Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.185.69.178 (talk) at 20:34, 25 November 2014 (→‎Wilson didn't know Brown was involved In the robbery). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MSNBC: A half-dozen witnesses report seeing Wilson fire on Brown as he fled.

"A half-dozen eye-witnesses have said publicly that they saw Brown flee from the vehicle as Wilson open [sic] fire with the fatal shots landing as the teen stopped, turned to the officer and raised his arms in surrender." http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/thomas-jackson-clarifies-comments-about-darren-wilson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pointing this out because you think this is referring to someone other than the witnesses we already discuss (in which case it would be important, but I disagree with that interpretation), or because you prefer this summary style to what we have currently (per some earlier discussions we have had)? If the latter, the NYTimes most recent summary is "Some witnesses later said that Mr. Brown appeared to be surrendering with his hands in the air as he was hit with the fatal gunshots. Others say that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer when he was killed."[1] CBSs most recent summary is "Wilson claimed the teenager attacked him. Some witnesses have said Wilson and Brown struggled, either outside or inside the officer's vehicle. Others say they saw Brown with his hands over his head, getting on the ground." [2] Gaijin42 (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC: from the calls, Wilson was given the description of a black male in a white T-shirt and red baseball cap

"The Post-Dispatch’s report included a call from police dispatch regarding a robbery at a nearby convenience store. Wilson had been on another call, and minutes later Wilson could be heard asking if his fellow officers needed help responding to the robbery report. Wilson was told that the suspects had left the convenience store. But from the calls, Wilson was given the description of a black male in a white T-shirt and red baseball cap. Shortly thereafter Wilson was on Canfield." http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/thomas-jackson-clarifies-comments-about-darren-wilson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of new info this weekend. These dispatch calls, the video at the station etc. Im quite surprised that this wasn't released/leaked earlier as it (imo) significantly reduces the strength of the "no knowledge of robbery, just Walking While Black" narrative that has been being pushed from the protesters/family.(which is not to say that it may not be true, just that it makes it not so much of a sure thing) Someone else has alerady update the shooting section with this info I believe. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the claim that Wilson didn't know wasn't the protesters -- it was Chief Thomas Jackson. Would that Wikipedia editors and the reporters at the St. Louis Post Dispatch would keep this fact firmly in mind when they jump to point out that the dispatch tape contradicts the claims of the protesters/Wilson supporters. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am well aware that the Chief that said that. But we know have somewhat irrefutable proof that Wilson was A) aware of the robbery and description. B) available to/possibly actively looking for the suspects. As for if he considered Brown/Jonson suspects or not, why would he ask for a second car for Jaywalkers? Its not conclusive, but its plausible. Again personally i think this is a place where the Chief just didn't know what he was talking about. I guess we will see how the reliable sources/grand jury interpret it over the next few days. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your view, then what of this statement found in the Shooting section at present: "reportedly after realizing that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call." Does that pass the common sense standard? Wouldn't it make much more sense to conclude that from the moment that Brown was first visible to Wilson on the street that "Wilson realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call"? And wouldn't our readers be better served if a reliable source were to be found upon which we could hang such reporting? Not that such a source can be found. Here is a contrary source that insists on reporting what Wilson's surrogates said long before this dispatch recording was made public, as though this is the definitive explanation:
 Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call 
 he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. 
 They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call. 
 http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html
But in a locally broadcast interview with the very same St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter who wrote the article from which I quote above, he says virtually the opposite, as can be seen in this video clip beginning at about 1:39. In his comment to Fox 2 News, he indicates that it was the Swisher Cigarillos that caused Brown to put two and two together -- not Brown matching the description of the suspects, i.e., not Brown's height and weight and enumeration of the clothing he was wearing.
http://fox2now.com/2014/11/15/michael-browns-parents-react-to-release-of-ferguson-police-calls/
I bring this all forward in the interest of improving the article should a reliable source make that possible for us at some point. Until then, it looks like we are stuck in, how did you say, "a place where the Chief just didn't know what he was talking about." Should a reliable source note the inconsistencies that this new evidence seems, to me at least, to make apparent, I believe that mention of the same should be made in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the USA Today, Nov 15, 2014:
   MYTH: Wilson stopped Brown because he was a suspect in a robbery.
   FACT: Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery that happened moments before the shooting, 
   according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson. Wilson stopped Brown and his friend for walking in the middle of the street, Jackson said.
   http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/15/myths-and-facts-on-ferguson-shooting/19085451/
Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the information so far released, it's unclear when exactly Wilson realized that Brown and his companion matched the description relayed over the radio. It seems to have been sometime after the first verbal exchange but before the altercation occurred. The Chief's early description is not necessarily inconsistent with this. The evidence does establish, however, the Wilson was aware of the reported robbery and the description of the suspects before coming upon Brown. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony protest

