Talk:Killing of Latasha Harlins

Factual Accuracy

This article says Soon Ja Du was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but the article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots says she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The vast majority of web references say voluntary manslaughter, including a court transcript, so this page is probably the one that is wrong.

It states Latasha 'threw' the orange bottle on the counter. The cctv film shows Latasha handing over the bottle, she doesn't throw the bottle. Linclinc (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Soon Ja Du was convicted of voluntary manslaughter per official court records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.10.72 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

You Are Wrong... Since when did she punch the owner? I've seen the video. She didn't even steal anything, as best I can remember. The owner was just acting on a stereotype. Ridethefire3211 You are wrong Ride, Latisha punches Du viciously in the video. So vicious that Du falls to the ground, Du would later pass out from the blows. From news coverage back then, video showed Du with severe bruising from the attack. Yes, Latisha was 15, but she was 150 lbs and nearly 6' tall up against an elderly woman under 115 lbs. Its tragic what happened, and there is blame to go on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.238.76 (talk • contribs) 20:56 13 September 2005 That is what she said so she wouldn't be jailed for life for second degree murder. But this is what the police said 2 days after at a press conference: "Du was arrested Saturday afternoon on suspicion of murder, Bostic said, just hours after she was treated at a hospital for what Bostic described as "superficial injuries" she sustained in the scuffle." There is hardly blame to be divided. Du was in a tough situation that many of us would have also failed. But it was her crime. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC) I saw the video on a PBS program on the L.A. Riots, and Latasha immediately throws punches upon being confronted. The punches seemed powerful to me as evidenced by Du's head recoiling after each blow. And to the police, bruising, even severe bruising is considered superficial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.238.76 (talk • contribs) 02:24 15 September 2005 The division of the blame in this case is not between that of two specific people. Understanding the circumstances in which the murder was committed blame goes to both the African American and Korean Communities. Other African Americans had stolen from Du's store previously and so she had reason to be suspicious. Ms. Harlins was one of many victims of the racial tensions in LA. The Korean community can be blamed for setting up so many liquor stores in the ghettos and being "rude" to African American customers. However, Korean's often had no choice but to set up shop in such places where no other racial groups would go. As for the common myth that immigrants receive more loans than inner city entrepreneurs, nothing could be further from the truth. Asian American entrepreneurs often get money from family abroad or save for decades working odd jobs in hopes of opening businesses. Koreans blaming African Americans and African Americans blaming Koreans is exactly how some would like the system to continue. Hopefully, some day, people will stop all this bickering and get to the real issues. FantajiFan 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC) You left out one very important word in your sentence. Harlins immediately throws punches upon being PHYSICALLY confronted. It was Du who first used her hands. 130.156.30.59 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) far as I understand it, Du only used her hands to grab Harlins' bag after Harlins put the juice in her bag without paying for it. I bring a bag when I buy milk but I always put the milk on the counter and complete the transaction before I put it in my bag. Du was right to suspect theft in seeing that regardless of whether Harlins had cash on hand (I can still shoplift while holding money) and within her rights to control the movement of her merchandise until it was sold. This is why Harlins should not have introduced her bag as a barrier to DJ's mercy. The civilized response upon having the bag grabbed is to offer the money for the juice, not assault the shopkeeper. Ranze (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC) The page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

What in the article do you feel is biased, and how so? Mwelch 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly biased, due to the phrasing. "Du was easily overcome and at just 115 lbs. she was certainly unable to push the street brawl hardened 150 plus pound Latasha off of her." The entire article gives only the perspective of an Asian storekeeper who's victim. What about the fact that she was convincted, with two witnesses against her? Shouldn't more information be provided on that? And how about a neutral perspective? ~Ako —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.181.207 (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this rubbish about the witnesses being less reliable because they are "black youths"? What racist trash! This article is an embarassment to the reputation of Wikipedia. -p1nkfl0yd 01:23, 03 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.98.77 (talk)

