Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks

Criminal history

Right now, our article says: In a February 2020 interview he discussed the two years he spent in prison and his difficulties after being released, such as difficulty finding work. A driving under the influence conviction could have led to revocation of his probation and a return to prison. The fact that Brooks was on probation and had been incarcerated in the past is arguably relevant to his killing because, as sources point out [2], it may have motivated his reaction to being handcuffed. There's the question about whether we should expand this to include more detail about the subject's criminal history. Stickywu makes the point that there is a lot of misinformation circulating about this topic, and Wikipedia could, or should, include the accurate information. Personally, I'm pretty persuaded by this, and would normally write a footnote, as was done at George Floyd. However, in this case, the criminal history is complex and reliable sources are contradictory. Here's what I've found:

Sources and quotes

AJC #1 - It's an op-ed, but it is the product of actual investigation by journalists and it divulges its sources. We didn’t publish initial information about Brooks’ criminal past, even though we had it. Some in our newsroom disagreed; so did some readers. We sent reporters to local county courthouses, including Clayton County, where much of Brooks’ detailed criminal history resides. *** Brooks had a long and difficult history with police. He was interacting with police and the juvenile courts from the age of 10, and every interaction seemed to result in multiple felony charges. *** In 2014, a domestic dispute between Brooks and his wife, Tomika Miller, led to charges of battery, false imprisonment and child cruelty, but the charges do not tell the whole story. Brooks was accused of grabbing Miller’s wrist (battery), pulling her into another room (false imprisonment) and doing so in front of her 7-year-old son (child cruelty). The argument may have been ugly, and Brooks’ behavior may have been bad, but he wasn’t accused of actually hitting anyone or holding them captive. The charges carried the threat of years in prison nonetheless. After spending about seven months in the county jail awaiting trial, Brooks was offered a deal: Take a year in prison, with credit for time already served, and six years of probation. He pleaded guilty and was released five months later, but he was in the probation system for the rest of his life. *** Much of what we learned about Brooks shows a black man caught up in the justice system, including Georgia’s notoriously flawed parole system. AJC #2 - this is already cited in our article, and it's a straight-news feature the AJC published after it ran the above op-ed. (It's mentioned in the op-ed as the upcoming Sunday story.) It provides a shorter summary. We can use it, but it doesn't strike me as complete. Brooks has been in trouble off and on since he was 10 years old. At 27, he’s been on probation five years and it’s scheduled to continue through 2026. He’s pleaded guilty to various charges. His most serious conviction was from a 2014 incident in which he yanked his wife against her will into another room in front of her son. Brooks pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and, because the boy saw the fight, child cruelty. He spent nearly a year behind bars. Afterward, Brooks kept running afoul of the conditions of probation, which he found overly stringent. The curfew, fines, community service, fees and classes were hard for probationers to balance, he said in a February video testimonial for a criminal justice reform group. AP: In January, Georgia authorities brought Brooks back to the state on a fugitive warrant alleging he failed to notify them of his address and complete a theft prevention class as his probation required. It traced back to 2014, when he pleaded guilty to domestic violence, theft and other charges. Prosecutors said he twisted the wrist of his wife. In his letter to the judge, Brooks called it a “minor disagreement.” His wife couldn’t visit him in jail because she was the victim, but they talked on the phone and she sent him food, he said. The kids gave her a hard time in his absence, he wrote. But Brooks was the “primary aggressor” in another incident, this one witnessed by a child, leading to a child cruelty charge, according to a grand jury report. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year behind bars and six years of probation. And in 2016, he pleaded guilty to credit card theft, for another yearlong sentence. When officials brought him back to Georgia, he owed $219.21 in court payments and spent 19 days in jail before he was released on probation, court records show. He’d been out for nearly six months when officers approached him at Wendy’s, where he was asleep inside a car blocking the drive-thru lane. CNN 1: Brooks told the interviewer he was arrested for false imprisonment and financial credit card fraud. He said his public defender told him he could get 10 years, so he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison. CNN 2: Brooks told the interviewer he was arrested for false imprisonment and financial credit card fraud. He said his public defender told him he could get 10 years, so he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison. "I'm like, 'oh my God, I have kids out here' ... so I'm trying to do the best option I can to be back to society," he said. Nationwide, 4.5 million people are on probation or parole, and African-Americans make up 30 percent of those on community supervision. As part of a plea deal, Brooks pleaded guilty in 2014 to charges of false imprisonment, simple battery/family, simple battery and felony cruelty/cruelty to children, and he was sentenced to one year in prison and six years on probation, according to court records. Two years later, he was sent back to prison for 12 months for violating his probation. Snopes is long, detailed, and complicated: [c. 2007] age 14, spends 2 years in youth detention 2010 [age 18] arrested on supicion of making false statement to police for telling them he didn't know anything about a robbery (to which he was not connected by police), sentenced to 1 year probation, which court records show he violated 2011 arrested and sentence to 1 year probation and $300 fine "for allegedly causing physical bodily harm to a member of his family, though it’s unclear whom ... [we don't know] why, or under what circumstances, Brooks was involved. We also don’t know who contacted authorities to begin with, or the severity of the victim’s injuries. We know, however, the offenses on Brooks’ criminal record and for which he was charged were: battery family violence, battery, simple battery family violence, and simple battery" Jan 2012 charged with possession of marijuana and being in the presence of a gun, sentenced to 1 year (but actual incarceration time not specified) 2013 - this one is complex per Snopes: he was sleeping in a car with a woman and child in it, an officer woke him up, Brooks immediately drove away; police later found an unoccupied car that matched that car's description and it was registered as stolen. "Three months later, police accused Brooks of committing the following crimes during what started as the 911 report of a suspicious vehicle mentioned above: theft by receiving stolen property, interference with police custody, false imprisonment, obstructing an officer, and cruelty to children. The latter offense includes any time children witness severe crimes or family violence, which is what seemed to have happened (based on available records) in Brooks’ case. He pleaded guilty in August 2014 and was sentenced to one year of prison and more than six years of probation." 2015 and 2016: Brooks out of jail but arrested multiple times for theft/credit card theft, which violated his probation in the above cases. "He was sent back to prison for one year, fined $2,000, and issued more years of probation — sentences that surpassed the date of his death." Snopes points out: "All of that said, in reference to online claims against him about family violence, it is accurate to state that Brooks at one point was charged with battery family violence, and one criminal allegation against him involved one or more child. But there’s no evidence to prove he physically harmed the children, and Brooks never faced allegations of child abuse, which is often the category of offense when people “beat” children."

As you can see, Snopes, AJC, AP, and CNN are reporting slightly different things. So I'm having trouble figure out a paragraph-length footnote that summarizes this. Thoughts? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some info on this should be included in the article. The footage from the bodycams, dashcam & Wendy's clearly show that, after a long & civil conversation with Brooks, he suddenly attacked both officers as they tried to handcuff him. That was undoubtedly a major turning point, so Brooks history - including behavior during previous arrests - is relevant. It's as relevant as the officers' previous conduct, which in the case of Rolfe is included. Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To Jim Michael - No, none of it is relevant to Rolfe choosing to, as Rolfe's lawyer's says, "dropped his taser and fired his service weapon" three times to kill Brooks. I have not seen any RS report that say 'Rolfe shot & killed Brooks because of Brooks' past crimes' - so it's clear that his past crimes are irrelevant and do not belong in this article about Rolfe killing Brooks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh, that's funny, because what I get from the bodycams and so on is that after a long & civil conversation with Brooks they suddenly tried to handcuff him as he was asking them to let him get home so he could sleep it off -- and in doing so violated their own procedures for carrying out arrests. Prediction: Now you'll circle back for the 100th time to say (a) that officers were required to arrest Brooks (which is false); or (b) that officers were allowed to arrest Brooks (which is true, but beside the point – see (a)); or (c) that Brooks punched them and had a taser and might have got away (which is all true, but isn't a justification for killing someone). But really, I'm breaking my own rule: it's time to stop responding to Jim Michael. Pointless. EEng 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To Levivich - I think you're a fine, thoughtful editor and I think you've done a great job in your research but my position is the same: this is an article is about him being killed by ex-officer Rolfe, not about his life, & not about his bio. So, in order to follow WP guidelines, since none of that has anything to do with Rolfe killing him, it does not belong in this article. To underscore that point, is the fact that RS write different things, "Snopes, AJC, AP, and CNN are reporting slightly different things. So I'm having trouble figure out a paragraph-length footnote that summarizes this." is all the more reason those things, which have nothing to do with Rolfe killing him, belong in this article. As for "motivation" for him fleeing, that is total speculation so also does not belong in this article. We have no idea what was going in his head and no one except him would be able to answer that, but he was Rolfe killed him before he could. I can't emphasize this enough, ex-officer Rolfe did not kill him because of any past crimes so none of his past crimes belong in this article about Rolfe killing him. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There are reliable sorces linking the shooting of Brooks to him running away, and his running because probation would have meant a return to jail. Therefore the reason he was on probation is relevant to this article. Stickywu (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To me that only means that the fact he was on probation is relevant. EEng 01:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact of his probation is relevant. Exactly. Although that fact is shrouded in mystery within this article Stickywu (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not responding on behalf of another editor, these are just my own thoughts. I believe the main problem with adding information about Brooks criminal history is that it adds undue weight to that section. If there were a way to accurately summarise in a paragraph then it could be put in a footnote. However, the probation spans 8 years and is difficult to summarise since it is multiple charges and has been extended. I can understand why people dont want it on this page and I kind of agree but I really want that information available "somewhere". Im happy if its just the snopes and ajc articles added as references.