On October 4, a small group disrupted a symphony concert for a few minutes, apparently in St. Louis, in support of Brown. Someone got it on their cellphone and the article includes the video. Is this worth an entry in Reactions:Third parties? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I see it as relevant to the unrest article, but probably not this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Reactions:Third parties needs trimming, and the question becomes where to draw the line. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feel is specific notable voices ( NGOs, rights orgs, notable civil rights individuals) etc, with a high level summary of the collective public protests, but each individual action/event is probably too much detail for here (although a couple example items may be appropriate.). There have been many dozens of marches, meetings, hecklers, etc. To give even a one sentence coverage to each would swamp the article let a lone the section. This is of course just my own editorial judgement, others may draw the line elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going down the current list my rough cut would be Sharpton yes, pastors no, petition yes, fundraising probably not but maybe, mass vigils yes, wilson fundraising same as brown fund raising, Anonymous yes but trimmed, monks maybe/no, 150 no, cornel brooks yes, pew study yes, Clinton yes (but wrong section?) The general public I thin kshould just get a paragraph saying there have been protests and meetings for the duration basically, but not detailing any particular one as more notable than any of the others. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, awaiting more opinions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest defining what is meant by reactions to the shooting of Michael Brown, so that it can be applied in an objective way. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's my take. Dictionary.com has two definitions for "react" that I think are relevant here. 1. to act in response to an agent or influence. 2. to respond to a stimulus in a particular manner. Both use the word "respond", and that should be the first test. If something happened that wouldn't have happened but for the shooting, it could be called a result but not necessarily a response. If I'm sitting on a tree branch and it breaks, my fall is not a response to the failure of the branch. My "OH FUCK!!" on the way down is. After passing that test, an item would be excluded if it belongs in the unrest article. And finally it must be significant enough to include. Objective is asking too much, if you mean a black-and-white, no-judgment-call-required kind of definition. The significance test in particular is a matter of editorial judgment. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you might consider removing items in the Reactions section that are reactions to the unrest, and moving them to the unrest article. For example,
  • August 12 – Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Representative Justin Amash of Michigan tweeted similar descriptions of Ferguson as a "war zone" in the aftermath of the police actions, with Amash calling the situation "frightening" on August 13 and Warren demanding answers on August 14.[1]
BTW, I noticed that this item is already in the Ferguson unrest article,[3] so it would be just a matter of deleting it from this Shooting of Michael Brown article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that there are probably items that shouldn't be there, it's just a matter of agreeing on the criteria, as you suggested. If we used my criteria, the above example would fail my test #2. As for the overlap between articles, here's what I had to say about that on September 3 on the unrest article's talk page. I got no response, as you can see. Beyond that, how about we save the overlap issue for another section, to avoid getting too far off topic in this one. I don't think it really needs to be linked to this question, since we can always recover anything we remove from the history. Or we could just copy the entire Reactions section to a user sandbox before we remove anything. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mediaite.Warren was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

