yet. Am I incorrect? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not intentionally delete your post; that is what is called an "edit conflict". It happens sometimes; we deal with it. And (I would have thought obviously) what I meant was no one among those who have responded thus far in this section. I suppose if you want to poll the rest of Wikipedia, or wait a few days, the ratio may change. In the mean time, my suggestion remains the same. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that your deletion of my post was unintentional. I did not know that edit conflicts cause that type of thing to happen. I apologize for accusing you of intentionally deleting my post. I was wrong to do so. Thanks for understanding. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It happens if you inadvertently click the Save button a second time after an edit conflict causes your edit to be unsaved, effectively re-saving an older edition of the page (the version without your attempted change and prior to the one that it conflicted with) and effectively "deleting" the change that conflicted with your edit. That was my error, but was not an intentional deletion. Dwpaul ^Talk 06:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, if you wish to discuss the wording of a passage in the unrest article, then it would best be discussed at that talk page. The other part of your comment was that you feel it should be mentioned in this article as well. That of course can be discussed here. For my view on that subject, I lean towards leaving it there and not duplicating it here. This article is already huge and it's geting huger (yes, in my world huger is a word). As articles expand an attempt can be made to divide them up into related articles. This is not an effort to hide anything from anyone, it's just a logical way to organize large amounts of information. – JBarta (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson

Am I missing something, or are we still relying on "anonymous sources" and "leaks" for Wilson's version of the shooting. Now that we have his testimony to the grand jury and his interview, shouldn't we be eliminating this "leaked section" and replacing it with "his version of the shooting". I guess we could leave a synopsis of the leak and the reaction, but does anyone object to a sub-section under accounts with his version. Just wanted to ask before I started on a bold endeavor here.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have one narrow comment/suggestion... the fact that Wilson's testimony at some point was "leaked" should remain in the article. – JBarta (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's worth a mention but no more than that. I don't see the point of relying on the leaked testimony if the full testimony is freely available. -Myopia123 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That the testimony was leaked is part of the narrative. Certainly the published testimony should be used when referencing the testimony. Another potential issue might be differences (if any) between the leaked version(s) and the published version. Of course we wouldn't wish to do our own research on that, but if sources at some point mention notable differences, that might be appropriate here as well. – JBarta (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Another comment regarding the published testimony... it will be tempting for editors to comb through it looking for tidbits to enhance this article. That gets painfully close to original research (if not outright OR). The testimony itself is a primary source. (and for any inexperienced editors reading this, a primary source is not the best source and should be used with caution) What we should really be doing is looking for secondary reliable sources' analysis of the testimony. We are not detectives, we simply report what others have detected. – JBarta (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Only secondary sources, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with secondary sourcing, the draft I'm working on incorporates his version of the shooting as told to a detective back in August immediately following the incident, and then his testimony before the grand jury. I'm noticing some differences in the two versions he told, so we'll have to find secondary sourcing, if there is any, discussing the discrepancies. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Added Wilson's account of events. Feel free to trim, summarize, copy-edit or whatever. I didn't do anything with the "leaked testimony", maybe someone could tackle that. I also moved the "interview" down to that section and it might need some expansion. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

high level grand jury testimony summary from AP

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

The "money shot" summary from them is :

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back.

(Note: The fact that no shots hit Brown in the back is not evidence that the officer did not fire at Brown's back; it's evidence that none of the shot shots him in the back. Shots can and do miss.) 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Although it is itself an item of some note (I believe already in the article) that the prosecutor was pointing out these flaws in their own "case". Gaijin42 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I spend several hours today poring over reports as well as the evidence itself, and there are contradictions across the board, including from Wilson himself. Pity this was not an adversarial process in which defense and prosecution could cross examine witnesses. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Why pity? That's exactly what a grand jury is supposed to do. (And this side-note has nothing to do with the editing of the article.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the prosecutor is supposed to only supply the information that they think will get a case; the case itself is not supposed to be tried. It's highly unusual to have the defendant even present at these hearings. http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-different-about-grand-jury-process-darren-wilson-case 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

May be you need to lawyer up a bit. Grand jury proceedings are very different than trial proceedings as there is no cross-examination. Henceforth, none of the witness are supposed to be challenged, although it seems that the only one left unchallenged was Wilson's, according to what is emerging from the documents released and reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: With all due respect, I find it quite ironic and hypocritical that you posted this comment immediately above. Which is a "forum" comment and has absolutely nothing to do with the editing of this article. And, in the very same breath, you delete my comment above, which is not a forum comment and which does relate to the editing of this article. Would you care to explain? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For example witness #10, the only one that seems to agree with Wilson about Brown charging him, said first that he was 100ft away (the length of a football field), only to change his tune in front of the grand jury, saying he was 50 ft away. There is a lot that will be uncovered as media scrutinize the evidence. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not pored over the reports. I am sure it is safe to say that there are inconsistencies on both sides. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I feel he need to point out we are not detectives. Note my comment in the above section regarding the published testimony. – JBarta (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. There are several reports coming out highlighting the inconsistencies. We will use that. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the description of Officer Wilson's weapon and number of rounds?