One more thing to Levivich - You cite the footnote on WP "George Floyd Jr" biography page but not on the WP "Killing of George Floyd" page. So perhaps you could start a draft article on Brooks' bio and include the information you've gathered there? Just a thought. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I think "footnote", "expand the body", "no change", and "spinout a biography" are all reasonable options here. I can see pros and cons with each and am undecided, but I appreciate you and others sharing your thoughts. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why is the reason for Brooks' incarceration not given in the article? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. We want to inform the reader of the types of criminality pertinent to the individual that died in this incident. The individual bears responsibility for their own death. Engagement in criminal behavior increases the likelihood of bad outcomes. This applies to all people—including cops, bystanders, and criminals. No one benefits from criminality. Innocent bystanders are at a higher risk of being harmed if they happen to be in the presence of criminal behavior. The lives of cops are put in harm's way, in the presence of criminal behavior. And of course criminals are more likely to be harmed when they engage in criminal behavior. Rayshard Brooks engaged in other criminal behavior besides the one which directly led to the loss of his life. The reader should be apprised of the types of criminality pertinent to the life of Rayshard Brooks. Reliable sources support descriptions of the types of criminality pertinent to the life of Rayshard Brooks. Criminality is a theme in this article. It is a contrivance to consider suppression of Rayshard Brooks' history of criminal behavior. Bernard Kerik opines that Rayshard Brooks "would be alive today if he didn't resist and he didn't disarm the police officers". Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik is telling us "You could see in the video where he actually grabs the Taser from the officer's hand, jerks it out of his hand and runs. At some point during (the) running, while a cop is chasing him, he turns to fire at the cop. The cop fires three shots. He's hit twice, he goes down. If he didn't resist, if he didn't fight the cops, if he didn't attack them, didn't run, didn't attempt to shoot them with a Taser, he'd still be alive today." We are not discussing extraneous information. The criminal background of Rayshard Brooks is very pertinent to this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm surprised that in quoting disgraced former NYC police commissioner, tax cheat, perjurer, bribe recipient, and all-around general felon Bernard Kerik, you failed to link to our article on him, which reads in pertinent part ...

  Kerik pleaded guilty in Bronx Supreme Court on June 30, 2006 to two ethics violations ... On November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted by a federal grand jury ... On November 5, 2009, Kerik pleaded guilty to eight felony tax and false statement charges ...

  ... because it sure explains why he's your go-to guy on the wages of sin. Thanks for playing our game, however, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng—you say "you failed to link to our article on him". But I of course I did "link to our article on him". The sentence reads "Bernard Kerik opines that..." Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, gosh darn, you're right! You mentioned his name twice, and indeed linked the first of those two mentions, and I didn't notice that. I deeply and humbly apologize.

Now that we've cleared that up, do you have anything to say about the fact your star witness is a corrupt and utterly immoral creep who (had he a normal conscience) would be embarrassed to show his face anywhere outside a monastery, but in fact is so shameless as to still hold himself out as a spokesman for law and order, social responsibility, and civil obedience? (To be fair, of course, that's on Fox News and ... well let's face it ... he probably knows that morons are unlikely to notice the incongruity.) His excuse for carrying on like that is probably that he's a sociopath. What's yours for quoting him? EEng 02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't even one of Fox's actual news shows he was talking to. It was Ingraham Angle. —valereee (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh. I can't remember what the mental classification is below moron. EEng 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's Fox Evening Lineup. —valereee (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Sheriff Alfonzo Williams explaining to CNN that the shooting was justified. Note: "One day before charges might be filed against the ex-officer who killed Rayshard Brooks, a black Georgia sheriff said the shooting was justified." Please watch the video. In it Sheriff Williams explains in detail why this shooting may be justified, in his opinion. This is a more extensive interview with Georgia Sheriff Alfonzo Williams. It is on YouTube. In it Sheriff Williams says "What happened in the Brooks case is completely justified, one-hundred percent." Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The charges are that the officers used unnecessary force. "Following the announcement of the murder charge on June 17, Atlanta police officers reportedly called out sick en masse, protesting the charges by refusing to do their jobs." Clearly not all agree that the officers used unnecessary force. Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"The director of Georgia’s police training center said the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks was tragic, yet justified ... "You’ve got the George Floyd case where everyone in America saw a murder on TV,” Wigginton said about the man who died in Minneapolis after a police officer pressed his knee into his neck. "And you will not find a police officer who will look at that video and say that was OK. But they want to take Mr. Brooks’ case and put it in the same category as that crime that was committed on Mr. Floyd. And they’re not." Bus stop (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, the era in which the police are the ones deciding whether it was OK for other police to kill someone is over. Now, do you have any suggestions, other than those already soundly rejected, for changes to the article? EEng 12:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess we could report this as, "Many police and former police said the shooting by police of a black man who was running from police was justified," but that seems just sort of WP:DOGBITESMAN. Does it really add much? —valereee (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the era in which arrest for DWI does not mean fighting with cops, EEng. Why? Because 1.5 million Americans per year are arrested for DWI. What percentage of them do you think take the cop's taser? Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—what does it have to do with "a black man"? Why are you specifying the man's race? Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to AGF here, but I'm trying to think of any way to take that other than "disingenuous to the point of disruptiveness." Please forgive me, I'm sure you must mean that some other way. —valereee (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope your AGF reserve tanks are full. You're going to need them. EEng 13:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No one's arguing that it was OK for Brooks to take the taser, so your response is, as usual, irrelevant. Bus stop, do you have any suggestions, other than those already soundly rejected, for changes to the article? EEng 13:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—it is not "the shooting by police of a black man who was running from police was justified" but just "the shooting by police of a man who was running from police was justified". There is no known racial motive in this incident, or at least I am not aware that any has been established. I am not aware, for instance, of charges against the police of a hate crime. Please bring sources. Was something said by anyone indicating racial animosity? Did any of the participants have a history indicating racial animosity? Did any of the participants belong to any organizations espousing racial hatred? Does scouring of social media turn up indications of racial prejudice? We shouldn't perpetuate a "racial" narrative unless it is solidly founded. We can and we should mention the races—but that is because the races are mentioned in sources. But we should not be constructing sentences such as the one you suggested. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You are seriously saying that someone has to be alleging actual racial animosity by a white cop who shoots a black man who is running away from him before their race is relevant? I find that...astonishing. To the point that I'm really wondering why you're here. You have been bludgeoning discussion at multiple articles surrounding race and the police. You need to consider stopping that. —valereee (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—you are gratuitously inserting "race" into a discussion that has nothing to do with "race". This is a discussion about possible inclusion of information pertaining to Brooks' past interactions with the legal system. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not that I've been taking this advice myself, but as I've been saying for some time we're well past the point where we should all simply stop responding to Bus stop. It's hopeless. Let's renew that commitment so we can get back to improving articles. EEng 14:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I just arrived at that station. Getting off now. —valereee (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

When I said last week "I'm not taking the bait", this is what I meant. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well no wonder no one understood you. You were using the wrong metaphor. It's transportation, not fishing. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

How about that old journalistic standby, the Bus plunge? EEng 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that User:Bus stop has a plunging neckline? Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ouch. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Brooks' girlfriend

Should the article mention her? She was of significant relevance to his life & is claimed to be relevant in multiple ways to the events surrounding his death. The footage of him talking to the police minutes before they tried to arrest him shows him talking about her, during which he says that she drove him there & that he's getting food for her. She's been arrested in connection to the fire at the same location. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to include about her (and where), and what are your sources for it?

Whatever is included must be balanced against the possibility of people using Wikipedia to get information on someone and harass, as this is a controversial topic. Whilst we can't remove information already out there, we don't need to make it easier, or provide it with a platform. So imo whatever is added shouldn't include anything identifying, unless it's so blown up that we can't avoid it and it's particularly relevant. And we can't speculate or conjecture. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I added some info along with a mainstream media source, but it was reverted. There are many other media articles which mention her. For the reasons you mention, I didn't include her name, age etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to Special:Diff/964994957, I think you were reverted because you used The Metro as your source. See WP:RS/PS: The Metro is generally considered unreliable. I don't think your edit is controversial, should you be able to find a better source for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems strange not to include anything, for the reasons Jim Michael mentions. Here's a source: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/23/us/natalie-white-wendys-arson/index.html. I would suggest something in the first line: "He was also in a relationship with another woman, Natalie White, who he described as his "girlfriend". (Link to article)". I don't see the need to be coy about her name. Brooks mentions her multiple times in the bodycam footage. News sources have reported it. Atlanta fire dept posted a reward for her on social media when she was wanted in connection with the arson. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic is the killing of RB, not the life of RB. She is not a significant part of the killing of Rayshard Brooks (and, anyway, we don't actually know how significant a part of the life of RB she was). Look:

Relevant to the topic, the killing of RB:

• How he was killed
• Who killed him and who was accused of killed him
• What happened to them afterwards
• Where he was killed
• When he was killed
• Why he was killed
• What happened that resulted in his killing
• What effect his killing had on the world

Irrelevant to the topic:

• The name of his significant other
• The name of the person he said drove him there
• The name of the person whose house he offered to walk to
• The name of the people he had been drinking with
• The name of the person who burned down the Wendy's

I'd keep it out per WP:BLPNAME. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't added or suggested adding her name.

I disagree that she's not being relevant to him being shot. She was (according to him) the reason that he was at Wendy's on that night while drunk - which is the reason that the police tried to arrest him there & then. The restaurant being burned down was in reaction to him being shot, so it's strongly linked to it. We don't (yet) know who burned Wendy's down, but we know it happened & that RB's gf has been arrested for it. A serious crime being committed in response to an event is important enough to include in the original article. For example, the 1992 Los Angeles riots in response to the beating of Rodney King & the murder of Peter Nielsen in response to the 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision. Jim Michael (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Event deserves a mention imo, and that CNN article is a better source. Whether we wish to name the individual or state their relationship is a different matter. But a mention of the fire in the restaurant in response seems reasonable. Levivich must agree that we should cover significant reactions usually, just as we cover the arson of the police precinct re. George Floyd in his killing article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A reader would be deprived of a possible insight into what transpired by the omission of material relating to the "girlfriend". Therefore I would say "include" this information. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, that cnn story doesn't seem to say she's his girlfriend, just that they knew each other? —valereee (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The Reactions section mentions the fire, but not the arrest.