Biased rant at the start of this thread- beating the crap out of the owner? This is an interpretation. I don't think most viewers would agree with that interpretation if they watched the available 26 seconds of video. There was an altercation where both women were physically violent towards one another from across a counter. There was some swinging of hands at one another from across a counter that provided a barrier to both combatants. The available video shows the storekeeper pull the victims arm, as she rests it on the counter, at the onset of the fit that begins with the victim trying to free herself from the storekeepers grip. The video might better be interpreted as the store owner be more aggressive during the mutual confrontation, including throwing items at the victim after she breaks free of the storekeepers grips, and then shooting the victim at point blank range while she walks (not runs) away. Additionally, the assumptions of what is said to the store owner on a daily basis or in this video is just that. It seems to be racially motivated and ignorant gibberish at best. There was no associated audio to the video.

Merging of Soon Ja Du and Latasha Harlins articles

Take a look and compare. These two articles are identical in scope with a few details unique to both. ie. names, ages, roles of Billy and Charles Du, Du's lawyer, video proof, Tupac. It seems like a waste of space to have the two when they don't go into the actual lives of the two individuals, and all we know about them stems from this one incident. I'm not entirely sure what the new article should be called - I'm trying to find an article which was titled after an incident with a similar background - Would this be a precedent? As voluntary manslaughter is still murder by definition, it could be called "Murder of Latasha Harlins," but I'm sure someone wants think of something that sounds "less biased." (The Lake Effect 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Agreed with the merger idea. Definitely think that "Death of . . ." or even "Killing of . . ." would be a better title. Whether voluntary manslaughter is truly the same as second-degree murder is a subtle legal point that in truth would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction even within the United States, to say nothing of possible legal variances in other countries. One could certainly make an reasonable argument that there's no substantive difference, and that "murder" is therefore just as appropriate a word. But it isn't Wikipedia's place to make such an argument. So, since Soon Ja Du was not convicted of murder, a "Murder of . . ." title definitely should not be used. Mwelch 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to try merging the two. --Seazzy 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! 8-) Mwelch 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm late to the party, but in my opinion Death of Latasha Harlins would be a far better title; the current article doesn't actually tell us anything about Harlins other than her name, age, race, and the fact she was a student. It's really about the incident rather than herself. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's better than the current title but even 'Death' isn't completely descriptive. Harlins was shot and killed in a criminal act. A correct title should mention this. ThatSaved (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

What absolute bullshit, seriously lads. Let's discuss, then change. Who in the world puts an item IN their backpack, and then goes to pay for it. I doubt that girl was going to pay for anything, probably going to steal it. Of course, it doesn't warrant her death but my god lads, let's get this straightened out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.93.113 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC). yes. She was absolutely, positively going to steal it. Pulling the money out of her pocket was a dead giveaway. Obviously people who have money in hand plan on stealing and should be punished with a shotgun.--Claude 19:58, 12 May 2007 ( I've done that in the past and I've also seen people eat an item before paying for it. I lived across the country in Baltimore, but experiences were similar. Latasha could have stolen in the past, but on this day, she had $2 in her hand preparing to pay and she placed the juice on the counter before heading out the door (so the stealing theory is not accurate in this case). Chic3z (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