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

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

In case anyone missed it, a user Bdel555 added that about 13 hours after your comments. Some time after that, I removed it on NPOV grounds. If RS reported an incident two years ago when Brown shoved a girl, I would oppose inclusion of that for the same reason. I'm not 100% confident on this, which is why I encouraged the user to take it to talk. Btw, I don't see any reason why an exclusive from a reliable source would be prohibited, that fact wouldn't make it any less reliable. Btw #2, I note that the home page of thefreethoughtproject.com includes a convenient index to all their articles that have negative things to say about cops. "Police Throw 3-Year-Old in Jail Cell After Arresting Mother." Very impressive. I wouldn't want them and The Guardian to be my only sources for something like this. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should stay out. The facts about that earlier arrest are unclear (What was the cause of the incident? Are we sure the "failure to comply" was about filming as opposed to a lawful order?), and in any event, I don't see the relevance to the Michael Brown shooting or the question of whether Wilson was justified in using lethal force. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it should be left out. Has nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Bdell555: So fix it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not about to add back material with three clear "votes" against, but I'm going to read your take, and that of the original poster, as partial to inclusion, so together with my own view (by the way, I'm the one who added Brown's theft to the "Shooting" section, so it's not like I think only one party's history here is notable) I take it as reasonable to re-add until there is another comment here addressing 1) exclusively having the "commendation" stuff and 2) the relevance of the question of how accurate Wilson's report about the video-ed incident was.
I'll add here that there's a lot more about Wilson that is still left unsaid, e.g. had an unstable childhood with his mother remarrying 3 times (and her being convicted of financial crimes), himself divorced last year, his former department, Jennings, was disbanded over race relations problems and a corruption scandal, many accusing felons are now walking right back into the community because Wilson has been a no show at any of their court appearances since the shooting, etc. Yet the Washington Post is reporting this stuff... and "old video surfaced of an officer who looked like Wilson threatening to arrest a man who was videotaping him" as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's called NPOV. You'll also note that we report that someone said Brown "didn't cause trouble" and was "a gentle giant", and that he was scheduled to start trade school in a few days, things that could also be called "fluff". There's a balance already there, and you don't balance a brief mention of a commendation with a 116-word paragraph on an unrelated incident from 2013. Your POV is showing here, clearly evident in your final paragraph, and you go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize adding the paragraph back (for example, "So fix it", without an accompanying argument, doesn't count for much, but you gave it full weight). Even after your rationalization, you still only have a 3-3 tie, which is not a consensus for change, and thus you rationalize twice. Frankly, it's stunning from someone at your level of experience. I'm not going to edit war with you, so I ask that you please remove this content again. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I would have more patience on something like this. But I think it will be especially important to be as neutral as possible just after the no bill is announced. If I'm awake and around when that happens (I have irregular sleep hours), I will remove this content if it's still there. I hope Bdel555 does the responsible thing before then. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting consensus or the absence thereof is not "rationalization" in the pejorative way you use that term, it's a reason why it is unreasonable to take a "my way or the highway" take on this and imply another editor is being disruptive (or ir"responsible") by adding back well sourced material you deleted. Reasonable people can disagree about this, which is why I have given time for more community input. Reasonable people, however, provide reasons, not just opinions. I am not calling here for the inclusion of "gentle giant". That is not the issue here. The issue here is the continued lack of any substantive argument for suppressing material that the Guardian, the Washington Post, and others have found notable besides that it doesn't flatter the shooter in this incident as if that automatically means a NPOV violation. I should note that the other opinions calling for deletion are equally poorly substantiated in terms of actual argument as opposed to hand waving about "NPOV" where NPOV is defined to be whatever the hand waver claims it to be. To quote policy (always a good idea when there is a disagreement), "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments".
NPOV means we do not try to push any particular POV on the reader about this subject. We instead follow the lead of the Guardian and WaPo and we present the facts, and do not spin them because you perceive them as negative or unflattering. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform. I will now ask you again to address my concern that we have possible reason here to question Wilson's reliability and thus readers should be informed of that so that they can draw their own conclusions instead of Wikipedia editors deciding for them that Wilson's account should be presented very extensively (ie a LOT more than the 116 word limit you seem to see as a trigger threshold for excessive) without any hint that RS like the Guardian have questioned his credibility. Our job is provide accurate information to readers, not spin it, and to anyone arguing WP:RS to call for deletion, I would say it is unreasonable to contend that the scans of Wilson's report, or the video, are faked. You say this incident is "unrelated". No, it is not. It goes to both Wilson's credibility and how he reacts. It's certainly more related than how many people live in Crestwood, yet I don't see you complaining about that. If you want this material excluded, then explain just why it is that something deemed unflattering should be excluded instead of just defining NPOV as the inclusion of unflattering material. If the article was a giant hit piece against Wilson, we'd have a NPOV problem. We'd also have a NPOV problem if all reliably sourced material that Wilson would presumably want excluded was excluded. Is there anything else in this article Wilson would want removed? Unflattering material about Brown ("robbery" is mentioned 19 times in the article) is certainly not being excluded. Calling for the exclusion of negative material (by implying that having even just this 1.2% of the article referring to negative material about the shooter would be WP:UNDUE) is, in fact, the exact opposite of maintaining neutrality.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the police report, here is what the Failure to Comply was about.[4]
”Arman was then escorted to my patrol vehicle, #108, where he was seated in the rear seat. I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process.”