Sources vary in regard to her relationship to him. Some don't say anything about it, some merely say that they knew each other, some say they were friends, some put ' ' or " " around girlfriend. We should say that he described her as his gf when talking to the police - that's true & already sourced. Jim Michael (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

valereee, indeed, only that they had some kind of relationship. When asked by CNN whether his client knew Brooks, Findling said, "Yes, but I will not comment on the extent of their relationship." In body camera video released by police, Brooks can be heard telling the officers who questioned him that Natalie White was his girlfriend. As far as I can see at a skim of Google, only tabloid media (unreliable per WP:RS/PS) is definitively stating that she was his girlfriend. RS' tend to state the two facts separately.

Just for clarity, I had slightly misunderstood Jim Michael's proposal (skim reading on phone after waking up wasn't the best idea) and presumed we were talking about including the Wendy's fire as an event (doesn't help we have multiple discussions on how much to include going on here). If I now understand correctly, Jim Michael, your proposal is to include something along the lines of "An individual, whom Brooks said to be his girlfriend, was arrested in connection to the arson."? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was mostly in response to FirstPrimeOfApophis's comment about not seeing a reason to omit the name. I'm opposed to the name being included; I'm not opposed to any/all information about her being included.

I don't agree that she was the reason he was there; he said she drove him there, that doesn't mean she was "the reason", as in the cause, of his being there. If he had taken a taxi there, we would not be writing anything at all about who the taxi driver was. It doesn't matter if he was driven there by his girlfriend or his brother or a friend or a taxi driver.

The fact that the Wendy's was burned down obviously is worthy of inclusion. I'm not sure how much of the "Wendy's fire investigation" is DUE. If someone were convicted, sure, we'd add that detail in. I think two people have been arrested for it IIRC (I haven't read the latest news about it), and that might be worthy of inclusion. That one of the people has been identified (by who?) as his girlfriend... maybe, depending on how solid that identification was. IIRC the woman's attorney said she knew him and had a relationship with him but did not say "girlfriend" or romantic partner; Floyd's Brooks's family I think had no comment on their relationship. I may be misremembering, but I'd be curious to see exact proposed language and sources before making up my mind. I'm a "solid no" on including her name though. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: It doesn't matter if he was driven there by his girlfriend or his brother or a friend or a taxi driver. and If someone were convicted, sure, we'd add that detail in.: I believe we often include when subjects are charged, and their name(s) unless it's quite a number of individuals. Just to give a wild unrelated example, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Someone being arrested in conjunction to a crime is relevant, especially if that person is not unrelated to the rest of the events. If someone is killed by a family member, we'd obviously include that fact, as it seems particularly relevant. If a wrongful event happens, and someone related to the person who was wronged takes a notable action, that fact in itself is notable. The proposal to mention her isn't in virtue of her role in driving him down to Wendy's, it's in her role as being the suspect of a directly reactionary crime of arson plus being (likely?) related to the subject.

I think the main reason this is contested is because she was (likely?) his girlfriend, and we then have to consider the adverse effects of mentioning her in this controversial case, but I see some troubles with the argument that it isn't relevant or is undue. I think it's relevant and not undue, we just need to consider how much of it can be properly backed by reliable sources, and balance inclusion against our responsibility when writing highly visible content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME: For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. This suggests not identifying the suspects in the Wendy's fire, even if we had an article entirely about it (Wendy's restaurant fire). This article is one step removed from that, so I think it militates even more against identifying suspects. The CNN article above says When asked by CNN whether his client knew Brooks, Findling [the woman's lawyer] said, "Yes, but I will not comment on the extent of their relationship." I'm still unsure what RS support there is for identifying one of the people arrested for the fire as the "girlfriend" of Brooks. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not stating that there is yet RS support for the girlfriend part, or that ultimately the 'balance' I referred to means that I'm on the side of inclusion (as far as name goes, at least, I'm against, and on the rest I'm not sure yet). I'm just trying to logically follow, in order, the specific consideration needed for inclusion/exclusion. I don't think the issue here is lack of relevance or undue-ness, but rather due to other policies / responsibilities. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, it appears your point is indeed strong, regarding BLPCRIME. Having spent (probably too much) time digging across the archives of BLP and BLP/N, particularly the discussion behind its original implementation, and the concerns raised since, especially on its conservatism, it appears there has never been a consensus over the years to interpret BLPCRIME more lightly. Policy seems unambiguously clear to avoid mention of name, and in my view that should extend to a specific enough descriptor such as "girlfriend of ___". The original footnote also stated Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. The points of substantial coverage in RS have been raised before, and said to not warrant exception to the rule. Seems like BLPCRIME is just poorly enforced on some articles, but that doesn't negate the fact. Hence, my view is not to include name, or the relationship as that would amount to effectively giving the name. I think BLPCRIME should settle the matter, if other editors agree. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich—I don't think you mean "Floyd's family I think had no comment on their relationship". Are you sure you are not mixing up two articles? Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, Brooks, not Floyd. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The important thing is to alert the reader to a dimension of the topic. We need not include her name if this is some kind of bugaboo. But the reader should be apprised that Brooks mentions her by name and that she is arrested in conjunction with the fire. We should take care not to imply guilt unless in the future she us convicted in relation to the fire. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader—I don't understand "or the relationship as that would amount to effectively giving the name". How would the "relationship ... amount to effectively giving the name"? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, because it's a specific and narrow reference to a particular individual. It's not the same as saying "an individual was arrested in conjunction with the arson" (and that vague statement wouldn't be relevant here, because this isn't an article about the arson). This wouldn't be a reference to a wide characteristic, e.g. "a sex offender was arrested for X" or "a local resident" or similar. It's more akin to saying "the village's priest was arrested for X", though this is even more specific than that, and the priest might meet WELLKNOWN whereas this individual doesn't. In my view, such a reference strays over the spirit of BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader—you cannot say "this isn't an article about the arson". The current title is merely the most appropriate title of many possible titles. There is an understood subject being addressed, and it isn't limited to the strictest possible interpretation of the title. We can allude to the arrest of an individual, possibly related to Brooks, on suspicion of arson relating to the Wendy's fire. The justification for this is the fairly prominent presence of this information in sources. The point is not to be definitive—as might be evidenced by citing her name, or asserting her guilt—but to alert the reader to this facet of the event. Wouldn't the reader leave this article poorly-informed if this article did not inform the reader that the "girlfriend" referred-to numerous times in the video preceding his death, was arrested subsequent to the incident? Brooks speaks so much about his girlfriend that the cop even interrupts him and says "I don't know who she is; I don't care who she is." Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added the arson charge of someone acquainted with Brooks to the article without "girlfriend" or her name. —valereee (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Should she be mentioned in the Persons involved section as part of the description of RB? Jim Michael (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Jim Michael, is anyone saying she was there and had a part? If not, then no. Literally the only reason we're mentioning her is that she both knew him and has been charged in the Wendy's fire. If either of those were missing she'd be completely irrelevant as far as I can tell. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RB said she drove him there, but I'm not aware of any evidence proving or disproving that. Jim Michael (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020

On July 5, Levivich reverted changes made to the Investigation and Charges section. The dif can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks&type=revision&diff=966087087&oldid=966045604.

Levivich's edit summary reads "these expansions seem WP:UNDUE; please seek consensus for these changes on talk before restoring"

The principles referred to are:

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered)."

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.

WP:CONSENSUS: "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

The changes

Levivich can expand on which specific changes seem WP:UNDUE to them, but my guess is it's mainly the material regarding the reactions to the speed and severity of the charges filed.

Every source which discusses the charges brought in relation to this shooting also mentions that they were brought ahead of the GBI investigation, and describes this as unusual. Multiple viewpoints which are significant to the case (see below) have commented on it. A US Congressman called for the DA to be removed from the case. These facts are significant and notable. A reader going away from this article without knowing them will have an incomplete understanding of the article's subject-matter. In fact, the article is now in violation of WP:UNDUE by not including these facts, and gives the false impression that these prosecutions are routine and uncontroversial.

The other changes were background re the GBI investigating officer-involved shootings in Georgia, and the issue with Brosnan agreeing or not agreeing to cooperate with the prosecution. The first (GBI) is relevant as background, because not all police forces in the US have a policy of external investigation, and the reader may incorrectly infer that it was unusual for APD to request it. The second (Brosnan) is an unusual fact about the DA's investigation, significant enough to be raised in multiple news sources. This change is only 2 sentences, so it is hard to see how it is not "in proportion".

How these changes comply with WP:UNDUE

(1) Fairly represent all significant viewpoints - the new viewpoints represented are those of the legal teams of the defendants, the Georgia Bureau of investigation, two statewide police associations, and a US Congressman. All these viewpoints address the case specifically. Currently, the section gives disproportionate weighting to the Fulton County DA's statements and the results of his investigation, to the exclusion of virtually all other viewpoints.

(2) Published by reliable sources - the sources are mainstream news organisations, mostly local to Georgia (which is unsurprising) but also the Tennessee Star and Reuters.

(3) In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources - reading the sources cited shows this is true.

Regarding WP:CONSENSUS

As I understand it, WP:CONSENSUS gives each editor the right to express legitimate concerns and have those addressed in the content. It does not give editors a veto over changes they don't like simply by expressing disagreement. Editor consensus cannot supersede WP:NPOV or other overriding principles.

If an editors express disagreement but no legitimate concerns, the changes can be made without their agreement, and if they still revert the changes, this is handled via the WP procedures for handling disruptive editing, for example WP:3RR.

Editors notified [WP:APPNOTE]

I have sent appropriate notification to the following editors: EEng#s (talk · contribs), {{User|BetsyRMadison]], Quaerens-veritatem (talk · contribs), Jim Michael (talk · contribs), Bus stop (talk · contribs), ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs), Valereee (talk · contribs).FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If you did not receive an APPNOTE, please contribute to this discussion anyway.