Soap Box Section Even though Wikipedia is not a soapbox, several users have used this page to express the opinion that Harlins deserved to die or that her death is somewhat less tragic because she was stealing. This idea, weak to begin with, becomes totally useless once one realizes that she WASN'T stealing, and one realizes this soon after beginning to read the article. Of course, those expressing this opinion are of the anonymous hit and run type, who can't be bothered with reading the text or the links. So I'm creating this section for them to speak their anger and ignorance, and so those wanting a real discussion don't have to be disturbed with their useless opinions. 130.156.29.112 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Du, a tiny elderly woman, used her hands to grab Harlin's backpack. As the storekeeper, she had a right to do that if she suspected shoplifting. And the girl WAS concealing merchandise. Du never tried to hit her, but Harlin wailed on the old woman. She was assaulted in her own store and in my opinion she had a right to defend herself. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Just in case you ever work in the retail industry, you don't have a right to grab a customer or their things, even if you suspect wrongdoing. You can always ASK to look in their bag etc., but they might say no, in which case you can't really do anything. - 15:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.144.209 (talk) She probably planned on stealing it, noticed she was seen, and pulled the money out to cover for her actions. She still attempted to leave the store without paying. So drop the snotty sarcasm, people . . . it doesn't help and cases like this are not cut and dried. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC) 100% self defense. Du shouldn't have even received the probation. Latasha Harlins didn't deserve to die but deserve the reaction from an elderly store owner who probably never experience what she experienced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.180.95 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC) You don't put something into your back pack if you intend on paying for it. The money may have been a ruse if she was confronted, to say she was going to pay for it. If you were going to pay for it, you don't start punching someone smaller than you when they come up and point out that you've put store merchandise into your back pack. You tell them "Sorry about that, I am going to buy this, I should have got a shopping basket". The article is written pretty POV for the dead girl. She didn't deserve to die for stealing juice, but from the sounds of it she assaulted the older/smaller shop owner quite viciously (probably something she'd been through before) and obviously felt extremely theatened to take retribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC) The store owner put herself in harms way, but she was trying to prevent stealing. But where I'm from, the store owner would scream out to you before approaching you, especially if you towered over them. They'd rather lose $2 in merchandise than to lose their life. Since Latasha died with $2 in her hand, it's safe to assume that she was going to pay. Also, Latasha proceeded to leave the store after placing the juice on the counter, so it's safe to assume she wasn't going to steal. Chic3z (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC) "placing" sounds rather delicate. Do you want a gif of how the juice was left? Money in hand doesn't make intent to pay a safe assumption. As above that is an easy out if caught. Many caught for petty theft would rather pay than get criminal charges but this doesn't insert a desire to pay prior to being caught. Ranze (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

plagiarism!

This article contained several paragraphs copied (or nearly copied) from [1] (despite that page's prominent "reproduction prohibited" notice). Regrettably, the most recent revision I could find lacking the plagiarized text was from way back in December. I reverted it to be safe. Just thought I should explain myself. --kine (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) u r an idiot she didnt leave with the merchandise she put it down and started to walk out..and thats not self-defense, Harlins was walking away the Bitch pulled some pussy shit and shot her in the head because she got her ass beat...and then she ran to Korea, she deserves to be thrown in jail and beat to death in there

Reliable sources noticeboard

Discussion here:[2] 130.156.29.230 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits of 5/1/09

I am undoing several edits made today by an IP user. This has very little to do with the facts in the edits, but more to do with no sources given. From the articles I read none of the facts asserted by this editor were ever established. I could easily be wrong. If reliable sources can be provided that would verify the edits, by all means revert me. I will be leaving a similar message on that editor's talk page. Thanks. Tiderolls 22:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Cites

I've reinserted several citations that were deleted without explanation. Verifiability is an import part of Wikipedia, see WP:V 68.38.183.158 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you added the citations back, but all the information that the original citations refer to is obtainable through the court transcript. I deleted the citations to the articles, because the articles which the citations refer to have very sensational titles, favoring Harlins' side over Du's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saaws (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I would think sources would always be welcome, if they are reliable. However, as a compromise, I offer this. All inline cites can be removed and put in the external references section. Cite 4 can be removed because its title is somwhat sensationalized, cites 1,2,8 and 10 can be removed since they aren't links. 68.38.183.158 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Soon Ja Du

Does anyone know what has happened to Soon Ja Du? Did she end up going back to Korea? Does she still run a liquor store? A followup would be nice I can't find anything online but I will keep looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.49.209 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Most of the narrative in the section "Summary" does not follow NPOV guidelines. The section says that it is a summary of the court case, but it is clearly not. The summary section uses language like "Du erroneously concluded" and " who falsely[4] claimed having been robbed". I think this section should just recount the facts as they appear in the case, and not make conclusions based on information that is unknowable. --Mherlihy (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the summary is pretty accurate. The wording could have been a bit better but it does tell the truth. Du, unfortunately, lied about being robbed (Harlins never took money from the register). Harlins only had two dollars in her hands and there was still money in Du's cash register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JinaBean (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read any of the cites? "Slain girl was not stealing juice, police say." reads the footnote that is part of the excerpt you've copied above. This section is not MAKING conclusions, it's repeating the conclusions of the police and the jury. ThatSaved (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying you were robbed doesn't automatically mean you are saying cash was stolen. It can also refer to merchandise. Harlins stole the juice soon as it passed her zipper regardless of what cops say. Ranze (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2011

"Du erroneously concluded". The title of citation 5 states "Slain girl was not stealing juice, Police say". Since the victim was not stealing it is correct to characterize the perpertrators conclusion as 'erroneous'.