It seems odd that in all of the article, there's no mention of what weapon the officer used. According to CNN, twelve shots were fired - all but one in Wilson's weapon - so shouldn't that be mentioned in the shooting? http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-documents/index.html There's obviously seven that intersected or found in Brown; that leaves five shots not in the wiki article as currently written. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Among the documents presented to the grand jury and available via the link you provided is the "Crime Lab Firearm Evidence". The weapon was a .40 caliber SIG Sauer P229 with a capacity of 13 rounds, including 12 in the magazine. Five bullets were recovered, 3 from Brown's body. Twelve casings found at the scene were analyzed. Page 2 of the weapon report (page 3 of the PDF) lists the location from which each bullet and cartridge was recovered. I'm not sure why you think this information is important to include in this article. There is no controversy about whether Officer Wilson was the shooter. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's account of events

Do we need such an expansive section on his account? Are we going to expand on each one of the 60 odd witnesses as well? I would argue that we have to attempt to summarize the reports, to keep the article manageable and avoid WP:UNDUE, which may be the case with this very lengthy description. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a big section for each testimony because there is some discrepancy between the two and editors hope readers will see that. Quite honestly that's an end run around WP:OR in my view. That whole mess should be trimmed down and broken into a few managable paragraphs reflecting the general gist of Wilson's statements all in one shot. If a source notes differences, we can add that too after his statement, but there's no need to overwhelm the reader in an attempt to manhandle him into seeing any particular editor's idea of the "real truth". – JBarta (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any value in duplicating the account as reported by RS, at pretty much the same level of detail. We don't just do it once, but in three separate subsections, each much larger than any of the eyewitness accounts. For those who like numbers, we currently have 335 words for the largest eyewitness account, Johnson's, and 2,139 words on Wilson's account, a difference of more than 6-to-1. Per OP, this is undue weight in spades. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I created the section for his account of the events because all we had was his "leaked testimony" for his version of the events. Like I clearly stated above (see Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson) after creating the section - Feel free to trim, summarize, copy-edit or whatever. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity is African American

Please see Race and ethnicity in the United States where Ethnicity of people like Brown is African American. that is the official term people prefer for their ethnicity. Just as people are called Hispanic not Brown people. I have been to all the sources which cite his ethnicity is black not one of them say his Ethnicity was black, they use black in the lay way, not in any official capacity, so it is a misuse of a source. BTW race and ethnicity are not the same. So while news sources commenting on "race" have used both terms Black and African American, ethnic grouping is NOT black. Black is not actually an ethnic grouping. It is not like Hausa, Igbo, Zulu. So the counterpart in America in official terms is African American male. So if both terms are used equally African American is more accurate at describing him. --Inayity (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at great length in the Wikipedia community and there is no consensus for African American. I am not going to engage in that debate with you here, as you can find it if you try and this is not the place for it anyway. Whatever you mean by "the lay way", that is the way many quality mainstream sources refer to it, including the three big players cited in the infobox. Until there is community consensus for African American, I see no need for Wikipedia to bow to political correctness on this, and as far as I know that is the existing consensus in this article. Aside from a few drive-by attempts like yours, the word black has stood throughout the life of this article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have no need for engagement then do not comment, and leave that to someone else willing to address the issues. Nothing like this is cast in stone on Wikipedia. Can you please tell me where ethnicity in those sources is stated as Black. And I can discuss it here as it relates to one of the most central part of this whole incident. RACE. Something I spend a hell of a lot of time on Wikipedia dealing with unlike you. So drive by? You better watch you tone. per WP:AGF--Inayity (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Google News Archive, news sources prefer "black" by at least 90-to-1 depending on how you enter the searches. {{Infobox person}} states, "Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source" (we currently support it with three, not one), and it says absolutely nothing about a distinction between a "lay way" and an "official way". I'm perfectly willing to stay out of the rest of this discussion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree and support changing the infobox to state Brown's Ethnicity as African-American, and would even support using that in the lede sentence as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose explicitly, if we're !voting, per arguments already given. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)