No way, it's already too long! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know that length is a criterion. The reader comes first. We should strive for succinct but thorough coverage of notable occurrences. Compare Killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not talking about the article, just this discussion, see WP:TLDR. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

None of those pings worked because you didn't sign your post. There is no frickin' way I'm going to try to figure out this ridiculous wall of text. Let's talk about the changes individually and stop making it impossible for anyone to actually follow a discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually FirstPrimeOfApophis your invitations wouldn't have pinged even if you signed your notification sentence. I noticed you added the invitation to each invitee's talk page, but as Valereee wrote, even though you added the invitation to invitees' talk pages, you should ping (two left curly { brackets, then u| editor name, then two right curly } brackets) per WP:PING. Also, I think to "talk about the changes individually" should involve one topic first, the reaction by multiple state legislators, a congressman, a fellow DA and former head of the GA DA's Council, legal experts, et al. to the Fulton DA for him prosecuting the case under the circumstances and not waiting for the GBI report. Thanks. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I really managed to screw that up. Is it right now? Quaerens-veritatem, yes I agree that that is the main change to be discussed, and thanks for you comments below.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

FirstPrimeOfApophis, I'm afraid not. :) You can't fix a bad ping. In order to ping the person, you need to start a new post, ping them in it, and sign that post. Read WP:PING. Also, it's best (except in certain cases) not to edit a post of your own that has been responded to; it confuses other editors. Info at WP:TALK. There's a lot to learn. As long as you're trying, you're good. —valereee (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, take 3: I have sent appropriate notification to the following editors:

EEng#s (talk · contribs), BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs), Quaerens-veritatem (talk · contribs), Jim Michael (talk · contribs), Bus stop (talk · contribs), ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs), Valereee (talk · contribs).FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Omitting significant and reliably-sourced facts about this shooting or its aftermath is not acceptable, but there might be better ways to include them. Please post below how you would like these issues addressed. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FirstPrimeOfApophis, please read WP:TALKPAGE and WP:PING. —valereee (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for raising this here. My responses:

• Every source which discusses the charges brought in relation to this shooting also mentions that they were brought ahead of the GBI investigation, and describes this as unusual. That's an overstatement; not every source. BBC's article about the charges doesn't mention GBI; neither does The Guardian or AP. Other sources do mention it, like NYT and AJC. However, those sources are relaying the criticisms of others (like the police union and defendants) more than making any judgment in their own voice.
• A US Congressman called for the DA to be removed from the case. These facts are significant and notable. I disagree that a politician's opinion of the DA is significant or worthy of inclusion in this article.
• In fact, the article is now in violation of WP:UNDUE by not including these facts, and gives the false impression that these prosecutions are routine and uncontroversial. I agree insofar as the article is missing information about the unusual speed and severity of the charges. I have collected sources and quotes on that point at User:Levivich/sandbox8, but haven't added them to the article yet (if anyone else wants to, please feel free). See especially the three sources quoted at User:Levivich/sandbox8#Analysis of charges. However, note the difference between unusual speed and severity, on the one hand, and saying the DA should have waited for GBI on the other. The sources say the former, not the latter.
• The first (GBI) is relevant as background, because not all police forces in the US have a policy of external investigation, and the reader may incorrectly infer that it was unusual for APD to request it. I think that's a good point; it is in fact routine; and because it's routine, it's not worth mentioning that APD asked GBI to investigate. I have edited the article to take out the "asked" part (the rest remains).
• The second (Brosnan) is an unusual fact about the DA's investigation, significant enough to be raised in multiple news sources. It would be an unusual fact (that one of the officers agreed to testify against the other), if it were true. But apparently it's not. That the DA said Brosnan would be a cooperating witness, and that Brosnan quickly denied it, are, in my opinion, not worth mentioning at all. "The DA said something mistaken and was quickly corrected" is not significant.
• Currently, the section gives disproportionate weighting to the Fulton County DA's statements and the results of his investigation, to the exclusion of virtually all other viewpoints. I don't understand the use of the word "viewpoints" in this sentence. The DA is the government agency that is prosecuting this crime. Of course we're going to spend a lot of time talking about the DA's investigation and prosecution. That's not a "viewpoint", that's facts. We don't spend a lot of time discussing what every thinks about the investigation (reactions), or at least, I don't think we should.
• In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources - reading the sources cited shows this is true. Not in proportion to each source individually, but in proportion to all the sources collectively. Local news sucks as a source; they will cover every detail of a local story, and they have the lowest journalistic standards and resources. To figure out DUE, I look at global sources, in this case international-scope foreign media like BBC and international-scope domestic media like NYT. Even AJC is really just a regional paper.
• WP:CONSENSUS gives each editor the right to express legitimate concerns and have those addressed in the content. It does not give editors a veto over changes they don't like simply by expressing disagreement. True, but WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Anyway, I don't have final say, but I am allowed to revert, at which point it's up to you to get consensus for the changes... which you've started doing by making this post, so I think we're right on track here.
• Per above, I definitely think the article should be expanded to summarize what RSes have said, in their own voice, about the unusual speed and severity of the charges (e.g., User:Levivich/sandbox8#Analysis of charges).
• I'm not opposed to expanding the article to say a little more about GBI's investigation. I am opposed to rewriting the entire section to make the GBI investigation its own subsection, and to place it first (before the DA's investigation), and to suggest that the DA did something wrong by not waiting for GBI.
• I oppose including the part about the DA saying Brosnan would be a cooperating witness and Brosnan's attorney clarifying that meant that he would cooperate with investigators, not that he was a "state's witness". Mostly because that's a distinction without a difference, and seems trivial to me. The important content is/will be whether Brosnan takes the stand and what he says.
• As with all disputes, it's not up to me, it's up to the consensus of all editors participating. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to Levivich

Thank you for your comments, Levivich.

• Every source which discusses the charges brought in relation to this shooting also mentions that they were brought ahead of the GBI investigation, and describes this as unusual. That's an overstatement; not every source. BBC's article about the charges doesn't mention GBI; neither does The Guardian or AP. Other sources do mention it, like NYT and AJC. However, those sources are relaying the criticisms of others (like the police union and defendants) more than making any judgment in their own voice.
  • I have not cited these opinions to the news sources. I have cited them to the people or organizations being quoted. News sources don't typically make any judgement in their own voice except in editorials, they mainly report what other people said and did. Also, your recourse to overseas publications is strange - this issue is primarily of US domestic interest. I would guess most readers of the BBC or Guardian would not know (or care) what the Fulton County DA or the GBI does. The legal system works differently in the UK.
• A US Congressman called for the DA to be removed from the case. These facts are significant and notable. I disagree that a politician's opinion of the DA is significant or worthy of inclusion in this article.
  • I agree, his opinion of the DA would not be worthy of inclusion. However, the fact that a US Congressman publicly called on the Attorney General of Georgia to replace the DA in the case is clearly significant. How often does that happen in criminal cases? Clearly not often, or it wouldn't be reported in the news...
• In fact, the article is now in violation of WP:UNDUE by not including these facts, and gives the false impression that these prosecutions are routine and uncontroversial. I agree insofar as the article is missing information about the unusual speed and severity of the charges. I have collected sources and quotes on that point at User:Levivich/sandbox8, but haven't added them to the article yet (if anyone else wants to, please feel free). See especially the three sources quoted at User:Levivich/sandbox8#Analysis of charges. However, note the difference between unusual speed and severity, on the one hand, and saying the DA should have waited for GBI on the other. The sources say the former, not the latter.
  • If there are other things you want to add, I fully support that. However, reliable sources consistently mention how unusual it is for the DA to file charges before the GBI investigation is over, and the criticism he has received for that. This is a critical aspect of the subject matter and we cannot exclude it.
• The first (GBI) is relevant as background, because not all police forces in the US have a policy of external investigation, and the reader may incorrectly infer that it was unusual for APD to request it. I think that's a good point; it is in fact routine; and because it's routine, it's not worth mentioning that APD asked GBI to investigate. I have edited the article to take out the "asked" part (the rest remains).
  • This would be a strange way to write an encyclopaedia. "Because it's routine, it's not worth mentioning". No, because it is routine and the reader may not know it's routine, we add a short single sentence explaining it. We're here to inform, not to steer the reader towards a set of conclusions.
• The second (Brosnan) is an unusual fact about the DA's investigation, significant enough to be raised in multiple news sources. It would be an unusual fact (that one of the officers agreed to testify against the other), if it were true. But apparently it's not. That the DA said Brosnan would be a cooperating witness, and that Brosnan quickly denied it, are, in my opinion, not worth mentioning at all. "The DA said something mistaken and was quickly corrected" is not significant.
  • Again, it was considered to be worth mentioning by multiple news sources. I am only proposing adding 2 sentences.
• Currently, the section gives disproportionate weighting to the Fulton County DA's statements and the results of his investigation, to the exclusion of virtually all other viewpoints. I don't understand the use of the word "viewpoints" in this sentence. The DA is the government agency that is prosecuting this crime. Of course we're going to spend a lot of time talking about the DA's investigation and prosecution. That's not a "viewpoint", that's facts. We don't spend a lot of time discussing what every thinks about the investigation (reactions), or at least, I don't think we should.
  • Viewpoints seems to be the term used in WP policies covering due/undue weight, neutrality, etc. See the definition for WP:UNDUE. The proposed changes do not include "what every (one?) thinks", they include significant viewpoints as reported by reliable sources, in proportion to their coverage. You, EEng and BetsyRMadison have done a great job in presenting the viewpoints of the Fulton County DA and Brooks' family and supporters. That is absolutely right and correct, and I don't want to undo that. Now it's time to make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and include other significant viewpoints.
• In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources - reading the sources cited shows this is true. Not in proportion to each source individually, but in proportion to all the sources collectively. Local news sucks as a source; they will cover every detail of a local story, and they have the lowest journalistic standards and resources. To figure out DUE, I look at global sources, in this case international-scope foreign media like BBC and international-scope domestic media like NYT. Even AJC is really just a regional paper.
  • I think we come to the crux of the issue, which is what sources are considered to be the "published, reliable sources" for the purposes of DUE/UNDUE for this article. Is there any WP policy you can point to to support your argument that "local news sucks as a source"? The killing of Rayshard Brooks is fundamentally a US domestic issue. It is natural that most of the coverage will be local and regional news sources. It also seems natural to me that international news sources will omit much of the detail in the case, simply because international readers aren't that interested. But we can't write encyclopaedia articles if we are afraid of detail.
• WP:CONSENSUS gives each editor the right to express legitimate concerns and have those addressed in the content. It does not give editors a veto over changes they don't like simply by expressing disagreement. True, but WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Anyway, I don't have final say, but I am allowed to revert, at which point it's up to you to get consensus for the changes... which you've started doing by making this post, so I think we're right on track here.
  • I don't want to labor this point, but there are apparently limits to how far editor consensus can block WP:DUE edits (see WP:STONEWALLING). I am not accusing you or any other editor of this right now.
• Per above, I definitely think the article should be expanded to summarize what RSes have said, in their own voice, about the unusual speed and severity of the charges (e.g., User:Levivich/sandbox8#Analysis of charges).
  • I appreciate this. Unfortunately, also per above, omitting the facts that the DA's filing ahead of the GBI investigation was (1) unusual (2) strongly criticized is simply a non-starter. It would omit the single most significant aspect of how this case is being handled.
• I'm not opposed to expanding the article to say a little more about GBI's investigation. I am opposed to rewriting the entire section to make the GBI investigation its own subsection, and to place it first (before the DA's investigation), and to suggest that the DA did something wrong by not waiting for GBI.
  • If you believe the article itself uses biased wording, let's have a go at using different wording. There are significant viewpoints that state that the DA not waiting for the GBI was unusual and even improper, albeit not illegal. Not fairly representing those viewpoints is bad for the article. I completely agree that we must keep the tone of the article itself neutral. And if there are significant, well-sourced countervailing opinions, we should fairly represent those too, per WP policy.
  • The split of investigations followed usage in another WP article Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Investigations, and made sense to me, because there are 2 separate investigations into the same incident. Literally my only reason for putting the GBI one first was because it started earlier (by 1 day); I have no objection to moving it to after the DA investigation. Or we can get rid of the sub-sections altogether.
• I oppose including the part about the DA saying Brosnan would be a cooperating witness and Brosnan's attorney clarifying that meant that he would cooperate with investigators, not that he was a "state's witness". Mostly because that's a distinction without a difference, and seems trivial to me. The important content is/will be whether Brosnan takes the stand and what he says.
  • Addressed above, but in the interest of consensus, I am happy to leave this out.