"to report an alleged holdup". No holdup happened. Therefore, it was alleged, not actual. This phrasing is certainly better than describing the claim as a lie, which is certainly possible although not proven.

"but her words were contradicted by the statements of the two witnesses present at the time and the security camera footage". Accurate phrasing. The videotape and the witness show that the victim came to the counter holding money and that the physical confrontation was initiated by the perpetrator.

ThatSaved (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the text you will see that all of the information is intact and no information is removed. Redundant words have been removed which improves the prose. Please read "Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing" to better understand. Furthermore you have removed the following cited facts without reason:

• "Du later testified that Harlins had threatened to kill her."
• "at a distance of about three feet "
• "She testified that she thought she would die if she was hit by Harlins again"

and reinserted phrases which are not supported by the citation.

• "Paramedics soon arrived,"

174.30.222.137 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim that all of the information is intact, but you are in fact omitting relevant information as I have detailed above. For example, Du's conclusion was indeed erroneous, as confirmed by the police. There is no valid rationale to eliminate this word, it is an important detail.

Furthermore, you claim that your version 'improves the prose' by removing redundant words, but your version indulges in its own redundancy by twice mentioning that Du claim that Harlins had threatened to kill her..

Finally, you claim that your edits improve NPOV. Part of neutrality is explained in WP:UNDUE.

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Du's version of events is indeed a minority view. It was not supported by the witnesses, it was not supported by the video tape, it was not accepted by the jury. The claim that the article is improved by inserting unspported allegations is a specious as the claims themself . This is particulary true when other important detail is currently not included, for example eyewitnesses description that the verbal confrontation was initiated by the perpetrator. NPOV does not require that a version of events very unlikely to be true be given equal mention. ThatSaved (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

When you read the text you will note the information is still there in the next sentence, it is just not duplicated. The information is not omitted and the detail is maintained if the reader simply reads the next sentence. This is perfectly acceptable for prose and desirable as shown in the link. Removing "an African American and" in the phrase "Barack Hussein Obama II (Listeni/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is an African American and the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office." is analogous and you can see there is no loss or omission of information.

You correctly note the redundant phrasing. I have correct the issue. In the future if you see something that can be improved or a problem please fix it.

If you continue to read WP:UNDUE, you will note it is reference to tiny minorities. One half of a court case is not a tiny minority. You will find it universally accepted to print what the defence argues or testifies in a trial on Wikipedia. The amount of coverage of Du's testimony is not large enough to warrant cutting or trimming. It is not overly detailed and is immediately contrasted by what the multiple other parties state.

You have not addressed why you have continually reinserted statements not supported by the citation like "Paramedics soon arrived" and removed information such as "at a distance of about three feet" despite it following the police reports and not being related at all to Du's testimony. 184.97.244.140 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The example you have give regarding a twice repeated phrase, namely African American, is hardly the same as omitting crucial, accurate words such as 'erroneous' regarding a conclusion and 'alleged' regarding a supposed criminal act. Your self congratulation on improving prose are opinion which may not be universal, indeed others may prefer the more compact wording. Furthermore, you continue to falesly claim that you are not removing information when you are.