--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And whether this is true or not is disputed since there is reason to believe that the "request" was to stop recording and that stopping recording was not, in fact, "needed in order to complete the summons process.” One can deliver a summons while being recorded. But no one associated with Wikipedia need to come to a conclusion one way or another about that as readers inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value are free to do so. We should not be denying readers not inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value the opportunity to become skeptical. Skepticism about Wilson's claims would not be an issue if Wilson's claims about another event were not being repeated in the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that The Guardian article is getting from the police report the information about what Arman was charged with. The article says, "Arman, 30, was charged with failing to comply with Wilson’s orders." It is consistent with what was in the police report, "I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We were discussing what Arman was charged with. Let's try to finish that before continuing on another aspect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Dell, Just a reminder of my above response to you. Did you want to continue our discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What question would you like me to answer? May I first ask just what edit to the article you would like to see? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shooting of Michael Brown article." Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment "Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?” — No because your edit implied that Arman was charged with failure to comply for not stopping his video recording. Here's the excerpt from your edit:[5] "A video later emerged of Wilson standing near his vehicle telling the resident on his front porch, 'If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up.' Wilson subsequently advanced to the porch to arrest the resident while insisting that the resident did not have a right to record.” --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not necessarily imply that. Wilson could be of the view that there was a "failure to comply" with some other instruction of his that was off camera. The edit does not rule out this possibility so why are you? If, in your view, something between those quotes must, as matter of logical necessity, be factually false because something is necessarily implied that is indisputably false, please spell out for us just what it is that is indisputably false. If your contention is rather (the more comprehensible objection) that I am misrepresenting the Guardian by creating an implication the Guardian did not, I already addressed that above (but you called that off topic).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose your edit because it has a false implication per my previous remarks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your accusation of bad faith on my part is completely bogus. You reverted me and declined to raise the matter on the Talk page for discussion before you reverted me. It is not true that I was editing against consensus while you were editing consistent with consensus. You did not know what consensus was when you reverted me. And consensus remains disputed, in my view. I do have some experience, yes, experience with editors who take a "consensus" of the sort you called a "3-3 tie" and then manipulate that into something they think is solid enough and strong enough to just start shoving on instead of addressing the pros and cons of the edit in question. The ball is in the court of those calling for exclusion, and absent a Talk page response that addresses the specific reasons for inclusion that have been given, editors should not be intimidated into not editing by other editors who are not engaging in discussion. This page is for discussion of the edit, and in your last response here, you've refused to engage in that discussion, or answer the specific points I put to you, instead trying to make this about an editor instead of about the edit in question. if you don't have the time or the inclination to discuss this, then you don't have the time to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of the concept of de facto consensus? De facto consensus before you showed up was without that content. It remained for 6 hours before I removed it, and 6 hours does not establish a new de facto consensus. That's less than a decent night's sleep for most of us. I'm sorry, but you're playing a very weak hand here, Brian. I couldn't count the number of times I've had to just give up on something because I couldn't force anyone to talk to me about it. It sucks, but it's Wikipedia. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I previously complained about your defining NPOV to suit your purposes but the way you've just defined consensus is self-serving in spades. I presume this is why you just now deleted this, yet again, a mere TWO MINUTES after it was added. Because every minute that goes by strengthens the "de facto consensus" in favour of keeping it? And you clearly can't have that! How about giving it a chance to find "de facto consensus" like I've been giving your edits? ie 24 hours. If no one else removes it during that time, maybe Wikipedia doesn't need your deletion services as badly as you think they do. For the record, I'll note that another editor appeared on your user Talk page to question your deletion of this material, an inclusion opinion you have not disclosed here in your claims about what the consensus is.
I take it that "the number of times I've had to just give up on something" doesn't include many cases of edit warring because you don't seem to be at all willing to stop THAT (and instead address, substantively, why we should not include what the WaPo, the Guardian, FOX News,, USA Today, etc all include. What else about Wilson is not notable, in your books? You disagree with Erik Wemple that "That Wilson would be absenting himself from official court testimony while shopping his story around to TV network types is enormous news"? If we can't nention that either just what are we allowed to say about this guy?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly have very different ideas about what's correct procedure, so I'll bow out and let you resolve this with others. If they feel less strongly about it, fine. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you've brought up the fact that Wilson hasn't appeared to testify as the arresting officer in other cases he's been involved with. I don't see how that is relevant in any way to the Michael Brown incident, especially given the facts that Wilson is the subject of a criminal homicide investigation and also some death threats. That and a whole host of really tangential points you mentioned previously, like Wilson's mother's marital status, only serves to question your NPOV further IMHO. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't believe that in this case the text (as opposed to one of the citations) was deleted because of a "BLP objection". At least I do not recall BLP being cited as the reason. My comments about BLP were more about a hypothetical than anything.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this piece should be added back in to maintain a NPOV for the article. It is relevant to the shooter's background and has been reported in the news as a presumably relevant event. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three minutes or 90 seconds?