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My 2 cents

I think the matter should be entered in Killing of Rayshard Brooks#Reactions. The controversy over charging before end of GBI investigation was widespread, was covered by media such as CNN and The New York Times, the discussion of the matter involving members of the state legislature, a congressman, police organizations, a fellow Georgia district attorney and former head of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, a law school professor, and other legal experts.

On June 24 I noted: "The District Attorney’s actions were criticized and there were calls for him to step aside https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-shooting-friday/index.html including by multiple members of the Georgia House and Senate https://patch.com/georgia/atlanta/georgia-da-rejects-calls-step-aside-rayshard-brooks-case the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association condemning his actions as a “... grandstanding vote seeking tactic...", https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/interim-atlanta-police-chief-will-not-fail-this-city/J8fki6yYXq8ycFWCgm7eVM/ and by U.S. Representative Doug Collins, he stating, “Charging an Atlanta police officer with felony murder before the completion of the GBI's investigation was a political decision, not a legal one.” https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/district-attorney-politics/85-20817347-98c7-43f0-ab2a-d7f7f62be110

I further noted: "We were not consulted on the charges filed by the District Attorney. Despite today’s occurrence, the GBI will complete its mission...” https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/gbi-officers-charged-but-investigation-into-rayshard-brooks-shooting-not-complete “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard took the unusual step Wednesday of charging the officers in the Brooks case before reviewing that third-party investigation, ... .” “Porter the former head of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, added the move is still unusual.””He said prosecutors across the state agreed those investigations were critical to their parallel investigations.” “Paul Howard was included in that. The DA’s office co-signed that, and that’s been the process all along.” https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/many-question-das-decision-charge-officers-brooks-case-before-end-gbi-investigation/TB2ZUMLR4VAKBHZLVOFCFGUOUQ/ The GBI “... said it was surprised by the announcement ... caught the agency off guard.” https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/rayshard-brooks-shooting-gbi-didnt-know-of-officers-charges/85-62fcd2c5-fe12-41f8-b736-8475a263f21a “G.B.I. said in a statement on Wednesday that the agency had not been consulted ...””Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick... .” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/us/garrett-rolfe-rayshard-brooks-atlanta.html

Also on June 24, I noted this independent, expert, reaction: “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard is investigating the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks at the same time he’s the subject of an investigation himself. The confluence of two ongoing GBI investigations — one that Howard says is helping him, another that targets him — has sparked calls for Howard to get out of the Brooks case altogether.” - “He should step aside as Fulton County DA until the GBI investigation of himself is complete,” said Georgia State University law professor Clark Cunningham. Atlanta’s chief law enforcement official should not be making unreviewable decisions about who to prosecute in this critical moment — for example in the Brooks shooting — while under the cloud of possibly being a felon himself.” https://www.ajc.com/news/local/fulton-county-leads-one-investigation-and-the-subject-another/SCcg7PBghbcMzb0Za0L4UN/

I, also, suggest looking @ Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Reactions & how it could apply to inclusion suggested here.

All this could be included in a briefer entry with citations.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That was $3.75. EEng 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Ha!Ha! ㋛ EEng#s Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just giving my proxy to Levivich. He seems to be following it all. —valereee (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No way, I already said it's not up to me, no backsies. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

My view on the topic

• Every source which discusses the charges brought in relation to this shooting also mentions that they were brought ahead of the GBI investigation, and describes this as unusual. I think that we can not ignore the prevailance of this view in available sources. It is one way that the legal process can be questioned, and seems rather consequential to how the case is handled.
• A US Congressman called for the DA to be removed from the case. These facts are significant and notable. The request might have no impact of its own. But it is indicative that the case is part of a political game, like most examples of a cause célèbre. Excluding the "heated public debate" from such an article is a disservice to readers.
• In fact, the article is now in violation of WP:UNDUE by not including these facts, and gives the false impression that these prosecutions are routine and uncontroversial. I think the reaction of the Atlanta police already points out that this is not seen as a routine case. However, there is room for expansion on this point.
• The first (GBI) is relevant as background, because not all police forces in the US have a policy of external investigation, and the reader may incorrectly infer that it was unusual for APD to request it. We can not assume how much the reader knows about relevant policies. Do the sources cover the policies relevant to the Atlanta Police Department? It has been implicated in previous controversies, but we do not really mention how it handles investigations on internal corruption or excess use of force.
• The second (Brosnan) is an unusual fact about the DA's investigation, significant enough to be raised in multiple news sources. So far the DA's statement has been disputed. Whether Brosnan will co-operate with the investigation is uncertain. The statement may have no lasting impact on the case.
• Currently, the section gives disproportionate weighting to the Fulton County DA's statements and the results of his investigation, to the exclusion of virtually all other viewpoints. I agree here. We are excluding the legal responses of other involved parties.
• Local news sucks as a source; they will cover every detail of a local story, and they have the lowest journalistic standards and resources. A more detailed coverage of a legal case is not detrimental to reliability. The rules on Wikipedia:Reliable sources on News organizations do not exclude local news. They simply state: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the Revert made by Levivich

• I do not support the edits made by FirstPrimeOfApophis. From what I read in the diff, FirstPrimeOfApophis made substantial edits without consensus and edits that seem to violate BLP, REDFLAG, FALSEBALANCE, UNDUE, and possibly other WP guidelines. The many issues within the edit made by FirstPrimeofAphophis had already been discussed on this talk page. If FirstPrimeofAphophis had read this talk page prior to making the edits he/she would have seen those discussions. If FirstPrimeofAphophis still wants to make edits regarding those issues, then he/she should reach consensus in advance.
  

For those reasons, and others, I support the revert made by @Levivich:. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks BetsyRMadison. Could you be more specific as to how you believe my proposed changes may violate those policies? WP:REDFLAG in particular surprises me.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To @FirstPrimeOfApophis: - You're welcome. Once you post your proposed edits on this talk page I will be happy to discuss them in detail with you. So far you have not done that. The topic you started here was to discuss the revert by Levivich - which is what I responded to, the revert. I do not feel it makes sense to discuss, in detail, any proposed edit you may have for this article without you posting your proposed edit on this talk page for discussion. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes

OK Levivich (talk · contribs), EEng#s (talk · contribs), BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs), Quaerens-veritatem (talk · contribs), Jim Michael (talk · contribs), Bus stop (talk · contribs), ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs), Valereee (talk · contribs), InedibleHulk (talk · contribs), Dimadick (talk · contribs), and anyone else, what do you think of the following changes:

(1) Delete the sentence "Following standard procedure, the GBI..." from the first paragraph of #Investigation and Criminal charges, and add the following paragraph below that paragraph:

On June 12 (the night of the shooting), the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) was requested by the Atlanta Police Department to investigate the shooting. Since 2015, the GBI has routinely investigated officer-involved shootings in Georgia. The following day, the GBI issued a press release outlining the preliminary information they collected.

(2) Replace the current second paragraph (On June 17 the Fulton County...) of #Investigation and Criminal charges with the following 2 paragraphs.

On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced that he had concluded his own investigation. He said Rolfe should have been aware that the taser Brooks had taken posed no danger, as after being fired twice it could not fire again; that Rolfe and Brosnan did not provide timely medical aid to Brooks and that before they did, Rolfe kicked him and Brosnan stood on his shoulders; and that it was a violation of department policy for Rolfe to begin handcuffing Brooks before telling him he was being arrested.