Regarding minority views, Wikipedia is under no obligation to present a defense brief, particulary one that is not accepted by a jury. The discredited claim of self defense is already present in the article. Furthermore, the defense position is indeed a tiny minority. It was not supported by any other objective third party evidence. It is unsupported claims by a defendant. More critical information, such as the testimony of the witness that the verbal confrontation was initiated by the perpetrator, continues to be absent from this article. ThatSaved (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move

I propose this article be moved to the title Death of Latasha Harlins. Subject is notable primarily for the incident in which she died. The article focuses on the incident, the aftermath, and the legacy, with substantial space dedicated to Du's trial, and the effect on the culture. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - As there has been no comment in the past week, and as per WP:BOLD, the article has been moved. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Latasha Harlins Assualt

Details of the breif struggle before Harlins's death should be mentioned for completeness.

From your title and your comment, it's obvious you know little about this case or the article.

24.187.214.210 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Although I have little reason to believe that someone who would shout "STOP IT NOW" has the ability or desire to engage in productive dialogue, I for one will attempt to follow wiki protocol by initiating talk page discussion. Phrases that have weasel words such as "some members" and "numerous...businesses" are not desirable in Wikipedia. The rationale, weak as it is, given for retaining this phrasing is that it is cited, but not only is this not obvious, because there are no direct links to the sources, it is of dubious relevance. The fact that sources use this language is no reason we can not try to IMPROVE on the phrasing per Wiki's manual of style. Keeping the templates that have been inserted and have been in existence for quite some time are the best method of bring attention to this issue. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• You really need to read WP:WEASEL. The words you keep tagging are not "weasel words." They are accurate descriptions of what the source at the end of the sentence substantiates. Please read WP:TAGBOMB. You are very out of line with these tags, given that the information you're tagging is, in fact, adequately sourced. As for the use of capital letters, given your continual reversion of nonsense tags, I thought perhaps you weren't even reading the edit summaries explaining why the tags were inappropriate. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The very first example in WP:WEASEL is 'some people say'. The quantify tag specifically states a term needs quantification, and 'numerous' is such a term. Again, even if this is an accurate reflection of the material, and again this is not obvious since there is no direct links to the source, the text can and should be improved, and the tags bring attention to the fact. You seem to be assuming a lot of thing, like what other editors need to read, while ignoring your own behavior on this issue, which indeed is coming close to assuming ownership of this article. You've tried to dismiss this notion by mentioning that you've only recently edited the article, and that in fact is part of the issue. These tags have been in existence over a year with several other editors not seeing the need for removal, while you've repeatedly and insistently deleted them without opening on talk page discussion. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You apparently don't understand tagging at all. The fact that they've been there so long mitigates against their staying, not for it. The tags were placed in error one year ago, I happened to notice them pretty recently, and removed them, explaining in the edit summary why they were unnecessary. If you have an issue with the sources not being directly accessible--and it sounds like that is your main issue--I will replace the two tags (which are, in my view, a blatant case of tag-bombing) with a tag after the sources requesting that they be clarified with a quote attached, or with a direct link that verifies their content. But dropping two tags on innocuous wording is not the solution. Please stop doing so. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • My main issue is with your continued comments like 'you don't understand tagging at all' and 'the tags were placed in error 'in which you continue to display behavior that indicates that you feel your editing skills and wiki knowledge exceeds those editors that disagree with you.
      • Now on to the edits in question.
      • The fact that tags tags have existed for so long are evidence that other users have seen them and did not see fit to remove them. The fact the issues they raise have not been addressed is no reason to remove them. Would we remove a 'citation needed' tag or a 'who' tag after a year because they haven't been resolved? No we wouldn't. So your claim that the length of time they've been there is evidence for removal is unfounded.
      • In your latest reply, you completely ignored what was shown that phrasing such as "some activists and members of the community" is the very first example given in WP:WEASEL of vague phrasing. You also ignored what was shown regarding the quantify tag being used for terms that need quantification. "Numerous" is not a quantity, hence the tag. Is numerous thirty, three thousand, something in between, or something else? WHICH activists and members of the community reached the conclusion stated? The fact that the text MAY accurately reflect the sources is no reason why we should remain satisfied with the existing text, and tagging the text in the manner done is the correct method of bring other editors attention to these issues. If this means other sources needs to be found, than so be it.
      • You've further mentioned a 'tag after the sources requesting that they be clarified with a quote attached' without specify what that you would be. I hope this is not the tag you've used in your 'compromise' edit. Determining the page number on which this material exists is a fool's errand.
      • I would welcome on this talk page a direct link to the material so ALL editors can see what is in the source and to attempt to come up with a phrasing that eliminates the problems I've shown while remaining faithful to its citation, so let's see what you've got. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

