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 Anonymous209.6 (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 17 March 2015 (→‎Michael Brown's hands weren't up: intersperse within this article where needed; Primary exposition at HUDS Article itself). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Introductions second paragraph is not completely factual

It states "Brown robbed a nearby convenience store, stole several cigarillos, and shoved the store clerk." This was all allegation, none of which can ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The store clerk failed to identify Michael Brown as the suspected robber in a statement released by his lawyer. Also, Michael Brown never plead guilty, nor can he be tried and found guilty in a court of law. Because all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, we cannot report rightfully allegation as though it is fact.

This sentence should read "Shortly before the shooting, Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of a nearby convenience store robbery and of the suspect's description. He encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. Wilson said that he recognized that the two men matched the robbery suspect(s) descriptions.[2][3]

MsJWilkinson (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Ms. J. Wilkinson[reply]

This has been extensively discussed. Please see Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_20#RFC:_Alleged_theft_of_cigars_from_convenience_store.3F Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Findings of investigation into Civil Rights Violations

A good summary is available here [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While some coverage in the article is appropriate, this investigation was not investigating the shooting, so its relevance is limited. Obviously its part of the larger story/protests, but I think minimal here, and more perhaps in Ferguson unrest Gaijin42 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Ferguson Police Department (Missouri), and it already contains a short subsection about this investigation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mccolluch, declining to press charges

We had the following text in the article recently In a later interview, McCulloch acknowledged that he believed several witnesses lied under oath about the events of the shooting, but did not wish to pursue charges.[ref]Sakuma, Amanda. "St. Louis Prosecutor Admits Witnesses Likely Lied Under Oath". msnbc.com. MSNBC.[/ref]

I have removed it, because in the context (following allegations of bias) it seems pretty misleading. In light of the DOJ and AP evaluations of the witness statements, a great number of the "liars" would be on the pro-Brown side, but the way we had it makes it seems like a pro-Wilson bias.

If we can figure out (and source) a way to get it back in that is not misleading, I'm open to it though.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

witnesses testifying against

Cwobeel, I get your point about it not being a trial, but why not work on improving wording, rather than removing something that is well sourced.

  • Primary : Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson : There are no witnesses who fall under this category.
  • Primary 2 :As detailed throughout this report, those witnesses who say so have given accounts that could not be relied upon in a prosecution because they are irreconcilable with the physical evidence, inconsistent with the credible accounts of other eyewitnesses, inconsistent with the witness’s own prior statements, or in some instances, because the witnesses have acknowledged that their initial accounts were untrue.
  • primary 3 : Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence.
  • NYT  : Versions of events that sharply conflicted with Mr. Wilson’s were largely inconsistent with forensic evidence or with the witnesses’ previous statements, the report said.
  • NYT2 :At the same time, it concluded that the witnesses who said that Mr. Brown was surrendering were not credible. Those witness accounts stating that Brown never moved back toward Wilson could not be relied upon in a prosecution because their accounts cannot be reconciled with the DNA bloodstain evidence and other credible witness accounts.”
  • abc :Accounts that Brown put his hands up are "inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence," the report says. Witness accounts were "inconsistent" and "changed over time," it also said.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and doj summary of Wilson

Several choice quotes from the report (all picked up by secondaries)

  • Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence
  • As discussed throughout this report, Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other credible eyewitness accounts.

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should be very careful here with our choice of secondary sources, because of the potential of bias in interpreting the report's findings. the way we summarize the findings is also crucial. The way it is currently stated "that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account" is not acceptable, IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the conclusion of the report. Notice the very specific language used. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson undersection 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e.,that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun,and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brownas he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

My proposed edit for this section:

The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the paragraph you posted " Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses" directly supports my part about wilson's account. Elsewhere in the report it directly calls out the "Brown" witnesses as not credible, repeatedly. AP, NYT, ABC, and others picked up on both of these threads and discussed them at length. To pretend that the report (and multiple secondaries) don't 'repeatedly say that Wilson was credible and that the "others" were not credible in very plain and unambiguous language is not NPOV. Perhaps this is another good use case for an RFC to have the wider community pick between several alternatives. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Are you implying that "Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses" equates "that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account"? Seriously Gaijin42? - Cwobeel (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel The part about wilson being credible and corroborated absolutely. Particularly when coupled with "Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence". and "Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence. Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible.
"The "not credible" bit is not backed by that particular sentence, but it is certainly backed by the report elsewhere, and multiple secondaries. Those witnesses are listed under a section that reads "Witnesses Whose Accounts Do Not Support a Prosecution Due to Materially Inconsistent Prior Statements or Inconsistencies With the Physical and Forensic Evidence " and were described in the introduction as " We did not credit and determined that a jury appropriately would not credit those witness accounts that were contrary to the physical and forensic evidence, significantly inconsistent with other credible witness accounts, or significantly inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements. " and the section titled "Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson" which reads in its entirety : "There are no witnesses who fall under this category. " Not to mention of course the numerous secondary sources which have done this analysis for us, and made the same type of summary, and also including the brown family which says they do not buy the DOJ's self defense theory.
As an aside, what you are describing as the conclusion is not the conclusion. It is the final paragraph of the "Wilfullness" section. The conclusion is a mere one sentence. the "Introduction" serves as a far better summary of the document as a whole. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC  : How should the DOJ report be summarized.

The DOJ investigation report into the shooting has been released, and covered by multiple reliable sources.

link to report, and Some sources discussing the report for evaluation

Report conclusion:

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson undersection 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e.,that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun,and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brownas he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.


Secondaries

How should the report/secondaries be summarized?

  • Just state that there was insufficient evidence (proposed wording below)
    • The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.
  • Provide additional details from the report about the evidence and witness credibility (proposed wording below)
    • The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson
  • expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance by not summarizing so tightly
  • other

Survey

  • additional details or expand The report repeatedly and unambiguously says that the evidence and credible witnesses supported wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. Secondaries have also put significant coverage into this aspect. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to bury this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand. The report is not particularly unclear about its conclusions: "Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence" (emphasis added). However, the report is more ambiguous about the specific details of Wilson's account. For example, the report concludes that Wilson's account of the struggle in the car is consistent with forensic evidence and can't be disproved, but the report doesn't explicitly back Wilson's story that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Same for the "charging" narrative; the report notes that the credible witness accounts and evidence support the fact that Brown had turned around and was moving toward Wilson, but it doesn't explicitly endorse the notion that Brown was charging. So the material aspects of Wilson's story are supported (there was a struggle in the car with Brown's hands inside the vehicle, Brown was facing and moving toward Wilson when he was killed), but the report is agnostic on some of the details that would be more damning for Brown. We shouldn't suggest that the report is agnostic about the overall account, though. Dyrnych (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limit to conclusion of the report - We need to cover the main findings as reported in the conclusion, without paraphrasing with out own syntheses, in a short and concise sentence. The conclusion is exactly that: that there was no evidence to disprove Wilson's claim. See for example how it is presented here [2]. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand per WP:DUE. Do NOT cherry-pick. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand, but don't get carried away with minute details. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Details - I wouldn't spend a great deal of time on the DOJ report. Frankly, I think those who would are probably motivated by WP:RECENTISM. Looking back on this event 10 years from now the DOJ report will be a footnote. Let's treat it like that now. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional details and expand The report states numerous times that the evidence and credible witnesses supported Wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to hide this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" XavierItzm (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The above !vote quotes mine exactly. For the record, I have no relationship to XavierItzm and (to my knowledge) have never interacted with him in any way on or off wiki, I think he just liked my argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaijin42: - Lolz. Maybe just a coincidence? NickCT (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. —Charles Caleb Colton, 1820 ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional details, integrate findings, do NOT use the above summaries First things last - the above summaries would be fine had there been a trial and Wilson be found not guilty. The vague weasel-word would fit to a description, as trials never exonerate, nor weigh in on evidentiary detail. Both the DOJ and the Grand Jury decisions, unlike a trial, are absolutely emphatic that there is no "there" there - no basis to even ask the question of whether Brown was dangerous or Wilson acted in self-defense. However, while there should be extensive use of the detail in the DOJ report, it should be used by integrating it into the rest of the article, as it is both itself, the narrative, and an "event" within the narrative that needs a heading. Put the details about credibility of witnesses and accounts should be in the sections about the witnesses. The parts about Brown trying to take the gun in those sections, the parts debunking the surrender story with those sections, and movements that led to the Brown "charging" Wilson included in that section. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