DA Howard announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property. Brosnan was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath.

(3) Add the following paragraph below the current second paragraph (On June 17 the Fulton County...) of #Investigation and Criminal charges:

Later on June 17, the GBI released a statement via social media, saying that they had not been consulted on the charges filed by the Fulton County DA earlier that day. Regarding their own investigation, they said "Although we have made significant progress in this case, we have not completed our work", and that they would continue their investigation and submit the results to the Fulton County District Attorney's office when it is complete. GBI officer-involved shooting investigations usually take between 30 and 90 days to complete.

(Responding to Dimadick (talk · contribs) at 07:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC) below) then how about:

Later on June 17, the GBI released a statement via social media, saying that they had not been consulted on the charges filed by the Fulton County DA earlier that day, and that their own investigation was ongoing. GBI officer-involved shooting investigations usually take between 30 and 90 days to complete.

I think it is worth quoting the GBI that they were not consulted on the charges and that they are still investigating, because this is the basis of the criticisms in (4). But I agree it doesn't need to be direct quotes. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(4) Add the following paragraph to #Reactions:

The Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete was criticized by Rolfe's legal team, the Georgia Sheriffs Association, the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, and U.S. Congressman Doug Collins. Rep. Collins described the felony murder charge specifically as "a political decision, not a legal one", and called on the Attorney General of Georgia Chris Carr to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case. Carr responded that the Office of the Attorney General can only appoint another prosecutor if a district attorney disqualifies him- or herself or is disqualified by a court.

N.B. including the information in change (4) seems pretty non-negotiable to me, per WP:NPOV and the comments of editors above. However, I can see there still being scope for legitimate concern around wording, sources, etc. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I find proposed changes 1, 2, 4 to be good additions. Concerning change 3, only the typical length of a GBI officer-involved shooting investigation seems to be useful. The quotation does not add much information, other than the continuation of the investigation. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I do not support any of the proposed changes by @FirstPrimeOfApophis: due to: WP:SCOPE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BALASP, WP:REDFLAG. I found your (4) proposals were presented in a very disorganized manner that put a large time-consuming burden on other editors to try to decipher the changes, deletions, and additions you are proposing. So, in my detailed answer, I have organized your (4) proposals in a manner that makes more sense and is less confusing to other editors.

1) Your 1st proposed change violates WP:SCOPE WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG. I'll explain

The CURRENT paragraph reads: The county medical examiner ruled Brooks' death a homicide.[26] Following standard procedure, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) opened an investigation;[27] as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing.[28] The two officers were removed from duty;[29] soon after, Rolfe was fired and Brosnan placed on administrative duty.

YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to ADD condensed history of GBI DELETE the Medical Examiner ruling Brooks death homicide: On June 12 (the night of the shooting), the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) was requested by the Atlanta Police Department to investigate the shooting.[1] Since 2015, the GBI has routinely investigated officer-involved shootings in Georgia.[2] The following day, the GBI issued a press release outlining the preliminary information they collected.

MY RESPONSE: Your proposed change leaves out the medical examiner ruling Brooks' death a homicide - which violates WP:SCOPE WP:NPOV. Your second sentence gives WP:UNDUE weight to an insignificant, minor aspect of GBI in regard to the killing of Rayshard Brooks. Also, your second sentence is not supported by RS so it's WP:REDFLAG.

The current paragraph is: well written, includes important aspects of the killing of Rayshard Brooks (which is what this article is about), is not out of scope. So I do not support your edit.

2) Your 2nd proposed change violates WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH WP:UNDUE WP:V WP:REDFLAG

The CURRENT paragraph reads: On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property.[32] He said Rolfe should have been aware that the taser Brooks had taken posed no danger, as after being fired twice it could not fire again;[33] that Rolfe and Brosnan did not provide timely medical aid to Brooks for over two minutes and that before they did, Rolfe kicked him and Brosnan stood on his shoulders;[33] and that it was a violation of department policy for Rolfe to begin handcuffing Brooks before telling him he was being arrested.[21] Brosnan was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath.

YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to reword the 1st sentence with an untruth, a falsehood, a fib: On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced that he had concluded his own investigation.[3] He said Rolfe should have been aware that the taser Brooks had taken posed no danger, as after being fired twice it could not fire again;[4] that Rolfe and Brosnan did not provide timely medical aid to Brooks and that before they did, Rolfe kicked him and Brosnan stood on his shoulders;[4] and that it was a violation of department policy for Rolfe to begin handcuffing Brooks before telling him he was being arrested.[5][6] DA Howard announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property.[3] Brosnan was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath.[7][8]

MY RESPONSE: The first sentence of your proposed edit is false, untrue, a fib, a lie. DA Howard did not "announce he had concluded his own investigation;" Therefore, since your proposed first sentence is untrue, it violates all kinds of WP guidelines like WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH WP:UNDUE WP:V WP:REDFLAG WP:SYNTH it should not be included.

The current paragraph is stable as it is, and the current paragraph does not include lies, untruths, and falsehoods there is no reason to change the current second paragraph at all.

3) Your 3rd proposed change violates WP:UNDUE WP:BALASP

YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to ADD the status of the GBI following: Later on June 17, the GBI released a statement via social media, saying that they had not been consulted on the charges filed by the Fulton County DA earlier that day, and that their own investigation was ongoing.[9] GBI officer-involved shooting investigations usually take between 30 and 90 days to complete.

MY RESPONSE: The status of the GBI investigation is not relevant and an insignificant detail to the arrest/charges being made so that tends to violate WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant, insignificant, minor aspect to the charge/arrest of the officers. Here's why I say those things:

According to WSB-2 tv in Atlanta [3] reports, "there’s no legal requirement" and "the GBI does not make charging recommendations" and "The district attorneys have the power to bring charges or to announce that they intend to bring charges on any case that they find probable cause that crimes been committed,” Therefore, since GBI does not make charging recommendations, there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on GBI to finish their investigation before arresting/charging murder suspects, and the DA has the power to bring charges where they find probable cause a crime has been committed; the status of GBI investigation is irrelevant, not significant, and minor aspect that is WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant aspect of the officers being charged/arrested.

Therefore, I do not support adding your #3 proposal.

4) Your 4th proposed change violates WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:REDFLAG

YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to ADD the following: The Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete was criticized by Rolfe's legal team,[2] the Georgia Sheriffs Association,[10] the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police,[10] and U.S. Congressman Doug Collins.[2][11] Rep. Collins described the felony murder charge specifically as "a political decision, not a legal one", and called on the Attorney General of Georgia Chris Carr to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.[11] Carr responded that the Office of the Attorney General can only appoint another prosecutor if a district attorney disqualifies him- or herself or is disqualified by a court

MY RESPONSE: The unsupported accusations, criticism, and complaints from politicians, like GOP Rep. Doug Collins, who themselves are in political election races, has nothing to do with the "killing of Rayshard Brooks" and is WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE so does not belong. I found no reliable source that accuses the DA of the things that politician Doug Collins is accusing the DA of so it is also WP:REDFLAG. The unsubstantiated political-opinion of Doug Collins are not supported by RS articles so do not belong in this WP article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks. The criticism from Rolfe's legal team is also WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV & WP:FALSEBALANCE. As for the criticism from GA Sheriff Assoc & GA Assoc of Chiefs - The Georgia Police Chiefs and Sheriffs have a long history of using deadly force against unarmed people. According to Atlanta Journal, [4] "Nearly half the 184 Georgians shot and killed by police since 2010 were unarmed or shot in the back." The Journal goes on to write, "Those findings emerged from the most extensive review of police shootings ever undertaken in Georgia, and cast doubt on claims by police that deadly force was always justified." In the killing of Rayshard Brooks, the police chief, Erika Shields resigned. WFTV reports Shields had been under fire for complaining about DA Howard arresting two Atlanta police officers "for using excessive force on two college students during protests in May. Video showed officers yanking the students out of their cars and Tasing them."   I suppose it's nice for the officers who are arrested for excessive force and unnecessary deadly force against unarmed people that two police Associations support their police buddies to use of deadly force against unarmed people, but, their complaints are NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE & WP:REDFLAG so do not belong in this article.

Therefore, I do not support adding your #4 proposal.

While responding to your #4 I was reminded of what Levivich points out in this diff [5]

Levivich diff uses RS and says the following bullet points:

• "The swiftness with which a white police officer has been fired and then charged with murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks is just the latest sign of how rapidly and dramatically police agencies have shifted strategy when it comes to dealing with deadly force cases. Historically, not only have police chiefs been reticent to take action against officers involved in in-custody deaths until a "full investigation" had taken place, they've been quick to defend the officer's use of force if he or she "reasonably" believed that a person had a deadly weapon or posed immediate danger to the officer ... What is already clear is that police departments are not feeling nearly as confident relying on the old strategies and rhetoric that historically have allowed them to slow-play their response to a police-involved killing." [6]
  
• “These are hefty, hefty charges,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former federal and state prosecutor. The swiftness, he said, reflected a sense of urgency fueled by recent protests and broader efforts to shine a light on shortcomings in the criminal justice system." [7]
  
• "The charges reflect a potential “sea change” in tolerance for violence by police, said Caren Morrison, a Georgia State University law professor who used to be a federal prosecutor. Morrison said the view until now has generally been that officers are justified in using deadly force."[8]