        The "page number" tag is not a "fool's errand." It's a request for a page number in the current sourcing, to verify the claims made in the sentence. It replaces two tags that clutter the article unnecessarily, and basically asks for the same thing that those TWO tags ostensibly are requesting. Did you even bother to read WP:TAGBOMB? Excessive tagging is very much discouraged on Wikipedia. Please stop doing so. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

        Also, you seem to believe that direct links to sources are required by Wikipedia. They're not. The reason for that is because often no direct links are even available. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

        • Why do you assume I NEED to read it, which would imply that I'm not already familiar with it? I know it says that editors who continue to do so may be blocked if they persist after being warned. So if you REALLY feel that I am doing this, maybe you want to bring it up on the vandalism page. Personally, I think you have a weak case trying to prove that two tags on questionable material is going to qualify.
        • Furthermore, your cite DOESN'T ask for the same thing. My tags ask WHICH activists are making the claim and HOW MANY business were being affected, you are simply asking for where in the source the material was obtained.
        • Finally, there is no reason for you to conclude that I feel direct links are REQUIRED. However, if it were available, it would make it easier for ALL editors to examine the material and paraphrase it in the most desirable manner. I've already mentioned this is by previous reply 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: It's very telling that you initially reverted my comment here without edit summary. It displays very clearly that you've dug into your position in such a way that you're simply reverting me without even bothering to check what you've done. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's even more telling that you didn't bother to research that I apologized for my error to the editor who reverted my accidental deletion, who graciously accepted. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  Why would you apologize to him? It was MY comment you deleted, simply because you weren't paying attention, and thought you were reverting my 1-tag-for-2 compromise. Anyway, after digging around a bit, I found a link to the Daily News article that's still active. It supports (as I assumed it would) what the editor who wrote that sentence claimed it supported, and removes the need for those two tags. Don't readd them. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  And now you've reverted my addition of the direct link you've supposedly been wanting all along. You need to take a break from this article, 24.187. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Why would I apologize to you when you've been assuming bad faith since the beginning? And are you assuming the other editor is male? I saw nothing that indicated gender, but I didn't look because it's not important. Now as far as your typical imperative "Don't readd them", you don't have to fret about that. Not for today, anyway. I will be taking a break, but it has nothing to do with your demands. I suggest you stop directing other editors. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I further notice that you've concluded I'm a male. As the lawyers say, 'assumes facts not in evidence". Which is a pretty apt summary of your editing so far. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

    Your concerns about having no direct link to the source have been addressed. Your intentional gaming of WP:3RR has been noted (and, ironically enough, recorded by you in an actual edit summary), and you will be reported for 3RR if you again do a blind revert readding those tags after your request for a direct link was addressed. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

    • I see you're abandoning the empty tag bomb threat now that I called you on it and and are now trying a 3 RR ploy. Talk about gaming the system. You have my congrats on finding a source, now let's see if it and you can address the valid concerns my tags raised. I could repeat the concerns here but it's obvious from your comments so far that you would only ignore them again. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

      The link addresses your supposed "concerns." And readding those two tags will still be tag-bombing, especially given that they have been rendered completely meritless by the fact that your concerns about having no direct link to the source have been addressed. The 3RR thing is so blatant, given your comment above as well as your edit summary, that I have little doubt that your IP will be blocked from editing should you make even one more bare revert. All along, I've been looking for a way to solve problems here. You've done nothing but obstruct every step of the way. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

      • If you were in fact interested in solving problems, then YOU would have initiated talk page dialogue, and YOU would have requested a third opinion. Instead, you decided to deal in imperatives and to make an baseless accusations and an empty threat about tag bombing, a notion which has been rejected below, and to make accusations of a 3rRR violation which have applied to you as much as anyone else. If you were in fact interested in solving problems, you would have addressed my concerns about specificity and not repeatedly attacked the straw man that was about a direct source by improving the vague article text with details contained in the link which you are implying solves all problems. In fact, there is a discrepancy between the wiki article and the source, one which has evidently eluded your problem solving self. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to offer a third opinion based on this request. I'll be brief:

• Two tags on an article is not an especially egregious example of tag bombing.
• "some members" or "numerous...businesses" are not necessarily weasel words. Weasel words are used to obfuscate, but that's not what's happening here. The sentence in question might be rewritten slightly to improve the clarity and quality of the prose, but it's also fine as it stands. The source provided does indeed support the assertion that Korean businesses were targeted in the riots, and also provides an example of how some people saw a connection to the death of Latasha Harlins.Keihatsu ^talk 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time. This entire experience has been pretty surreal, as neither attempt (I first created one tag that asked for a specific page from the off-line cite before finally digging around until I was able to find a direct link to it) I made to fix the issue the IP claimed to have was met with other than reversions. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keihatsu, thank you for responding to my request and I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that the fact bombing claim was without merit (those must be pretty powerful tags if just two in article qualify as a bombing). I'm less enthusiastic with your analysis and while we all know that third opinions are not binding, as I show of good faith I will respect the opinion that I, in following recommended practices, willingly sought, and will not seek further dispute resolution. I have inserted more cited text which addresses my concerns about specificity while retaining the longstanding if somewhat inelegant wording some are apparently wedded to. As I believe this sentence and indeed the article in general can use improvement, I will continue to seek additional sources with more detailed info than what has been presented thus far, although if all edits are this arduous I may need to rethink this 24.187.214.210 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  As I anticipated, you have interpreted "not an especially egregious example of" as "not an example of." I also anticipated that you wouldn't like the fact that the wording you took issue with wasn't "weasel wording" since it wasn't intended to obfuscate. I do tend to agree that the entire article could use a rewrite, and the wording in this section is particularly awkward. Be that as it may, the article is less tag-cluttered now, and has been slightly improved over its previous state. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • "Not an especially egregious example" is not worth making an issue out of. What you've overlooked, perhaps intentionally, is that this is the FIRST issue the uninvolved editor decided to address and did so without any prompting. The request for a third comment did not mention it, the editor saw it in prior discussion and saw fit to comment on, and to dismiss, it.
  • You are correct that I don't concur with the third opinion, but it is opinion, and not fact. Furthermore, as you may not be aware of, third opinions need not be final or binding, there are other steps that can follow. However, you would presumably reject any attempt at a RFC as ludicrous and refuse to cooperate.
  • I don't know where I said or implied that the entire article could use a rewrite, portions of it are well done, If you feel as such maybe you can devote your time to that instead of edit warring. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

    I must tell you that I quite literally laughed out loud at your suggestion that I devote my time to something other than edit warring. I found that suggestion, coming from an IP editor who explicitly admitted to gaming WP:3RR (which you did, both on this talkpage and in an edit summary) really quite amusing. Thanks for the chuckle. Regards, LHM^{ask me a question} 00:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

    • No, thank you for continuing to showcase your lack of reading comprehension. I don't know whether this is done deliberately or through simple lack of ability, but no matter. I wish I could laugh at your shortcomings , but, unlike you, I'm here to assist in the project, not for laughs 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

      Your lack of civility is noted. I teach English, so I don't think a lack of reading comprehension is a problem on my part. You are now simply reverting out of spite. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

      • "You are now simply reverting out of spite." Well, I was wrong about ONE thing. You CAN make me laugh! 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits

As "mike" well knows, not all killings are legal. There was a criminal conviction in this case. The court documents refer to the killing as being unlawful. JamesBurnsLives (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the court, that is. It is not as uncontroversial as it seems. 104.218.136.34 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, according to the court. That's how it's done it most countries. JamesBurnsLives (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Because the edit warring is still continuing and you don't seem to be anywhere near consensus, I have made a request for another full protection. Widr (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus? I understand you desire to be neutral, but users who maintain that a killing which resulted in a standing criminal conviction is lawful are trolling. JamesBurnsLives (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)