How long a duration shall we report to the world? In spite of the Glide recording which puts the final shot at roughly 12:02:24, and in spite of our claim that the incident began at 12:01, we've been running with 3 minutes for quite some time now. The news media today was all over the 90 second claim. In spite of numerous changes made to the Shooting section this weekend, the "less-than-three minutes" statement remains. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonable to assume that the clocks involved are accurate enough to use them for such an analysis? If so, would it be WP:SYNTH to do so? My answers are I don't know and yes. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you have a quality source or two for 90 seconds, no analysis is necessary. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking newspaper names, etc, in cites

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

No objection, but also seems like a lot of work for not a ton of payoff. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the additional work would be all mine, as part of the refs standardization that I already do, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm harboring fantasies of a future GA nomination, and I'll do anything that might improve the chances of success there. I just don't care to do it unless it would improve the chances of GA, or would significantly benefit readers, and I'm not a good judge of either. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss Thank you very much for the standardization work you do. I feel bad I just created a bunch more for you. I wish the tooling like reflinks or ProveIt supported that method of citation. In regards to GA, it may be tough to do it until quite a bit of time has passed. Although I do think we are doing a decent job of keeping things neutral in the article, when it comes time for a stamp of approval, its going to become nitpick city on every bit of info and how its presented. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never feel bad about that, you're just giving me an opportunity to make a contribution, and I'm not that good at much else yet. Re GA, the same nitpicking must apply to any GA nomination, and some of them are successful. So I'd think this article would have as much chance as any, unless there is some bias against articles of this type. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that due to the politically charged nature of this topic, that nitpicking is likely to be worse. Regarding contributions, Be WP:BOLD if you think something is missing, or eneds to be changed do it. The worst thing that happens is that you get site banned :) (just kidding). Really the worst thing that happens is that you get reverted and someone calls you a bad name in talk, which isn't all that bad. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another RS on Judy Melinek's dial back of "out of context" quotes by the St. Louis Post Dispatch

   Pathologists say forensic science alone can't determine whether Wilson justifiably shot the teen. Judy Melinek, 
   a forensic pathologist based in California, says she was quoted out of context in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story 
   that said she thought the St. Louis County medical examiner's autopsy of Brown supported Wilson's claim that Brown 
   was reaching for his gun. Melinek and others say crucial missing information including blood-spatter evidence, 
   the number and location of bullet casings, the height of the officer's weapon and other ballistic information 
   must be factored in to determine what happened.
   http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/15/myths-and-facts-on-ferguson-shooting/19085451/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly put something in qualifying Melinek's statements, but we need to be careful of how we summarize her "walking back". As far as I have read she has merely said that while the evidence she saw was consistent with Wilson's version, it could be consistent with other scenarios too (but I don't believe she said anywhere that it was consistent with any of the Brown version specifically, but I may be wrong), and that additional evidence would help narrow it down. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Parcells

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

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

When I compared the space taken up by the original version to the part about the autopsy, I thought it was too much of a digression about the shortcomings of an assistant. What remains has the essential points that Parcells isn't qualified to give medical forensics opinions, the concern about his participation in the autopsy, and Parcells response about the extent of his participation in the autopsy for NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the older sources because I think there is a risk of this being perceived as a he said/she said or swiftboating-style attack on his credentials due to the political nature of the case. The older investigations indicate that this is an ongoing issue with Parcells, not specifically related to this case. I do see the risk of getting WP:UNDUE with this info, but I think some of the content removed should go back. I have already re-added the washed bit with additional sources that make the impact analysis (Baden himself primarily) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The re-added washed bit and sources are fine. I stand by my previous comment regarding the Parcells part and don't think it should be expanded. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lead citations

I was going to revert this edit [6] and point them at WP:LEADCITE but as I re-read it, it seems we may not be in good compliance.