To summarize: I do not support any of the proposed changes due to: WP:SCOPE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BALASP, & WP:REDFLAG BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. I am not proposing to delete the first paragraph, only the second sentence (Following standard procedure, the GBI...) of the first paragraph, because it would be rendered superfluous by the proposed second paragraph. I fully agree that we should keep the verdict of the medical examiner and what happened to the officers.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) misunderstanding resolved FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs), thanks for taking the time to respond. I am sorry you found how I presented the changes confusing. If you don't mind, I will wait for other editors to contribute before replying to your remarks in detail. I must tell you though, I can't see any of the reasons you bring to reject these changes as reflecting "legitimate concerns". You just list WP Policies, then declare that this or that change violates them. That's not good enough to establish a legitimate concern for WP:CONSENSUS. The only time you go into detail, it is to give your personal opinion that something is "insignificant", "minor" or "not relevant", despite them being covered extensively by the reliable sources for this article's subject. Then there are the tirades against police and politicians, and long quotes from unrelated news stories and journal articles. You take me to task for confusing presentation, and now you have created a new section deliberately misrepresenting the changes I am proposing. How is that helping anyone?FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is re change #4 specifically: The fact that the DA filed charges ahead of the GBI investigation seems to be the single most notable aspect of how this case has been handled so far, if RS are any indication. The criticisms of the DA from significant people or organizations cannot be excluded from this article. The opinion of the accused's legal team is obviously significant in a criminal case. The opinions of the GSA and GACP are significant for an article involving policing in Georgia. A US Congressman making a public request to the AG of Georgia to remove the DA from this case is significant to the case, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And from this, Collins' reasoning and the AG's response are worthy of inclusion. And everything here is cited to reliable sources, and presented in proportion to how they appear in those sources. Unless I am mistaken, at least 2 editors (Dimadick (talk · contribs) and Quaerens-veritatem (talk · contribs)) support change #4 or something very similar, and have given detailed reasons why it is necessary. BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs) is strongly against it, but has not supported his/her allegations that this change violates WP policies. So I will implement change #4. Thanks. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• To @FirstPrimeOfApophi: - You do not have consensus to make the edits you want to make so do not make them. Your comment above is misleading and disingenuous. I have given detailed explanation why all four of your edits violate at least nine (9) WP policies: WP:SCOPE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BALASP, WP:REDFLAG.

There is nothing notable about a DA charging and arresting a murder suspect prior to GBI finishing their investigation. In fact, it happens in murder cases all the time in Georgia and all the other 49 U.S. states so it does not belong in this article due to WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant, insignificant, minor aspect to the charge/arrest of the officers. The criticisms about the DA arresting the officer for killing an unarmed man are not from from significant people or organization so they should be excluded because they violate WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:REDFLAG. In fact, the criticisms about the DA arresting the officer for killing an unarmed man are typical & expected from the: a politician up for re-election, the murder suspects lawyer, and 2 organizations that have a history of justifying police killing unarmed men/women. Their complaints are WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:REDFLAG so do not belong in the article.

The 1st edits you made on wikipedia since January 2018 was July 2, 2020 were on this article, and only this article. There's nothing wrong with this, but since you've been dormant from wikipedia for 2 years, and then come back only to post only on this article, that leans toward you being a "Single Purpose Account" WP:SPA - which is fine, but just something noticeable, (I was considered an SPA once myself). All of your edits on this article were reverted by Levivich for good cause. Then you proposed 4 edits, that I view as violating at least 9 WP policies, and you seem to think that after 24 hours you can just go right ahead and make the edits. You can't. In fact, if you want to make the edits, I would suggest that you propose them in an RfC which will allow people the time to respond and an independent editor will "close" the RfC and that independent editor will make the decision on whether the edits can be made.

Since you were active on WP in 2018, (and have been inactive for 2 years until this article) I feel that you should already have an understanding of the nine (9) WP violations I listed, and if you don't, then the ONUS is on you to read them. (The onus is not on me to teach them to you).

I have not seen any response under your "proposals" from @Quaerens-veritatem: so, as of this moment, it seems you may be mistaken to say she/he supports any of your edits. And, a consensus has not been met even if Quaerens-veritatem were to support #4. Therefore, a consensus has not been met so you cannot make the edits. So, do not make the edits at this time.

We're all here to work together to build and improve WP articles - it's all good - so just slow down and if you build a consensus fine, and if you don't then, that's ok too. Just shake it off and continue to work together. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs) you're not saying anything new. Your first and second paragraphs just repeat your earlier objections. I have explained why you are not correct to characterize the people and organizations quoted as "not significant". Multiple RS disagree with you about it not being notable that the DA charged the suspects ahead of the GBI investigation, so as per WP policy, we go on what the RS say, not on the opinions of individual editors. Your third paragraph is a false accusation that I am a WP:SPA, presumably created in 2014 by a far-sighted editor who predicted this article being written 6 years in the future. Your fourth paragraph makes no sense - you cannot just list WP policies and demand that other editors guess what aspect you are referring to. The closest you have come to supporting your assertions is in claiming that the people and organizations quoted are "not significant", but I deal with that above. Quaerens-veritatem (talk · contribs) gave his views in Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#My_2_cents, and Dimadick (talk · contribs) at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#My_view_on_the_topic. Re not having WP:CONSENSUS - no, what I don't have is unanimity, which is "ideal, but not always achievable". That's fine. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@FirstPrimeOfApophis: - I reverted your edit. You have no consensus for edits you made. The edit you added seem UNDUE & BALASP: by that I mean it gives undue weight to minor, insignificant detail of the arrest. The edit you gave of GOP Rep. Collins, who is seeking reelection, are UNDUE & REDFLAG: by that I mean they are views that are contradicted by the Attorney General of Georgia, unverifiable points of view, views held by a small minority, & views not covered by RS so should not be included. The murder suspect's lawyers & his work association have a conflict of interest WP:COI and their views are UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE & REDFLAG: by that I mean you are giving undue weight to people with a conflict of interest, views that are held by a small minority, unverifiable points of view.

Look, it's great that you've decided to start editing this article and only this article after your 2 year hiatus off of WP, but you need to do your own homework and learn the WP guidelines that your edits seem to be violating. You seem to be very confused on what UNDUE, BALASP, FALSEBALANCE REDFLAG & CONSENSUS mean so I urge you to figure out what they mean. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources
References

Summary of Proposed Edits by FirstPrimeOfApophis

Above @InedibleHulk: made the observation that this section is way too long. I agree with Hulk on that. So for those who don't have the time required to decipher all the deletions, additions, and rewrites of @FirstPrimeOfApophis: proposed edits, I've summarized them here:

• 1st proposal: He/she wants to DELETE the Medical Examiner ruling Brooks death homicide from the article all together & replace it with give a condensed history of the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.
  
• 2nd proposal: He/she wants to reword sentences that, intentionally or unintentionally, imply an untruths, a falsehood about why/when/how the DA charged and arrested the officers.
  
• 3rd proposal: He/she wants to add status of GBI and wants to add more history of the GBI while, intentionally or unintentionally, giving the false implication that the DA does not have authority to arrest/charge suspects with crimes unless the GBI gives permission, input, & concludes their work.
  
• 4th proposal: He/she wants to add political talking points from a politician running for office even though the political rhetoric from that politician is not supported by RS. He/she also wants to add complaints about Rolfe's arrest by Rolfe's lawyers and two police Associations.
  

I hope this summary of the proposed edits by FirstPrimeOfApophis helps editors save some time as they sift through them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

District Attorney's statement

Those 2 elements should be included in the investigation sub-paragraph. They are not WP:Original research. Do not suppress or collapse.

In a press conference on 2 June 2020, Fulton's County District Attorney Paul Howard stated that, quote: "Stun guns are considered deadly weapons".

According to ABC News, quote: "[...] the Atlanta Police Department Policy Manuel regarding the use of force, specifically one governing what officers can and cannot do to apprehend a suspect. The rule reads that lethal force can only be used if an officer "reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others.".PatNPatN (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@PatNPatN: The "quote" you attribute to DA Paul Howard is false, not true. You should be much, much, much more careful.

From ABC affiliate WSB-tv "As a matter of law, a Taser is not a deadly weapon. It’s not listed as a deadly weapon in any state in the Unit[ed States,” [9] this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Your repeated misquotes regarding tasers and deadly weapon seems to be reaching WP:TENDENTIOUS levels. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Yet a few weeks ago, Paul Howard, the Fulton County district attorney whose office will try Rolfe, acknowledged in a separate matter that, according to Georgia law, 'a taser is considered . . . a deadly weapon.' That means, generally speaking, cops can use deadly force in countering their hostile use." Opinion seems to be divided. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: - The New York Post is not a reliable source. Also, it seems you and @PatNPatN: are violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by trying to SYNTH two completely different cases together to form one article. For this article, we go by what RS say regarding the events around the killing of Rayshard Brooks (which is what this article is about).

This is not an article about a separate case (that you two keep trying to SYNTH and mesh with this one) where 6 officers were arrested and charged in an "excessive force" case [10] [11] where

• (1) officer Streeter is charged with: 'pointing or aiming a handgun (not a stun-gun but a real handgun with real bullets) at Young' as well as 'aggravated assault' for 'using his stun gun on Pligrim' and,
• (2) officer Jones is charged with 'pointing or aiming a handgun (not stun-gun but real gun) at Young' and 'aggravated assault and aggravated battery for allegedly dragging Young from the vehicle and slamming him to the ground' and,
• (3) officer Claud is charged with 'criminal damage for allegedly breaking the window of the car' and,
• (4) officer Sauls is charged with 'aggravated assault and criminal damage' and,
• (5) officer Hood is charged with 'simple battery' and 'aggravated assault for his alleged use of a stun gun on the students' and,
• (6) officer Gardner is charged with 'aggravated assault.'
• In short, in the case you two are trying to SYNTH & OR, two officers are charged with pointing a real handgun at students, and one officer is charged with aggregated assault for unnecessary use of his stun-gun.