DOJ evaluation of witness statements

From an Associated Press story in The New York Times that summarizes the findings of the Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown[3]

"The report describes eight witnesses who it says gave credible accounts corroborating Wilson's assertion that he acted in self-defense. By contrast, the report says there were no credible witnesses who incriminated Wilson and whose accounts were consistent with prior statements, physical evidence and other witnesses. It says portions of Johnson's testimony about his friend's shooting were inconsistent with prior statements and physical and forensic evidence."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ evaluation of Wilson's account

From an Associated Press story in The New York Times that summarizes the findings of the Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown[4]

" 'Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence,' the report said."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ position on whether Wilson shot Brown in self defense

An Associated Press story in The New York Times has the following quotes from the United States Department of Justice report.[5]

"The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense."
"The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are sold WP:RS citations and should be included in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falsified DOJ report

Footnote 53 cites a document that is circulating widely that is a falsified version of the DOJ report. Any and all citations using the source material https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1681212/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.pdf are faked. The actual DOJ report is at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronics78 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source? For that matter, can you point to the differences between the two documents? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? www.justice.gov is the official website of the DOJ. Anyone who wants to quote the report should simply go there and ignore all secondary sources, if there is any question. Vegasprof (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I guess just a knee-jerk negative reaction to folks bringing conspiracy theories with zero evidence. The source we were using was identical to the primary, and you could even say it was the primary, since a secondary source involves some independent evaluation or analysis of the primary. But you're right, no reason not to use the government's copy of it, and I have made the change. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precision of section heading

Issue is with User:XavierItzm, who wishes to change the section heading "Wrongful death lawsuit" to "Announcement of wrongful death lawsuit". The user is edit warring and their last edit summary was: "This has not been brought to talk page", as if they are incapable of opening a talk discussion. They are the editor who wants to make the disputed edit, so it is their responsibility to start the discussion. But I'll let that pass because the editor is inexperienced. Since the user is clearly not interested in understanding and following BRD procedure, I'm left with two choices, either take them to WP:ANEW or allow the edit to stand while it is under discussion. I lack the energy for ANEW at the moment, so the edit stands.

My position is that (1) the shorter heading does not imply anything about the status of the lawsuit, and (2) the extra two words amount to unnecessary precision, as I said in my first edit summary. Other opinions? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I edited based on what the WP:RS actually states.  ;Mandruss then, instead of following WP:BRD "Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one" as a recommendation to the reverter, began to revert indiscriminately.
Well, now that this has been addressed: the WP:RS only refers to an announcement. Why would a Wikipedia subsection headline not state that an lawsuit has been announced?. Are 12 bytes too much to ask of the servers? Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a general editing principle, we omit things that are unnecessary, and the load on the servers is not a consideration. If you look at the other section headings in the article, many of them could be called ambiguous in the same way. For example, the "Backgrounds" heading doesn't say what backgrounds are being discussed there, as that becomes obvious enough when the reader reads it. Are you going to go to battle to change that section heading to "Backgrounds of Brown and Wilson"? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:RS only refers to an announcement. In fact "a gearing up" to file a lawsuit. In fact "a plan" for a lawsuit (direct quotes from the RS). How the headline can turn such potential future into Wikipedia fact boggles the mind. With regard to the "Backgrounds" section, the material there is not speculative ("gear up" "plan" etc) and therefore no qualification is needed. XavierItzm (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the heading leaves any room for doubt, it is eliminated upon reading one sentence. People aren't going to read the table of contents and then leave. It's a matter of editorial judgment, and you're entitled to yours, as am I. I am awaiting other opinions, and I urge you to do likewise. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm: That little one-sentence section could be removed until RS reports the filing. Would that be acceptable to you? If so, go ahead and see if it flies. But, when it's re-added, I'll have the same objection to titling it "Filing of wrongful death lawsuit". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Thank you for seeking to identify a collegial solution. As not a proponent of "Less is more" in the Wikipedia, I would prefer to not remove what is probably an interesting piece of information to readers, and would much rather see an accurate section title. With regards, XavierItzm (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
 – Awaiting other opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown's hands weren't up