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

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

I can't point to a guideline offhand, but it seems intuitive that anything of significance should be sourced somewhere in the article. I.e., the cite could be omitted in the lead for statements that summarize sourced information below. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the guideline I linked is the only relevant one. It covers the principle of what you suggest (and that I agree with in general), but then explicitly says that certain things need to be cited no matter what. I was just raising the issue that maybe a decent portion of our lede falls into that category. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no direct quotations, and "some material including" is a fairly useless phrase in a guideline, so I assume you're referring to "contentious material about living persons". If contentious is the same as controversial, you may be right, although we don't say anything controversial in Wikipedia's voice. Btw, I see that's in MOS, which makes no sense; that's not about style. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

Just a question. How big is Wilson?

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

Not done: No request. Interesting question though. If you have a reliable source that does describe his size, it could be worth discussing that addition - Brown's size is in the article. Cannolis (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why and when did this get semied and for how long?. That it will likely need such protection soon is irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [7]. These logs are easily accessible. Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some from NBC. [9]. I don't know what the point is of NBC just posting pictures without any other info. I'm surprised no news outlet has found this out because it's clear he's no midget. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Majority?

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

Generally, 67.4% is considered a majority. 2600:1006:B12E:AF89:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the first sentence of the first message, I made this edit [10]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably superfluous, as no one refers to the U.S. as a "community". Whatever. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Records in Michael Brown Grand Jury Not Been Approved for Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the likelihood of a wrongful death civil suit

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

could be, but WP:CRYSTAL until it happens (Note that a similar suit has not been filed against Zimmerman, where the MArtin family is represented by the same legal team). If they do file suit we should certainly cover at that time though. Such a suit is going to face a couple of hurdles. If the grand jury does not indict, presumably that means either they thought it was valid self defense, or at a minumum there wasn't enough proof to prosecute. That kicks in 563.074 [11] which grants civil immunity and all attorneys fees and expenses if a suit is brought (and ultimately determined to be self defense at that point). That's a risk the Brown family (and their lawyers) might not want to take.[12] A suit against the city/department as a whole however, saying that they have some bad policies, or training, or procedures or whatnot might be easier to get somewhere (and would have deeper pockets to go after too) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full testimony for the grand jury can be found here vvvv

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

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

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

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 6m6 minutes ago

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

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 4m4 minutes ago

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

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 3m3 minutes ago

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

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

"No indictment" should be in lead

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

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

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

Suggestion for move

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

  • I have added a section heading, as this has nothing to do with the "No indictment" section that you added it to.
  • You are free to request a move (rename) of the other article, using the instructions at WP:RM. You would need to do this on the talk page for the other article. However, I think your request would fail as the other article is about a lot more than riots. The title is intended to encompass everything in the article, and "unrest" encompasses "riots" in addition to the other events. To stand a chance, you would have to present a far stronger case than you have done here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Documents from the grand jury

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

Nice find! Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read all of Officer Wilson's testimony now. It was interesting seeing how that whole process worked. It also seems very likely that the earlier leak of his testimony was, in fact, genuine. Was there anything worthwhile or usable that anyone else found in anything? Remember, testimony from an eyewitness is generally going to be a primary source, whereas we treat expert testimony a bit differently. I'd recommend to anyone going through these with an eye towards adding stuff to the article to review WP:RS and WP:V guidelines before they do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> CNN > credible source

Earlier I had added an external link to Darren Wilson's testimony. I replaced it with the above link to all the released Grand Jury documents. – JBarta (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to archive a couple of the individual PDFs at archive.org. It accepted the request, but it didn't work. The request "completes" in just a few seconds, far too quickly for a PDF of that size, and then all I get is a blank window with the word "Loading". Is documentcloud.org an adequate long-term host for these files? It might be worth someone else trying it to see if the problem is unique to my configuration. I use Firefox 33 with its built-in PDF reader. I'd suggest trying Volume 4 or or higher to avoid the ones I've already tried, so my failure doesn't affect your results. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, however I doubt there will be a dearth of RS that will analyze the documents for us very soon.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 08:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has something about it here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.
...
“We need more information; for example, the police should be examining the automobile to see if there is gunshot residue in the police car,” he said.