It's best if you two avoid SYNTHING the two cases together, especially since a real gun (a real deadly weapon under GA law) was, in fact, used in the case that you're trying to SYNTH with this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello BetsyRMadison, PatNPatN and Bus stop. Although DA Howard flip-flopped on the issue of a Taser as a deadly weapon ("Earlier this month, Howard charged six Atlanta police officers with using excessive force in pulling two college students out of a car during a protest. In justifying charges of aggravated assault against some of the officers, Howard said a Taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law."), a Taser is considered a firearm and an offensive weapon in Georgia (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-106(a), Harwell v. State, 512 S.E.2d 892,894, 270 Ga. 765(1) (1999)) but "[W]hether a weapon is deadly or one likely to cause serious bodily injury is a question for the jury, which may consider all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used[.]" "...we recognized that there were devices which, though not deadly weapons per se, could be found by the jury to be deadly weapons depending on the circumstances." Harwell v. State, 512 S.E.2d 892,894, 270 Ga. 765(1) (1999) (this Harwell case involved a taser). Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW, as to Rolfe's actions, use of deadly force by police officers is primarily governed by O.C.G.A § 17-4-20 (b), requiring deadly force be used only
1) "...to apprehend a suspected felon..." (here, Brooks, under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b), "...knowingly and willfully resist[ed], ... by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer..." [he punched Rolfe, etc.] "... in the lawful discharge of his official duties... is guilty of a felony...") then
2a) "... when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury..." (jury questions: did Rolfe shoot in reasonably close time to be considered instantaneous to when Brooks fired the Taser he had at Rolfe; or, if not, did Rolfe reasonably believe the Taser Brooks had was still able to be discharged [it has been reported the Taser couldn't discharge again after it was shot over Rolfe's head]; and, in any case, was a Taser a device "likely to...result in serious bodily injury...");
2b) or "when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others..." (this is questionable at best, but since Brooks struck the officers already, he arguably would continue physical violence if and when the officers caught up with him, but is this "immediate"?);
2c) or "when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm." (this seems the biggest problem for the DA since Brooks had already committed "violence to the person of" Rolfe and Brosnan in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b). Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• I assume the purpose of all this is to illustrate that for editors to make any kind of blanket statement about what is or isn't a {firearm, offensive weapon, deadly weapon}, or to think they've caught the DA in a contradiction, is OR of the first water.
  In addition, somewhere in the above there's mention of the NY Post not being an RS for most purposes; that's true, but there's something more fundamental, which is that the piece linked isn't even a news piece , but rather an opinion piece; those are never RSs except in the extremely narrow case where an established expert makes uncontroversial assertions within their area of expertise. The USA Today piece linked at the start of Q-v's post is also an opinion piece, so the same applies. EEng 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly extraneous information about Garret Rolfe

BetsyRMadison has edited the Garret Rolfe section of Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#People_involved. Diffs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks&type=revision&diff=966545068&oldid=966450061.

I would like to undo these changes, because (1) BetsyRMadison's version includes irrelevant detail about Rolfe's alma mater and when and how he took training in 2020 (2) it covers the 2016 complaint in too much detail (3) it leaves out information relevant to Rolfe's presence on-scene as a DUI specialist. Thoughts? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison—add my support to the information FirstPrimeOfApophis is trying to bring to the article. You are trying to keep information out of the article. I think you are going too far with "There is nothing notable about a DA charging and arresting a murder suspect prior to GBI finishing their investigation." The article should be permitted to develop. FirstPrimeOfApophis is trying to do that. You are throwing every acronym in the book at them instead of allowing them to edit the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the fact a cop's legal team and two police associations criticize charges against that cop is definitely extraneous, and it looks like only local reporting. The Congressman's criticism is fine to leave in, especially since it isn't hyperlocal coverage. Tennessee Star qualifies, barely. It's certainly not national news, and I suspect that ten years from now some editor will remove it as trivia, but fine, leave the congressman in for now. Def no on the other criticism, it's WP:DOGBITESMAN. —valereee (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed trivia and overlinking, plus recast for an NPOV concern. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: -- I feel the congressman's views seem to violate UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE & REDFLAG and here's why: His views are contradicted by the Attorney General of Georgia, are unverifiable points of view, views held by a small minority, and views not covered by RS & so I feel they should not be included. That is why I reverted them. And, you bring up a good point regarding WP:10yt and I would add that, given the congressman's views have been rejected by the AG of Georgia, and are a minority view not covered by RS, his views may not pass a 1 month test, time will tell. Anyway, if you have time, I'd like to read your thoughts on UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE & REDFLAG regarding the congressman's views. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I think they'll probably end up that way, and likely sooner than 10 years, but I have no particular objection to risking that for the short term, little interest in battling over it for the short term, and since I suspect it'll become pure trivia pretty soon, I'm willing to compromise. We don't have to get it perfect immediately. We just need to keep improving it. As soon as the GBI finishes their investigation, we'll know whether it was worth including. If the GBI agrees with the DA, the congressman's opinion immediately becomes trivia IMO. If they disagree with the DA, it's probably worth including. —valereee (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"I feel like the fact a cop's legal team and two police associations criticize charges against that cop is definitely extraneous" That which is very much on-topic should be included in the article. There is a highly politicized environment as a backdrop to that which is transpiring in which influential participants drown out voices of dissension. We should allow a variety of opinions to find representation in our article. Rolfe's lawyers for instance should be allowed to articulate in our article their misgivings with the way the wheels of justice are turning in this case. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Not everything about a topic needs to be included. If none of those objections received anything but local coverage, they're not noteworthy IMO. —valereee (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: - This is a reply to your comment to me at timestamp 14:09 9 July [12] - Yes, your underlying sentiment makes sense, and I agree with you on that. My only concern at this point is with wording. Right now the article gives Doug Collins' view as: "the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one". That view, "a political decision, not legal one" seems to be a clear situation of: unverifiable, minority view, and a view not covered by RS - which would go against WP guidelines - UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE, REDFLAG and maybe even NPOV & BLP. Also not mentioned in the article is Doug Collins' possible conflict of interests: his father is a former Georgia state trooper and he's running for a Senate seat in a "hotly contested race."[13] So, if we have to mention Doug Collins, perhaps we could reword the sentence to be something more neutral like this:

U.S. Congressman Doug Collins, whose father is a former Georgia state trooper, criticized the Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete and said "While we seek justice for George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and the many lives lost, we cannot turn our backs on the majority of law enforcement officers who are simply doing their jobs and putting their lives on the line for us each and every day.” [14]

Or, if we have to leave in Collin's unverifiable, minority held views, then perhaps the sentence could read

U.S. Congressman Doug Collins, who is in a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate criticized the Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete, describing the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one".

Or,

U.S. Congressman Doug Collins, who is in a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate and father is a former Georgia state trooper, criticized the Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete, describing the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one".

Whatever the wording ends up being, I feel we have to be very cautious to not turn this article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks into a U.S. Senate campaign food-fight. The link in the article regarding Collins' complaint writes, "In the midst of a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA-09) ..." NPR is reporting that Collins sent a letter to the DOJ about the DA and NPR writes "His note to the Justice Department comes a day after Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., who was appointed to that seat in December and is running against Collins, herself wrote a letter." And, if the article is going to have comments by any politician seeking election in GA, then we need to disclose the political conflict of interest of each politician. I feel that mixing political rhetoric in this article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks may be a tough balancing act and could easily end up violating many WP guidelines. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, please avoid walls of text. The quote is in the source, so it's clearly verifiable. Your suggestions are undue and npov, it doesn't matter what his dad did or that he's up for re-election or that it's hotly contested; all of that is a non-starter here. You could maybe take it to Collins' article. What NPR is reporting looks to be about Collins, not about Brooks' death? We are not going to write anything to ensure we make it clear that Collins has political motives in saying what he said. The reader can figure that out for themselves. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

please avoid walls of text :pray: -- same goes for other sections on this talk. Let's make our points in less than a dozen sections and a plethora of paragraphs, especially when it can be summed up in a few bullets :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Current wording is UNDUE and removes relevant information. He was called to the scene because he was an officer specialising in DUIs, and has been part of DUI units for years. Why is that omitted? Why does his degree matter? If I knew nothing else, the current wording makes me feel "killer cop on a fuse", rather than tell me directly relevant information. This isn't a biography, nor is it our job to push judgement on this person. I much preferred the previous version. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison per your edit summary, can you point me to the discussion establishing consensus on the wording you've reverted to? I don't see it at a glance of the talk archive. In future, when you're claiming consensus as a reason to revert a change that has been standing for several days, it'd be helpful to link to the discussion you're relying on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: - You misread my edit summary, I wrote, "The original text is DUE & had been discussed on talk page. The current text being removed did not have CONSENSUS and is UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE, & unnecessary detail." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, where is the discussion on the original text? When you say the text being removed did not have consensus, it kinda implies the previous text did, otherwise invoking the "consensus" argument to remove the text is a bit redundant since if neither versions had 'consensus' it's kinda a poor argument to restore a previous version which also didn't have explicit consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: - (I'm replying to your comment to me at 15:29, 9 July.) Can you tell me what part of Collins' view that you put in this article mentions the killing of Rayshard Brooks (which is what this article about). All I see is Collins' view on the DA, but nothing about the killing of Rayshard Brooks. So perhaps Collins' view of the DA belongs in an article about the DA or Collins' article, but certainly not this article. The suggestion I gave is also in the article, adheres to NPOV, and shows Doug Collins at least said something about black men being killed by police (unlike the current wording).

Collins' view, as worded, is not verifiable & it's a minority view. so therefore his view is WP:UNDUE and gives undue weight to his unverifiable, minority held view. I have found no RS that supports Collins' view that "the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one." Can you point me to an RS that supports that view, that the DA only arrested the officers due to politics and not because of legal probable cause? If not, then his view is clearly not verifiable and is "UNDUE: "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.".

The NPR article is about Brooks and the killing of Brooks. NPR illustrates Collins using Brooks death in his political campaign. I'll go with whatever the consensus is, even if the consensus is to riddle this article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks with unverifiable political views & unverifiable political rhetoric about the DA then so be it. Doing that will invalidate the reliability of this article, but if that's the consensus, that's the consensus. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Rolfe is innocent until proven otherwise. Trying to skew the article just to make him look bad is against WP:BLP. Rolphe deserves the same respects as Brooks. Saying things like "at least said something about black men being killed by police" seems very spiteful. Stickywu (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)