"They have also forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown." --12.180.133.18 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@12.180.133.18: The article's current position is that this is a matter in dispute. We never state in Wikipedia's voice that his hands were up. Your source is a blog, as indicated in its URL. It's one man's opinion, which by itself does not warrant inclusion in the article. If it could be established that his views are widely held, then perhaps an attributed opinion could be added. See WP:USERG. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above opinion article published by the Washington Post[6] and its author Jonathan Capehart were discussed in a Mediaite article titled, Jonathan Capehart: ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Was Built on a Lie,’ I Was Wrong, that began,
"On Monday, Washington Post liberal columnist Jonathan Capehart joined an ever-growing chorus of pundits who are embracing the Justice Department’s most recent claims that, based on “credible” evidence, Michael Brown did not have his hands up in a mode of surrender when former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson fatally shot him."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Mandruss that wikipedia's voice will likely not be used to say if the hands were or were not up, the "oops we got it wrong" viewpoint is highly notable (along with the counter "even if the facts are wrong, its still a symbol for the movement" argument).

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say that, after reading the Mediaite piece, I'm not opposed to an attributed opinion, but that I wanted to hear from others including Dyrnych, Gaijin42, and Isaidnoway ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this more appropriate for the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" article? We note that there is dispute over whether Brown's hands were up, that there are witnesses who support the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be unreliable, and that there are witnesses who dispute the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be credible. Capehart's article is interesting, but he's not himself an authority on which we can base a claim that Brown's hands were or weren't up (which is I think what the IP editor above is suggesting we take him as). That said, I agree with Gaijin42 that we should note that the DOJ report has had the effect of changing opinion among former supporters of the "hands up" narrative. Dyrnych (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dyrnych's proposal of "We note that there is dispute over whether Brown's hands were up, that there are witnesses who support the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be unreliable, and that there are witnesses who dispute the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be credible." should be fully explained in this here article and greatly expanded and explained in the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea that the article needs to include that "hands up don't shoot" did NOT happen, but in summary at the section, and interwoven in the "Testimony" section and wherever the issue comes up. The PRIMARY exposition should be at the Hands up, don't shoot article itself. Dorian Johnson's testimony was both extreme and frequently changed and inconsistent with every reliable witness and the forensic evidence, BUT, while critical to the "hands up don't shoot" narrative, was only one of many articles of evidence within the larger investigation.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was referring to the conclusions of the DOJ report, not suggesting that Wikipedia take a position on the credibility of witnesses. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Witness credibility

A recent edit[7] moved info about witness credibility. I think it was better placed originally because it was about witness statements that were discussed in the previous sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I think chron sequence is important. Actually I think all of para 3 should move to the end of the lead, since it summarizes the final outcome, or such as it is today. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the info about witness credibility because it's the conclusion of the federal investigation, which is discussed in the paragraph where I moved the info. Not sure why this would be problematic. Dyrnych (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the first sentence of para 3 (grand jury no bill) is redundant with para 5 and would be removed along with the para move. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&oldid=651811246"