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

According to the present news reports, a number of people apparently changed their claims about what happened or said that they didn't even witness the incident, which is a bit problematic. I think at this point we should probably try and get organized and figure out what we're going to be doing with this article in the long run, as we're likely going to be editing it pretty heavily and trying to get it to be more coherent now that we know more about what happened, what with all this evidence being thrown out at the press and the general public. We should try and work on including factual information, and probably condensing down the eyewitness stuff, especially given just how many of them there were - we've got the ones in the media, and the ones who testified to the grand jury, and because the names of the witnesses in the grand jury stuff have been redacted we don't even know if there is overlap. There's some amount of WP:UNDUE at work here.
I'm quite concerned about the eyewitness testimony section in general. As was noted here:
Many of the witness statements — some shared with the media — were contradictory, and during the grand jury process, many witnesses admitted they didn’t see the shooting or heard about it from others, McCulloch said. There were also conflicting witness accounts of whether Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot, the prosecuting attorney said.
After the autopsy of Michael Brown was released, no additional witnesses came forward to say Brown was shot in the back as he ran, and “several witnesses” who claimed this version adjusted their story in subsequent statements, McCulloch said.
Italics are my own. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article should move from a play-by-play of media reports that documented speculation or falsehoods to more factual details from the published grand jury evidence.68.39.32.188 (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree. I think most of the witness accounts should be removed and the speculative material should be condensed. We should remove these sections as WP:UNDUE: Michael Brady, Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, James McKnight, Phillip Walker, Emanuel Freeman, (anonymous) Grand jury witnesses and Bystander heard on video.- MrX 14:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy reference

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

Awesome! Thanks! Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this confirmed my suspicions about the other head wound; both the fatal gunshot wound to Brown's scalp and the non-fatal one to his forehead were at a downward angle, with the bullet that struck his forehead going through his right eye before exiting through his jaw. The chest wounds were "downward and backward", which could be consistent with his body being at an angle as well. The wound on his upper ventral right arm had a track of upward, backward, and leftward, and the dorsal right forearm had a upward, forward, and leftward track. All of the wounds were noted as lacking stippling and soot save the hand wound, which was lacking stippling but they noted the presence of "a focal area of discoloration near the ventral surface of the base of the right thumb". Interestingly, the toxicology report at the end indicates the presence of 12 ng/mL of Delta-9-THC in his blood (but not his urine), which earned the note "Delta-9-THC dectection in the blood defines impairment." Delta-9-THC is the active psychoactive ingredient in marijuana; 11-nor-delta-9-THC-COOH is the secondary metabolite of THC (which can linger in the body for days) and 11-hydroxy-THC is the primary metabolite (which doesn't last as long). There wasn't any 11-hydroxy-THC in his blood, which is interesting because there is Delta-9-THC. This study suggests that the psychomotor effects of THC are present at as low as 3-5 ng/mL of THC in the blood, but that is far from conclusive, unfortunately, as the article notes elsewhere. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's injuries

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

Do you know of any sources that say his injuries were something other than minor? Looking at a picture would be original research.- MrX 14:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the given source did not make the statement about minor injuries, it only presented tweets with the comment, "On Twitter, reaction was less than sympathetic".[13] The tweets were the basis for the Wikipedia editor's contribution about minor injuries.[14]. I think it should be deleted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The text and source were changed.[15][16] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Image of testimony?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

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

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

Wilson didn't know Brown was involved In the robbery

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

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

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


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

Actually, if you go to page 14 of the interview[1], where the interviewer does a re-sweep of the story to include intention and thoughts (not just actions), D. Wilson says: "...then after he made his comments I realized cigarillos ya know, then I was like well I gotta stop and talk to the guy."71.185.69.178 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&oldid=635423103"